Jump to content

Peterhead v Clyde


Recommended Posts

Launch Cogill into outer space, please. Hope to Christ he didn't come to us with a stipulation that he starts every game. It's a bit like having a clone of Martin McNiff playing alongside him. Difficult to understand why Stewart would be out of the picture otherwise, though, given that he was a very steady performer for us throughout the first half of the season. I don't think Currie deserves to be dropped on recent form. He's improved quite considerably on his command of the area/communication/decision making since Gourlay came in to challenge him. Then again, at least we know Gourlay's not going to be a downgrade. Lamont deserves to be dropped after an anonymous showing on Saturday. I like him, and he gives us a wee bit of flair, but Grant is worthy of a start in his place after such a dismal performance. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

We've got the legs on them. Unsurprisingly, that's coming from Boyle's fitness, matched-up with Grant's fresh legs, and Goodie and McStay's enduring quality.

We look good for a goal or two, and haven't been troubled too badly yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lay the blame squarely on the back-four and, by extension, Lennon. Would've been snuffed out had we players in their best positions and the most mobile boys in the heart of defence.

Cheap one to give away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stirling all over again really. First time they get to face down our defenders, we're humped. Second time, we're humped again.

Still easily, easily salvageable. It'll only take for Lennon to eat humble pie on his choice of defenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changing the keeper but keeping that back 4 intact was a bizarre decision. Surely Saturday was plenty evidence of our weaknesses at the back, particularly at full back. Slotting Stewart in at LB would have been an easy fix on that side. You then have the option to move cogill into left cb and drop mcniff.

Sounds like we have passed up a number of chances too [emoji849]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changing the keeper but keeping that back 4 intact was a bizarre decision. Surely Saturday was plenty evidence of our weaknesses at the back, particularly at full back. Slotting Stewart in at LB would have been an easy fix on that side. You then have the option to move cogill into left cb and drop mcniff.

Sounds like we have passed up a number of chances too [emoji849]


Agree Stewart is miles better than cogill
Surely we don't have to play him as part of the deal with Huddersfield?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody say anything about Lang as a right-back. He's in the John Sweeney 'Protected Status' space now; granted immunity from critique.


There is less of a ready made replacement for him as duffie has looked useless. However Lang is not immune from critique and a proper RB needs to be a priority longer term
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good goal. Inevitable though; question is whether we've another two in us and whether we can shut-out a third from them.

Smart and Martin on for Cuddihy and McStay. Loads of pace on the pitch now. Game's always open - it's two PT teams on a weeknight, on a slick pitch - but even more so now.

I'd be jangling even it wasn't Baltic. They get the next one, that's us knack'd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...