Clydeside

Page. Mhmm. Aye... That's... That's a worry now. If he's the last defender we sign and we don't play a three/five across the back, I'd be very worried about the heart of our defence. And even then... It would be good if our next round of signings featured a player or two whose stock had traded upward in the last few years.

It doesn't always. Barry Ferguson made us more direct in his penultimate season and we benefitted from that. Rangers gameplay was radically different in Walter Smith's two spells at Rangers but in both cases successful. And Callum Davidson made some quick ideological aboutfaces in the early part of his time as St Johnstone manager. Those led to the most successful season in their history in my opinion.

I don't think it necessarily matters that we sign players who'll be in and out of the team before signing the sort of players who're obviously good enough to be in every week. It only that matters that we do end up with a strong bunch. That said, the order of things could be an indication that we're being outfoxed in the transfer market which wouldn't bode well. On Jones, I am and always will be one of those supporters who thinks it's better to have a big forward than not. For certain games it just pays to have the option of a target player if a team is stopping you getting up the pitch and into their half otherwise. Having said that, I have to admit I already confided in one fellow supporter that I would not be keen on signing Jones. That is, before I knew we were considering it. I've seen him for Stranraer and Dumbarton. And once for Stranraer against Dumbarton at the rock as it happens. He's not very mobile. He takes a long time to release the ball. And his target man game just generally isn't there. He usually drops off or drifts toward the touchlines to receive it. Rather than keep touch tight with a defender and pick it out of the sky or knock it on. On the other hand, the big thing with another forward, particularly one with Jones' presence is that if he partners David Goodwillie and we've got players bombing forward beyond him, all things Dumbarton didn't have... Maybe... Just maybe... We could get a good thing going because of the attention he'll draw. His signing interests me much more than any other insofar as it shows that Lennon is open to changing things up a little style wise. I regard that as wise on his part but would hang a question mark over Jones' ability. It's not a big lad with a track record like John Gemmell or Mark McGuigan we're getting. It's a player who's relatively new to the senior game and doesn't have a whole lot to recommend him.

That's a belter of a signing for them. They'll be pushing the full-time teams all the way again.

I wouldn't go straight to pessimism on this one despite the conflicting accounts given by QP supporters. We've signed an athletic player for the right hand side. He's a good height. He's got a decent engine. He can play as a defender, wing-back or midfielder. If the worst accounts are true and he's not the most polished or defensively aware player, well, he's had a season or two to work on that. The hope has to be that we're getting back the same, good raw materials but with a bit more refinement and experience as a defender. We'll see I suppose.

There's nothing quite as permanent as a temporary government programme. The limited crowd and mask mandates are absurd. Nonetheless, it'll be good to get back and watch football in person. Hopefully we get weather like today for the friendlies.

If by that you mean he isn't then yes, you're right. I see some websites listing him as right footer. However, I'm absolutely certain he's good with his left. I should've put it that way in the first place. I had a wee poke around the net there because you had me doubting. There's a highlight reel from his time at Thistle which confirms my memory. Plenty of right and left footed dribbles, passes and interceptions. Quite an underrated positive attribute that. Some of his predecessors couldn't dribble with either foot.

Damn you...! Well I'll compensate with another piece of positivity then. He's a left footed central defender and there aren't a lot of good ones going around. That's another point in his favour and it probably featured in Danny's thinking. He does like to play out from the back and being able to go out to both sides would be an improvement. McNiff didn't help much with that. I'll also say that, as I remember him, Balatoni's quite good at reading the game. That's something we lost with Lang. And he isn't a timid defender in the way that some of the more technically gifted central defenders are these days. Like I say, if we could get a right good aerially dominant centre back to play beside him it could actually be a good bit of business.

A positive spin might be that there's some hearsay evidence to suggest we beat Dumbarton to Balatoni's signature. See their thread. Balatoni fits the bill insofar as he's a central defender that can play a bit. We don't have any of those. As a sweeper in a three he could be an asset. However in a two, especially if paired with Rumsby, I think we'd be asking for trouble if we started him. Unless his partner was an outstandingly dominant centre back that is. Then maybe we'd have a tolerable balance. He's not the quickest. And he's not the biggest or greatest in the air. That's why I say what I do. But he does have decent experience and is a good, composed player in possession most of the time.

I can't think that anybody would defend Marshall's awful positioning. And I can't think that anyone would defend Hendry's wild decision to shoot. In what proportion blame rests with each player doesn't interest me much. There has been a lot of optimism about our chances at this tournament but it doesn't square with having Marshall and Hendry start. But for Allan McGregor's retirement and Craig Gordon's unfortunate fate at Hearts it's arguable that Marshall would still be at the bottom of our goalkeeping pecking order just as he has been in years gone by. I've never regarded him as a particularly good goalkeeper outside of his shot-stopping skills. Jack Hendry's involvement is an even more stark thing. This is a player who at the age of 26 has barely played 100 senior matches. Fewer than 50 of those have been at a level which would normally recommend you to the national team. That ought to mean he isn't due a jersey. Potential and stature irrespective. I could go on about Dykes and others but I think other posters have made the same points. If we want to turn things around we will need to deploy all of our quality at once and we will need to do so in a system that masks the glaringly low quality defensive pool we have, Robertson and Tierney aside. It might seem ironic but I'd have Gallagher on the sheet first just by reason of being a very aggressive defender and doing the basics reliably. Poor as he may be in possession. I don't fancy the rest much.

To be clear, I judge from recent experience that McKee, Geggan, Paton and Hopkirk aren't rubbish. The rest I've never seen. You're obviously right insofar as I don't know how it can be said about Dumbarton's signings that they're largely rubbish. There are four who aren't. The other four might be. Largely doesn't mean half. I think we all follow.

As long as we're clear that I'm being a keyboard manager and that Paul Paton, Joe McKee, David Hopkirk and Andy Geggan aren't rubbish then I'll indulge you...! I'm perfectly serious when I say that I would be delighted if we managed to squeeze both Paton and Gomis into the same midfield. They have as many differences as they do similarites. Paton is right footed and Gomis is left footed. Paton could be relied on to provide good deliveries. Gomis gets about the park better and can carry the ball over a distance even at his age. I could go on. You're right that I'd want them in a three, being older in years and not the tallest pair. It would be important to have some some guile round about them certainly. Faster, more forward mobile players. And I wouldn't characterise Gomis as a strict sitting midfielder. Not in the way Ray Grant was. It's true that you'll find Gomis behind the play a lot. And it's true that you'll find him in and around the centre circle a lot. But even as recently as last season he was often joining Falkirk's attacks, running ahead of the play and into the box. There are no end of highlights on YouTube that'll bear that out. He is more about defending than attacking of course. His strengths lend him to that. But to finish the point, he and Paton would not be the double negative I think you're suggesting. Gomis has never been a more prominent player than when he's been part of a three either (Dundee United). In his second spell there he played with Paton as a pair and sometimes with Rankin too. Your point about Nicoll is taken but I have it on decent authority that we're not emptying our pockets to keep him on so I wouldn't place too much emphasis on him being here or being in contention to start every week. No argument on where Hopkirk plays or that he didn't do the business for us. But I've seen him before and since at Stenny and he's a right good player. I'm not sure we should be chuffed about having Cunningham or Robinson ahead of him given Hopkirk's track record. Robinson we've never seen and Cunningham has had a handful of games to recommend him a new contract. I think we could have a player, don't mistake me. But I'm tapping into the point Moonster made about Dumbarton blending youth with a good spread of experience. I'd rather be in their shoes than ours. But there's time to revisit that opinion still!

I agree with all of that. But to say the obvious, Gomis is one central midfielder and we'll play with at least two, hence the Paton would start comment. Same applies to Hopkirk, he goes on whatever side Cunningham isn't on or in the spot beside Goodie.

Which ones?

True, true. As others have written, we could still sign a load of good players, making all of Dumbarton's business seem irrelevant or, god willing, make it look like they've acted hastily while we've bided our time for better players.

Tempted to say that just by reason of having decent stature and coming from a higher level, so would Edin Lynch, Dumbarton's most recent capture. A centre half too.

McKee, Paton and Hopkirk would start for us. No danger.

Never heard of this lad but when you think about it he's not unlike Galt who we were speculating about. A wide player that comes inside onto his other foot. Hopefully what he lacks in experience he can make up for by being as direct and creative as Danny has made out. Someone mentioned a system where you'd have Cunningham on the left and this lad on the right. 'Inverted wingers' as I've heard them called in television land. I think that could work quite well if Robinson brings the same nippiness and persistence of threat that Cunningham has (e.g. against East Fife in our last game). And we could always have them swap over if teams set-up to stop them as inevitably they will if they're effective. Perhaps a positive that we've overlooked about Robinson is that he's a decent height. Sometimes having someone out on one side who'll get you the odd flick-on or knock-down gets you and extra few over the piece. He's an improvement on our current players in that sense. The most optimistic spin I can dream up is that with Livingstone behind Cunningham and Cuddihy behind Robinson, if nothing else, it looks like we could have decent athleticism down both sides. That'd be an improvement certainly.

If he's still sprightly we'd be getting an unusually good player insofar as he can play with both feet and play right across midfield. If you look at his stats for the 17/18 season with QP in league one you'll see they were excellent: 3 goals and 17 assists in all competitions. But he's never bettered those numbers. Arguably that's because he's played a lot less since. I just think there are more Galts out there than there are Davidsons. We're not long after shedding Lamont, Johnston and McGlinchey. Two of those lads have posted similar numbers to Galt in recent years. And McGlinchey might fancy he could do the same in a decent team. Our squad's already carrying a lot of paceless bit part players. I wouldn't be prioritising the likes of a Galt for that reason. Having said that, if we've got the budget and we could get a solid spine first, maybe we could get a late flourish out of him.

I might take a punt on Galt as a squaddie but he won't have the legs we remember him having and we've already got Love, Docherty and Livingstone for that side. He does have some flair about him. That could backfill what we've lost in Syvertsen. And if he could fire in a few like the screamer he scored against us under Barry, more power to him. Iain Davidson who has left Raith. Although getting on in years, for the heart of our defence I'd happily take the chance. Experience is something we've badly missed back there.

I'll give it a week or two before joining in the pessimism but I can see why it's in the air. There's a lot of competition for players who're known quantities and we've probably lost a few signing races already. If we're signing players that the likes of Cove have been content to let go and being beaten by them to the signature of pedigreed league one players that could mark us out as a bottom-half side if it becomes the story of the summer. Livingstone's an inexperienced player who didn't do too well at Cove. It's worth remebering that he could still go the way of Gavin Brown when we get him back on part-time legs. Morgyn Neill on the other hand is a player with his best years ahead of him and who has a pedigree at this level. Reading into his move to Cove, it's to Hartley's credit that he put the feelers out as early as he did and underlined that he wanted Neill onboard even if they made it into the Championship. The length of contract Cove have given him reflects their financial strength and ambition. A more optimistic perspective from me would be that finding centre backs who can cut it at this level isn't the perennial problem that some have suggested. We've had plenty players in that position who've been reliable or better in the last decade. Sure, they're thrown into contrast by the likes of McNiff, Rumsby, Henderson and others. But Lang, Cogill, McQueen, Gallagher, Halkett, Marsh, McMillan and others I could name have been good. Even our poorer managers have found them, Chapman perhaps being the exception. It'll only be a problem finding them if we don't look hard enough.

The thought of Docherty in a midfield two or even in a three beside Gomis and Nicoll would put the fear in you right enough. The Hindenburg would get about the pitch quicker. I think there's a good chance Docherty will be out on the left if he plays at all. We've begun by billing him as a defender on the website. Someone wrote that he hasn't been playing as a defender much in the recent past. Maybe that means we've different plans for him. And besides that, Lennon emphasised his delivery. This is guesswork obviously but I'm thinking it's an Eddie Malone sort of gig he has in mind for Docherty. A left-back or left wing-back who'll deliver from deep and help out with defending over on that side. We could make it work if we'd the numbers or the legs round about him I suppose. The same would be true if he were to play in the middle. But with Nicoll, Gomis and potentially Cuddihy in the squad I think he'd be down the pecking order there.

I must've watched Docherty play before but I've no memory of him. I'm encouraged by his experience but concerned by the fact that he was part of a clear out of slow and aging players at Forfar not so long ago. The players that replaced him were poor and ultimately took Forfar down. Maybe there was an error of judgement from Stuart Malcolm there. Interestingly, in recent memory we've only had one player who was both a good left back and a good central midfielder. Scott Linton. He had enough natural fitness, technical ability and aggression about his game to be that versatile. I doubt Docherty comes with all of that. For that reason I hope we'll be using him as a left-back or a left wing-back. Not as a week on week utility player. We've had too many of those. Gomis could be a coup if we put legs round about him. His fitness has waned a lot down the years. But then so had Rankin's. Gomis will give us some of Nicoll's combative qualities but with more finesse and a mind to move the ball quicker. Because you've got to imagine Gomis will be a starter, I could see us having a five man midfield. If it is, I hope it's a 3-5-2 with wingbacks. I'm worn out watching us play with one up or one up with another floating round about. Early days still but pace is something we'll need to recruit a bit of. That's very clear. As for heed the baw defenders and big target men. It wouldn't trouble me if we got a few of those. Provided we sourced some pace and kept up a balance of good passers and flair players we could end up with a very well balanced pool and not be slaves to one style.

I'm a bit of an outlier on Howie. He had a great attitude and always seemed very visibly committed to our cause. Memorably, he turned in a few good shifts toward the end of this season. One of those was away at Peterhead where played in the middle of the park. But all that said, I don't recognise the descriptions that others have given of him. While he was an improvement on Rumsby and McNiff insofar as he was better in possession, able to play out of trouble and things like that, he wasn't much more mobile or any better at the basics of defending. For those reasons, I never thought of him as a player we should've been desperate to keep. Like his new teammate Scott Taggart, Howie's a defender that could help Alloa play a certain way. But I think they'll need a more rugged central defender beside him if they want to get back into the championship. I share the worry about Rumsby ending up as a starter. But I don't fret over finding better defenders than McNiff or Howie. On Lamont going to Stranraer, I think that could be a good move for him. Like Howie, he comes with conditions attached. All players do of course. Some more than others, that's all. I don't agree that Lamont ever had a bad attitude other than perhaps to his fitness this season. That's been a tough thing for a lot of players to maintain. But I grant that Lamont did seem to struggle more than others and certainly put on weight. In ability terms though, he's a great player. Tidy, quick enough, good mover in the last third, moves it quickly and has an eye for a cutting pass. The conditions attached to Lamont would be that, like Howie, you'll have to have a good pressure relief valve in your team to see a return from him. Lamont isn't a player that'll be much use if you're camped in without a good counter attacking game. The ideal for him would be playing in a team who can rely on being in the opposition's half for decent spells. Then you'll get a good creative midfielder who'll chip in with some good ones from distance. I think we owe as much to Lamont as we do to Howie for staying up this season. The goal he scored and the other that he more or less created against Dumbarton were crucial. Both being fantastic examples of what he can do in team who're really taking the game to the other.

If it's true that we've offered terms to Morgyn Neill then I'm encouraged by that. In my opinion he is one of the better defenders in the league and has his best years ahead of him. Like David W, I wince at the thought of him being paired with Scott Rumsby. And I agree that he isn't very good in possession. However, he would add stature, strength and aggression to our defence. He has more of those qualities about him than anything we had except Tom Lang. On an optimistic view, our interest in Neill might indicate that we want a defence that does the basics well before anything else: getting to the ball first and reliably sending it back up the park, stopping the other team getting an easy foothold. On the business of changing favoured approaches and the potential for us to become Dumbarton but with David Goodwillie up front. I know it's a bit silly to entertain the thought but I'm perfectly serious when I say that if Dumbarton had David Goodwillie playing up front they would have been well in the running for a play-off spot. And in a league which will have two or three full-time teams again next season that would be the height of our ambition anyway. I recognise that Lennon has a favoured way of playing. However, it's not as though he's done without defenders like Neill while enjoying success at other clubs. I'm thinking about Cowdenbeath and St.Mirren there. So I don't think having our eye Neill carries any absolute implications for how we'll play. We were able to play the way he wanted with Rumsby or McNiff in the line at times. Neill's not a vast downgrade on those two in footballing terms. It would be a real indictment to say he was! Even if we are going to change our approach, and I hope we do, it's worth remembering that we had transitioned to become a more direct outfit when we reached the play-off final under Barry Ferguson. There you have an example of a manager breaking with his preferences and achieving relative success. It's the favoured approach that's the problem in the first place. Or the fixation on one approach. If you ever listen to Walter Smith talk about Rangers' sourcing strategies, budgets and how those were connected to the style of football Rangers played in his two spells at Rangers, there's a lesson in there for us. Beggars can't be choosers and philosophies are for the Greeks. Being unable to play in more than one mode has been our outstanding weakness since Lennon arrived. The best part-time teams have it in them to change things up: Cove, Montrose, Arbroath. Capping off the rant now...! If Montrose can make the play-offs with defenders like Kerr Waddell and Queen of the South can make it into Europe with Jim Thomson we must have more to worry us than centre backs that can't play a bit.