Clydeside

Aye. Let's be serious. The chances of Docherty putting in a shift as a centre-half against Morton are extremely low. That would be all the more true if he's in a two with another player and not a three. He's too wee to play as a centre-half. Also, with the weight he carries I just don't see him robbing forwards at their feet or giving us pace as an insurance policy back there. And if you're going to come at me with a list of brilliant but stout central defenders; the Puyols, the Cannavaros. Have a word. Even with the much fairer comparator of say, Ricky Little, the difference in ability once you've controlled for height is still big. Little almost always plays beside a much bigger partner in any case. Also bear in mind that we're up against, at a guess, Gozie Ugwu and Gary Oliver. Ugwu's a big lad. And Oliver will play to pull defenders out of position. You probably want players who can deal with those things. I'd maybe try Cassidy in centre because of his height as a couter to Ugwu. Nicoll might be an option too but he's a doubt I understand. I think in the long term if we want any change out of Docherty we'll probably only see it if he's used as a sitting midfielder in a three. He might have it in him to maintain the positonal discipline that role requires. If he did, that could recommend him to it. He is decent technically too and has a bit of dig about him. Other than that role, I'd say as an Eddie Malone type wing-back in a 3-5-2 or as a left-midfielder with Livingstone behind him, he could shut off that side for us and probably chip in with some assists by sticking balls in from deep. Shame we can't get today. Some weather...

I thought we were rotten tonight. We were only spared a defeat by the very direct but very infrequent threats that Cunningham, Jones and Goodwillie brought. Take away Cunningham's pace, Goodwillie's power and Jones's presence and you'd be left with very little to redeem us. Mitchell aside. I thought EK were very well organised. They had a very clear system and it worked well against us. They pulled our defence from side to side. They dominated the midfield for a few memorably long spells. And they had a good physicality about them too. Something we didn't have. Particularly at the back where we're everything from timid to downright slow. I think tonight showed that two central midfielders is a no go for us. Splaine and Gomis were out on their feet. They were played through very easily and by poorer players than they'll encounter in league games. And what on earth is that role Goodwillie's been given!? Get him back where he belongs, rubbing shoulders with defenders. Not dropping deeper than Splaine and putting no pressure on the ball. It was a silly system when you think about it. Jones isolated. Goodwillie in a role he's shown nothing in. Gomis and Splaine with hardly any reliable outlets when they pick up the ball. It was doomed to fail. I hope it was just an experiment. It sure looked like it puzzled the players anyway. I don't think a four man midfield is a goer for us. And I think we need to look at a back three if we're not signing any more defenders. A two formed of Rumsby, Page or Balatoni is going to be pulled about silly and it'll get roughed up by the better forwards in the league. We need a third man in there as security. Five in midfield would give us a numerical advantage which I think we need due to our lack of legs in there. And then a two up would see to it that we can put some pressure on the ball. That's something we've done very little of in any game we've played since coming back. I don't think we can just let teams play out from the back against us. It's asking for it. On the positive side, it's clear that Livingstone's a better option than Docherty for the left hand side. And Paul Kennedy picked some great cutting passes when he came on.

I don't think there's anything in there that's at odds with what I wrote. Bear in mind I was in the 'I wouldn't have signed him' camp. He could be so much better than he is. Smaller players put themselves about better. All true. Nonetheless, he's enough about him to do a job in certain circumstances. And he will win headers and breaks in the box, however few. The kind that can make the difference when you're having no joy otherwise.

That was bad. And there's a few ways you could come at how and why it was bad. For a start, a very weak team was picked. And although you could certainly go one level down and criticise the shape and system, those things were less key than the decisions to drop Goodwillie and play Docherty ahead of Livingstone. Perhaps those decisions were down to fitness. But whatever the case was I think we owed a lot of how poor we were to those decisions. Kilmarnock could've roasted us today. As others have wrote, it could've been four or five within the first thirty minutes. We applied no pressure to their defenders whatever. They were able to cruise up the park and play triangles through our lines without ever getting out of first gear. Our back four was as bad as I've seen it since Chapman. Whether it was Burke roasting Docherty, Balatoni making dogs legs in the line and playing Killie's forwards onside or Rumsby being roughed up. The whole operation was a rammy. David Mitchell was rightly furious. And we've him to thank for keeping the score down. I expect he'll have a busy season. The midfield gave the defence very little protection. I'm not sure the central midfielders know their roles yet and they never had a lot on ahead or to the side of them when they picked it up. Love was totally contained in the new role we've given him. I don't think he's good enough to play with his back to goal like that and get turned against a decent team. And Cunningham, like most of his teammates other than perhaps Love and Cuddihy, wasn't working all that hard to get on the ball, however many flashes of talent he showed. Splaine and Gomis dwelled on the ball and got caught in possession quite a lot. I wouldn't be too critical of Jones but his work rate wasn't great and he was drawn away from the centre too much. We'll repeat all season that there's a lot wrong with his game but it won't get better on the bench or up on his own. In the second half I thought the decisions to take Jones and Splaine off, however patchy they'd been up until then, were mistaken. Jones showed in winning the penalty that however frustrating he is in other respects, simply by being a difficult presence to deal with on one or two occassions in a match he can pull something out the hat. The second half of today's game was arguably the ideal one to have his presence gambled into until the end. And then with Splaine, well, aside from Cuddihy whose excellent run made the penalty, Splaine had been the only player to dribble out of midfield and threaten Kilmarnock's goal. Infrequently albeit. Once we scored the penalty we barely threatened again. I don't know why we have everyone back at corners either. That's nuts. It could be that we're not taking the competition too seriously. And we were certainly at a fitness disadvantage. You hope those things account for today somewhat anyway. Even so, you can see against a good side where we're weak. We need roles for those lads in the middle of the park. We need to sign some more defenders. And we should probably have another think about what we're doing with Love and Cunningham this season. I worry that it'll be a long season if we're going to play one up. And I would add that we look as though we could be out on our feet without changing the shape of the defence to a tight three. Or, even better, signing some more defenders.

A worryingly weak and sluggish performance so far. Admittedly against a side who look vastly fitter and physically stronger in every position. We've picked a weak team. Jones up on his own is insane against a side this good. Maybe, just maybe, we're picking our battles in light of the game against EK. Leaving Goodie out can only be with his fitness in mind. However, having Docherty on the left again is a bit concerning. At least if Danny think he's better than Livingstone. Or, as David wrote, that Livingstone isn't training well. On the upside, it's better these weaknesses are laid bare now than later. Underlines the need for more defenders to be signed.

I think it bears remembering that we played a game against a full-time team on Saturday while Stranraer had a day off. That showed. Stranraer were sharper in most areas throughout the match. Luckily for us they couldn't score to save themselves. Another team would've trounced us tonight. We should also remember that this part of the season always stores up some heavy legs. Coming out of pre-season into the rhythm of two games a week is torture for part-time outfits and usually guarantees their early knock outs. Still, there was a lot of weakness on show from us. With a mind to rotating the squad for the tougher Kilmarnock game on Saturday I'm sure, Danny had our two least talented full-backs start. Then there was the occasionally confused and sluggish pairing of Balatoni and Rumsby inbetween. A back four that would take a doing in other circumstances. The centre of the park, heavy legged albeit, needs some careful calibration. Stranraer cut right through the middle of us time and time again tonight with the space between midfield and defence totally vacant. Who's the sitter? That's what we need to work out. It's Kennedy, I would guess. The rest wouldn't have the discipline. Not a lot of going smoothly between midfield and attack. All the quick and neat triangles we saw in pre-season were gone. Only flashes of quality from Goodie, Splaine, Love and Cuddihy probably saw us have enough to see it over the line in the end. And the odd good stop from Mitchell too. A great win all things considered but we need a rest for Saturday. We'll need Cuddihy and Livingstone firing on all cylinders too. And you'd fancy Page ahead of Rumsby purely on a freshness basis. Kennedy, Gomis and Splaine central.

Let's see how he copes in the real contests but I think this is good business. I think what might transpire is that the balancing act will take time. That is, to get the right blend between Kennedy, Gomis and Splaine or potentially Cuddihy. Who carries out what role, who takes up what space and so on. But that'd follow for any new midfield. We're only two or three players away from having really quite a decent side. I'm mostly thinking about defenders there of course.

I think our strongest side would beat their strongest side in a competitive match.

I understand that we didn't give too many players the full match. That makes sense with our first competitive match coming up on Tuesday night. Danny would've been doing something silly if he'd asked us to go out and keep up the sort of tempo we did against Raith, Albion Rovers and Aidrie for long spells. The incentives for the Rangers players were probably a bit stronger than for our lads today as well.

It's really handy to see it like that actually. I think Danny probably does stick with that 451/433 arrangement we've seen down the years. That is, as our strongest hand. I'd like to see a 3-5-2 at some point with Jones and Goodwillie together. But the team you've sketched looks strong to me. It could play a bit, that's for sure. Some might want Balatoni starting. I certainly would.

Happily I think we can be quite sure that Kennedy wouldn't underwhelm in the way that Jay Lang and Gary Arbuckle did. While both of those players showed up quite well in their trial matches, very memorably, they also let on to us that they had the habit of holding onto the ball for a lot longer than really good players would. And despite picking some great passes against Thistle, as I remember that match, Lang looked nothing like mobile enough to play in the centre of midfield. I shudder to remember that Thistle friendly actually. Although we won it, it marked the beginning of a period where we often accepted as 'good' players who were decidedly 'bad'. Fast forward a year or two and we were putting players like John Sweeney on a pedestal. He was another one, along with Murray Henderson and a few others, who you could tell on a single showing to be below par. I think we played Ross County away in our first friendly under Millar and it was clear even then that we were in for a long season. About the worst in our history as it happened. The matches Kennedy played in had some tempo to them and were played against teams with a good number of players with something to prove. There were far fewer trialists and brand new signings with something to prove playing against us in the friendlies that Lang and Arbuckle were involved in. You could see in Kennedy that he instinctively moved the ball quickly and forward where possible. He wasn't slow. He's got decent stature. We could be wrong about him, but it's a lot less likely I think. Like everyone else I hope he signs. I understand he has been with squad post Airdrie so we live in hope.

To read this thread big Jones might wonder what he'll have to do to win us over. Sure, his limitations are there for all to see. But he held up play well and frequently enough today to earn praise for that. Leave aside the fact that his presence created the first goal for us and he scored a classy goal himself. Just because he'll take it into feet instinctively rather than on his napper every time doesn't mean he isn't a target. I'd like his target man game to be more old school. I think I've said that before. But given how able we are to knock it about we should be happy that, as someone remarked, there's trace elements of a decent five a side player in him too. He can work on his Andy Smith, Graeme Jones etc. impression as we go through the season. Like everyone else, but for Cuddihy should he play on the right, I worry about us in the full back areas. I include a concern about Livingstone as a defender in that estimate. And I think we need a bigger, good quality centre half in the side too. Who knows. Maybe Cassidy can push on. Just give Kennedy the papers before he's pinched. Would be a wee bit worried if I was an Airdrie man but there's time yet of course.

The sides are imbalanced for sure. We're more or less full strength minus Goodie and Mitchell. Lots of good possession and little pressing from Airdrie has let us strut our stuff. Splaine in particular in the first half hour. We would get found out badly down the left in a competitive game with the current eleven and shape, which has Livingstone and Cuddihy high up at times on either side. Jones drew players in to make room for the busy Love to score the first. And we worked a nice move across the pitch to see Jones showboating with a back heel to finish the second. It's almost as if he read your posts, Brian. And mine to be fair; so much depends on how he's used but in this system it's a very favourable arrangement for him. I think Cunningham and Love could've gotten closer to him at times but it's the first time we've set up like this so you'd expect a bit of fine tuning. I do rue a bit that Chris Johnstone and Mark Lamont aren't with us any longer. As well as Love as has done in his role today and yesterday, a nippier and more polished player like Johnstone could really thrive in a system like this behind Jones. Think Brian Gilmour behind Gary Arbuckle. The latter almost seemed to overcome his limitations with a player like Gilmour plugging away in between the lines and turning on a sixpence to feed him. Let's see what we're up to in the second.

I don't agree with you on how he fared for the brief period he was on the pitch. I never watched the warm up so I'll take your word for that. In the game he only got on the ball maybe three or four times. On one occassion he did lose the ball poorly. However, on one of the other occassions he got on the ball just over halfway after taking it out of the air. He got turned and made his way past a couple of defenders knocking one down in the process and showed a decent turn of pace. I think the play ended with us having an attempt on goal with Rovers' defence scrambling. Or maybe we won a corner, I forget. Maybe nobody else wants them playing together. I don't know. I just think I'd like to see them up top as a pair for a while to see if it works. We're as well as testing the proposition in a friendly against a decent side before the competitive games come around.

I could concede the point on Sinclair. I think we all agree he didn't show up much for Clyde. It was more a comparison of style. Both he and Splaine seem to like a long pass and are more about making play than breaking it up. You can draw the line there. However, if you're lashing me for the Goodwillie-Jones pairing I don't follow you. We can't have signed Jones to play up himself, can we? You want a player buzzing around him. Who better than Goodie for that job. I'd just like to see it happen in a friendly game before a competitive one so we've some idea of how they fare together.

We've only seen him a couple of times in friendlies. He has split opinion you're right. I don't think he's a bad player at all. There's a lot to recommend him. He moves it quickly. He's a decent size. He's quite solid technically. He showed off some good vision and passing against Raith and again today. I wouldn't surprised if he's got a decent delivery, free kick and long range shot on him. Though we haven't really seen that yet. What worries me a wee bit is if he can put down all the good qualities he has every week. He's not got a lot of senior football behind him. He's not the nippiest player. Nor is he a complete slouch, I grant. He doesn't show the wisdom not to lose possession that Gomis or even Cuddihy does. Then again, he's more minded to take a risk and you need a few players like that. A conservative manager might want him in a tight three rather than a two because even with Gomis beside him we might not have the legs and toughness about us to win the midfield battles that we need to. I'm trying to place him as a player and I keep thinking of three players: David Sinclair, Alexanders Gramovics and Paul Watson at Montrose. Now... Suspend your incredulity. One of those players is a lot better than the others. I know that. But they've all been centre midfielders. They've all got a decent long range pass in their locker. None of them will be remembered as outstanding athletes. And they all, at different times and in slightly better and worse ways, sort of play to link the lines up and muck in more with scoring goals than stopping them. Watson has been a good player for Montrose by many accounts. But I have a lot of memories of us zipping through their lines leaving him in chase. And when we had a stinker as a team, but for a good free-kick or long range strike, Gramovics wasn't the player pulling us out of the rut. Nor was Sinclair obviously. I think it all gets to how we use him. We need to see more of him to really understand where we'll fit him in.

I think we were weaker in the centre of defence in the second half. That was because Docherty came inside to play beside Page as a centre back. He didn't do well there. Then you had Livingstone coming on to play where Docherty had, as a left back, but with Gomis gone from the centre of the park the back left-hand third of the pitch wasn't quite as well protected as it was in the first half. I think we were much stronger offensively in the second half. In the first half with an unfit Tade, McGrath and Robinson we didn't have a lot of teeth. The deeper role Goodwillie played was an obvious waste of his talent. And the whole left hand side was shut off to Docherty and McGrath in the first half because of Rovers rapid shut-downs out near the dugouts. You can add into it all that McGrath was probably being played out of position on the flank too. When we got Cunningham and Livingstone down the left and Love and Mortimer down the right we had some menace about us. Of course, it was also the case that Goodwillie led the line then, with Cuddihy and Kennedy offering more threat in possession than Gomis and Splaine had in the first half. I think we could have a good, competitive pool of central midfielders if we signed Kennedy. Gomis is a Rolls Royce of a signing with plenty miles still in his tank. Cuddihy ticks us over nicely in the same way Gomis does and gives us more offensively. He also balances out Gomis as a left-footer. Splaine has enough about him to persuade me that we're not wasting a wage. He reminds me of David Sinclair a little. A better player in some ways but he seems to play a similar game and comes with some of the same physical limitations I remember Sinclair having. I'd like to see Jones paired with Goodwillie tomorrow. And I'd like to see a central mixture of Gomis, Cuddihy and Kennedy at points through the match. Be keen to see how those players hit it off together.

If it's Airdrie we're playing tomorrow then that'll be an interesting watch. We'll have the likes of Easton and Agnew to deal with in the midfield. Gallagher and Allan up front. Although we've already played Raith Rovers I don't think we'll have had quite as hard a test as we will against Airdrie. They've a power of trialists knocking around too so there'll be a special incentive for them. I think it'll be a decent game for a friendly.

I would make him an offer right away. He's of good stature which would address a weakness of ours in the middle of the park. He looks quite polished technically. He read the game reasonably well. He moved it quickly and smartly. I could go on. If I understand rightly he is a sitting midfielder. If he's got the discipline for that role then he's a perfect fit for our midfield. A trio formed of him, Cuddihy and Gomis would keep the ball very well indeed. Gomis and Cuddihy could push on in that scenario with Kennedy left as the insurance policy. Alternatively, he could be paired with Gomis in a two. Then we could play two up: Jones and Goodwillie. That's a pairing I'd like to see. His through ball for the third was inch perfect. Just get him signed. And another centre back please. A big domineering bugger. We could have a right good versatile squad then.

Why Raith didn't bring Ugwu and that other big forward they had back I don't know. Looked a bit light up top on this evening's evidence. Shrewd business by Gus getting him to Ton.

There's your man.

He is there. The commentator remarked that his knee was swollen up after sixty minutes on Saturday (Tade), so won't be on tonight. He's going to speak to his former Raith colleagues afterwards.

I think a few supporters, myself included, had gotten wind of Tade training with us last week. Obviously, your immediate reaction is: away...! I think we should moderate our expectations a bit. You want to say that you'd take him in crutches but he's been plagued by a knee injury for years now. Be really interesting to see what condition he's in. Good tempo to the game tonight. Only a friendly of course but, as someone pointed out, having Gomis in midfield is great. He can do it all. Any doubts about his fitness should be removed just on the evidence of the first forty-five minutes I think. Splaine looks tidy but you wonder if he'd struggle impose himself in a two with Gomis. While it might seem quick to judge, I agree with David that the back four would be taken to the cleaners in a competitive game. That's a worry for sure.

This reminds of... when was it again... Oh aye. Every pre-season for the last fifteen years. One gang doesn't like the players we're signing. The other gang has a go at that gang for being negative. And then we're spiteful or vindictive toward one another through the season as one opinion or the other becomes justified by results. Nobody has written us off. Everyone understands that we'll sign more players. Once we've finished our squad we'll all have our opinions about its chances. Those supporters who're worried about the players we've signed, Gomis and Balatoni aside, aren't wrong or stupid to be worried. For the most part, they've seen the players play with other clubs and they've concluded that we're signing players who either don't have a good track record and/or aren't better players than those players signed by the clubs we'll compete with. They may end up being wrong about how these players work out for us but their views are, as of now, completely reasonable. Elevating the manager's judgement over that of fellow supporters in order to belittle their views, sarcastically deriding fellow supporters as geniuses and appealing to our collective pity by suggesting that some players who've come in for criticism might read this forum is a silly way to go about our buisness. There is a bad historical comparison doing the rounds too. In the junior revolution under Maitland, we didn't swoop for players who had profound question marks hung over their ability because of their age, lack of recent success or their apparent trial-and-failure at other senior clubs. We signed ten or maybe eleven players from the juniors. Many of them were known to be winners in terms of their attitude and track record. None of them were over the hill. And almost of all of them were physically strong players. Those facts distinguish the signings we made under Maitland from most of the signings we've made in the past month. But I go back to what I wrote earlier on. We're not done in the transfer market yet. Two or three quality signings would turn our squad from looking lacklustre, which I think it does at the moment, to looking like one which could fight for a play-off spot.