Clyde vs Edinburgh City

[Pride Of The Clyde]

I agree, Cowdenbeath should start preparing for the play-offs.

[Sao Paulo]

Seriously now. While it's great to know that we can win while having played dreadfully, it's also infuriating to know we could've spared ourselves such an ordeal had we simply picked a better team!

Someone wrote that Edinburgh had done their homework and, consequently, were able to undermine Home and McNiff. I'll just say this in response. Anyone who's sitting down, drawing-up a plan to undermine that, ahem, dynamic duo is more a menace to the rainforest than he is a clever football manager.

It's obvious why things went the way they did today. We took an approach designed largely to mask our defensive frailties into a match against a side that we're better than. Once that penny dropped and the Cuddihies, Lamonts, Loves and Goodwillies of this world got on the ball as much as they did... We'd a very risky imbalance. Basically, we'd four lads with pace and an attacking instinct tearing away up the park while the remainder lagged behind, leaving masses of space. And if, as was inevitable, we didn't always score when we tore away up the park, Edinburgh would come straight back onto us and find they'd a vast space to play through; our line of five became a deterrent for nothing, leaving us with the 'bad-old-days' back four. And so we nabbed two great goals, bursting right through Edinburgh. And then they returned fire in virtually the same way, having enjoyed good - but irritatingly easy - possession in the build-ups, all the while making our central defenders seem like statues. Consider also that the Mo' and Peterhead results were 'dug-out'. That is, we expected to defend and did so valiantly; sometimes aided by the conditions. Playing a really beatable mob like Edinburgh changes everything.

The line of five, be it at the back of across the middle, has served its purpose and had its time. We've up-skilled big time and we must now set-up, unambiguously, to win. A partner, in Kidre, for Goodwillie could bring a sea-change in how much possession we'll enjoy, and how constant a threat we'll be. Similarly, with all the attacking quality, pace and width we've now got in the players we've brought in, we can't seriously want to inhibit it. And that's almost certainly what a 3-5-2 or 4-5-1 would do.

There's an easy, easy fix for the defence. People can wax lyrical about Lang all they like. Aye: the guy's a solid defender alright, and an athletic player. But he's clearly a centre-back. Takes an absolute nosebleed after half-way; rubbish at dribbling and passing. So, we can lose Home and McNiff (hurray!). We make Lang and Cogill the centre-halves, giving us a far more athletic and sturdy pairing there. Then, we get Duffie back in at right-back, where he's also best, and keep Stewart over on the left. We cannot make a stronger four than that. And don't give us the 'I haven't been impressed by Duffy' patter. He's a solid defender and much better in possession than Lang. Sure: he's a big clumsy bugger deep in enemy territory, but he'll have no need for that kind of adventure with Boyle in front of him. Coming in from right-back, with all that space, we're getting much better value for his jersey.

The midfield is really, really tricky. I don't know what McStay's going to be like. So we'll have to wait and see there. But Nicoll's an unsustainable choice for a 4-4-2. The experience, presence, grit and aggression he brings are really sore things to lose; we've got to replace them somehow, and we'll struggle if we don't. But he's done; he's a net detractor from the team. Then you've got Ray Grant. Clearly solid in possession and trained-up as an anchoring midfielder. But, like a lot of lads coming into the scrum from slower-paced environments, he's got some acclimatisation to do. Let's hope he's quick about that, or we'll have another Paul Emslie/Kevin McDonald scenario. Boyle? Aye. He needs to start. Get it into his feet in the final third and he's going to whizz by players. Like Grant, there's acclimatisation work for him. It stands to reason that, for both players, the more games they get, and the sooner they get them, the quicker they'll take to things. So, Nicoll out. Grant on. Or McStay, let's see what he's like.

Currie's kicking was murder. I'd be tempted to stick Gourlay in behind a new look back like for Berwick. Buzzing for that game now, we could dish out a doing if we get the team right. We really could.

[MWGC]

7 hours ago, Sao Paulo said:

Seriously now. While it's great to know that we can win while having played dreadfully, it's also infuriating to know we could've spared ourselves such an ordeal had we simply picked a better team!

Someone wrote that Edinburgh had done their homework and, consequently, were able to undermine Home and McNiff. I'll just say this in response. Anyone who's sitting down, drawing-up a plan to undermine that, ahem, dynamic duo is more a menace to the rainforest than he is a clever football manager.

It's obvious why things went the way they did today. We took an approach designed largely to mask our defensive frailties into a match against a side that we're better than. Once that penny dropped and the Cuddihies, Lamonts, Loves and Goodwillies of this world got on the ball as much as they did... We'd a very risky imbalance. Basically, we'd four lads with pace and an attacking instinct tearing away up the park while the remainder lagged behind, leaving masses of space. And if, as was inevitable, we didn't always score when we tore away up the park, Edinburgh would come straight back onto us and find they'd a vast space to play through; our line of five became a deterrent for nothing, leaving us with the 'bad-old-days' back four. And so we nabbed two great goals, bursting right through Edinburgh. And then they returned fire in virtually the same way, having enjoyed good - but irritatingly easy - possession in the build-ups, all the while making our central defenders seem like statues. Consider also that the Mo' and Peterhead results were 'dug-out'. That is, we expected to defend and did so valiantly; sometimes aided by the conditions. Playing a really beatable mob like Edinburgh changes everything.

The line of five, be it at the back of across the middle, has served its purpose and had its time. We've up-skilled big time and we must now set-up, unambiguously, to win. A partner, in Kidre, for Goodwillie could bring a sea-change in how much possession we'll enjoy, and how constant a threat we'll be. Similarly, with all the attacking quality, pace and width we've now got in the players we've brought in, we can't seriously want to inhibit it. And that's almost certainly what a 3-5-2 or 4-5-1 would do.

There's an easy, easy fix for the defence. People can wax lyrical about Lang all they like. Aye: the guy's a solid defender alright, and an athletic player. But he's clearly a centre-back. Takes an absolute nosebleed after half-way; rubbish at dribbling and passing. So, we can lose Home and McNiff (hurray!). We make Lang and Cogill the centre-halves, giving us a far more athletic and sturdy pairing there. Then, we get Duffie back in at right-back, where he's also best, and keep Stewart over on the left. We cannot make a stronger four than that. And don't give us the 'I haven't been impressed by Duffy' patter. He's a solid defender and much better in possession than Lang. Sure: he's a big clumsy bugger deep in enemy territory, but he'll have no need for that kind of adventure with Boyle in front of him. Coming in from right-back, with all that space, we're getting much better value for his jersey.

The midfield is really, really tricky. I don't know what McStay's going to be like. So we'll have to wait and see there. But Nicoll's an unsustainable choice for a 4-4-2. The experience, presence, grit and aggression he brings are really sore things to lose; we've got to replace them somehow, and we'll struggle if we don't. But he's done; he's a net detractor from the team. Then you've got Ray Grant. Clearly solid in possession and trained-up as an anchoring midfielder. But, like a lot of lads coming into the scrum from slower-paced environments, he's got some acclimatisation to do. Let's hope he's quick about that, or we'll have another Paul Emslie/Kevin McDonald scenario. Boyle? Aye. He needs to start. Get it into his feet in the final third and he's going to whizz by players. Like Grant, there's acclimatisation work for him. It stands to reason that, for both players, the more games they get, and the sooner they get them, the quicker they'll take to things. So, Nicoll out. Grant on. Or McStay, let's see what he's like.

Currie's kicking was murder. I'd be tempted to stick Gourlay in behind a new look back like for Berwick. Buzzing for that game now, we could dish out a doing if we get the team right. We really could.

Decent thoughts and analysis until you brought Duffie into the mix ”solid defender and much better in possession than Lang”

ouch, sorry that was my sides splitting with laughter.  What we need first and foremost is a natural RB that can simply defend which given that the window is closed will need to wait until next season.

[The Clyde Man]

Seriously now. While it's great to know that we can win while having played dreadfully, it's also infuriating to know we could've spared ourselves such an ordeal had we simply picked a better team!

Someone wrote that Edinburgh had done their homework and, consequently, were able to undermine Home and McNiff. I'll just say this in response. Anyone who's sitting down, drawing-up a plan to undermine that, ahem, dynamic duo is more a menace to the rainforest than he is a clever football manager.

It's obvious why things went the way they did today. We took an approach designed largely to mask our defensive frailties into a match against a side that we're better than. Once that penny dropped and the Cuddihies, Lamonts, Loves and Goodwillies of this world got on the ball as much as they did... We'd a very risky imbalance. Basically, we'd four lads with pace and an attacking instinct tearing away up the park while the remainder lagged behind, leaving masses of space. And if, as was inevitable, we didn't always score when we tore away up the park, Edinburgh would come straight back onto us and find they'd a vast space to play through; our line of five became a deterrent for nothing, leaving us with the 'bad-old-days' back four. And so we nabbed two great goals, bursting right through Edinburgh. And then they returned fire in virtually the same way, having enjoyed good - but irritatingly easy - possession in the build-ups, all the while making our central defenders seem like statues. Consider also that the Mo' and Peterhead results were 'dug-out'. That is, we expected to defend and did so valiantly; sometimes aided by the conditions. Playing a really beatable mob like Edinburgh changes everything.

The line of five, be it at the back of across the middle, has served its purpose and had its time. We've up-skilled big time and we must now set-up, unambiguously, to win. A partner, in Kidre, for Goodwillie could bring a sea-change in how much possession we'll enjoy, and how constant a threat we'll be. Similarly, with all the attacking quality, pace and width we've now got in the players we've brought in, we can't seriously want to inhibit it. And that's almost certainly what a 3-5-2 or 4-5-1 would do.

There's an easy, easy fix for the defence. People can wax lyrical about Lang all they like. Aye: the guy's a solid defender alright, and an athletic player. But he's clearly a centre-back. Takes an absolute nosebleed after half-way; rubbish at dribbling and passing. So, we can lose Home and McNiff (hurray!). We make Lang and Cogill the centre-halves, giving us a far more athletic and sturdy pairing there. Then, we get Duffie back in at right-back, where he's also best, and keep Stewart over on the left. We cannot make a stronger four than that. And don't give us the 'I haven't been impressed by Duffy' patter. He's a solid defender and much better in possession than Lang. Sure: he's a big clumsy bugger deep in enemy territory, but he'll have no need for that kind of adventure with Boyle in front of him. Coming in from right-back, with all that space, we're getting much better value for his jersey.

The midfield is really, really tricky. I don't know what McStay's going to be like. So we'll have to wait and see there. But Nicoll's an unsustainable choice for a 4-4-2. The experience, presence, grit and aggression he brings are really sore things to lose; we've got to replace them somehow, and we'll struggle if we don't. But he's done; he's a net detractor from the team. Then you've got Ray Grant. Clearly solid in possession and trained-up as an anchoring midfielder. But, like a lot of lads coming into the scrum from slower-paced environments, he's got some acclimatisation to do. Let's hope he's quick about that, or we'll have another Paul Emslie/Kevin McDonald scenario. Boyle? Aye. He needs to start. Get it into his feet in the final third and he's going to whizz by players. Like Grant, there's acclimatisation work for him. It stands to reason that, for both players, the more games they get, and the sooner they get them, the quicker they'll take to things. So, Nicoll out. Grant on. Or McStay, let's see what he's like.

Currie's kicking was murder. I'd be tempted to stick Gourlay in behind a new look back like for Berwick. Buzzing for that game now, we could dish out a doing if we get the team right. We really could.

McStay with us ?

[shawfield shed boy]

 
 
 

 
Lang and Stewart were very poor today but you like to focus on Nicoll's mistakes.
 
McNiff didn't cover himself in glory for the first Edinburgh goal.
 
Currie flapped at a cross that almost cost a goal.
 
Nicoll has his faults but wasn't the only one making mistakes today.
 
 
 
 
 

He does it all the time. Nicoll "IF" having a bad game never hides & we would be in a worst state without him

[shawfield shed boy]

Good honest interview by DL. If edinburgh play like yday every week they could be pushing for a promotion PO spot, Scullion at back one every header & their one touch quick passing in midfield was impressive. Draw probably fair but sign that weve turning a corner aswell with late winner and belief. Next time we play them we probably need a wee rethink of personel. Finally Wee bit more patience from the stands would help[emoji106]

 

 

[Sao Paulo]

1 hour ago, The Clyde Man said:

McStay with us ?

Done deal apparently.  Not massively enthused mind, 'cause he's quite a diminutive midfielder, and completely inexperienced in this league. SSB's right about Nicoll. He is actually doing stuff that helps us, a lot of the time. It's just that he ends up doing more harm than good. Maybe a can of WD40 in and about his joints. Short of that though, I think he's just a wee bit over the hill.

[Sao Paulo]

2 hours ago, MWGC said:

Decent thoughts and analysis until you brought Duffie into the mix ”solid defender and much better in possession than Lang”

ouch, sorry that was my sides splitting with laughter.  What we need first and foremost is a natural RB that can simply defend which given that the window is closed will need to wait until next season.

He is a natural right-back. We've a knack of asking him to play further up the park than that. Given his recovering fitness and sheer size, he's on the awkward side without a lot of space in front of him. However, he's done perfectly well given those handicaps. He'll always win his headers, he's not flustered on the ball, and he's got a good bit of experience relative to the rest of our lads on that side.

Real waste to have Duffie on the bench when we're asking Lang, Home or whoever else to stand-in there.

[haufdaft]

However, he's done perfectly well given those handicaps. He'll always win his headers, he's not flustered on the ball, and he's got a good bit of experience relative to the rest of our lads on that side.

Real waste to have Duffie on the bench when we're asking Lang, Home or whoever else to stand-in there.

I don't agree

Duffie looks poor at full back both defensively and going forward.

I think he looks slow and does look flustered on the ball.

I also also think his distribution and crossing is of an unacceptable standard.

Lang, although not great yesterday, is much better in that position. He's more powerful, faster and dynamic.

I'd rather have Home and McNiff at centre half than Duffie at full back.

[Sao Paulo]

No need to agree. I'll simply make another prediction. If we carry on with those two as the centre-backs, clean sheets will be a forgotten luxury, and any win we get will be a struggle in the manner that yesterday was.

Happy to arrange a wager with anyone.

[SLClyde]

I think Home is a perfectly decent centre half, and if he was playing next to someone a bit better I think he could really kick on a bit. 

Lang was up and down the wing all day and was absolutely knackered by the end, maybe not the best on the ball but, as previously mentioned about nicol, never hid or gave up. 

[Sao Paulo]

Wouldn't mind Home kept-in; proven himself a decent defender. It's McNiff we need shot of.

Lang's athleticism is a better insurance policy though, and that's something to think about if we want to take the game to teams

[David W]

Winning goal is on the Twitter page. What a terrific pass by Grant to start it off. Edinburgh have no chance after that.

[Clydeontheup]

1 hour ago, Sao Paulo said:

Wouldn't mind Home kept-in; proven himself a decent defender. It's McNiff we need shot of.

Lang's athleticism is a better insurance policy though, and that's something to think about if we want to take the game to teams

Think I’m satisfied that Danny is FAR more qualified than any of us to pick the best team, players in position and formation.

Opinion in such matters are fine, passing off as fact is ridiculous 

[Sao Paulo]

Good job nobody's passing off anything as fact then. Only thing worse than that would be uncritical deference to a manager's opinion.

[Replays]

The highlights have been posted. No 2nd goal for Edinburgh shown (sorry lads). Really classy bit of play from Cuddihy for the first goal, good work from both Lamont and Cuddihy for the second and the third was another really worked goal too.

[David W]

I'll retract any previous comment about Nicoll being at all to blame for the first Edinburgh goal. Goodwillie could maybe hold it up better and McNiff could maybe drop a bit quicker but it's Lamont who takes almost all of the blame for me. It's not the first time he's stupidly pressed the ball when it isn't needed and it's led to a goal this time. Hopefully he's learning from it, as when he gets it right he's won us possession up the pitch (e.g. our second goal).

Great to watch our three goals though; there wasn't much of that clinical countering play in the last 12 months. We'll score plenty more goals like that as Goodwillie will always be on the move a second quicker than the defenders at this level and we've now got people who will see the pass.

[DeanMck]

What happened to that boy who scored twice against us earlier in the season at Broadwood? He looked a player . 

[Only one David Marsh]

3 hours ago, DeanMck said:

What happened to that boy who scored twice against us earlier in the season at Broadwood? He looked a player . 

They left him in morningside drinking pimms 

[David W]

 

Edinburgh highlights include a few extra bits and pieces including the penalty which definitely looks outside the box.