The Ghost of B A R P

Didn’t dare to hope this would happen… a brilliant signing, on many levels. Looking forward to seeing big Wilson at centre-forward or on the right wing…

Beuker is 39?! Must have been in some truly terrible digs during his time in Glasgow...

Delighted to welcome Dundee Utd to Cappielow for the opening game of the new season, after a long and pretty dismal pre-season. Always important to avoid defeat on the opening day, all the more so at home, so we'll take that. Only selection issue I'll comment on is that I hope Imrie sticks with Mullen in goals: MacDonald still sometimes shows his class, but has also shown his age in one or two recent games; and dropping a guy after 180 minutes without conceding would be a pretty strange decision.

Aye, season starts here: phase one - claw back to a point per game as soon as possible (10 points, as above, gets that done in December... but I wouldn't bank on it); phase two - a couple of additions (or even just in/outs) in January and kick on from there. Personally, I'd happily take 8 points from the next six, given our record thus far: two wins, two draws, and two defeats would be fine... as long as the defeats aren't to Airdrie, Arbroath, or QP. But yeah, 9 or 10 would be excellent. Was feeling pretty pessimistic about it all a few weeks back, but there are at least some signs that the worst might be behind us.

Agree, Imrie might be the manager a daft boy like McPake needs. And Imrie will know all about him and know exactly what he’s taking on. Problem is that it’s a financial risk we’re not best placed to take, especially when other parts of the squad desperately need attention.

^^^^^^^ made up...

If I wasted my time pointing out all the things you randomly make up and chuck in when you're taking your customary tanking, I'd be here all year. As a handy default, let's just go with 'all of it'; won't be too far out. The classics just keep on coming, btw ('flounce'. 'tail between your legs'): are you familiar with the concept of the 'weekend'? Don't worry yourself, I'll always be on hand to call out your insufferable pish; your only option - and I know it won't be easy - is to stop posting insufferable pish...

I'll take your increasingly pathological tendency to make stuff up as confirmation that you don't have any argument to offer (which isn't really surprising, I suppose, considering there's no serious counter-argument to be made). Thanks for playing and see you next time. Disappointing. I was looking forward to the power-point, setting out all the arguments you're no doubt reluctant to make on here for reasons of confidentiality, followed by you being carried shoulder high from the room for having saved the club through your brilliant proposition of... part-time fitba. Send in the clowns, right enough. Eh, I didn't. And you forgot about rule no. 6 (which everybody knows is the only rule that matters...).

We'd be daft to rule out trying to incorporate the odd part-time player who's good enough, but unless there's a big shift across football at this level that makes part-time the norm (as it was at certain points), we're talking exceptions, rather than the rule. My take on 'hybrid' is that you go for a set-up that intentionally balances more experienced players on competitive wages and 'development' players. We obviously can't afford to assemble a squad of 22 or even 20 of the former, so you look at some kind of balance: 16 + 4, 16 + 5 (maybe even 16 + 6 if you're lucky; or, from the opposite point of view, 18 + 4). And if you're lucky enough to find a McKenna or an O'Brien in the immediate area, all the better. That would also go some way to balancing the sometimes daft arguments about 'youth' (that is, some people's misty-eyed idea that we should 'bring through our own' for the sake of it, against other people's idea that if they're not ready for first-team football right away, there's no point). The likes of King (or, dare I say it, McGregor) wouldn't be expected to play week in, week out, but they're fully integrated parts of the squad... and, when there's an injury crisis, they're the guys who're expected to step up. The manager then has to look at recruitment through two different lenses and use the budget he has accordingly: we'd still look to sign guys like Crawford or MacDonald; but we're also looking to bring through small numbers from our own development pool who are good enough (as well as bringing in one or two who fall out of development programmes at clubs higher up the food chain). If we're ever going to get the required balance of quality and quantity on our budget, that surely is it.

So what would this magical 'credible first-team squad' at the top of the 'semi-professional talent pool' actually look like? Who are these players we might sign in greater quantity because they have a second source of income outside football? Are they better or worse than the players we currently have? On a different note, what is your problem with professional footballers earning enough to pay their mortgages? You completely reject the argument that part-time football means decline, but, same as when this came up before, you're completely unable to outline how a part-time set-up will allow us to compete at this level. The strong likelihood is that we'd find ourselves 'competing' regularly at the level below and everything beyond that is speculation: we don't know what impact that might have on support, we don't know what impact that might have on commercial development (although we do know what impact it will have on prize money). The attempt to cast this as 'anybody who wants us to stay full-time also wants us to run up losses and risk going out of business' is pathetic and dishonest. Nobody, as far as I know, who's part of MCT is even remotely nostalgic for the Rae-era. Maybe you should make a proposal to the next general meeting, see what kind of response it gets? The only sensible comment is that we have to live within our means... but everybody knows that. You yourself appear to be aware that there's no way we'd be able to put together a good enough squad from the accessible part-time pool. It's just a daft, reactive response that comes out whenever we're not doing very well.

Took you a bit longer than usual to reach the 'just making stuff up' stage, but here we are... Harkness, as you know, has never kicked a ball for us. Waters, as you know, was here last season. And Wilson, as you know, isn't a defender; he's been forced into covering various positions at the back, because... well, because we don't have enough defenders. Try to keep up, eh? And ditch the deflection about before/after the League Cup: my only point is that the squad, as it stands, at the end of this summer's transfer business, isn't strong enough in defensive areas. To say it's 'beyond ridiculous' to claim we don't have enough defenders when we actually don't have enough defenders is... well, beyond ridiculous. But you know this and are clearly just addicted to arguing for arguing's sake. I particularly enjoyed your 'point' that it's 'not legitimate' to watch individual players and the team as a whole before making a judgement; that's as close to the definition of legitimate as you're likely to get (the alternative would be instant judgement of players we've never seen play for Morton, and ongoing instant judgements of what a squad will actually end up looking like... in other words, the defintion of daft). For the record, I thought Power would be a good signing for us and was mystified as to why we signed Wilson; thus far, I'm happy to admit that I was wrong about both... but that doesn't change the overall point about squad balance at all. Summary: we're chronically short at the back and will get relegated if we don't address that. Everybody else can see that, but your unique insight into football leads you to a different conclusion. Lucky you.

What do you think Boyd's on? Not enough for a defender who is of sufficient quality relative to what we currently have? And I'm not demanding some kind of quality x quantity mega-squad... just pointing out that we have neither sufficient quantity nor quality in defensive positions as things stand. Grimshaw, Strapp, and Ambrose out, French and Braodfoot in. Every Morton supporter can see that apart from you, apparently. Managaing the budget as the early season progresses is just quite literally part of Imrie's job. The fact that three of those four players were signed after the League Cup draw was made is less relevant than the fact that none of those players are first-pick defenders coming into a squad crying out for precisley that. And there's no revisionism or 20-20 hindsight going on at all: only hysterics react definitively to individual signings as they're made; but that doesn't mean it's not legitimate to judge the overall business when it's been completed. As for me, I assumed, for example, when we signed MacDonald that there must be more to come in other areas (i.e at the back); same for Power. Turns out that was wrong, with the exception of French, but that still doesn't change the fact that those are priority choices Imrie has made, that the sum of his business has been poor, and that it's the defensive problems that currently make us favourites to be relegated. Ok, at least that's clear: you think we should effectively go part-time (having the youth players in full-time doesn't materially change that). Apart from the fact that your view seems to be motivated by some bizarre resentment that some people actually make a full-time living from playing football, you still haven't specified the advantages being 'one of the better picks for semi-professional football' will magically bring. How is that going to get us players who are better, not worse than we currently have? How does it get you closer to a 'credible first team squad'? If it's hard for us to compete for players currently, how does 'you'll huv tae get a job' make us more attractive? There just isn't a pool of sufficiently talented players out there who would rather be part-time than full-time (O'Brien, McKenna, and I'm stretched). Seems to me that what's preventing us from doing that isn't 'arrogance' (not even sure what that means btw), but a hard-headed acknowledgement that, difficult though it may be, full-time football is entirely necessary to prevent us drifting into permanent decline. I happen to think there is a 'hybrid' approach that might suit us, but part-time football is not the answer (until such time as economic conditions determine that it's the answer also for our direct competitors).

He’s been rotten for the last three games.

We’re not first pick, obviously, but the signings of Robbie Crawford, O’Connor and Grimshaw last year, and even MacDonald and Waters this year, suggest we’re not necessarily restricted to ‘scraps’. The point is that, however the defensive line-up came about, Imrie has to take responsibility for it. There’s nothing he can do about the overall budget - or the injuries - but having only four defenders plus a Broadfoot in the squad is indefensible.

I agree the injuries are badly affecting us, but you can't just disregard the context: Imrie chose to use his budget to sign all of Mullen, MacDonald, Power, Wilson, Boyd, and Bearne, while adding only French and Kirk Broadfoot in response to the loss of Grimshaw, Strapp, and Ambrose at the back. Balanced squad building required three defensive signings, regardless of the limits of the budget, none of whom are called Kirk. Imrie hasn't actively chosen to limit the size of his squad, of course, but he absolutely has caused it to be badly under-powered in the defensive areas. Our results show you can get away with many other deficiencies, but you can't get away with that. He must know that by now and (again, I agree) the club has to address it in January, one way or another. One of these days you'll learn to add 2 and 2 together... By your own logic, he could have not signed either or both of Bearne and Boyd (not to mention one or the other of Power and Wilson, or even Mullen and MacDonald) and used the money to strengthen the defence. The argument that the budget 'was not there', as above, just doesn't stack up: he knew the budget he had and he chose to make the signings he made. He absolutely is responsible for those choices. He didn't 'consciously' choose to have the weakest defensive options in the league (at least I hope he didn't), but that is the result of the overall decisions he made. As I've already said, if that isn't fixed, regardless of what happens elsewhere in the squad, we'll go down. Feel free to disagree (and spare us the repeated nonsense about the deficiencies of the 'operating model' until you can actually describe a credible alternative and specify the magical advantages it will bring).

Do we ignore it? I don't think so. The one thing Imrie has to take responsibility for, injuries or not, is that he failed to bring in sufficient quality and quantity in defensive positions; that has meant we're only one injury to a defender away from a 'crisis'. There's no way you can compete in this league with only four 'first-team' defenders in your squad (unless you get insanely lucky). If we don't fix that in January, we'll go down; the rest is detail.

Amazed because I never imagined the core of our current squad (and manager) could even invite marginal comparisons with the collection of oddballs that took us down in shame that year... Don't think we're anywhere near that, btw, but a relegation battle it is... Also in no doubt that *most* Morton supporters are firmly behind the team, as we always are.

There's every possibility this will boil down to us, Airdrie, Queen's Park, and Arbroath in a mini-league at the bottom (Inverness might also remain involved, but I doubt it). If that's the case, as has been said above, games against those teams will be crucial, but wins and draws there won't necessarily be enough: we also need to pick up a reasonable amount of points against the other teams or it will turn into an endless cycle of 'must-win' head-to-heads. Turning defeats at home into draws should be the first priority, regardless of the opposition. We absolutely can't afford to lose the next two, because that will just heap more and more pressure on the supposedly 'winnable' (and crucial) games: if we go up to Arbroath with 8 points from 13 and then lose, you'd have to be concerned for Imrie's survival. There was a rumour flying around at Hampden that he expected to be sacked if we lost that day; I didn't believe it at the time, but I think I would now. Amazed we've got to this point so quickly after the opening win against Ayr and a very encouraging performanace at Ibrox. But here we are.

I’ve accepted that Imrie is going to persist with Power, so unless Power himself just decides to chuck it, he’s here for the duration. If he persists with Broadfoot, though, we’ll get relegated: it’s as simple as that. We’ve gone from being a team that’s hard to score against, which means Imrie’s percentage-pragmatic football had a decent chance to work, to being a team that just tips up easy goals most weeks. Broadfoot is far from being the only one guilty on an individual basis, but it’s his chronic lack of pace that’s causing the general confusion. We currently look like we need to score two for a point, three for the win; just not going to happen often enough (or maybe ever). Beyond that, he needs a. to get back to a 4-3-3, and give up on the idea of playing both Oakley and Muirhead unless it’s with Muirhead coming off the left; b. hope that Quitongo and O’Connor are back before it’s too late; c. hope at least one other team hits a crisis of their own; and d. beg/steal/borrow at least three reinforcements in January. We’re far from being away at this stage, but we soon will be if Imrie can’t swallow some simple hard truths (see above).

We need to forget any 'three games in seven days' pish excuses, come out to try and dominate the game, score first, and require fourteen or fifteen players to run themselves into the deck. Another defeat here and we're in all sorts of trouble; from the reverse perspective, a win pulls Dunfermline and a couple of others right back into the mix. Biggest game of the season so far, without a doubt.

Would be nice if Jamie MacDonald could just catch everything that’s thrown at him, setting us up nicely for the second 1-0 in four days…

Well, he’s a fanny. And Waters did try to ride him on at least three occasions in the second half… What’s bizarre about pointing out that ‘Logan’ Chalmers is an utter fanny of a boy?

It’s Logan ‘I am a total fanny’ Chalmers. What a fanny.

Huge - and thoroughly deserved - win for us today. As has been said, going to a back three didn’t initially inspire confidence, but it worked. Broadfoot remains a bombscare, but there’s more protection in a three; and big Wilson really looked like a player for us in the wing-back role, again because there’s more protection inside him. Power is an incredibly frustrating player: moments of class mixed in with too many times where he just slows things down. I wonder if we’ll end up loving him… Last word for big George, though: poor in the first half, not much better - and clearly frustrated - in the second… but kept going and going and was rewarded with the goal. Mon the fuckin Ton.

He was atrocious in the second half… … but it’s a player (Ayr fans know the answer, but won’t say).