MelvinBragg

<H4 class=matchstats>Motherwell</H4> 01 Smith 43 Saunders 13 Klimpl 02 Quinn 04 Reynolds 03 Hammell 15 Murphy 14 Lasley 18 McGarry 09 Porter 11 Sutton <H4 class=sub>Substitutes</H4> 19 Nielsen, 17 O'Brien, 12 Smith, 08 Malcolm, 16 Fitzpatrick, 35 McHugh, 37 Hutchinson Interesting. I make it a 3-5-2, but could be Reynolds or Hammell in midfield. Time will tell...

I tend to agree with you that the only way McGhee will get the move that he so dearly wants is if he focuses totally on the job at hand and turns things around. I suspect though (as someone else posted, sorry can't remember who) he may do a Roy Keane and walk away citing lack of funds/appreciation by the fans. Your second point is one that's rankled with me for some time. But I don't think we can blame McGhee on this one (much as I'd like to ). Since McLean left, we have lost the ability to unearth the hidden gems that he found. Who had heard of Cusack, Nijholt, McKinnon or Dykstra before they'd signed for us? I know times are tight in Scottish football, but as you point out, other clubs have managed to find quality players. We need to be signing players looking to make a name for themselves, not players living off the fact that they once played for the old Firm...

Who he??

On his case? Maybe I was one of his harsher critics. But even in a good season, when the manager makes mistakes, can the fans not discuss them? If you're suggesting I'm anti McGhee for the sake of it, you're wrong. I'd like nothing better than for his team to prove me wrong, climbing the table over the next few months. But I call it as I see it. A lot of fans (less so now, I grant you) seem to feel he can do no wrong. I don't feel he can do no right: Porter was a shrewd bit of business, initially he got the best out players that had looked useless under Malpas, he instilled confidence in the team, he had us playing attractive football (the league cup game at Easter Road will live long in the memory of the few that were there). But sadly now, a lot of the players look exactly like they did under Malpas. McGarry has lost the pace that surprised us (and a few SPL defenders) last season, Quinn and others have reverted to 2006/2007 form. That's what I see. And it makes me sad. I'm not gleeful at the prospect of the chance to slate McGhee...

Possibly unfair to judge him on a night when the whole team performed quite so poorly. if others round about him perform better, he might not have to dive in quite as much. Certainly passes the ball better than any other defender we have on our books...

To quote the wise Malpas, it's not formations that win games it's players The one time I've ever agreed with Malpas. I'm still a believer in 4-4-2. But when selecting the wide men I'd be in favour of playing a left footed player on the left wing. Failing that, someone with pace who can skin a man. McGarry for all he is a 100% man, is neither of these players. And Keith Lasley is not a winger either. It looked to me that playing Lasley at right midfield last night was all about protecting Saunders rather than giving us an attacking outlet. Surely that was the position to play McGarry. I'll go further. If McGarry is to play, right wing in a 4-4-2 is the only position he should play, one where his lack of pace is not further accentuated by the need to turn in onto his good foot. Fact is, we only have one left winger at the club, Jim O'Brien, and he has yet to start a game. This may be due to the fact that he doesn't show enough in training, but he must have shown something in the summer to merit a deal. Maybe time to see if he can reproduce it in a game where he starts, a game where he has a chance to find the pace of the game. Maybe he can be the man to fulfill what is starting to feel like an impossible dream. A Motherwell player getting to the byelne and cutting the ball back. Making defenders face their own goal. Negating the possibility of offside. A man can dream. To be honest with you, the reason I'm so set on 4-4-2 is that with so few options in our squad, it's the formation that allows us to play the least number of players out of position. That and the fact we don't have the right three strikers to combine in a 4-3-3. MearnsWell is right in that I don't think Sutton and Porter are the ideal combination. But were we to get balls into the box from within 18 yards of the goal line (as opposed to hoisted in from 30-40 yards out, meat and drink to Jones, Wilkie et al), they would probably get goals. Maybe I'm wrong. It's all about opinions. But at least I back up my opinions with reasoning. Too often this season, I (and a few others I watch the game with) struggle to find the reasoning behind McGhee's team selections...

Goan, gies the highlights, my sound card is knackered...

Bad, I can accept, Neil. A lack of interest from the majority of the players/manager when we're shelling out our hard-earned to watch them, that I find hard to stomach...

Aye, near the bottom but as we've been in the league twenty odd years now, we've very rarely been bottom and that's the way it's going. If I recall, you're a Celtic man. You're one to talk about unfair abuse of managers...

We're stuck with him cos no other club will want him and he doesn't strike me as honourable enough to walk away...

That's it in a nutshell. When you say that you only trust 13 of your players, I would suggest that the 13 in question start to feel a little too comfortable for their own good. Hughes and McGarry in particular have no need to worry about their places in the team. Cos if he wasn't going to bin them for the performances so far this season, he never will. Unlike a few, I reckon Porter isn't one of the major offenders (although tonight was as clear an indication as you want that he and Sutton can't play together. Because we have no strength in depth at the back, our defenders are free to have nightmare games every week without fear of being dropped. Kilmarnock were 5 or 6 first teamers tonight. We were missing 3. Why does the squad of a club of a similar size to ours seem so much deeper? We have a problem. It would be better for both parties if McGhee left. But he won't quit if there's no job available. We can't afford to sack him. And any chairman would have to be off their head to want him at the moment. We're stuck with him. And it's leaving a very sour taste in my throat...

Another question: is Hughes playing??

Not good enough really. At home to a really understrength Kilmarnock team, Alan Combe has had one save to make. And that was a weak header...

Have we won a game where we've lost the first goal this season?

A lot of huffing and puffing but we're not creating too many chances. Everything seems to be breaking down when we get to the edge of their 18 yard box...

Free header in our 6 yard box. We get away with it then Sutton misses after rounding the goalie. Never seems this stressful at the game...

Porter has two chances, first one he was unlucky, second one he could have done better, at least we got near their goal. Was starting to think we were playing for the draw...

Team confirmed as Smith Saunders Klimpl Reynolds Hammell Lasley Hughes Malcolm McGarry Sutton Porter Subs Nielsen DL Smith Murphy Fitzpatrick O'Brien McHugh Hutchinson I am, of course, assuming that McGarry is wide left and Lasley wide right. Time will tell...

Cue gags about Bob Malcolm...

Every time I've watched the tribute video from the sponsor's evening, I've thought the same thing - "Christ, I forgot how good that goal against Hearts was..."

Be unusual this one for me. I've never watched us live on the telly before when we've been playing at Fir Park. Due to family commitments, I shall be sitting on my arse with Setanta for company. Clearly to get rid of the alien feeling, I'll need to burn a pie for myself and make a cup of tea that looks like dishwater...

I'd go with Smith Saunders Klimpl Reynolds Hammell Hughes (yes, wide right) Malcolm Lasley O'Brien Porter Clarkson My thinking is that if we play Malcolm and Lasley in the middle, we stand a chance of winning the battle before we win the football game...

Fair play, big man. Didn't want to come across as confrontational. We've all come out with nonsense when we're drunk. Lucky when I'm drunk I can't even type...

While understanding, you were drunk when you posted this, I think it's one of the most offensive things I've ever read. At a time when his children are having to deal with their first christmas without their father, I think it's time to reconsider your definition of distraught...

Personally, I'm not in favour of marking the anniversary. For the sake of the O'Donnell family, I think it's time we moved on. A permanent memorial in time would be a great thing, but (and again this is only my gut instinct here) this will be a difficult enough time for the family without being reminded of last December's tragedy in a very public way...