Bully Wee vs Doonhamers at NDP

[19QOS19]

My eyes are dry, I’ve accepted the fact that we are down, I was nearly pointing out that we escaped last 2 years and didn’t heid the warning signs

What stopped you pointing?

[FREDDYFRY]

3 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

17 minutes ago, FREDDYFRY said:

My eyes are dry, I’ve accepted the fact that we are down, I was nearly pointing out that we escaped last 2 years and didn’t heid the warning signs

What stopped you pointing?

need to point to spell check. 

[Bully Wee Clyde FC]

We were only marginally less pish than QOS.  My bias thought we might have stolen it, but we punt high balls to the 2 smallest forwards in the league.  

Do we train with all our players in opposition coloured bibs, cos that's the only strip we find with passes?   

We are too lightweight for this league AND the players are all "Danny's Targets".

Thanks and goodbye Danny.

[MazzyStar]

  

[bullyweehutch]

  

Don't worry we know we will be a league 2 team next year....but this team still took 4 off you

[Riviera711]

Are those hands and fingers real !? Scarily huge.

[Rjc-1988]

41 minutes ago, David W said:

Tried hard, certainly didn't deserve to lose to a woeful QotS side, but the fact no-one could be bothered complaining about the spot kick sums it up.

It's slightly funny that Ross Lyon probably signed Danny Lennon's release papers giving away the penalty.

Paul Kennedy and Kurtis Roberts did okay.

You won’t get any disagreement from me on the “woeful QOS comment”. It was yet another turgid display highlighting just how poor we are. The goal was well created by Reilly and well finished by Paton - that apart we did virtually nothing of note until Ruth earned a penalty after a rare dangerous move initiated by Lewis Gibson. The late subs made a difference (thankfully) as it was almost unwatchable up until then. We started with 3-4-1-2 and seemed to have about 3/4 variations of that in the second half and most of the players didn’t have a clue where they were supposed to be playing. We ended up being top loaded with forward players at the end - there was absolutely no structure to it but at least it was more effective than what had gone before and for once we kept the ball away from our penalty box after we scored.
 

How anybody can conclude that WG is more of an asset on the sidelines is frankly ludicrous when you watch that “apology for football”. Thankfully we got the win which stopped us falling any further behind but when opposition supporters describe your team as “woeful” and you can’t even muster a defence it is a sad reflection of how poor we are at present.
 

 

[Manwithnoball]

Do you not think there is a sense among the support that we really do not have a formation we stick to it seems to change every week and especially during the games.  We had enough of that with AJ why do we not have an identity? 

[Homer Thompson]

20 minutes ago, Manwithnoball said:

Do you not think there is a sense among the support that we really do not have a formation we stick to it seems to change every week and especially during the games.  We had enough of that with AJ why do we not have an identity? 

If Wilson had been fit the team would have been the same as last week, except with Cochrane in for Todd. Thats pretty much a straight swap, so its highly likely the formation would have been the same. 

Without a straight replacement for Wilson, the options are shoe-horn a defender into midfield or change the formation.

[Riviera711]

5 minutes ago, Homer Thompson said:

Without a straight replacement for Wilson, the options are shoe-horn a defender into midfield or change the formation.

If only to avoid playing 3(5) at the back, I'd go the shoehorn route. Personal preference, I realise, but I think we set up better with a back four. However, based on the composition of the squad, I feel that players have been signed on the basis of playing with a back three and wing backs.

It would certainly be nice to have a fit squad for a month (fat chance) and see whether we can find a settled formation.

[Homer Thompson]

8 minutes ago, Riviera711 said:

If only to avoid playing 3(5) at the back, I'd go the shoehorn route. Personal preference, I realise, but I think we set up better with a back four. However, based on the composition of the squad, I feel that players have been signed on the basis of playing with a back three and wing backs.

It would certainly be nice to have a fit squad for a month (fat chance) and see whether we can find a settled formation.

That would be nice!

I'm not sure theres really a lot of evidence to suggest we are better with a back four. Our two wins against Edinburgh, and today, we started with a back three. The first Clyde game and the games against Falkirk and Airdrie, where we lost 3 goals, we played a back four.

[Riviera711]

6 minutes ago, Homer Thompson said:

I'm not sure theres really a lot of evidence to suggest we are better with a back four. Our two wins against Edinburgh, and today, we started with a back three. The first Clyde game and the games against Falkirk and Airdrie, where we lost 3 goals, we played a back four.

Yes, probably just some sort of bias on my part; just feel that with a back four we look like we know what we're supposed to be doing (even if we don't always do it!). I thought we played a back four against Peterhead, and that was the best I'd seen McKenna play, for example.

Edited October 22, 2022 by Riviera711

[QoS99]

2 hours ago, Riviera711 said:

Yes, probably just some sort of bias on my part; just feel that with a back four we look like we know what we're supposed to be doing (even if we don't always do it!). I thought we played a back four against Peterhead, and that was the best I'd seen McKenna play, for example.

McKenna was getting some abuse which I thought wasn’t exactly helpful, Cochrane as well the other week away at Airdrie. Feel a bit for as he is clearly a centre half and he’s being asked to play as a wing back. Don’t understand why Wullie doesn’t play himself, or McKechnie or even Gibson jr for the wing back role, offer us a lot more attacking threat than what we are currently seeing.

[19QOS19]

McKenna was getting some abuse which I thought wasn’t exactly helpful, Cochrane as well the other week away at Airdrie. Feel a bit for as he is clearly a centre half and he’s being asked to play as a wing back. Don’t understand why Wullie doesn’t play himself, or McKechnie or even Gibson jr for the wing back role, offer us a lot more attacking threat than what we are currently seeing.

He (McKenna) was getting moaned at constantly in the second FCE game as well. As I said at the time, it was enough for me to only be able to stomach 45 minutes in the old stand. I enjoy a moan on here but f**k me they take it to another level in there. Him and Cochrane seem to be disliked by some members of our support and there's no changing their views. I've got players I don't particularly rate but I'm not sure what good it would do moaning or shouting abuse at them constantly during a game. Mental behaviour IMO.

[Fae_the_'briggs]

You're absolutely right, shouting abuse at McKenna is not necessary or fair, after all it's not his fault that he gets picked every week to play in a position that he doesn't look the least bit comfortable in and is frankly not very good at imo. The blame lies very much with the Manager (or Chairman if rumours are true) for not picking someone who has shown in the past couple of seasons that he is one of the best in that rb/rwb position. Unfortunately it's McKenna on the park who gets the criticism shouted at him, it must be bad enough him not being very good at the job he's given without those  mental supporters constantly pointing it out. 

[Riviera711]

McKenna had a good game against Clyde at full back. He won his aerial contests and seemed to be more comfortable there than when trying to work out where to be positionally when playing as a wing back. Also, he seemed to enjoy more room when attacking and put in a few decent crosses. It was noticeable that the groans lessened as the match went on and his confidence increased. Who'd have thought !