CoF

Just looked at the rest of the fixtures. It's bottom 6 vs top 6 this weekend so I anticipate any win from a bottom 6 team today will see some leapfrogging up the table. Never a better time to capitalise.

Y'know what - I canny wait for today's game.

Conspiracy.

That's it exactly. If McGhee wanted to add credibility to our argument ge could have highlighted Bowman's tackle as another example of inconsistent refereeing. As far as I'm aware he didn't comment on it. I'd check his post match MFCTV interview however it appears to have been removed from youtube.....

That's a fairly regular column and is very well pieced together. It goes beyond whether or not the ref made the right decision, but rather why he made the decision. If we want a proper discussion about referees performance then that kind of article should be encouraged. It does primarily focus on games vs Rangers and Celtic, however as a few have pointed out - they have papers to sell (and access to replays might have something to do with it). If you read the other columns they certainly don't have a bias one way or another.

Perfect example is Joe Lewis on Michael Gardnye last week -(1:30 in) Really similar to Bowman, didn't get as clean a touch on the ball yet wasn't a foul. Ex-ref Charlie Richmond in the paper last week saying the ref called it right. Bowman's - clean touch of the ball = foul and yellow card. Richmond in the paper saying "young Motherwell defender" should have been shown red. Whether or not all these incidents are reds or yellows or fouls isn't really the issue. The issue is that every single one generates a difference in opinion between refs, fans, pundits, players and managers. There is an appalling lack of clarity which leaves players vulnerable to the whim of refs who probably couldn't come up with a consistent understanding if you got them all together.

Just saw Mcghees interview on sportscene. Ive still got confidence in him but don't think hes helping his cause calling a 2-0 defeat a good result after saying midweek he wasn't bothered about being 4 down.

It was already well and truly in perspective.

Our rivals (ICT, Dundee, Killie) have a few games to play before Saturday which could add a bit more pressure to this game, however regardless of what happens I think this is a must win if we still have top 6 aspirations (I'm always one to look up, not down). Thoughts on the line-up? Don't think we'll see any big surprises here however I thought Bowman added a lot yesterday so may feature more. He looked sharp, moved the ball well and seemed tuned in to the movement of his team-mates. I now have far more confidence that he is a viable option either to start or come on and turn the game however how he fits in with Moult and McDonald is something I haven't fully worked out yet. Back 4 will be hard to predict until we know how Hammell and McManus are doing. I like the look of Jules going forward so would like to see him start at left back. He does look raw and his inexperience means he will be prone to mistakes - as we have seen so far vs Hearts and Celtic. Midfield - McHugh should start however I'm not sure any combination of Lucas, Clay, McHugh and Lasley has been a complete success nor a complete failure so I don't have any significant preference there. Clay is great at calmly getting the ball out of tight spaces in the middle and played very well in that role yesterday, however has his limitations in that he doesn't excel defensively or going forward. Las still seems to be McGhee's preference so I think we'll see him start with McHugh. Pearo and Cadd's out wide. Simple.

Is it just me or are we far more injury prone this season? Feels like Hammell and Mcmanus' injuries today confirmed something I'd been thinking for a wee while. Of the regulars in and around the starting eleven I think only Clay, Tait, Heneghan and Samson are the only ones not to have missed games through injury. At some point this season we've lost the following from the first team: Hammell Cadden Lasley Moult McHugh McDonald Lucas Mcmanus and from the squad: Chalmers Blythe Kennedy McMillan MacLean Is that normal? I know there are some unavoidable individual circumstances in there, however frequent injuries always point towards issues with training, strength and conditioning which is something we know McGhee would normally get spot on.

Clay was excellent however lost possession a few times in the final third. Big Ben gets it for me - with Tait, McManus and Hammell all out he was unexpectedly left with the huge responsibility of leading the back 4. Thought he coped very well.

Chalmers needs to watch the line - other three are pushing up and he's oblivious.

As much as Hammell has had some really poor games recently, with Mcmillan coming in I can only assume Mcghee didn't fancy a back 4 with very inexperienced players at rb as well as lb. Makes sense to me.

Fuck it, heading over to the ticket office the now.

It's symptomatic of a bad run that fans will look at every aspect of the club and leadership is one which I think we are ill-placed to judge. Why McHugh? Because he's been decent and gets stuck in? I think you might be mistaking playing well with leadership. Let's look at who we have in the starting eleven each week - Lasley - Chosen as club captain by multiple managers. Mcmanus - former Scotland captain. McDonald - total mouthpiece and I imagine both a nightmare and a joy to play alongside. Pearo - speaks with intelligence and gets stuck in. Moult - an almost permanent inspiration. Even Cadden showed leadership beyond his years throughout his time in the u20's and isn't afraid to speak his mind on the pitch in the senior squad. Is McHugh a leader? I have no idea. You can't judge just that kind of thing based on 90 minutes every second Saturday. Most of the influence is done on the training ground, outside the club and before and after games. That's the stuff the fans don't see however based on the histories of half our first team, I'd be very surprised if there was any leadership void.

Oh aye, I remember that at the time. Honest to the point of stupidity - something he hasn't fully grown out of yet. Still - I'm absolutely astonished that's all enough to outweigh his contributions to that club.

I didn't have a huge problem with the reaction after the Rangers game and I don't think we have been playing as badly as results would suggest, however I've found his repetitive interviews the last few weeks slightly bizarre (even in the pre match tonight he was still banging on about the red cards) and that video looks like a guy right on the edge. As an aside - I've never understood Aberdeen fans hatred for McGhee. Have I missed something? Aye, he was woeful up there as a manager but for fuck sake - the guy setup the winning goal against Real Madrid in the European Cup, scoring 4 along the way to the final; then scored the winner in the Super cup the following year. I'm astonished that a poor 18 months in charge is enough to go from genuine club legend to the bile he gets these days.

Nah, not for me. We have got decent results against the teams we would hope to get results against (vs bottom 7 - W6 D5 L2). We have been beaten in the league by the teams we would expect to get beaten by (Aberdeen, Hearts, Rangers, Celtic). We have been knocked out of cups by teams we expected to be knocked out by (Rangers and Celtic). Tonight is a shocker, but McGhee isn't failing in expectations. His results simply aren't sackable form.

That's hilarious - just read both articles. 6th Feb "managers and players must realise that the way you go into the tackle has no bearing on whether you win the ball or not." 13th Feb "The Dons goalkeeper got a touch on the ball before clattering the County player and that really is the key issue. However slight, it was a touch." Absolutely bonkers, although why would we be surprised at inconsistency? I often think refs think they are conductors of an orchestra. It's not their job to control the flow of the game. It's not their job to try to keep 11 men on the park. It's not their job to decide before a match what type of game we all want to see. Just try yer best to apply the rules the same each game and we'll have a hell of a lot less to complaint about.

I'm not sure declining attendances can be laid at McGhee's door. They have been on the slide for a decade despite it being the most sustained period of league success in our history. If finishing 2nd or 3rd still only sees us treading water then we are in trouble. I think our fanbase need to re-evaluate what success looks like at Fir Park. Personally, I'm more than happy to see McGhee stay on. He has a track record of relative success amongst some relative lows so I know there are no guarantees however his overall record for us is good - with the exception of just missing out on the top 6 in 2009 (which isn't exactly the end of the world), he's taken us to 3rd and arguably even more impressive took us to 5th last year. He's got a steady stream of u20's coming into the first team and has us currently sitting 6th. Yes, he is (or was?) a careerist however in 2007 he guided the club admirably through it's darkest days and I personally have never forgotten that, regardless of how his conduct as he left is perceived. He's just had his 3rd transfer window and for the first time in a few years, the squad now looks balanced and strong. I do now anticipate we'll see a strong finish to the season and if so, I'm quite excited to see what McGhee can do for us next year. To me this is the bigger picture, and if that is overshadowed by you disagreeing with his substitutions then I'm not sure any manager will meet your expectations.

I think the ref will (should) take into consideration what has actually made contact with the opposition player. In that case, if I can recall correctly I'm sure it was shinny to shinny (hence the noise) which is far less dangerous than studs at ankle height. I suppose you could argue that any tackle with force which makes contact with the player is at risk of causing injury. Maybe we'll see anything with force gradually being phased out in Scotland while the rest of the world continues to play actual football.

Now that we are paying for players, I'd like to think Bowman and Frear have a promising future at Fir Park. Ideally, that involves performing well and eventually leaving for a fee. Next best scenario is becoming important first team players who contribute then move on for nothing (i.e. Randolph). Worst case would be hardly kicking a ball for us and leaving for nothing. This makes me wonder, is Mcghee working with same scouting network / personnel that Baraclough unearthed Marvin and Moult with? Given we have paid a fee for players for the first time in years, it feels like the pressure is on (in my head at least) for Bowman and Frear to be successes. If they have come in based on the same criteria as Marvin and Moult, I'll be slightly more reassured. Aye, a lot of Baraclough's signings didn't work out however if we get a decent fee for Moult to add to the £400k for Marvin, then in at least one sense his signing policy will have been a success.

Thomas with a nice assist for the 1st on Saturday. Looks like he's enjoying his football - great to see.

McDonald cleared it up quite nicely and actually said following his appearance at the appeal committee (is that the name?), he can understand why he was red carded. He said a new 'technicality' was introduced this summer which places an emphasis on whether the tackle has endangered the opponent. This makes winning the ball an irrelevance and would also give clear grounds for sending McHugh off. McDonald was saying he would now question going into any slide tackle now. As far as I'm aware, that's always been a part of the rules however it seems they are now placing far greater weight on that over winning the ball. I think two issues are (as was also discussed on the programme), communicating that the players - which McDonald suggested is the responsibility of the clubs - and applying that rule consistently, which is the responsibility of the refs. It appears neither have happened particularly well. As for my own thoughts - I'd like to understand the rationale for this decision making. Yes, players need protection and there is always the horrible risk of career enders in the game, however is it happening so frequently that it needed an re-evaluation of the rules? A proper study of injuries and how they happen is the only way to consider whether this is good for the game - whether the SFA did this or not is another question. I'm sure we'll all be looking intently at how refs handle any heavy challenges over the next few weeks.

and just to add a bit of comedy to the debate - here's Martin's yellow..