Clydeside

Did it? Maybe that's right. All I know is we were looking at bringing in more loans than just the boy from Kilmarnock. If that's closed off as an option now then... Aye. That's a bit of a worry.

Very raw. I think we got a few things wrong today. Not least having both Kennedy and Splaine in midfield again. Those are two extremely inexperienced players. Neither with any outstanding physical attribute that'd let him impose himself on a game. I see plenty of potential in Kennedy. Not as a throw-in taker mind you. But we'll never develop it in the way that we've been able to develop the potential in Barry Cuddihy who was a relatively inexperienced player when he first signed with us. That is, if we're not partnering Kennedy with experienced midfielders who can get us a foothold in games. Worryingly, I'm not sure we have any of those. I include Gomis in that estimation. But he starts ahead of Splaine every week in my book as a matter of balance. Airdrie obviously made a point of a high-tempo start and undermined the fragile organisation we've had in our changeably staffed 3-5-2. If that was calculated then it was a smart move. Our shift to a 4-4-2 only improved us insofar as it simplified the roles and the discipline for the players. I'm not sure we'd have fared any better if we'd started in that shape. There's a lot more you could say but nothing that hasn't been said a hundred times already. We need another fit forward, centre midfielder and centre back if we want to have a side that can hold up in a set system each week. We've improved mind you. We're every so slightly better at the back than we were at the start of the season. And Goodwillie's fitness seems restored so we're much more threatening. And we've took the edge off the full-back problem a bit too. But there's still a way to go. I understand we are still looking at loans. Hopefully those deals get made.

I think we saw the best and worst of both teams this afternoon. It strikes me that Queen's Park will have always have trouble against teams that congest the back third of the park like we did today. Their midfielders don't play to punch through the centre and their forwards tend to drift wide or deep to receive the ball. They have loads of quality in midfield and attack of course: Brown, Gillespie, Longridge, Murray, Longstaff, Connell, Smith. On a faster surface and against a team who're not as stuffily set up they can set a mean tempo and open teams up very effectively I'm sure. Even today where our shape and the slow conditions made it tougher, they could've had four or five. That is, if only they had a forward in their line whose game was playing on the shoulder of defenders and being a threat to the heart of the opposing team's defence. In metaphorical terms, Queen's Park's are a Christmas tree without a star at the top of it. They're middle-heavy with decorations. And I think their supporters are right to focus on McHugh's role. Swapping him out with a forward who can play a bit better with his back to goal and trouble centre backs a bit more would do the team a lot of favours I think. Even just making to sure have players like Connell and Longstaff on the pitch instead would probably be more conducive to winning games and to killing teams off. I don't think McHugh's a great fit. On Clyde. I'm just glad we didn't lose in the end because we played well for the most part. I thought David Goodwillie was easily the man of the match. What an uptick we've seen in his work-rate and mobility over the past few weeks. That's hugely encouraging. The back three looks a lot better with Elsden but still suffers from having the lethargic Rumsby in it. I think we're just one reasonably athletic centre back away from having a fairly strong pool of central defenders now. That is, irrespective of whether we play a tight three or a two in the centre. The midfield three were makeshift of course. Splaine, being the deepest of the three for a change, and enjoying relatively little pressure when in posession was able to show his quality. We saw some fantastic composure and passing from both him and Kennedy at times. Then there was Cunningham who played the fulcrum's role well enough. With Jones being useful and frustrating in equal measure ahead of him. I will say about Jones that I thought he was an important part of how we played today. We had a lot of players behind him who can be very accurate with their passes to him and there was enough of that to keep Queen's Park from hemming us in, knowing they'd only be a flick on away from a leg race with Goodwillie or Cunningham. I thought first and second debutants Deveney and Tade done well. The former looks solid enough technically and he got up and down the pitch well. I thought he defended aggressively and showed that he's capable of adding to attacks. Tade still looks like an injured player but you saw in his movement and instincts, which were enough to win us a penalty, shades of the player we know that his fitness is masking. Good solid shift from Barry Cuddihy on the right I'd just add finally. Quick into the feet of Murray at times. Came inside and caused problems. Not that you'd expect less from such a good and experienced player. I think we lost the first because we lost our discipline. Queen's Park's equaliser was no different to Alloa's a few weeks back. We were sucked into the play on one side of the park. Our midfield and defensive lines basically blended into one and acres of space was then available to anyone who fancied a shot from outside the box. I think Parry, like Mitchell before him, could've done better in the end. And then there was the penalty. I'd like to see it again but to be honest Rumsby's never been good at defending in situations where some agility is required. He passes muster when he's got to win headers on halfway or when he's got a few yards to anticipate the ball coming into a forward's feet. But in a tight three against teams like Cove and Queen's Park who'll always make chances and who're nipping it about in front of you, you can see him doing things like that time and time again. In the same way that Nicoll, for everything else he offers, will always be a red card risk and be liable to get drawn into play that he shouldn't bother with, Rumsby's liable to foul players in the box if there's a fives game going on in there. Anyway. I'm quite encouraged despite the draw. I'd like to see us carry on with that shape and system. At its best it lets us play very directly while still bringing out the neater stuff we're capable of in the midfield and final third. If we can find just one more centre back and maybe a centre midfielder with discipline enough to stay in front of the defence then I think we could start to get in amongst it. I cringe to admit it but Ray Grant at Stirling is a readymade player for the midfield job I have in mind. Whether it's Kennedy, Splaine, Nicoll or Gomis, by reason of their inexperience or, ahem, surplus of experience, they'll try our patience a bit more than he would in that sitting role.

QP have played with a great tempo in a lot of their matches this season. However toothless they are, the movement and quality they've got in midfield could have us chasing the game quite a bit. A hot day and a sticky pitch like the Cove game would do us nicely. I would go back to the 3-5-2 with Elsden available. Same team as against Cove. Maybe with Cuddihy in for Nicoll.

Auditioning for the role of Chewbacca.

It was encouraging to hear from Lennon in his post-match that we worked on the new shape during the week. I don't know if we did the same prior to the drubbings we got off of Raith and Airdrie in the same shape but it certainly didn't show up as if we did back then. Today was different of course. Outside of the first few minutes we looked quite disciplined in the shape. Assuming we don't do too much more recruitment I think the happy thing about the 3-5-2 might be that it can be quite versatile around the players we have and the different approaches we'll need to have to playing better and worse teams. On its face the two up means Goodie won't be hopelessly isolated. The tight three in the middle means that we won't have to choose just two central midfielders. That's good because any combination from our squad just looks a bit slow, small or inexperienced on paper in my opinion. And then with the wing-backs and tight three you might be more able stop big spaces appearing and to stop defenders getting engaged in races to the ball that they won't win. If we keep drilling it and we sign a few more, I think it might end up being our best choice. But we'll see. Few trialists in today. I'm quite sure we'll sign some more. Be interesting to see where they fit it.

That was a very pleasing performance from our point of view. We kept to the principles of the Falkirk approach in prioritising defence over attack and in being set-up to counterattack. However, we made some changes to the system and to the shape used at Falkirk. Some enforced. Some by choice. And while Cove just about managed to jam a square peg into a round hole in the end, you'd have to say that our change to a back three was vindicated. Particularly insofar as it allowed us to frustrate the very good interplaying forwards and midfielders that Cove have. It was horses for courses in that sense. Also, while it lasted, having someone playing closer to Goodie certainly made us more menacing on the counter. Although Cove's sluggish and easily flustered defence played a part in that too. As did the conditions. I could add that the use of wing-backs and the configuration of the midfield three were improvements insofar as they got us up the park quite well at times. They also gave good protection to the backline. Nicoll was particularly useful in that respect. Although he was managed into position a fair few times and tired as things went on. Kennedy done a lot better in the middle where he belongs and steadily grew into the game. He used the ball very well and showed some aggression in his play which has been hirtherto unseen. That bodes well. And Gomis done a decent enough job as the most advanced of the three. Having him further up loses you a player who'll reliably win back possession but also gets rid of the risk that he'll overplay in a bad area and thereby undo the good defending that the team has done. I know some will pile onto Rumsby for giving away another penalty. However, any defence set-up as ours was and which has to defend for the prolonged periods which ours did operates at an unusually high risk of conceding penalties. For that reason I wouldn't be too critical of him. He was at the limits of his ability in dealing with the players Cove have. And frankly I could see Balatoni or Elsden doing exactly the same thing. Indeed, Elsden was lucky not to concede a penalty by hugging a Cove player to the ground in the first half. Of course he became the hero of the afternoon didn't he? It's an ominous thing to lose a central defender at the time we did. Particularly when the next action could be a quickly taken dead-ball. For some eighty-odd minutes you've got three guys coordinating with one another quite well. Then all of a sudden they've another man to induct into the set-up. It was a perfect storm scenario. And Elsden weathered it perfectly. We'll go to Peterhead a much weaker side without him. And his absence will make a performance in the style of today's hard to replicate. Although that would be true in any case. Everyone must've noticed how we fell out of the game in the last twenty-five minutes or so. Goodwillie tired badly. As did Nicoll. And Cunningham sunk into midfield, ending up just as unable to link with Goodwillie as he was at Falkirk. Elsden would be my MOTM today for some superb defending. Nicoll just as good. And a decent performance from the goalie too albeit not without a nervy moment or two. And David Goodwillie's contribution shouldn't be forgotten. While you might say that he only exploited some very poor errors, he was still the single minded and clinical player we saw against Alloa. That was what we needed for three points today. Thinking about the season as a whole, we won't be able to soak up the pressure we did against Cove in the latter parts of today's game or the pressure that we did against Falkirk without conceding goals. In other words, we can't set out to play like we did today every single week. There's still a big question hung over how we beat the teams we're closer to in quality terms: Peterhead, East Fife, Dumbarton, Airdrie. We don't have it in us to menace teams for ninety minutes. We're suited to counterattack because of Goodie's condition. And we're setting-up around our weaknesses. I think we still need another two or three players. One of which must be a centre back in Elsden's mould. But ideally he'd be a little more sprightly. We probably need another (fit!) forward and midfielder as well. As for Cove, I think they will be a different proposition when their injured players return. They need to do something about their defence. There are some good individuals in there for sure. But they're as bad as our lads at knocking it around. Difference is, they're being asked to play high up the park and in a four without a lot of midfield protection. You're asking for it a bit there I think. But then again, you've got as good a selection of creative midfielders and forwards as anyone in the league so if you're going to score a load each week then perhaps it's a moot point.

While the lead has been gifted to us, you can see the virtue in a second forward and a third central defender. Cove are the only team I've seen so far whose forwards play quite close together and show a really good understanding and intelligence. Their midfield link well with them at times too. The third body back with them has definitely stopped them at a couple of important moments. And Nicoll in front, micromanaged though he has been, has been a good shield so far. On the flipside, players like Neill while they're excellent at the basics, have errors in them on sticky pitches and with space round about them. That's been put up in lights today. All that said, Cove are still good enough to pull it back, so we should be just as cautious in the second half. Keep it tight for twenty.

Looks like we've gone 3-5-2. You can understand two up given how much pressure we'd have to soak up otherwise. And the extra man at the back too, while keeping three in the middle arguably papers over the cracks that'd show with a two in either line. Cove have lethargic back line and they're missing a few of course. What we'll have to worry about is keeping the marking right within the shape and all of that. Some nervous moments early on in that regard. That said, a good, if easy, counter attacking opener is in line with how you'd want us to pick off Cove. Bit worried about holding onto it but let's see.

Opening up to Cove means being beaten. Radical changes to the shape and system every week mean being beaten. Mainly for those two reasons I think we should keep to the approach taken at Falkirk despite its failure. Consider also that Cove are travelling down. They're not a fully full-time team like Falkirk. And they'll be playing on a bone-dry plastic pitch in hot weather. Those things bode much better for the Falkirk approach. Lastly, without Cuddihy and Splaine we'll be an even more diminished side in attacking terms than we were against Falkirk, hard as that may be to imagine. Smash and grab should be the objective here a la Montrose and Alloa. And we'll need Goodie and Cunningham to play out of their skin. Maybe throw on Jones late on to see if we can nick it.

I rate him more highly than that. And I expect Hibs could source a keeper whose ability would place him in the lower half of the championship without having to pay a transfer fee if they wanted to. I don't see Mitch as having a lot of limitations outside of his height. He's not short of course. But he doesn't have the sheer size of frame and athleticism that goalkeepers often need in order to get to the highest levels of the SPL or down south. A bit like Soutar at Hearts, he's a player whose development was stunted by injury and now that he's been able to get a couple of seasons behind him he's grown in quality just as he might've but for those injuries. He's shown himself to be an athletic, decisive and commanding goalkeeper and a great shotstopper too. Memorably, two or three opposition managers have used the expression 'world-class' - albeit a bit cheaply! - to describe saves he has made these past couple of years. He's only played poorly in the last couple of games in my opinion. And we might as well put that down to a move being on his mind. In almost every game inbetween he's been superb.

I follow you. Other Falkirk supporters have told me the same. Albeit that aside from the Ayr game you mention 'shite' seems a bit strong. In the round there's no doubt he's been better for Clyde than for Falkirk of course. I accept that. If Clyde let a player go and he then becomes an excellent player at the same level or better I tend to reflect on that as our failure. There are some exceptions to that rule of course. However, a newly injury-free goalkeeper like Mitch who has always had a good attitude would be one I looked back on and cringed about were I a Falkirk supporter. Not that Falkirk have had too much bother with goalies since mind you.

This is probably as agreeable an end to Mitch's time at Clyde as there could be. We're getting a good replacement and a fee. Potentially a player or two on loan as well. Falkirk were silly to let him away when they did. He's an excellent goalkeeper. There are only a few you'd swap him for in the whole country.

I must admit to tuning out of how the rules have changed in the game over the past twenty years. No doubt things which were once allowed are now outlawed. However, I've watched that replay umpteen times over. While it had nothing whatever to do with the result I can't think why it's a free kick. Nicoll had been fouling Falkirk players persistently until then. That's true. But here, he comes across to the player side on and makes what a coaching book would call a block tackle (i.e. the side of his foot is used to stop the ball as it's being dribbled by the opponent). Yes, there's force enough to knock the opponent over. But that is applied in the course of disposessing the player, not before. There are no studs showing to the player. It wasn't a tackle made from behind. And I don't follow the comments about leading with the elbow. His elbows are faced to the camera. His arms are raised as he wades in. But again, never really before the ball is taken. As for it being a red. I trust that's posted as bait. In which case you've got one...! I imagine the referee judged that it was too forceful and dangerous for that reason. It's a pity if so because it's really difficult to play with any aggression or dig if you're penalised for everything outside of a neat interception in which there's little or no contact. And I suppose that a bigger player who generates a lot of force in the tackle will always look like he has brutalised a smaller player moving at speed from a certain angle if he goes over. All that said. I will grant that other nine out of ten times Nicoll goes in for that, we're at risk of going down to ten.

I'm on the level with everyone else insofar as I agree that there's been a decline in quality since we were promoted. I also agree that we've signed and re-signed some players that we shouldn't have. And there's not a lot of positivity in the reflection that sides like East Fife, Alloa and Peterhead might be poor enough to keep us afloat. It's an inherently negative reflection. However I think we might be losing perspective if we start to think that a player like Barry Cuddihy isn't good enough. He is the most usefully versatile player we have because he's reasonably quick over a few yards, technically solid and a good user of the ball. He will have had around 200 senior appearances to his name by the time he turns 25. That shows. He plays with an experience and sensibility about his game which only two or three other players in the squad do. Players who're much older and more experienced than he is. And those players are players whose bodies won't let them work as hard and get about as quickly as Cuddihy can. I think he's best in the middle of the park. But he's at risk of fading into the background because he can't run a midfield on his own. Although that's true of every other centre midfielder in the league. He may even become a victim of his own success insofar as he finds himself being played in different positions each week when we've nobody better to fill the gaps. He has his weaknesses of course. He's not the most aggressive player. And he's not the biggest or strongest either. But there are so few players in who all of Cuddihy's qualities and those other qualities are combined. Remember this is also the player who wrestled Montrose's goalie to the ground a fortnight ago in order to get the ball back in play quickly so that we could go on and win the game.

We approached today wisely insofar as we set-up to frustrate Falkirk. And we did that well for about two-thirds of the game. There was good discipline in the shape and the decision to play Mortimer on his weaker side ahead of Docherty was a smart one given that Morrison would be the direct opponent for our left-back. Those are the only positives however. As it was at Montrose, even with a shape and system meant to mitigate our weaknesses, we came undone because our weaknesses ran too deep. With Rumsby, Gomis and Nicoll in our side we'll rarely be able to hold out for ninety minutes against a team with a decent work-rate and a bit of creative nous about them. And against a full-time team on a big park with players like Morrison, Nesbitt and Telfer buzzing around the prospects are all the pooer for a clean sheet. From an approach point of view, the question then has to be: can we score first and/or score more than one so that we can take a point(s)? But with a crocked David Goodwillie, Ross Cunningham and Barry Cuddihy being our only hopes going forward you'd have to think not. Games playing out as they did against Alloa and Montrose will be the exception and not the rule, in other words. Congratulations to Falkirk of course. You're as good a side as you have been since you were relegated from the Championship in my opinion. I thought Sheerin showed some wisdom today when he had Morrison push up and inside a little in the first-half. We were so deep that patience clearly wasn't going to reward Morrison and although that change in itself couldn't be tied to a breakthrough it shows that he knows when you're hitting a wall and won't wait to act. And in the second-half, having Morrison switch sides, getting your defenders to come right into our half, having more than one body occupying our central defenders and getting your midfielders closer in to Keena and Nesbitt; all of that seemed to me to be the right way to react to our stuffiness. We need to sign more and better players if we don't want to get relegated. It's as simple as that.

He played in his natural position in the second half against Kilmarnock. He done well then in my opinion. Held it up alright. Linked well with nearby players. Nearly scored an overhead kick. Looked like he had some instincts in the box. In every other match he played we had him playing out of position. Mostly on the left hand side of a front three or on the left wing as fifth midfielder without the ball. Whatever it was. He was visibly irritated by that in the Albion Rovers friendly and against Broomhill. If any premiership clubs were looking at him that must've been quite a while ago. The Berwick site has him describing himself as a pacey forward who likes to get in behind. Perhaps he was pacey. He isn't any longer. He's built like a barrel. But then a lot players have lost their fitness over the last year or two and he's made the drop to part-time football. I'm in the give him a chance camp, in short. We need to be cultivating long-term alternatives to Goodie. Not straight swaps of course. But players who can do a turn as and when he's not a ninety minute player any longer.

Yes. I agree. I was being gracious with the 'team in the making' line if I'm honest. If Clyde were in Alloa's position I'd be asking all those questions that you have. Something that Barry was bad for at Clyde was asking players to do jobs that they couldn't do. Even those he'd signed himself. I heard him lashing Sammon today. And asking questions of Hutton at full-time. Doesn't seem like he's changed in that respect. He still has the demeanour of a manager who's frustrated that he's managing players who're far more limited than he was as a player. Mendy is ridiculously heavy and will sell goals against better teams. Not playing Robertson from the off struck me as odd as well. Niang and Howie will do similar jobs so I'm not sure you need them both against a mob like us. I could go on of course. Both clubs have their issues to work out. That's for sure.

In the end you'd have to say that a sensibly strong team and conservative set-up in addition to some terrific bits of individual quality won us what was a very closely fought match. Cunningham's cross and Goodwillie's positioning for the opener were magnificent. And we saw in the winning goal a glimpse of the quality that's long been dormant in David Goodwillie. It was a throwback to the equaliser he scored against Elgin on his home debut for Clyde four years ago; decisive, composed and seemingly against the odds. Without his niggling hamstring problem and in a team which can supply him with opportunities to run at defenders he's doing that every second week. Let's hope his injury lets up. I would echo what Waspie wrote about Alloa. They're a team in the making just as we are. The shape and the system they ran with until we scored are clearly unfamiliar to their players and some players are clearly playing in roles that they're not their strongest in. Of course, Alloa made some sensible changes once they went a goal down. But you'd have to say that if they've not got enough in the tank to put a couple past a team with as lethargic a midfield and defence as we do then they have something to worry about. For my money, I think Alloa missed Trouten or even a fit Mark Lamont. Scougall, in combination with those two, would probably have caused us a lot more problems, playing between our lines. I think if Alloa want to beat us in future they'd have more luck playing two up. Rumsby and Elsden weren't up against the busiest player in Sammon and will almost always fare better against a forward whose only challenge is a physical one as opposed to a leg race or a marking challenge. But it was just what the doctor ordered for us after the midweek horror show. In Elsden, albeit he's had little to do so far, there's the prospect of us having signed a centre back who resembles a centre back. The same goes for Munro as a right-back. And in the shape and system we've now played against both Alloa and Montrose, there's some hope that at least we won't be pushovers. I wouldn't go straight from today's result to optimism however. We're still a chronically slow side outside of Ross Cunningham and Barry Cuddihy. And we'll be very vulnerable to sides like Falkirk and Queen's Park who can set a mean tempo and have decent pace and midfield menace in their sides. Depending on how robust Falkirk's midfield is, we should probably keep the same team for next week. With Nicoll, we matched the physical challenge Alloa brought today. Perhaps if Falkirk are less about that then we bring Cuddihy back in. That'd improve our possession I expect.

Two sides with systems they're still figuring out on the evidence of the first twenty. Both quite cagey in their set up. Lots of protection for the defences. Easier game for our defenders because they're under no pressure. We've put a strong team out too. Which is good. However, there is little or nothing going on beyond our midfield when we have possession. Goodie is barely moving. And there's nobody inbetween the lines, moving their defenders about. I can see it being close. Alloa could get behind our midfield because it's slow in places and they've got good, dynamic players to work things through the middle and down the sides, where they're sometimes giving Taggart license to push up.

Unbelievable tekkers.

Right. Having let the dust settle on last night here's my tuppence-worth. There are only four reasons Lennon could have for picking the team he did. None of these are mutually exclusive. One is that he underestimated BSC. Another is that we have unreported injury problems. A third is that he overrates the ability and versatility of the players he has signed. And the fourth is that we treated the fixture with calculated contempt. That is, because the risk-reward trade-off of the challenge cup is a bad one. Maybe not even enough to risk players who we want to be sharp against Alloa on Saturday. Alloa haven't had a midweek fixture of course so the fourth reason is the one I could just about accept. Judging by his post-match comments it certainly appears as though the third reason applies. However much hunger and apparent ability Andrew, McGrath, Mortimer, Docherty, Cunningham and Jones have shown in training, none showed up well last night. Only Jones comes close to having some utility as a league one player in the short term. And that's if he is given a very limited brief in a team that works hard around him. The quality gap between senior part-time football and the likes of the lowland league is increasingly small and has always been capable of being bridged by well motivated sides with a home advantage. But assuming my calculated contempt reason doesn't apply, what really stings about last night is that the players, shape and blatantly daft system which we ran with would have produced an even worse result in scoreline terms had we played a decent junior side like Beith. Or even a decent amateur side like Colville Park. Think about it. BSC's centre backs had as easy a shift as they ever will. Other than five or six headers which they had to contest with Jones they came under no pressure in possession at all and were seldom even made to move about to track runs across, behind or in front of them. That fact alone condems our approach to last night's match. Whether it was the manifest silliness of Love and Nicoll as some deep-lying double act, the use of our second-choice full-backs, the use of McGrath as a midfielder, the obvious lack of any particular ploy to score a goal, the silence on the pitch and from the dugout or anything else, the whole thing was a rammy. We played with a giant centre forward and barely sent in a cross until the last ten minutes. Even up until the whistle, we doggedly tried to play through a side with every man behind the ball on one of the tightest pitches there is. No pace. No hold-up play. Nothing resembling menace. We haven't won in six. We're taking in strays. We've no clear system of play. For my money, Danny has the rest of the month to save his job. Picking up fewer than three points from the next three would make it very difficult to stay in his corner.

£17 Adults. £14 Concessions. £5 Under-18s. £1 Under-12s. Expect it'll be pay at the gate or fire doors as the case may be. I think there will be a capacity limit but it'll be set so high that it shouldn't be a bother. Couple of thousand or something like that. If you think the prices are a bit steep I'll console you by telling you this: you'll probably win.

It's like Mantis wrote. But insofar as there was anything memorable about his performance it was that he was very decisive in coming out to claim, dribble and clear one ball which got behind our sluggish centre backs and left a BSC player bearing down on him. On another occassion he might've made our supporters worry that he'd let one under him but in fact he smothered it well enough albeit he seemed to leave it late. This was all in the first half. Nothing comes to mind from the second half. On what I've seen from him so far, which isn't much, I'd say that inexperience and height are probably the things that'll hold him back. As well having arguably the best and certainly one of the most experienced goalkeepers in the division to compete with in David Mitchell. Then again, that could work to his advantage insofar as he has a good role model and competition for a place.

This beautiful game never ceases to amaze me.