Clydeside

I thought we approached the game perfectly. That is, in more or less exactly the same way we approached the last game at Broadwood against Cove. We had a compact defensive shape which made it tough for them to get behind us. And we generally kept enough pressure on the ball as well as flexibility in our shape when transitioning to attack so that we stood a chance of scoring as well as keeping a clean sheet. All of our defenders put in solid shifts insofar as they done the jobs they were asked to. Livingstone was man of the match for me. He clearly plays with something extra against Cove. He looked a class apart at times today. Gomis was outstanding as well. And Docherty's experience, reading of the game and composure in possession shone through at times. There was an excellent physicality about our midfield and about our defending today. Having said that all of that, we were barely a threat without Goodwillie. We rarely got behind Cove. And we were terribly wasteful with our corner kicks, so many of which didn't get past the near post. At the same time, it must be remembered that Cove are a weaker side without Megginson. They were a much more lethargic side today than I remember them. But in the round, with the players available to us, I think the only disservice we done ourselves was with (sigh) our throw-ins. And Cuddihy's loss of possession was uncharacteristic. Albeit were we a bit smarter, we might've avoided throwing out to him where he was as I thought Cove had been giving him special attention, knowing how much more he brings than Nicoll, being a box-to-box capable midfielder.

Next Wednesday, aye. Maybe I'm wrong to assume it goes into a midweek slot. Don't mind many call offs of ours getting a Saturday/Sunday slot.

Was going the way of a bigger win for Airdrie in my opinion. A midweeker against a full time mob won't likely end well for us. That said, maybe we learn some lessons about how to approach a game against Airdrie. Not so openly, I hope.

On a knife edge. They've got into our back third far too easily and often. On the other hand, we've broken them up and countered well a few times. Good links between Jones, Goodwillie, Love, Docherty and Livingstone answerable for that. Bit of a cringe that it once again took us to go behind to fortify our defence, and the left hand side in particular. But we've drawn most of our team over there to do it. If they squeezed a pass inside, they were all but through on goal. Going to harp on about a back four being a bad move until we pack it in or sign better players. That said, at least we're starting play with two up at times and not being totally bossed. Progress of a kind. Nervous for the second half, knowing they're full time and knowing that there'll be more space available as the game goes on. Need to use the subs well and think about tightening up at some point, just like at Alloa.

Bit predictable...

The press we're putting on Airdrie with a fairly high line looks a risky business. Especially with a player like Easton who can jink through easy. Space between the full backs and centre backs is still a glaring vulnerability to my mind too. Airdrie have a better, tighter two than Alloa by the looks of it too.

Couldn't agree more. Lang and Cogill were used as full-backs too. The former for quite a while. And they were the best two centre backs we've had in ability terms under Lennon in my opinion. They'd breeze this league if we still had them.

Deveney and Livingstone should start every week with one on his weaker side. There's barely any risk in it compared with all the other switchabouts we've tried down the years. Livingstone done well on his weaker side yesterday. Danny recognised that in his post-match interview. It may even be that having one of those two come inside gives a new dimension to our attacks or helps our possession in the long run. It would also mean we could have Cuddihy in midfield. He is our best centre midfielder and we're desperately weak in there. It's been glaring for a while that the answer to our full-back/wing-back misery is to get the most athletic options the park for those positions despite their inexperience (Livingstone, Deveney). Having Munro, Docherty or Rumsby filling the gaps is an insult to their ability.

See a back four. Does anyone really think it's a serious option any longer? Arthritic defenders and big spaces don't recommend themselves to one another. And that's our lot. At least while Lennon insists on Docherty, Munro before him or Rumsby getting in before Livingstone and Deveney. The only shape we can play without being picked off easily is a 3-5-2. The only games in which a four has worked is where we've played the most toothless teams in the league. Dumbarton. East Fife. QP with their one front man. Alloa with their two defensive midfielders. How you can want Goodwillie up top alone is beyond me too. When we had McStay, Banks, Rankin, Grant, Lamont, Syvertsen or Boyle behind him in a poorer league, yes. It worked very well. Now? It's a wild choice in my opinion. We have nowhere near enough about us to sustain any pressure with the midfield pool we have. Counter attacks, individual Goodwillie goals and set pieces are about our only hope. And we don't even have (cringe) McNiff to help us with the latter any longer. That four or five in midfield will only work if it isn't inviting pressure onto itself. Goodwillie himself doesn't have it in him to stop advances. And a four at the back would only work if it never moved higher than the penalty spot, a la the first half at Links. And even then... As for 'we don't have a decent partner for Goodwillie'. A warm body is better than the alternative, playing him alone. We gain no extra protection from it versus a 3-5-2. Cunningham. Andrew. A warm body is fine. If they can run just a bit more than Jones it'd be ideal.

Decent point. As it turned out they were probably there for the taking. But hats off to the lads for a disciplined performance. Didn't see it coming. God bless any team that thinks they can play like Liverpool in league one. Dumbarton were at it last week with only one forward really making a point of busying our central defenders. And Queen's Park done much as they done at Broadwood. Their inflexibility will be their downfall. Having Bob McHugh and pretty much nobody else to deal with made it easy for us. What did Queen's Park have, two shots on target the whole game? First clean sheet since East Fife nigh on two months ago. And only our second in competitive matches this season.

To be fair, we've played it spot on from an approach perpsective. Queen's Park are minus Murray which I didn't account for. They look even less threatening than they did at Broadwood. On the other hand we look even stuffier than we did at Dumbarton last week. We've also got just as much if not more experience on the park than Queen's Park do and we seem to be following our instructions to the letter. That all bodes well for us albeit it makes for a rotten game.

Chances of taking anything without Cuddihy are next to nil. Hope it's a back three but looks a four with Rumsby right back. Take Goodie out of that team and we're where we were ten years ago. Hate to be pessimistic but QP will need to make individual mistakes for us to take something.

Never a truer word written. Alloa done that against us as well. Bad decision. Especially if they'd watched us.

Two positives for me. We stopped the rot insofar as we didn't get beat again. And we showed that our spirit isn't broken insofar as we came back to draw despite losing one so late. Having said that, with the slightly patchwork eleven they had out today, Dumbarton weren't up to much. Our defenders weren't put under much pressure in possession and their individual battles were simple ones to wage. Dumbarton's forwards weren't very dynamic and tended to receive it with their backs to goal or in busy areas so our defenders only had to get to the ball first over very short distances and make sure they won their headers. We kept the midfield quite crowded and seemed to have some flexibility in our shape. That was, that Livingston could leave the midfield to support the left flank, seeing Docherty tuck in to the left of Page and Cuddihy was licensed to play further up on the other side at times too, so that there wasn't always a straightforwardly flat back four. It seemed that way to me anyway. Add the conditions into the equation and you can see why we kept the score down. Yes, we weren't up against as much as we have been in previous matches. But both in personnel and system terms, given the opposition, we played something like our strongest hand. I can only echo what other have written about Cunningham. I'm not sure what his role was today and he certainly wasn't very involved. Tade showed more aggression, strength and intelligence in the last few minutes of the match than any of our foward players had before then. More an indictment on them than praise of him but god bless him for doing what he managed to with the fitness constraints he clearly has. I thought Dumbarton had the better of the second half. Particularly after they made their subs. They broke free from midfield, having won the battle in there more often than they had in the first half and stretched the pitch well a few times. Enough to merit the goal they got. They'll be a tougher prospect with McGeever and Hopkirk back in their side I expect. Individually I think Docherty, Splaine and Gomis showed up fairly well for us today. I thought they showed a toughness, if nothing else, that the game deserved and managed to string the odd (and I mean the odd...!) good passage of play together, as well as register shots on goal, get balls in and all the rest of it.

Highlights up on Falkirk TV. That penalty and red card is a nonsense. Doesn't even resemble a foul. Hetherington might've put his hand on Cunningham but Cunningham was on his way down lunging for the ball in any case and there looked to be no pressure applied by the contact. A more potent attacking team would probably have done us for five (again).

He certainly didn't play very well today out on the left hand side. He found himself with his back to goal a lot and never done much with the ball. That is, other than run it out or lose it. But it must be remembered that he spent most of the early career playing as a defensive or sitting type midfielder with Celtic. I don't think he'll ever do well out on the left. He has no real speed about him, doesn't play to beat a man or work a one-two to go forward. He has nothing but a left foot to recommend him to that position. You'd need to ask Danny what his thinking was there. I suppose he's a fair height and so can compete a bit better than Cunningham, say, for headers. But I don't see him as being great in the air either. He probably got put out there to shield Docherty given there'd be McGuffie, maybe McDaid if he swapped or Morrison (if we thought he might play) and another over on that side to deal with. He'd be a better choice for that than Cunningham certainly. Not than Deveney though, to my mind. He's got a lot to learn. And he's not long back from a bad injury remember (leg break). But I think he has potential and he's a good player technically. Doesn't complicate things. Doesn't take too many touches. Keeps it ticking. You don't get to where he did with Celtic without having some talent. And I would just point out that a lot of what you would fairly criticise Kennedy for, you'd also have criticised Barry Cuddihy for as a central midfielder when Chapman brought him in. But with a season or two behind him, Cuddihy became what he is today. Our best midfielder and comfortably good enough to play at this level. Things are a bit different with Splaine as he's three or four years older than Kennedy but with, as far as I can see, just as little experience at this level and some habits that aren't easily removed from your game if they're still there in your mid 20s.

I think persisting with a back four is going to knacker us. While I don't think any of the four today other than Munro were particularly poor, whatever four we put out just won't have the athletic qualities needed to stand a chance of keeping a clean sheet. The spaces inbetween them are way more than they can deal with. And that's true even when they're facing off against the less dynamic sides in the league. More than that, a four will never get the protection it would need from our midfielders however they are set-up. For all those reasons it needs to be a three of Page, Balatoni and Elsden. The wing-backs can be Deveney and Livingstone. One on his wrong side. At least then we've got two wide players in familiar positions and two who are reasonably athletic. The midfield three should be Cuddihy, who we sorely missed today, Gomis and Kennedy. Cunningham and Goodwillie up top. Splaine is just too inexperienced and without the kind of savvy in possession which Kennedy clearly has. And while I recognise that Kennedy is timid and inexperienced himself, he won't do the dallying Splaine does that'll see us lose goals. On a good day Nicoll does us some favours, it's true, but I just think the balance of qualities is better with him in reserve. We need to batten down the hatches between now and January so that our spirit doesn't break. The 3-5-2 with those bodies or something very close to it strikes me as the best way to stop the rot. It would maximise the experience and ability we have on the pitch, crowd the park out where otherwise there'd be lots of space for opponents and, importantly, avoid Goodwillie being isolated. This actually reminds of the same period around about Halloween four years ago between Chapman leaving and Lennon coming in where we really needed to stiffen things up and we did for those few games with McInally in charge. We played, as I remember it, a 3-5-2/5-3-2 and the parallels are quite striking. Three slow centre backs then: Munro, McNiff and Home. Wingbacks who weren't always wingbacks and had some weaknesses: Stewart and Wright. Bit of a patchy midfield: Cuddihy, Ramsay and Lowdon. And not the best two but still a two up top in Gormley and Goodwillie. It served a purpose. I think we should consider it again (and stick to it!).

The uncertainty brought about by not knowing what league you'll play in doesn't help, for sure. But to say it was entirely down to the performance of the team and, connectedly, the fact that we flirted with relegation is not true. Just consider that if what you've written was true, this problem would inhibit successful sides as well as unsuccessful sides. Hence my Montrose example. There will be some budget which a club knows it can put aside for players wages even while it doesn't know what league it'll be in. Of course because it's a partial picture of the budget, it makes things tough. But even that partial picture may enable some recruitment if the players targeted have modest wage demands. I'm sure Montrose signed a player from outside the seniors quite late last season for example. He may not have had huge wage demands as such. And so they could take the risk of his wage irrespective of their fate, knowing that he was good enough for league one or potentially for the Championship in their judgement.

One thing I didn't mention was something that was discussed on this forum just as last season ended. That was the business of budgets and when the manager gets an amount of certainty about those so that he can recruit. I remember a thread of conversation which saw some supporters argue that it was unrealistic to expect budgetary certainty towards the end of last season with our fate hanging in the balance. Other supporters argued that it was realistic because, for example, Montrose were signing players when their fate too hung in the balance. Albeit we were looking over our shoulder and Montrose were looking up to the prospect of playing in the Championship. The same rules apply. It seems that Danny has asked and we're going to try in future to speed-up the budgeting process so that we can get as much certainty as possible as early as possible, all so that we can get an edge which we might (just might, mind) have lacked in the player market before now. So those supporters who argued that we should've or could've been signing players just when Montrose were doing the same at the end of last season had a point. It seems we can do better there.

I thought the forum was good. Danny was humble about our form, some of the decisions he has made and very frank about the difficulties we experienced in recruiting players over the summer. He gave a strong and timely defence of himself in response to the criticism he's faced recently while never coming over as bitter about it. Whatever else might be said about him, he loves Clyde: the supporters, his staff and the players. That comes over more so than with any other Clyde manager I can remember. There was a good explanation given by both Danny and PJ about the approach the club has to recruitment and who is the ultimate decision maker. That's Danny, for the avoidance of doubt. The performance, match and opposition analysis operations we have are clearly methodical and akin to what you see even at the bigger clubs. And they're more generously staffed than I'd thought. On its face that's all very encouraging. Perhaps the most encouraging takeaway is that we're actively looking to recruit. That is, right this minute and with a mind to January in particular. We're actively looking at players and making inquiries about bringing them in. The clearest hint given on that front was that a loan of one or more players from Celtic, Rangers or St.Mirren might be possible in January. As someone else wrote, it would've been better to devote more time to the Q&A with Danny. These events usually see supporters grow in confidence the longer they go on and I think a couple of hours should be set aside for the next forum if possible. But that's a very minor criticism. Nobody could say they didn't have a chance to speak. I would've liked to pry a bit more into his opinions on some of our central defenders and midfielders. What more can you say... Danny said something I think we can all sympathise with: that he hates to use Barry Cuddihy anywhere else but in the middle of the park such is his importance to the midfield. But he recognises that he's been just about the best choice for right-back at the same time so he's been torn with that decision. He also mentioned the loss of Mitchell and highlighted Mitchell's ability to distribute the ball accurately as something that's hard to replace, without suggesting that it has been the cause of our poor form of course. I think on the should he stay or go question, his mind is made up: he'll never walk. He loves the job too much. Fair play to him. For us supporters, I still think the question is: who comes in with a better record? I couldn't name anyone. I think we're best lining up behind him and the team until there's a loss of spirit akin to what we saw with Bomber and Millar. For myself I think we're miles away from that still. A few Montrose-style performances could get us there. But I prefer to think we'll stick it out however patchily until January and start to compete better then, once we've strengthened. We are only a couple of good results and pieces of good luck off the play-off spots after all.

Aye, we're a rabble right enough. I still think the 3-5-2 recommends itself for all sorts of reasons. Not to say it guarantees results. But why Danny doesn't bring it back I don't know. Constantly changing the shape, the system and the players within it is killing us. Not too keen on saying Danny should go because I don't know that there's a better gaffer we're likely to get and he'd be working with the same players until January anyway. By which time we could be all but cast adrift, looking at a relegation play-off or worse. Probably make my mind up on that question next week.

This.

Hard to believe eh? Gruesome game of football from our point of view. You hope defeats like that will fade in the memory but they're as vivid for me as beating Celtic four years prior.

If we're not signing any more players and it doesn't seem like we are I actually think our best eleven is easy to pick. And this follows almost regardless of the opposition. It's Parry behind Elsden, Balatoni and Rumsby in a three. It's Deveney and Munro as the wing-backs. It's Nicoll, Cuddihy and Gomis in the centre. And it's Goodwillie and Cunningham up front. It has to be a back three because any two will be too slow to cover the relatively large space that it'd have to cover. Same goes in midfield. We need to compensate for being slow by leveraging our experience and physicality to make it difficult for teams to play through us. We can't have hugely inexperienced players like Kennedy and particularly Splaine in that line. And never ever both of them in there at the same time. Our interests in staying in the league outweigh any interest we have in developing either player, whatever their potential. Deveney and Munro, however inexperienced, are the best options we have for either side. Deveney is athletic. I think he gives us a decent route up the park as well as being aggressive enough to offer us something in defence. Munro mightn't be as good a player but he's stalky and plays with enough aggression to do a job. Sure, he'll get beat here and there, but the three behind are a better insurance policy than just Rumsby or Elsden being stood between him and Parry. And we can't do without Cuddihy in the centre of the park. His legs, his ability to keep the ball and his experience are just too important to have him tucked in at right wing-back. Cunningham's pace gives you something very tangible to rely on. He does deliver albeit inconsistently, such is his inexperience and such is the fact of him having been moved all of the shop. Tade and Jones just can't be banked on in the same way, albeit they can come on and change things in the best case scenario. And Goodie picks himself obviously. At a push... we could suffer to have Cuddihy as the right wing-back and Kennedy in the centre. Or Deveney on his bad side with Love as the left wing back. Maybe Jones up with Goodie depending on the opponent. That's about the limit of our flexibility week on week in my opinion. One up top. Four at the back. Flat five in midfield out of possession? Forget it. The jury is in. 3-0 Dumbarton. 3-0 Falkirk. 5-0 Montrose. And you can add the 3 shipped against Peterhead because the 3-5-2 minus Elsden is as bad as any alternative. But we still got two back then. We concede too many with a four. And we don't score enough with one up. It seems very clear to me.

Very raw. Beautiful game etc. An overdue drubbing by Montrose. It won't be the first we'll suffer this season either. Particularly as we come into winter. While it mightn't seem like the biggest factor the fact that we've played mostly on sticky plastic parks until now has done us a favour. For example against Cove and Queen's Park. It has stopped teams playing with the kind of tempo that easily undoes a largely arthiritic midfield and defence like ours. Combine the fast conditions today with our incomprehensible team selection and approach to the game and it could only be that the points were on a plate for Montrose. They could've taken us for eight in the way they did some eleven years ago. And we could've had no complaints. What else can you say? Rumbsy at right back. Livingstone at left back. Abysmal performances. And the decision to revert to a back four against Montrose of all sides was a terrible one. The only way we beat a team like that is by crowding the park out to hell. Not playing with big spaces between defenders. The midfield was an utter rabble as well. A formless mass at times. We're changing the side in shape and staff terms every week. There's only one way that ends. In doings like today. God help us up at Cove if it's a slick pitch and Hartley send them out with a rocket up their backside after today. It could easily be another doing.