Thorfinn

Take a look back over this thread to see who threw the first barb.

Ah. Did someone come along and upset your forum, where you are comfortable with your friends? Where your opinions are the only ones that matter? That’s a shame. So you call for reinforcements to agree with you against the newcomer. Let’s all gang up on him for entering your world.

"Utter melt". Oooh, you know how to hurt. You jumped into the discussion I was having with young Ms Yenitit. It sounded quite argumentative. Your intentions would have been clearer if you had added information to support her point of view, of course. Instead of just throwing meaningless insults. But if that wasn't you arguing, then I apologise.

The fact you keep replying, with ever-reducing charm, would suggest otherwise. Losing an argument so badly hurts, doesn't it. It will be even more embarrassing to have done it on a public forum. But you can learn from this. It will make you a better person in the long run.

Eloquently put. A recourse to insult is always an argument-winner. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to challenge your premise. I don't want to sound ageist, but must insist that first-hand experience counts for something here. If you only started going to games in the past decade, or so, how can you possibly judge the merit of a team that played in the 1990s?

I'm not quite understanding your garbled sentences. When you say "it was a very easy cup draw", which cup win are you referring to? And "Not exactly constitutes a good side"? I'm afraid you'll have to further explain that. You won't have seen either of the teams I'm talking about. The 1994 team was, I assure you, a reasonably good side. They played some entertaining stuff. You look to be in your 20s, perhaps? So you'll only have started following football in the 2010s, I imagine? I know you'll have read the stats and perhaps watched some of the highlights on YouTube, but that doesn't tell the full story.

Aye, fair enough, it isn't exactly a miracle turnaround. I concede that. Perhaps, on reflection, describing him as "good" was a stretch. An improvement on the previous manager is perhaps more accurate. His team fought very well on Saturday. They looked like a team that was pulling together and had found a little bit of belief, especially at the final whistle. Perhaps they can carry that into their next game? I now wouldn't be overly surprised if they beat St Johnstone at Dens (if it is at Dens) and win another couple of games in the bottom six. That might be enough to get them into the play-off position. Small margins, I grant you.

And . . . young people often don't have a good grasp of history, or they don't bother doing their research properly. But don't take it personally, just do a bit of reading before pressing "Submit Reply".

United have won the Scottish Cup twice since the end of the 1980s. You look quite young (judging from your profile photo) but surely you knew that?

"Patter"? You know, we all know, that a sarcastic, or clever (or even appearing to be clever) comment rebutting criticism gathers quite a bit of power in the Scottish football goldfish bowl. That "Raging" quip from Mulgrew will become a meme to be trotted out by United, and probably all other clubs', supporters as a stick to beat McGhee with in the future. Juvenile? Unwarranted? Possibly. But true. There will be very few people seeing the McGhee interview followed by the Mulgrew quip who won't think Mulgrew won the exchange. The diplomatic way to conduct yourself in interviews is to not show a chink in the armour that allows such jibes to hit. The managers are offered media training that preaches diplomatic language and should warn them against this. It makes for anodyne interviews, but protects them. Mark McGhee isn't by nature a diplomatic man. I don't think he is a bad manager, though. I think he would have kept Dundee up if he'd been given a whole season in which to do so.

Can't argue with that. Though I think your adjective is too kind. I imagine that any Dundee supporter seeing him running on to that ball must have just relaxed. No problem here.

You're going to have to give that comment some context if you're expecting me, or anyone, to understand it. Pal.

So your conclusion is that Dundee being consistently rubbish is actually a strength, and United fans should feel really bad about supporting the better team? Psychologically very clever. There will be, then, plans for Dundee to get even worse to consolidate this position? Again, fiendishly clever stuff. And the players are doing it so well. Oh, if only United could be as bad as Dundee! That's clearly been our downfall over the past 50 years.

That’s perhaps because every team knows they will get a lot of free shots on goal at Dens! Seriously, though, that sort of exercise is very much not in the pro licence coaching badges that are pushed at Largs. I’m not claiming that to be a good or bad thing. And I am certainly not saying that the Largs-type coaching manual is the only way to go, or even that it deserves respect. The oft-heard criticism is that coaches are made into robots. Each to his own beliefs on that one. The criticisms of that manner of shooting practice are, I believe, that there is too much “down time” for the players waiting in the queue to take their shots; and the instances of players being allowed an unchallenged one-two then a shot on goal are rare in professional football. So it isn’t a true in-game scenario, and concentration is allowed to dip in the wait time. Shooting practice is done in weekday training. But pre-game exercises are (supposed to be) all about sharpness, getting warmth in the muscles, getting into the quick-thinking mode that players need to be in for a game. They don’t work on skills, they do physical and mental prep. Or so I believe. Contradict me if you think I’m wrong. Indeed, it is a discussion that possibly deserves a thread of its own. I don’t hold an A Licence, though I have read the lit. and watched the process taking place.

Charlie Adam is a good player, but also a character. We need more like him in the game. I’m a United supporter, but have to admire his chutzpah. During the kickabout before Saturday’s game, with The Shed cheering or booing as Dundee’s players did a shooting practice drill, Adam launched a shot at the crowd in an obviously deliberate way. It was, by any measure, funny. Good to see a bloke playing up to his pantomime villain status. On an entirely separate note, that shooting practice exercise disappeared from every other professional team’s warm-up in (roughly) the early-1990s. Even Saturday morning amateur teams don’t go in for that sort of kiddy stuff any more.

Despite the cynicism about him that is displayed on here, I’m finding myself admiring Mark McGhee a tiny bit. A few of my DFC chums are thinking Dundee “might, just might, have a chance” and are getting behind McGhee’s “we can still do this” rhetoric. That’s quite a trick after 0 wins in his first 8 league games. He could hardly come out and say “We are totally f*****” of course, but until the next game, at least, he has stirred a little something in Dark Blue hearts. I wish to — honestly, not taking the P — register a smidgeon of respect for that. He would help himself in his quest to be a resurrection rallying point if he stopped saying numbingly stupid things, of course — Charlie Mulgrew made him look like an absolute tit on Saturday.

Off The Ball is long past its sell-by date. Football, the nature of banter surrounding it, the jokes, the feel of the game, has moved on from the 1990s. Off The Ball has remained in the same place. Same daft jokes, endless regurgitation of old “tropes” (as they call them). The puns for the truly dreadful “team of the week” section are puerile. Most annoying of all is the ridiculous refusal to allow their guests to talk. They are asked a question — then their answer is talked over, or hijacked by a host’s opinion on St Johnstone, the 1991 cup final or Motown music. But it all needs changed. If ever there was a show is ripe for replacement then this is it. There might be room somewhere else in the schedule, perhaps 9pm on a weekday evening, for those who like this sort of thing. But as listening material in the car on the way to a game, a change is desperately required, and soon. Let’s make this the last football season with Off The Ball, please. Radio Scotland’s 2pm to 3pm coverage with Richard Gordon is, on the other hand, very listenable. There is a good blend of news and opinion with some humour thrown in. The multiple points of view from the various contributors are refreshing (whether you agree with them or not), which is a notable contrast to the same old-same old fare on Off The Ball. But I get out the car at 2.15pm to walk to the ground and miss most of that — it should start at 1pm or 1.15 and go on for 60 or 75 minutes. The 2.30pm to 3pm part (as everyone is walking to/queuing at the gates) should be team/line-up analysis. My hour-long pre-match drive needs something relevant to the day’s games. Please BBC, move into the 21st Century. Surely the scheduling managers and editors at the BBC must be looking at Off The Ball and thinking of at least moving it to another slot. Or (if it must stay in place) radically refreshing it. New input to the tired old format should have been phased in 20 years ago and changed, then changed again to keep it fresh. Blue Peter with Valerie Singleton, Peter Purves and John Noakes wouldn’t be on our screens any more, why is Off The Ball different? It needs new presenters, new ideas, guests with something edgy or informative to say, a different type of humour, different music tastes (if they must include music), different and refreshed everything. Sorry lads, time to get the subbies on for the sake of the game. Goodbye Off The Ball.

Hat off to you man, that's a funny line.

Mark: "When I got this job, I told the lads – we're not going to win many games". Choose Mark. Choose defeatism. Choose a lack of leadership. Choose an ability to put your foot in your mouth just when its needed most. Choose a stadium that's falling to bits. Choose a new stadium that you will never own but will rent for ever while American businessmen rake in a fortune from the rest of the complex. Choose administration. Twice. Choose glueing up your own players' car locks. Choose a trolley. Choose a Dr Noodles hospitality suite with a side dish of laughter. Choose McCann. Choose McIntyre. Choose McPake. Choose being the only club in Scotland relegated six decades running. Choose calling a derby win better than a trophy. Choose a Nazi-inspired name for your new singing section. Choose 6-2. Twice. Choose not winning a real trophy for 48 years. Choose a Scottish Cup win that is closer to the Napoleonic Wars than it is to today. Choose a fire drill-type stand evacuation when your team goes 3-0 down after 20 minutes. But why choose any of that when you can walk across the road choose United?

After Saturday I hope Dundee win all their games and stay up. The derbies are the best thing on the football calendar. A league encounter with Kilmarnock isn’t anything like as exciting.

Depends upon your level of intelligence (your ability to type an error-free sentence counts against you in that respect), and your ability to concentrate on one subject for 10 seconds or more. Some people who peruse football forums enjoy talking about football.

There are a few things I'll be watching for. United's back three won't allow free headers of the type that Dundee scored twice with v Aberdeen last time out. Mulgrew, Graham and Edwards vigorously attack the ball. Charlie Adam can put a lovely free-kick across a six-yard box, but a cross begging to be nodded in is also a cross begging to be headed away. If Dundee do score, it will be a move through the middle that Butcher or Levitt should have cut out. I think Adam will be shooting from all angles, as he'd love a goal against United. Adam will be booked. Butcher will be booked. No team wins or loses all the time, no run continues for ever. Dundee will have to win at Tannadice sometime. Hopefully not this Saturday, but, as said, no team wins/loses all the time. If United score, it will be Watt or a defender. No chance McNulty will get a goal, although he will definitely start. United will go the full 90, whereas my DFC-supporting mates are always saying Dundee tire after 70 minutes or so. I think these claims tend to be exaggerated, but it has been a consistent observation. For the first time in a long time, I think there might be trouble before or after the game. The tendency to be an idiot is spreading through Scotland this season. There will be flares.

You are giving him a better write-up than he deserves. I honestly can't work out what it is that McNulty brings to the team. He's not fast, he's not a "clever" player. He doesn't win long balls (in fact all he does is try to get himself fouled when a long ball comes towards him). His passing is woeful, his movement in the box is non-existent. I can't remember ever seeing him trying to "get across" a defender as they say good strikers are meant to do. United should play one of the kids rather than him. Or a defender out of position. In fact, watching McNulty gives me an inferiority complex! I keep wondering what is it that I'm not seeing that the staff of a professional football club DO see? I clearly know F all about the game. I read that rumour about Dundee's Danny Mullen supposedly signing a pre-contract at Tannadice (I'll believe it when I see it!) and a few DFC folks saying "no loss". But he has to be better than McNulty. From what I've seen of Mullen, at least he looks like he gives a F!

I didn't say Messi! I said clever and perhaps by extension hinted at "effective" . . . and would further qualify it (if pushed) by adding "by Scottish football standards". As an Aberdeen man you will recall that Frank McDougall wasn't the most skilful man ever to play the game. But he was effective. Duncan Shearer was probably an even better example. A very good player.