weeyin

Completely agree. The players should be playing for us (and themselves). The senior ones in particular should be leading the way. Having said that, if it's true that the tactics are intentionally to hoof long balls, then that needs to stop. I'm OK giving time to a gaffer to implement new tactics and style of play. Not OK with route 1.

He could use what he learned from Gannon.

Not including extra time - did I not mention that? I should be a bookie. I was in the 'give him time' camp, but if the long ball stuff is really his idea, he needs to sort it pronto. If not, I don't think he'll be here after Pearson is fit for duty.

Aye, you're right. I'm 100% convinced now that Baraclough's entire strategy during all the team meetings was "mark imrie out the game".

The 2 new defensive options Kennedy and Chalmers have looked just fine when they have played. Moult and Fletcher have also looked just fine. It's not the unproven players that have been the problem so far. It's guys like Skippy, McManus, Law etc.

Managers rarely visiting the training field is another story. It's pretty standard in the modern game. That's what assistant managers and coaches are for. Not saying I agree with it, but there are lots of things in the modern game I don't agree with. I also doubt a watered grass pitch is harder than an artificial surface. I call BS on the entire game plan being "mark Imrie out the game" though. That's the kind of ridiculous rumour that gets started when teams are struggling.

Morton will be in our faces for 20 mins. We'll weather the storm and earn another 3 - 1 victory. The draw will favour us and we'll go on to a famous Cup victory. This board will then explode with people moaning that it's all very well winning a Cup, but it's only the Scottish Cup that counts.

"There were a few upsets in the last round. I expect there will be a couple in this round but that's natural in cup football. Was that not Lasley that said that (in direct response to question)? It was nothing to do with excuses.

He may not, but I wouldn't be looking at him to play a good 90 mins every week with any level of consistency.

I think Craigan know a bit more about what it takes to step up then the posters on here. Look at Thomas. Cracking player, lots of potential, but inconsistent at best in the first team. Happy to see him get broken in, as it were, but the U20s are never going to be a short term fix.

No way Morton score 3, even against us.

Aye, if nothing else, thanks to the new structures being put in place on the business and the managemenr side, even if the club fails to repay Les, it should be a more attractive option to investors. The real test will come around next season when we see if we have any saleable assets.

Beside the owner.

The infrastructure we have put into the club in the last few months is the most professional we have had for years. Just because it hasn't provided instant results doesn't mean it's not better than it was. You don't just put a successful team together over the summer. If you did, the SPFL would be full of them every August.

Supposedly, left mid is Taylor's preferred position, but will interesting to see if that's how it pans out.

The Society loans money to the club. Apart from the first year where the mechanism wasn't in place and they had to buy shares instead.

Douglas Park on derby day was never an easy venue, and laying comedy clown turf instead of grass definitely gives a home advantage. It's never going to be an easy game, but we do need to break through the psychological barrier and stuff them.

Apparently.

Gaffer said last week he was back in training. I imagine even if he's fit, though, he won't be going near the fake grass this weekend.

He did also say he'd prefer a permanent signing to a loan, so maybe Ripley and Taylor are being punted back to their home clubs in January and we can sign another mid in the next window.

I know many people disagree, but I think the defence's subsequent performances after Dan signed full time back up my theory. By your theory, they should have been confident and settled.

It can (and is by me) be equally argued that our change in fortunes in conjunction with Dan's loan spell was Dan's good luck because the team hit some good form. We didn't hit good form because of Dan. For example, Faddy's performance in the Thistle game was not Dan related.

While there's no doubt the new gaffer has been given access to extra resources, I don't know it would fall under "everything he could possibly want" - especially as we were outbid on some midfield options that would have done a good job for us. I think people underestimate the time it takes to rebuild a bad team, and am not surprised by the slow start to this season. As I posted in other threads, Tommy McLean's first season in the SPL was dire (saved from relegation by reorganization) and he had access to plenty of resources. His next few seasons were mostly a struggle too.

He certainly hasn't been able to tighten up our defence much.

Steelmen Online's weeyin will read Jay's blog entry,