ExiledLichtie

I'll take it in the spirit of apology that it was intended. Thanks!

I don't get it? When did I mention bias?

I get the feeling he would have stayed if he could, but I can't imagine he felt particularly valued at the club towards the end of last season...

It would have been a bold call to drop McKenna and play Dow there instead. I don't recall anyone calling for that. McKenna would play wide on occasion but was never as effective there. I also note that last week we had people calling for Gallagher to play on the left, which I found very odd. Anyway, be careful, you don't want to be accused of "negativity" by saying we weren't very good for the last couple of seasons.

When played wide, he was always more of wide midfielder than a winger. Thats why he didnt bomb forward or have as many shots as someone like Linn. It worked for us as it gave us balance when we played someone more attacking like Linn or Hylton (or Hilson or Turan) on the other wing. On occasions where McKenna was injured he did get a chance in the centre, and he always did well there, but obviously, you're always going to have McKenna there as first choice.

I really like that we have options when we play a 4-2-3-1. I thought Gallagher dropped far too deep in the first half, but his second half was a lot better. I'd start him again in the next game, and hopefully he can adapt to playing the lone striker role given time. Really pleased Reilly got his goal too. I also like that we have a feasible choice between Coulson and Murray. Both give us something different. In the centre, Spalding has been a revelation, and Flynn has settled in so well that its easy to forget he's a brand new signing. We also have Callaghan, Gold etc. who give us something different. Dow in the creative role won't give us the goals that McKenna got for us, but he does solve the massive creativity problem we had when we played a 4-4-2 and expected Callaghan to do everything. He's more effective in the centre than he is on the wing. As Simon and others have said, its a good squad, albeit arguably a bit light on strikers (although apparently its NEGATIVITY to say that). I think its really now a question of belief and confidence. We've played well for a few games and got nothing, and it was good to finally get over the line. If we can go on a bit of a run and win three or four in a row to prove its not a false dawn, then we'll be okay.

Its not negative to say that we were the better team in the first half, but without doing much with it, and its not negative to say that we've repeatedly been the better team and haven't secured the points. But weirdly, you don't think its negative to say that the team had a "poor first half". It honestly seems personal. I don't understand what your issue is at all. Why can't you be happy that we finally got the three points that we've deserved for a few games now (despite what you apparently seem to think?)! It was a really good performance overall, Innes Murray more than justified his start, Gallagher looked better in the second half, Coulson is an excellent option to bring on against tiring defenders, and I was really pleased to see Reilly get his goal. Why not enjoy it?

So just to clarify, you don't think we were the better team in the first half? I thought we were more than a match for Annan in the first half, without being particularly great. I also think that's been the case for multiple matches where we've looked the better team but not scored. Plenty of other people have commented on this in previous matches too. You seem to have a very odd take on it. Even 1320lichtie above described it as a "poor first half". You better have a go at him.

In what way? Are you saying that didn't happen in the first half? Absolutely delighted to see we've finally broken our duck in the league, and absolutely deserved too! We've seen so many games where we've been the better team (despite what lichtgilphead seems to be saying??) and not won, and getting the job done will do the team the world of good!

I feel like I've seen this story before. We've looked the better team, but we've done very little with it. So, same old story as most of the season. Oh, and someone needs to tell Gallagher he should be playing up front, not running about in midfield.

More or less the changes I was hoping to see, Gallagher in for Reilly, and Murray over Coulson. Sensible.

We still have that teeny tiny loan striker from Dundee....

Is this the same Gallagher who was being hailed as the signing of the season back in the summer? He was the shiny shiny striker that made everyone back McIntyre. And not even 10 games into the new season, people are wanting to Hilson him? As for 4-4-2, has everyone forgotten the creative wasteland of our centre midfield when we went 4-4-2? Honestly, sometimes we football fans have no memory at all.

You mean doing a Hilson?

I think the problem we had when we played them both in a 4-4-2 was that they both dropped deep. There were so many instances where we'd have Reilly out on the wing, Gallagher in midfield, and a big gaping hole up front. I also think having a 4-2-3-1 suits us better, as it allows Dow to play the McKenna role (to think there were fans on here who thought McKenna was no great loss) and gives us creativity in the middle. Playing 2 in the middle led to Callaghan being scapegoated because it was a creative graveyard. Finally, if fit, I'd like to see Murray start over Coulson. Coulson has more creative spark, but Murray is perhaps a bit more reliable in terms of end product. Coulson would perhaps be better against a tiring defence. Any sort of win is needed, any at all. We're top of the "taking positives" league table, but we desperately need to win a game. Edited to add, I think we also need to give Gallagher a chance. Reilly has had plenty of games, and Gallagher needs a chance to show that he can adapt his game to playing up front on his own.

We could always try that tiny wee striker we got on loan from Dundee? But somehow it seems we've got to mid September with only one striker capable of playing in a lone striker system. If only someone had mentioned that our squad was light on strikers...

I 100% agree with Simon, its an excellent squad. One that was specifically built to challenge for the league title.

I just checked on Arbroath Archive, and Steve Kirk won 11 games of his 36 as manager.

I completely agree with all of that, except that I would say it went back before McIntyre. The last year or so of Dick's tenure too. But aye, I agree with you. My main reason for wanting McIntyre gone at the end of last season was for precisely that reason.

In contrast, the only thing that concerns me is the continuity. Gold referred in his interview a couple of weeks back to "a culture of losing", which he "was part of" (before anyone gets shirty, its not my quote, its the new co-manager). That isnt just last season, but also the one before that, and the losing start to this season. I thought a fresh face would have given us something new and got us out of that rut. Still, as I said, I'll be backing the team and the new management, they both fit the profile of the sort of ex player that would make a good manager (in my opinion), and Gold in particular has coaching experience through his day job, and has also played all over the pitch. They are both well embedded in the club too, and performances have definitely improved since they took over! I wonder if they have bought a Meadowbank house?

You don't want to get behind our new managers? A bit negative of you, no?

Zero league wins was apparently good enough. Ho hum. So far everything is going pretty much exactly as I predicted it back in the spring. Some of the older fans who remember the 2002 season onwards might be "enjoying" the parallels. Incidentally, does anyone know when the last successful co-manager partnership in Scottish football was? Still, I'll get behind the team, maybe it'll go brilliantly!

Quite.

I'm reasonably confident that if we were to appoint Hamilton and Gold, they would be paid for their time...they wouldn't just continue doing a massive extra job on their existing contracts, so I'm not sure its the "affordable" option.

I was criticised for saying the same thing that others are now saying. Its been a bit of a theme in the last year or so.