capt_oats

Not disagreeing but St Johnstone haven't won a game since December 13th (9 games) and their league record has them only having taken 2 points from 21. Yes, they still have the points on the board but equally they're in as bad form as us at the moment.

For what it's worth (and it's not a lot I know) but our away record under McGhee is: XWLWLXL which is actually better than I expected compared with Baraclough/Craigan at the start of the season which was WLLLL.

And is McGhee's record against Hartley not a 3-1 win and a 2-2 draw (courtesy of a dubious penalty) since he's been back at the club?

On the whole, I don't think McGhee's helped himself pretty much since Tynecastle but as far as the Ainsworth thing goes, personally I think our results with him starting, going back to the start of the season, go some way to showing why he's only been played off the bench. Saturday was, as far as I could see McGhee being true to his word and trying to see how he could fit Ainsworth into the team. Essentially the starting XI was by and large designed to give both Ainsworth and Johnson a platform. I don't think anyone who watched the first 45mins would claim it was even close to working. How much of that was down to the players not giving it a chance to work I don't know (see McManus consistently shelling the ball back to front when we had 2 out and out wingers on the park) but for him to be hooked for Moult wasn't a massive surprise, even if we did go from 0-0 to 0-2 after the switch. The whole post-Thistle thing I think has been amplified by Ainsworth's press conference. Did McGhee need to lay the blame at Ainsworth's door? Probably not. Everyone saw the goal, we all watched him lose his man however there were a number of players involved in that passage of play who could & should have done better and for me should have been part of the conversation. That said, he did switch off and we did concede from it so in that respect, taken in isolation, I don't really have too much issue with what McGhee said. Whether it needed to be said publicly is a different matter. For what it's worth I think McManus' appraisal in his pre-game interview last week would have been a better way to address the matter. Again though, I do genuinely wonder if there would have been as much focus on McGhee's observation that we conceded a goal as a result of a lapse in concentration from a player if said player hadn't subsequently gone to bits in the post-match press conference. On his day Ainsworth's easily one of our best players however the problem he has is that we've won more games this season without him starting than we have with.

Ooooft! To be honest, I'd totally missed that when I'd looked back at the article. The bit I'd quoted had just stuck with me from when I read it the first time.

I think there's definitely something to be said for this, I wouldn't go as far as to say they think they're too good to go down but there's definitely been a fairly consistent feeling of complacency in the background. Take this interview with Moult (http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/34701504) not to single him out but it's just a good example of what I'm getting at and it's unfortunate it's him, By no means is it a dig, he's been one of our better players this season and clearly puts in a shift. However, bear in mind this interview is from 2nd November so well before we put that decent run together (we subsequently lot to ICT 3-1 at FP and 3-0 to Ross County in Dingwall after it ran); ""Off the ball we look fantastic at the minute. Even against Celtic and Aberdeen, the shape was fantastic and again against Kilmarnock it was good. It's just when we do get the ball, can we cause a few more problems and finish teams off? "I think if we add that to our game we'll be a real force to be reckoned with."" At that point we'd not long bulleted Baraclough, had lost to Celtic, took a draw at Pittodrie and grabbed a late win at Killie yet we were "looking fantastic off the ball" and could be a "real force to be reckoned with". I know players are asked questions and they're obliged to answer and I don't expect any player to come out with anything other than some vanilla platitudes but in all seriousness it's some bloody leap to go from snatching a late winner vs Killie for our 4th win in 13 to being "a force to be reckoned with".

Given United play a 352 sticking a winger in there would probably be useful. As Yassin says above just trying to get back to the team we had out playing well in December (or even a fortnight or so ago at Dens) would be a good start IMO. In the 3 games I've seen him so far Gomis gives me the absolute fear but with Pearson suspended I'd think we'd have to play him. Ripley Law Hall McManus Hammell Cadden Lasley Gomis Johnson Moult McDonald

Ripley. Pretty much the only reason Killie weren't completely out of sight by half time. Positive mentions for Cadden and Thomas though.

I like the look of ONeils40yarder's team and I'd be really interested to see how we'd do with it if we weren't sat in 10th and had a bit of latitude to experiment. If we want to use Ainsworth then a team along those lines would probably be the best way to get something out of both wingers with Cadden adding a bit of dynamism from midfield to front. Problem is the central striker as it doesn't really suit McDonald who works better playing off someone picking the ball up that wee bit deeper. I'm not really sure it'd suit Moult either. Fletcher maybe. When it comes to it though I think we'd go back to our lop-sided 442 with 3 in the centre of the park vs Killie's 2. Ripley Law Kennedy McManus Hammell Cadden Gomis Pearson Johnson (or Ainsworth) Moult McDonald with Lasley being the midfield option off the bench for Cadden around 65-70 mins if we want to consolidate.

I was hoping for Arshavin or maybe McGhee could get Ronaldinho into shape.

Aye, I just finished watching it as well. He fairly tore into the boy. Wasn't having it at all. Was actually pleased to hear him address the Thistle goal as he did and to be honest it's how it should have been treated from the start. A cynic could easily point out that it'd have been rich for him to suggest otherwise given his header went straight to the Thistle player's boot but either way he pretty much called it as I saw it at the time. A passage of play where a number of players could have done better.

Depends what you mean by notable. A quick check on out of contract players will throw up a load of pretty well known names though none are likely to be realistic for us I'd think. Transfermarkt is quite good for that sort of thing though it's not 100% accurate it's a reasonable indicator generally. http://www.transfermarkt.com/spieler/vertragslosespieler/statistik/1/plus/?ausrichtung=Sturm&spielerposition_id=alle&land_id=alle&wettbewerb_id=alle&seit=alle&yt0=Show

Higdon signs with Tranmere Rovers until the end of the season btw. http://mobile.tranmererovers.co.uk//news/article/striker-higdon-joins-rovers-2948183.aspx

Equally can we put into context the extent to which Ainsworth has been "frozen out"? McGhee's been in charge for 16 games, Ainsworth has been involved to varying degrees in all but two of them (Accies & Dundee). Certainly he's been given less minutes in the past few games but on the whole he's been used as an impact sub invariably getting anything up to 30+ mins on the park. Celtic - sub 53' (L) Aberdeen - sub 53' (X) Kilmarnock - started (subbed 90+1) (W) ICT - started (played 90') (L) Ross County - started (subbed 62') (L) Hearts - sub 68' (X) Dundee - sub 63' (W) Celtic - sub 45, sub off 81' (W) St Johnstone - sub 61' (W) Hamilton Accies - didn't feature in match squad (X) Cove Rangers - sub 53' (W) Hearts - started (subbed 68') (L) Ross County - sub 76' (L) Dundee - unused sub (X) Partick Thistle - sub 86' (L) ICT - sub 88' (L) It'd be fair enough to say he's not been getting starts but the idea that he's been "frozen out" is daft. He's not been banished to play with the 20s. When it comes down to it Ainsworth isn't starting because we can't play with two wingers. When we do we're too open teams run over the top of us in midfield. That should be obvious to everyone. The alternative is to either drop Johnson (which may be detrimental to the balance of the side) or drop a striker (either Moult or McDonald). There's an argument to be had as to whether he should be playing ahead of Johnson or not but apart from (rightly or wrongly) getting called out for losing his man against Thistle he's been pretty regularly involved by McGhee.

Saw that earlier. Overlooking the relative merits of him as a player surely the extent of our enquiry should have been the 5 minutes it'd have taken to check that he had already played for 2 clubs this season.

For what it's worth formation-wise it looked (to me) like a 4231 with Gomis and Lasley in the holding roles. Basically matching ICT's formation. I'd have understood trying that out if he had started Ainsworth in place of Cadden but seeing as he didn't it just seems an odd re-jig not least because it pushed both Pearson and Cadden into more unfamiliar roles. Either way, I didn't think there was much between the two teams. Launching the ball long to McDonald was just lazy and again the subs and subsequent change of shape has cost us a late goal.

I'm not surprised we've gone for something a bit different. Looks more like a 4321 than a straight up 433 tbh with Johnson and Cadden playing off McDonald.

Think I mentioned in a previous thread and I'm happy to stand corrected but I don't think we've actually scored from outside the box this season.

I wouldn't be against that team tbh. Though possibly see Kennedy for Hall depending on the injury that saw him come off on Tuesday. The lop sided 442/433 was working well during our decent run of form but it was evident even when we were getting results that we didn't really seem to have a plan B and things were stalling a bit when we were making changes. Moult's had an impressive debut season for us but since the tail end of December when he was seemingly struggling with illness he's seemed off the pace. Which isn't a criticism as such, every player will go through a dip in form. Question is really whether or not we'd keep the same shape and replace like for like with Fletcher or tweak things a bit, in which case I can't really see us dropping McDonald as he's a massive part of how we play in a transitional sense. For what it's worth I'd like to see if we can find a way to integrate both Ainsworth and Johnson into the team but not to the detriment of the midfield.

The Man U boy played for their u21s last night incidentally. Edit: well, he came on as an 89th min sub.

That's yer Craig Reid signed for Dunfermline.

Thistle have just posted an update: http://ptfc.co.uk/news/2015-2016/february_2016/pitch_condition_update

Take your pick. It'll probably be updated with recent out of contracts: http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/spieler/vertragslosespieler/statistik/1/plus/?ausrichtung=alle&spielerposition_id=alle&land_id=alle&wettbewerb_id=alle&seit=alle&yt0=Show

Aye, contracts need to have been terminated before the window shuts.

Why? Striker: Moult and McDonald are the first choice pairing, OK let's say there's an injury to Moult. Fletcher gets a shot. McDonald gets injured we can go to a out & out 433 with Johnson and Ainsworth. Or in the likelihood that McFadden extends he could fit in. Christ you could probably even give Dom Thomas a run as a No.10. Left Back: Hammell's the first choice there. If he's fit he'll play. He may not be the long term answer or be particularly well thought of but Chalmers has enough about him to fill in for a couple of games. We picked up a point at Pittodrie, drew with County, beat Killie (twice) and beat Thistle with him filling in at LB. If that doesn't suit then Watt's filled in for Hammell before.