Montrose v Clyde

[mo83]

Great win yesterday well done the mo. Every single player was fighting for sp was brilliant to see

[BrigtonClyde]

I don't buy the squad size / injuries argument

In the summer BF made it clear going with a smaller squad with better quality. Perfectly reasonable theory, we won the league in 81/82 by miles with similar approach

At start of the season he has X number of players, two of which Ferguson and McGovern are due to return at some point during it

Since then he's unlucky to lose Lowden and Easton so early. Anyone would miss Easton's quality, but the argument's always 'numbers'. So in addition to those two he's lost Johnston. That's 3, Flynn was missing through suspension

But he also subsequently signed a centre half Perry, and two loans Miller and Tiffoney. Ferguson's back but JP remains out

He put Watson and Oliver out on loan so presumably they're surplus to requirements. So if the argument is 'size' of squad, numbers, how's it different to what was at the start of the season?

Theory's worked to some degree, in a better position than this time last year. Even before the loss of Easton, I didn't have us as favourites to win the league, but playoff place likely, and we're still well placed for that.  They're where I expected them to be, there or thereabouts, injuries or otherwise

 

[Jack Burton]

It was a gamble to go with a small squad size. In saying that, I would rather we had quality over quantity.

The problem now is with so many injuries and suspensions, we can't drop first team players who hadn't performing. Higgins, Mclaughlin and McNiff aren't playing great at the moment but there is nobody left to replace them.

We had 18 first team players at the start of the season. Two of them out injured. We now have four out injured, a partially fit Ferguson and Flynn was suspended.

[Only one David Marsh]

We should still have enough to beat montrose and Cowdenbeath they are both at the arse end of the table for a reason, Mcniff was at fault for both goals yesterday and to be honest I'd be glad to get rid of him in January if we can get a replacement left back. I left really frustrated yesterday if we could have played like that in the second half for the whole game we would have swept aside montrose. 

I'll give montrose some credit the new manager certainly has them playing for him. 

[cfcuk]

Seems like
McNiff is the sole cause of our recent poor away form ?
Only 3 goals scored in the last 5 away games might just be a problem as well

We sign the Tiffoney from Morton BF raves about him and brings him on with 4 mins to go yesterday bit strange

[David W]

Smith was just as bad as McNiff yesterday. In fact, McNiff actually had a good second half. 

Tiffoney should have been on for Higgins who has done more damage than anyone over the last 18 months with ghost performances.

[tongue_tied_danny]

12 hours ago, mon the mo said:

Clyde are pish

 

Who are Clyde?

[cfcuk]

Smith was just as bad as McNiff yesterday. In fact, McNiff actually had a good second half. 
Tiffoney should have been on for Higgins who has done more damage than anyone over the last 18 months with ghost performances.

Hope that's not a veiled criticism of the manager as that simply isn't allowed:)

[Sao Paulo]

2 minutes ago, David W said:

1. Smith was just as bad as McNiff yesterday.
    
2. In fact, McNiff actually had a good second half. 
    
3. Tiffoney should have been on for Higgins who has done more damage than anyone over the last 18 months with ghost performances.

1. Obviously true, but he's hardly the regular problem McNiff is (as a LB). Gayfield's been Smith's only other flap in the style of yesterday. At the back of everyone's mind, though it's never really been expressed on here, should be a concern about every player in our line except McNeil. Perry and Smith are prone to what Barry's called "individual errors" on the OS. Those have followed Smith through his career. Perry likewise. In Perry's case it's probably a symptom of being as old as he is and having barely a season of experience behind him. For Smith, who knows. Being moved around a lot over the course of your career probably doesn't help.
    
2. Again, true. Why it's worth mentioning, I don't know. When a defender does what McNiff does over the course of a first-half, that's generally enough for a spectator to conclude that he's had a bad one. If he's going to be in the habit of making bad before good, that's all we need to know. The number of goals we've conceded that have his name against them, so to speak, speaks volumes.
    
3. Very unfair on Higgins. Seven goals and one assist this season. Much, much fitter than he was last season. Sure, there've been a few games in which he's struggled to have influence but it's never a consequence of laziness. Why we'd single him out over, say, Gormley, I don't know. We'd see more of Higgins if the ball didn't bounce off of Gormley.

[BrigtonClyde]

1 hour ago, Jack Burton said:

It was a gamble to go with a small squad size. In saying that, I would rather we had quality over quantity.

The problem now is with so many injuries and suspensions, we can't drop first team players who hadn't performing. Higgins, Mclaughlin and McNiff aren't playing great at the moment but there is nobody left to replace them.

We had 18 first team players at the start of the season. Two of them out injured. We now have four out injured, a partially fit Ferguson and Flynn was suspended.

I understand the point you're making Jack, but this line about 'so many injures' doesn't quite stack up in real terms

True, at the moment there's 4, but there's also been 3 subsequent signings to counter that. So the figure's net -1

The wider point about having a bigger pool of increased quality, agreed, but that's likely due to financial constraints

So the argument isn't so much number of players available as it's pretty much the same as the season started, it's whether he should have chosen that route in the first place. I think it was the right decision using the simple yardstick we're better than last season. But in a way for the reasons you've given, at no point did I think we were favourites to win the league, but we're still better placed to have a chance at it than before. 

He was also saying he hoped to get 1 or 2 others in January, so who knows. 

[haufdaft]

The problem now is with so many injuries and suspensions, we can't drop first team players who hadn't performing. Higgins, Mclaughlin and McNiff aren't playing great at the moment but there is nobody left to replace them.

I agree. However, Higgins hasn't really played well for a season and a half. He doesn't seem to get involved in the games. When he plays, it's like being a man down. Yet we resigned him in the close season. I struggled to understand that at the time and still do. That was the manager's choice.

Around a month ago, I said that McLaughlin was our most improved player. Recently he has reverted to last season's form.

The loss of Easton and Lowden was a massive blow to our title hopes. That is not the managers fault.

[haufdaft]

1. Very unfair on Higgins. Seven goals and one assist this season. Much, much fitter than he was last season. Sure, there've been a few games in which he's struggled to have influence but it's never a consequence of laziness. Why we'd single him out over, say, Gormley, I don't know. We'd see more of Higgins if the ball didn't bounce off of Gormley.

I'd be interested to know how many touches Higgins has in a game. I'd guess, on average, less than 10

I'm not a fan of Gormley but to say that Higgins is being singled out over Gormley is untrue. If suggest the opposite is the case.

You rarely come away from a game thinking that Higgins played well. You're more likely, in fact, to forget that he was playing at all.

Gormley whether playing well, which can be rare, or not, puts himself in positions to receive the ball and at least tries to contribute.

[haufdaft]

1. Very unfair on Higgins. Seven goals and one assist this season. Much, much fitter than he was last season. Sure, there've been a few games in which he's struggled to have influence but it's never a consequence of laziness. Why we'd single him out over, say, Gormley, I don't know. We'd see more of Higgins if the ball didn't bounce off of Gormley.

I'd be interested to know how many touches Higgins has in a game. I'd guess, on average, less than 10
I'm not a fan of Gormley but to say that Higgins is being singled out over Gormley is untrue. If suggest the opposite is the case.

You rarely come away from a game thinking that Higgins played well. You're more likely, in fact, to forget that he was playing at all.

Gormley whether playing well, which can be rare, or not puts himself in positions to receive the ball and at least tries to contribute.

[1320Lichtie]

Less than 10? Settle

[Sao Paulo]

I agree that Higgins's presence hasn't been memorable in some of our recent fixtures. But look at the Forfar game, for example (the 1-0 loss). Alright, we got beat. But we've rarely put in a better performance. Higgins was involved with every bit of forward play then. Ask yourself why. It's wasn't a one-off, 'I'm up for it today' thing. It had to do with who else was playing and what roles they performed. McNeil played on the left hand side that day and gave us great energy. It was perhaps the first game of the season in which we had someone working the flank properly. McNeil came inside a good bit, onto his good foot, to cross and pass, bringing Higgins in. That, along with the sprightly performances of McLaughlin, Linton and Peter MacDonald was chiefly why Higgins was useful (service). Yesterday, Peaso, McLaughlin and Linton were all relatively heavy-legged and we didn't take the game to Montrose in the way we would usually take it to a team. At least, not for the majority of the match.

David suggested Tiffoney should've been on earlier. No doubt. After all, who was offering us width or the ability to carry it up the field and by players? I don't mind saying it, as you know: that's Barry mistake. "Spoiled" as we're supposed to be with him. Just so we're clear, I don't say that it isn't apt to swap Higgins. But blaming him, as though he has simply decided to switch off, in what's probably been his best season with us, is unfair.

[Jack Burton]

I understand the point you're making Jack, but this line about 'so many injures' doesn't quite stack up in real terms
True, at the moment there's 4, but there's also been 3 subsequent signings to counter that. So the figure's net -1
The wider point about having a bigger pool of increased quality, agreed, but that's likely due to financial constraints
So the argument isn't so much number of players available as it's pretty much the same as the season started, it's whether he should have chosen that route in the first place. I think it was the right decision using the simple yardstick we're better than last season. But in a way for the reasons you've given, at no point did I think we were favourites to win the league, but we're still better placed to have a chance at it than before. 
He was also saying he hoped to get 1 or 2 others in January, so who knows. 

In the 18 first team players I was including Perry, Watson and Oliver. The two loan signings were countered by Watson and Oliver heading in the other direction.

We had 13 first team players to choose from yesterday and that's clearly not enough. We really need at least another two or three to come in during January.

[haufdaft]

Higgins hasn't played well apparently... look at his goals and shut up! f**k me we've had strikers who run about like blue arsed flies and he's hailed as a great player here, yet a player who runs less but scores goals is described as a ghost... sorry but goals win games, running about like a fanny doesn't. 

No apparently about it.

If you think he is playing well, I'd hate to see what you think is a poor display.

[David W]

I'll not shut up, thanks.

How many points has he lost us by vanishing completely over the past couple of seasons? The last two weekends he's contributed zero. A few tap-ins (and thats what they were) means nothing when he's costing us points elsewhere. He's not scoring goals either; he's not scored for 7 games and he's missed three decent chances in that time that would've netted us more points.

He's an attacking midfielder with one assist. And I can't even remember him setting up chances that have been missed, because there haven't been any. He doesn't cover ground quickly enough despite this new found fitness. The definition of a passenger. 

[Only one David Marsh]

Higgins has been poor in the last few games, flynn is much better at bringing players into the game. 

I would honestly drop Mcniff Higgins and mclaughlin to the bench 

[BrigtonClyde]

1 hour ago, Jack Burton said:

 

In the 18 first team players I was including Perry, Watson and Oliver. The two loan signings were countered by Watson and Oliver heading in the other direction.

We had 13 first team players to choose from yesterday and that's clearly not enough. We really need at least another two or three to come in during January.

 

We're certainly both agreed we could of course use more players of current first team standard

My point is specifically about the suggested impact of injuries. Perry was signed after the loss of Lowden and Easton

Watson and Oliver were in the pools but hardly made an appearance. By comparison Miller and Tiffoney have made regular appearances. Flynn will be back shortly. There's been mixed views about Johnston's contribution

Easton's been a loss for sure, but other than that in terms of making a significant difference, I can't see it. Another couple additions of quality and not just bench warmers would definitely help though