Tweed

If Hearts play like they did last night I will be surprised if we get anything however I don't think they will play as well again. I think our defenders look most comfortable with a flat back four so I would go with that. I would be inclined to go two up this time however I suspect JG won't. My team would be: Ruddy Saunders Hutchinson Reynolds Hammell Humphrey Hately Forbes O'Brien McHugh Jutkiewitz

To counter your three points, 1. I would expect a striker to score from where he was however the ball bounced and he could not take a touch as the ball would have reached Gallacher before he could get a second one - was a harder chance than it looked. However it is a total over reaction from some of our fans. You'd think we'd been relegated. 2. Correct. The reason it beat us was because St Mirren are the only team we have played who have harried us and forced us to pass it more quickly in defence and our defenders are not good enough to do it. I don't know (nor do I care) if St Mirren normally play like that but MacPherson saw the weakness and went for it and executed it pretty well also. 3. I don't think everybody expected to go to St Mirren score a couple of early ones and get the cigars out. However if we are good enough to draw with both the Old Firm we are good enough to beat every other team in Scotland. If we'd gone and lost 2-1 in a cracking end to end cup tie. Motherwell fans' concern is Motherwell and with the players we have and the way we have been playing we should not be losing 3-0 to anybody in Scotland. I doubt you'd find many Motherwell fans who would argue that we were lucky on Saturday and were deservedly beaten last night (though I thought 3-0 was a generous gloss).

Perhaps he did think McPherson would change but we should have asked the question. As I said in the other thread our two failings were: 1. A lack of full backs that made crossing too easy for them. 2. They harried us at the back meaning we had to pass under pressure and our defenders are not good enough to do that. A combination of these two things allowed them to have too much of the game and as a result of them having so much of the game they got three goals. To be fair goals 2 and 3 were lucky and all in our defending when not in possession was pretty good. We were second best last night and 3-0 sounds as if we were hopeless. We were disappointing but not hopeless in my view.

Yep - seems to do better for Scotland when he gets to play right up top rather than where he plays with us. In fact the best game I ever saw him play was for Scotland U21s v N Irelan U21s last year. I think unless you play him as an out and out striker he is a waste of a jersey. McHugh looked a much more complete player than him tonight.

Hutchinson I would say was our best by a distance and certainly didn't deserve to lose. O'Brien and Reynolds were all right - though I think Gannon should have had the latter deeper but thats no his fault. Thought Humphrey made a difference to the other side when he came on as Yass was mince.

I thought our players were up for it - combination of not performing and being out thought beat us.

Where to start? I think the shape of the team was wrong. Reynolds and Maouatakil were far too ofensive and every time St Mirren got the ball all they had to do was drop it into the last twenty yards of the pitch within ten yards of the shyline and they were getting a free cross into the box. For all St Mirren are an ordinary SPL team they are quick and allowing them to do that was in my view criminal and we sacrificed ourselves by not having any full backs. As for the performance, like Saturday, you could see Gannon was willing for us to concede territory as long as we had possession. Biggest problem with that is we are not good enough to keep possession. It worked to an extent against some teams (e.g. Rangers) because they allow you to play with it in your own half and then harry you when you get into theirs. St Mirren didn't allow us that luxury and as such our team became compact and deep and there was no out ball. This meant they had the majority of the game. The thing that made that frustrating was that when we did get up and around their boxwe actually looked to carry more of a threat than we have done for a while. Whilst never getting right in behind we played some lovely passing stuff round their box. There was one move that ended with Coke having a drive that went out for a corner that was particularly good. As for the defending I don't think on the whole it was that bad. There were some errors but only one of them really cost us a goal. That was the failure to mark Higdon for the first goal. Ruddy also made what looked like a good save and was a little unfortunate (on the one viewing I have had that it spun in). The second goal was a huge deflected cross and the third was an own goal that only happened because the defence were rushing back after being caught up the pitch. Pretty sure that would not have happened at 0-0. I think what Gannon needs to decide is how to shape his defence. I think we need people at full back as attacking the central defence was too easy tonight - though I understand that he maybe wanted to go more attacking with them so as not to expose Reynolds to Murray the way it happened on Saturday. I really feel the shape of the team does not feel so comfortable to the players without Hammell. I thought Hutchinson had a great game tonight and was probably the only 'Well player who really didn't deserve to be on the losing team. Overall I have no qualms that St Mirren deserved to win the game but I thought 3-0 flattered them a bit.

First game was a 1-0 win against Morton and I can't remember what season it was or even what competition it was in. First game without my faither was a 0-0 draw with Hearts (Rousset's debut). First away game was a 4-1 v St Johnstone in the cup winning season.

Forfar?

Would agree but to be fair to him he is usually quite consistent just his love of the sound of his own whistle would drive you bananas.

I thought we were poor in the first half today - apart from Forbes' long range effort offered little and seemed content to play the ball around our own half. Ironically when we did venture forward we then conceded on the break. Second half I thought we were the btetter team. A tad fortunate with the penalty seeing as the boy 1) won the ball and 2) was about a yard outside the box. However we didn't take advantage as we lost a stupi 2nd goal and then the third goal was either outstanding or jammy. But we battled on and scored two decent goals and we looked the more incisive team. I thought Humphrey changed the game. I know he scored a couple but for me Jutciewitz is too slow to play on his own up top - he needs someone closer to him. But best performance for us yet.

Think it will be a close one to call, both teams stronger at the back than at the front especially with St Mirren missing Dargo. Likely that conditions will be poor so I suspect an error may lead to the odd goal in the game - prediction 1-1.

On a weekend training course so missed most of the action and news from the game but got to hear the last ten minutes and it sounded like we were under the cosh possession wise but them only having a couple of real efforts. Got the impression we had been their match from the commentary and pleased to read it on here. Onwards and upwards. St Mirren been going really well so tough two games coming.

Instead of Gary Caldwell? Nah I'm quite happy the way it is.

It'll be fine - they'll all have pissed off home by then.

Think thats the perfect summation to be honest however McManus is a better player than he has shown in the last few weeks and he was excellent in Japan - I fer he may have found form at just the wrong time. I think our best hope for success is Mauoatakil on Naylor (I think Fox is still out?) as you are spot on that we do not have the striker to combat their weakness. I would play the eleven who started the second half against Rangers.

No but I think they would want some sort of capability at that level checked before buying him. Everyone else they have bought has had some first team experience and I don't see that changing.

2 years ago would have agreed but with the current financial climate I don't see them risking buying anyone where a fee would be involved without more concrete proof of first team capabilities.

At the danger of going off at a huge tangent how does it not paint Chris McCart in a good light? A players' value is what the buyer and the seller agree. I'd expect anyone who leaves here to be trying to purchase our best players that they know about or any player they like that they have seen when on scouting missions with us for their new team. Its good business sense. Likewise I expect Peter Ward and Jim Gannon to do the same for Motherwell. We're not going to moan if we get some kid from Stockport on the cheap are we? So when it happens the other way we can't grumble. And as a by the by out of Coke, Hately, Mauoatawhatsit, Jutkiewitz, Jennings and Humphrey - how many do you think were found on Motherwell's time and how many on stockport's? Lifes tough and you have to make the best of your current position. Rant over and I still think there is no chance of Slane going to Celtic until such time he has had at least a successful six months with us.

So basically injury mis-diagnosed and Celtic are maybe interested and some of our guys have him as the modern day Judas Iscariot. I'll tell you for nothing Celtic will not be in the least bit interested if he does not play at least half a season for us and develops. As it stands they will need to pay a fee and unless there is a high probability of SPL/CL capabilities they won't. As for him not signing the contract there are an number of reasons - could be he is concentrating on rehabilitation, seeking advice from his folks/agent etc. I think we will be seeing a fair bit of Slane come the second half of the season and it will be up to him to impress.

Luc Nijholt lived just down the road from me and I met and had a kickabout with him several times. Was a good guy. Was at the sponsors night at the Shawlands and spoke to some of the team that night, most memorably Buzz who was as pissed as a fart and gleefully talking of the goal that never was Aberdeen scored against us the day before - he thought it was in at the time. Or so he said when he was blootered.

Had it been a friendly would have agreed 100% with you. However it was a day for winning the game and we did that eventually so you have to say well done to Billy Stark.

Said it before but I think Forbes needed a rest so I'm pretty satisfied that he didn't come on from Motherwell's point of view and the experience of being there will have done him the world of good and perhaps given him the hunger to show he can do a bit more and get into the 11. On the Murphy debate. I think McGhee and Gannon have not been playing him aggressively enough which is why he continually delivers the goods for Stark at Scotland level. I think to be fair to McGhee and moreso Gannon he doesn't really fit into the formation they want to play and I don't think he is good enough we should change the formation just to fit him in.

Just seen this link on FPC http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/spo...well_Cancelled/ That suggest there is a swine flu outbreak in the squad?

I'm not an expert but I would have thought they would have had to have an AGM to disband and allow any members (not board members) the opportunity to join the board to keep it going. If at that time they are unable to do so the AGM could either then disband the organisation or change the wording of the constitution assuming the AGM was quorate. All depends on the deeper wording of the constitution though.