Diamonds are Forever

The thing about going part-time is that you then move in to a market where there are other clubs not even in the same league who could potentially outbid you for players. In recent years clubs like Darvel, East Kilbride, Kelty and Cove would be paying as much or more than I'd imagine a part-time Queens would be. As an example, the season before we signed Dylan Easton he was at Kelty in the Lowland League, he then moves to us and wins POTY. It wasn't like he was some past-it player in his 30s, he was in his peak years and dropped to Lowland League for a season because of the money on offer, it was only the offer of full-time (or 'hybrid') with us that moved him back up the league. Granted it's not the norm, but it's not necessarily the case that by going part-time you'd automatically hoover up the best part-timers, there has never been more money down the leagues looking to sign good players on part-time deals. If you are offering full-time football then you at least have something else to offer. That said, the things mentioned up the thread about being full-time and getting the cast-offs from every other club are true and make it very hard to be successful with low budget full-time. Airdrie tried everything over the last decade with varying levels of failure until recently where we were consistently doing well in League 1 with a Hybrid model. However in reality the only geniune starter who was part-time was Callum Gallagher, so it's a bit misleading calling it hybrid, we were/are effectively full-time in terms of the players who are playing every week. I guess like anything it's a combination of how you execute whatever strategy you choose, and what budget you have. But if you look across the last decade part-time clubs don't generally get promoted. Cove did but they were paying huge salaries to players too good for the league, which Queens wouldn't be doing. Brechin did, but we all know what happened to them as a result. And Arbroath, who are the one real success story. That wouldn't be enough to convince me to change though. League 1 has also been very strong in recent years which won't last forever, so I'd be wary of making a decision like going part-time when in a year or 2 you could find the league looking much easier and Queens being the main full-time team if you stayed full-time. Anyway, not my concern but I find it an interesting discussion because it's something Airdrie chopped and changed for a decade in search of the answer.

That's what I think. I've said before I think in years to come we'll look back and realise how lucky we've been in the last couple of years with the style of play and scorelines. But I think discussion around our style of play becomes unfairly polarised - you're either a full supporter of McCabeball or you're a long ball dinosaur. In reality most people want to see us playing nice passing football but also realise that variety is needed. I think the way we try and play is great, but teams will be quickly working out how to play us, and the more times they play us the better you'd assume they'd get at it. Also as we head into winter and conditions worsen it will be harder to play the way we want. We are in a good situation where we've picked up a good number of points so far, but there's also been a few warnings of our limitations which will hopefully mean we evolve our style slightly so we don't become predictable.

Those late tries seem to have taken the edge off the criticism, which seems bizarre to me. They happened after Ireland had changed half their team and were clearly taking their foot off the gas. If Ireland had needed to keep a clean sheet I think they'd have managed it. It was the fact that it was so easy for them that allowed us to get a couple of tries. It was an absolute doing with no redeeming features. I thought South Africa were there to be beaten in the first game too. I wouldn't go as far to say I'd criticise us for not winning but I thought they looked beatable, but we totally fell out the game 2nd half and didn't even make a game of it. It's clearly a tough group, but I only think that's an excuse if you put in 2 good performances and fall just short. Neither game falls into that category.

This is where I don't get the lack game time for Todorov. It's difficult because when you need a goal you want Gal on the pitch regardless of how poor he's been, but whether it's a replacement or just alongside Gal surely Todorov is the person to help with this. Gal has always had a few games a season where he struggles against physical centre backs, like Benedictus and O'Reilly last season. I assumed Todorov was brought here to be the 'Plan B' if Gal wasn't getting much out of them. I've seen so little of Todorov that I don't actually know whether he would make a difference, but it begs the question why bother signing him if all you give him is 5 minutes when we really need a goal.

This is going to be the challenge this season because that type of keeping the ball is what gave us the goal against Raith, and to a lesser extent Morton. However I don't see that as being a realistic way of scoring enough goals over a season. As you say it's not resulting in many efforts on goal so you're relying on scoring with your one opportunity and then not conceding. The key to playing that way is scoring first. If we score first we can keep the ball all day and teams have to come out which creates more space. When it's 0-0 or we're losing teams are happy to sit and let us pass the ball about and hold their shape. Teams have already worked out how to play us, that doesn't mean they can all stop it but it means we'll face the same issues every week so will need more variety. For me the biggest issue with the possession at the back is it kills any tempo in the game. I know the plan is draw the opposition out then suddenly pick up the speed, but if they are disciplined that doesn't happen. It was mentioned up the thread that we are at our best playing with energy and speed, but keeping possession at all costs takes that out our game.

This was my thinking. I'm by no means a big rugby fan but just as a casual observer, which I guess is the type of fan a World Cup is meant to attract, I don't understand why they have groups of 5 when the 5th team is total garbage. For example how does having Romania in Scotland's group add anything positive? It lengthens the group stage by a week and is a complete non-event of a game for everyone. Can you imagine Scotland getting to a football World Cup and putting out a B team in a match which mattered? It's meant to be the pinnacle of the sport but instead there's one training game per group for the top nations. I'm sure it's some 'growing the game/bringing a bigger audience' type reason, but I don't believe Romania losing every game by 80 points is going to encourage any Romanians to take up the sport or bring in any new viewers. Why not just have it as 4 groups of 4? Each group game would be very competitive (with the odd exception) with top 2 placings still to play for in the last group game. It also shortens the tournament without putting more strain on the players. The role of a World Cup once every 4 years isn't to improve the quality of 2nd or 3rd tier nations, that surely has to happen over the 4 years inbetween World Cups. If they start to improve enough then you think about expanding the tournament. At the moment it seems like a 5 week wait to get to a competitive game that actually matters.

That's the point though, I presume the point of the reserves is to help the 1st team - by giving minutes when needed to senior players and by getting younger players more experience at a higher level than development football and beating Elgin 13-0 or whatever. If you're going to view reserve football as a competition in it's own right and something that you are desperate to win in then obviously it's a waste of money, becausethe 1st team is what matters. I see it as a means to an end, that being having a squad who are all ready to play for the 1st team if needed. If a club really wanted to win the reserve league they'd just play their 1st team, but they don't because they realise the point of a reserve team is to prepare players for 1st team football, not to win it. We are probably at an inbetween point where the club are gradually building up the squad size, but it's probably not big enough yet that we're going to need it for more than 2 or 3 players to get fitness. I'd hope that if we become established in the Championship and we can create a geniune pathway from youths into the 1st team then in a couple of years our reserves will be a real mix of talented youngsters and experienced pros which will bring on the youngsters and provide games for those that need it. It will take a bit of time to build up to that though so in the meantime we'll probably get beaten most weeks and any benefits will be marginal.

I know, and I've explained why they are not comparable. The Arsenal v Sheffield Utd one (which I assume you're referring to) was nothing to do with a refereeing error and the decision to offer a replay was entirely voluntary from Arsenal. Or like Rangers v Partick last year, that was Rangers decision and nothing to do with referees. It's just not the same thing. In the Spurs v Liverpool example you'd have a match official asking/telling a team to deliberately concede a goal, due to an error that the officials made. Asking a team to dig the officials out a hole is totally inappropriate and puts the team in an impossible situation. They'll get abuse from their own fans if they do it, and if they don't will be seen as unsportsmanlike. It also opens a can of worms, can all teams expect referees to ask teams to let in a goal when VAR make more match changing mistakes later in the season? It's a rubbish situation and obviously the 'solution' is to not let it get to that point. But once that point has been reached the responsibility of dealing with it is the match officials, not the players. In the longer term that way of dealing with it would cause more issues than it fixed.

In the heat of the moment and with the huge level of confusion surrounding it (even if it had been explained as best they could) I don't think there's any way he would say that. It's also completely inappropriate to ask them to. Players electing to step aside and give a goal away off their own backs because someone hasn't given the ball back is one thing because it's their choice and is nothing to do with the officials. But officials asking a team to correct their mistake and place them in a position where they are going to get abuse from their own fans is not a solution and I'm sure Spurs would have rightly told them where to go.

Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but I'd have been stunned if Spurs let that happen. I think they'd just take the attitude that it's tough and that every team has to deal with referees messing up, so why should we give them a goal when in 5 minutes time we could get done over by a decision and not be gifted a goal. I don't think it's the same as when players score from not kicking the ball back. In those situations the referee is irrelevant, it's a decision made by the players because of actions by the players. In your scenario Liverpool would be asking Spurs to correct an officiating error, which isn't their responsibility.

The 'VAR failed to intervene' bit implies heavily that they should have intervened, which is to say they should have stopped the game and changed the decision. It's hanging the VAR out to dry when it was an error in the process that's primarily to blame. It was a stupid statement to release which seemed to apportion blame before their review, how can you decide it's all human error before your review? They should just have said they acknowledge it was a huge error and that they'll be reviewing it.

I assume he's just meaning that since VAR automatically checks all goals for offside anyway then what is the purpose of waiting and then putting the flag up, you could just assume it's a goal unless VAR says otherwise. Your last few words are the answer I guess, if there is an issue with the technology then you need an original decision to use.

That's what I find interesting here, normally with refereeing mistakes it's individuals who get blamed, but it's clear with this that although there were individual errors it was the overall process that led to the problem. I've seen the usual pitchfork 'sack X' stuff online but that completely misses the point. I'm not a big rugby fan but whenever I watch it this seems an area they are miles ahead. When they are discussing decisions with the TMO there is always confirmation back and forth of what is going on - 'I'm seeing this, or you see that? So I'm okay to award the try?' etc. Football could really learn from that. That's where having the conversations broadcasted helps, part of the reason for the clarity in Rugby is because they know everyone is listening and therefore it needs explaining clearly to an audience, which has the added benefit of ensuring good communication between officials. There also just seems to be so many people involved in the conversation and chipping in that it's easy to see how confusion like this happens.

Don't see why the results matter, it's there to give senior players minutes if needed and ensure guys like Dunlop, Cassidy, G Gallagher are still playing some games. We'll probably find at certain points in the season it will seem pretty useless, but at other times it will be essential if we have a few players coming back from injury and needing games. I'd assume there's also a longer term plan and the next couple of seasons are just about reestablishing it and we'll take a few tankings in the meantime. Like I say though, why anyone would actually care about reserve scorelines is a mystery to me.

I think with O'Connor us getting promoted hasn't really helped him. I think he'd have really benefitted from a season in League 1. If you'd stuck him in our team last season I think he'd have done really well and it would have helped his development. This season against better teams he's getting less of the ball and he can't afford to be wasteful in possession, plus he's up against much better defenders. In terms of ability I wouldn't say there's anything between him and McGregor, but McGregor's bit of extra experience is making him a better option at the moment. O'Connor definitely needs a run of games but we are fighting for points so can't afford to give guys a game for that reason. With Aiken and the type of player he is I don't think it's made much difference getting promoted, in fact it's probably benefitted him. McMaster has also looked better at this level. Hard to pinpoint why, but perhaps that there's more need to have players in midfield this season who can win the ball and retain possession. Last season in lots of games it was just wave after wave of attack so all the midfield needed to do was pass the ball quickly forward, which McMaster did well, but he wasn't needed to do much else so maybe couldn't show his full potential. I think Aiken's a really good player, I worried he'd get bullied a bit in midfield but that hasn't been the case at all.

His Ryder Cup record is much better than I initially thought. He's probably gone under the radar in the last 15 years as the team has been successful, Poulter always got the headlines and the superstars like Rahm and McIlroy get the attention. Rightly or wrongly he'll get a legacy pick in 2 years as long as he's playing at a reasonable level. That said, the narrative this week about him 'mentoring/guiding/taking under the wing' of MacIntyre was way over the top and a lot of condescending rubbish. I'm sure that narrative is also why he got the Nicklaus-Jacklin Award. You could just as easily argue that had MacIntyre had a different partner he'd have been more comfortable early on and not taken 27 holes or so to really find his feet. People seem to simultaneously be saying that Rose was a great mentor, but also that Bob didn't play well Friday and Saturday, I don't see how both can be true. None of the other rookies seemed to get patronised as much, despite achieving less points. Was really pleased for him to get a point today on his own to show that he didn't need his hand held like some were suggesting.

I've read the post about 5 times and still can't really work out what he's getting at. We've just beaten 2 established Championship teams with 9 of the players we had last season, plus Aiken who was signed last season, and he's using that as a 'see, told you that we needed more players!' type post. Bizarre. I wondered whether it was a bit of embarassment at being shown that we don't actually need half a new team. I'd have liked another couple of players (who doesn't) but my view was always to just wait and see what happens. So far we can't complain apart from the Abroath blip. It will still be a challenging season but I don't understand why some fans are desperate to find things to get annoyed about.

They are allowed, they just weren't picked. Dechambeau arguably should have been on recent LIV form but it's so hard to know how transferable that form is to more competitive forms of Golf.

That's what I thought, but then I guess they didn't have much to get excited about. Fourballs tend to have a bit less of that too as you're more focused on yourself than Foresomes. Rose is a class player but he never strikes me as guy you'd love to play with, he doesn't really have the energy of guys like McIlroy, Rahm, Fleetwood, Hovland or even someone like Lowry. That said, Bob's there as an equal so it's not up to anyone else to get him going, that's on him. If Donald is going to play all 12 again tomorrow I'd definitely be tweaking the Fourballs. 2 great putts on 18 stopped the USA winning the session. And it was only Fitzpatrick playing out his skin for 6 holes that stopped the other match from being close.

I think it's bigger than that, I think we're seeing the contrasting impacts that LIV has had on both teams. I think it's done the European Team a favour by hurrying up the removal of deadwood from the team like Poulter and Westwood, and arguably Casey and Garcia. If they were all still playing on the PGA Tour I think it's a near certainty that some of them would have been picked, almost regardless of form. Them going has cleared the way for some fresh blood which was needed. LIV also seems to have brought the European Team together, largely due to Rahm and McIlroy staying. On the other hand, USA have lost guys who were still world class players like Johnson and Dechambeau - who only dropped half a point between them 2 years ago. Koepka has done well in a couple of majors this year but it's hard not to assume that playing LIV will mean he's a bit undercooked compared to what he'd be if he was still on the PGA. LIV also seems to have caused much more aggro between the Americans due to some of the top guys leaving. It's only Day 1 so could be jumping the gun a bit, but I think the swing from 2 years runs deeper than just recent form.

So he will. There's no way he's resting all 4 of those players in the afternoon session even if it means that they'll play all 5 rounds. I agree I don't think he'll play, was just thinking the only reason might be that guys are needing a rest, but does seem unlikely.

What might get him playing is the physical nature of the course. It's a lot to ask guys to play 5 rounds in 3 days. Although even if he does rest McIlroy, Rahm and Hovland there's still enough players to step in without Bob needing to play. He played okay tee to green I thought, just couldn't hole much. The last few holes he looked totally gone mentally though. I think with Rose in the last few holes you saw the difference it makes having that experience at the very top level for 10-15 years.

Our away performances have got steadily worse this season. Dunfermline away was a decent performance and we could have taken something, Dundee Utd away we were okay but didn't look like ever taking anything, and Arbroath away the scoreline says it all. Really important we start to turn that around. I'm confident we'll pick up points at home this season as we've already shown, but there's still a question mark over whether we can go away to venues like Cappielow and get a result playing how we play. What sounds like a weakened Morton team probably presents our best opportunity yet, but it will be a very tough game. I think Muirhead will be a real threat as we aren't the strongest in the air. Will be an interesting game.

Is anyone saying that? It's not even been a discussion from what I can see because we don't play with 2 strikers. In any event, his goals and assists last year in that same position hardly give evidence that he's 'wasted' there. The defensive cover he provides out wide shouldn't be overlooked either. I think if Saturday's goal shows us anything it's that the actual formation on paper in the forward areas doesn't matter too much given how fluid it is and how much movement there is. I think we need Gal central (with or without a partner) for obvious reasons and McMaster sitting centrally as he pins it all together. Where the rest go or end up when we have the ball will vary from move to move.

Looking at the next 4 fixtures, I think they will really show us where we'll be this season - as in just trying to avoid relegation or pushing for the play-off. There are no easy games obviously and we could conceivably lose the next 4, however as a run of winnable games go in this league it's as good as you're going to get, based on early season form anyway. It's against all the teams beneath us who all look in poor form (Ayr's win against QP being the exception). I'd say 8+ points from the 4 games would be a good indicator that we'll have nothing to worry about this season. Less than that and we can still do well, but would probably be a sign that we should be looking downwards more than upwards. The away game to Morton is also big because, although it's a bit cliche, I'm still a bit worried that we'll struggle away at the more 'traditional' grounds like Gayfield, Cappielow and Somerset, especially as the pitches get heavier. I think we'll win plenty of home games but I think our season will be defined by how many points we can get away from home.