Fae_the_'briggs

Yes we did play a better passing game last season but it was done faster with more movement off the ball by players looking to get return passes and move it up the park, not slow, square or backwards like a lot of this season's fayre. A lot of that could be down to the difference in opposition to last season and the way they are set up, as you say, or more likely the Managers tactics. I admit to being the type who likes to see the ball get forward into the opposition's penalty area as quickly and as often as possible, whether that be by route 1 or by a fast passing movement, whichever play is on at the time and there's no harm in having the option to vary the approach. At the moment we are lumping high balls up to Reilly, who is not a ball winner in the air, or Lyle, who is slightly better in the air but would still come off worst on average against a big defender, and possession is lost. A big target man does not necessarily mean a battering ram but it would give opposition defenders a harder time than they have at present when high balls are played in.

Christmas Cracker Joke Time: Q. Why did Jim McIntyre invite Calum Antell for Christmas dinner? A. Because his wife told him to bring home a turkey Q. What is Guff's favourite Christmas drink? A. Punch (allegedly) Q. What did McIntyre give Ian McShane for Christmas? A. A new contract (sorry that's not a joke apparently) Well if you think these are bad let's hear yours.

It may be that we need to sign a tall front target man if we are to persist in lumping high balls up the park. Even moving Russell in from the wing leaves us literally short up front, ok with balls to feet but not in the air against big central defenders. I find it hard to criticise McIntyre for playing Russell out wide, it may be more by luck than judgement on the Managers part , but he is scoring goals from that position so why change it. It has been said on other posts that the main problem for our strikers (or lone striker as McIntyre prefers) is the quality of service into them/him, a tall target man a la Holmer in his prime, could knock balls down for his fellow striker or attacking midfielders.

Who could we offer them that we don't need ourselves and would Stranraer want any of our fringe players? It would need to be a fair wedge of cash that we offered for them to take some of our out of favour players.

I'm looking forward to next week's visit to New St. Mirren Park, or whatever it's called, for Queens' first competitive game at that venue. My first visit too. Before that however we have a very important game at Dumbarton and I hope we approach it with the same positive attacking attitude that we displayed against the Paisleyites. No tinkering please Mr. McIntyre.

So we're back to this "what if Magic had stayed" argument. Anyone who categorically states that they know we would be in a better position if he had stayed should not be heeded no matter how high their opinion is normally held. As Mr X points out, and it has been pointed out before, there are too many ifs and buts to make any positive conclusions on this matter, just read through the previous few posts and their littered with "ifs" and "buts". Here's a few more that have also been voiced before: IF Magic had stayed and fielded as far as possible what remained of last season's squad you cannot say for certain that we would have started the league any better, it's pure speculation. IF Magic had stayed and we actually had less points than we do at present how can you tell that he wouldn't have been sacked by now anyway. You can't tell without the aid of a crystal ball. IF McIntyre had fielded as far as possible what remained of last season's squad when he first took over you cannot say for sure that we would have been any better or worse off than we are, again pure speculation. IF Magic had stayed you can't say for certain that he would have brought in any better replacements for the players who left than McIntyre has. It would actually have been impossible for either of them to play certain players at the start of the season even if they wanted to owing to injuries. (Carmichael and Mitchell) The benefit of hindsight is a great thing. Would Magic still have left if he knew the position that Killie would be in just now? No way of telling. Would McIntyre have changed his early season tactics and line-ups? No way of telling. This whole debate is based on hypothetical situations, wishful thinking and ifs and buts. I would have been delighted if Johnston had stayed to see where he could have taken us but it can't be claimed for sure that he would have built on last season's success. .

Glasgow has Nandos, Dumfries has The Fleshers. Definitely not for the chicken.

McIntyre and McCabe work as a team, something like Morecambe and Wise I imagine.

I remember the name but not the performances. He must have been bad if he was worse than BJC

Relax! I don't think it was a real tank with real shells, or was it the Raith fans who were in a fish tank and Sammy was shooting them? Either way, definitely not sporting.

A win against Morton following our recent progression into the next round of the Scottish Cup may be enough to ensure an easier ride for Jim Mc at the "Meet the Manager" event in the evening. If the players are really behind him as they claim, then I expect a positive and attacking attitude against the 'Ton.

I think the local players do more than their share of bringing the club into the community. It would be nice to think that, if the training was at Palmerston, some of the Central Belt players would take on their share of such duties.

We wouldn't want to inconvenience or upset the Central Belt clique by actually expecting them to travel an hour down the road to where their club is based. Comments on other posts say they do train at Palmerston once a week at present but, like you, I would think if they are struggling to master the surface it should be twice a week minimum with double sessions to help both fitness and work on ball control.

Pointing out the futility of people speculating about what could have been if last season's management and squad were still in place in no way infers that we should forget what the team achieved last season. We should rightly be proud of it and keep reminding people of what we did achieve last season.

There's no "Some would say" about it. It is completely hypothetical but of course that doesn't mean you can't speculate if you wish. I don't think it is possible to conclude anything from hypothetical situations. If Magic and the whole squad from last season were still here we may well have been top of the table with full points, still in the Ramsdens Cup and League Cup OR bottom of the League with nil points and out of all the cups at the earliest stages. We can speculate, wish or dream of what might have been but we will unfortunately never know. I prefer to deal in reality which means accepting that situations have changed too much since last season to bother with pointless comparisons.

Your judgement may prove to be be spot on griegQOS, but we won't know if he is not tried at some stage. As there is only this cup and the league to play in now, if he is to be tried I think it should be in this game. In hindsight perhaps Magic could have used him a bit more towards the end of last season after the league was won and points record set just to give him a bit more experience and to give us and the club a chance to see what he could do. Unfortunately for him in the cup competitions already played this season Mr. McIntyre was probably rightly trying to get his own signings to gel with what was already here or Atkinson could have been tried then. There is a lot to play for between now and January and its a long time to wait before deciding if your keepers are up to the job.

Having never seen Atkinson play competetively apart from his 15 minutes or so against Albion Rovers, I have to bow to your obvious greater knowledge of his ability. I would be interested to know on what you base your criticism of Atkinson on and in what competitions you have seen him play to make this assessment.

Possibly MB but the previous manager must have thought him an able back-up although he didn't get a chance to prove it with Lee Robinson in the form he was. The present Manager's position is slightly different as Atkinson may already have been under contract before he took over but once Antell was signed McIntyre did not feel the need, or maybe didn't have the money, to sign another back-up keeper. He did bring in Zander Clark on loan but with results the way they were he may have felt that a fresh face with maybe a wee bit more experience was needed. Assuming we are not going down the road of getting a procession of loan keepers we have to be sure that the ones we do have can step in if needed, at least until any potential business can be done during the next transfer window, and I think this cup game would be an opportunity, if not exactly ideal, for him to do so. It could be argued that the same applies to earlier cup games and he could have tried him then, but it was still early in the season and he probably wanted to establish his signing as first choice.

This may cross over into the Cup V League debate and which is more important but I think if Zander Clark is not available then it would be an opportunity to give Jim Atkinson some game time on Saturday, even if Antell is fit. A good cup run can be great for the club as we all know from past experience but we also need to know what our back-up keeper is capable of. With the current situation regarding Antell's injury not to mention the ongoing concerns about his ability there has been no better time for the regular sub goalie to stake a claim, especially as Clark will not be here for very long. It may also show Antell that there is serious competition for his position assuming of course that Atkinson, if tried, does prove to be a capable replacement. Also with a more settled defence there may not be as much pressure on the keeper.

Have to stop this but I find myself agreeing with you again Broony88. If fit, McKenna would be a shoe-in for me where McShane plays. Burns has never inspired me in the middle of midfield, too lightweight, although to be fair he's not afraid to put in a tackle. In his previous spell with us I felt his best performances were when playing out wide but we are adequately covered in that position just now. When all players are available the Manager will have some brave decisions to make. There does not seem to be much "tinkering" needed to the line-up after yesterday's game and I hope the Manager's experimentation phase is over. Let's get as settled a team as possible.

Basically agree with all your views on the markings Broony but had Durnan as my MOM just ahead of Russell. I was going to go through them all as you have done but just picked out a couple that I thought stood out. I only picked it this time 'cos all the copies of the Sunday Sport and Sunday Sun were sold. Tbh I do like the sports section of the Sunday Mail but like all Scottish papers you have to weed through the crap about Rangers and Celtic. I confess that the Sunday Post is also on my reading list. (Don't judge me)

Reading Sunday Mail's match report from yesterday's game. Player's performance markings had Higgins above Durnan with Beany Russell given an 8. No problem with Beany's mark given his workrate and 2 goals, but Durnan's performance to me merited at least 8 if not 9. Higgins, who I confess to not being a great fan of, had as someone already said "a couple of wobbly moments" which could have been costly although when the team was on top he comfortably did what was asked of him. The reporter also gave Mr Colvin the referee what was to me an overrated 6 out of 10 which probably says more than anything about what that particular "hack" knows about football. As for the McShane midfield position, he has not built on his performances earlier in the season. If Burns and McKenna are not available why not get Slattery more involved? From what I saw of him last season he has a bit of dig about his play as well as the ability to spread play and maybe pitch in with the odd goal.

There were a lot of things that many players would not know when they signed their contracts, such as the manager at the time was going to leave and they were bound by their contracts irrespective of who was brought in and what decisions the new manager would make regarding such things training facilities and regime. We would also, I presume, save on the hire of facilities in Cumbernauld or wherever it is. when presumably we can use our own for free. It was also the Chairman's stated wish to see training centred in Dumfries EVENTUALLY, so obviously the BOD are inclined that way. If the existing playing staff from the Central Belt decided that they did not want to accept travelling to Dumfries and thought of leaving, where would they go. Not many clubs are recruiting and there are plenty of good part time players looking to go full time who could take their place. If the players really thought about the situation they would realise IMO that even having to travel to Dumfries, they would be on a cushy number compared to people who have to do more hours for less money in "real jobs.".

I probably must concede the point regarding the Manager relocating to Dumfries if it greatly affects his family especially in the modern climate of offering shorter term contracts. It would not suit every candidate but should be a consideration if circumstances allow. Mr. Connelly was probably outwith easy commuting distance to Dumfries when he got the job and as a friend of the then Chairman possibly thought he was here for the long haul so decided to buy, or was offered, a house locally. That does not however mean that training cannot be at Dumfries considering the number of "locals" who have to travel to the Central Belt. If you sign for a Dumfries Club you must expect most of your work to be done in Dumfries. As I stated in an earlier post as a compromise the team could train 2 days in Dumfries and 2 days somewhere else. We need to get better acclimatised to the new Palmerston surface if it is to give us an advantage. Training should not be thought of as somewhere for players to pass the time for a couple of hours in the morning. We all want the team to do a lot better and if it takes extra training sessions to achieve that then the players and coaches should at least be considering it, and the Board demanding it.

So I take it you have been present at some training sessions and studied his training methods to form this opinion or is it yet again another dig at the Manager which is not based on actual fact or knowledge.