MelvinBragg

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...

Personally I'm waiting for the outrage about the "punching above their weight" comment in the article. The thrust of the article is right though. Other than Rangers, Celtic, Aberdeen and Hearts, we are currently in the longest unbroken run in the SPL. That means in our time in the SPL, both Dundee clubs, Hibs, St Mirren, Kilmarnock, Dunfermline and Falkirk - all clubs larger or of a comparable size to Motherwell - have seen time in the first division. We really should count our blessings sometimes. The article does, however, skirt around the issue of the fact that performance levels in the same group of players have dropped substantially this season. McCormack is a loss, this is true. But the type of player he was is a rare thing for a provincial club in Scotland. Which other SPL side has a player with that kind of creative spark this season? The key should have been for us to find a way to win games as Kilmarnock, St Mirren and Falkirk do, without relying on one individual. Again we have been lucky at Fir Park, in that in the last few years we have seen two such players in McFadden and McCormack. Perhaps rather than continue to pursue the 4-3-3 without the right type of player, the management should have been trying to mould a solid 4-4-2 team that could grind out results...

As usual, I agree with a lot of what you say, MearnsWell. However, I have to question the widespread belief that Reynolds will be off somewhere. I would suspect that the chances of that are decreasing as his form this season must surely have seen his stock fall. The only thing in his favour is that he is a centre back with pace and these are commodities in short supply. But until he learns better decision-making/positioning, that big move will elude him. I suspect that Lappin would interest McGhee if he's expressed an interest in Charlie Adam. Both players can play left side of a midfield three with Lappin providing more in terms of versatility. As I stated earlier though, this would mean Fitzpatrick being pushed further out of the picture, especially given Klimpl's arrival in the first team meaning Malcolm is now back in the midfield mix...

I see according to today's paper, Forest are in for Adam. Webster and Kennedy anyone. Why can't McGhee keep his big mouth shut til a deal is done???? EDIT Colc beat me by about 10 secs...

Looking forward to seeing Klimpl in action. If he can get match fit (and stay fit), he's got a decent pedigree and hopefully make a difference at the back. My only concern is that his English is good enough improve our communication at the back...

I don't necessarily think we need another striker. Just maybe using the ones we have in a better system would be a better idea. I think either Sutton or Porter alongside Clarkson will produce goals IF we play 4-4-2. I think the crucial thing we need to be looking at is our squad to see if we have players to play the wide roles in this formation (O'Brien? DL Smith? Murphy?) in order to create chances for our front two. If no one in the squad is up the job, a wide man or two should be on the shopping list. The inability to create chances is more of a concern than the ability of our strikers to take them, in my opinion. As regards a new right back, I know I'm asking a lot but I'd like us to sign a player like Mark Wilson or John O'Shea (budget versions obviously) who can play either full back position so as to bring a bit of pressure to both Hammell and Quinn. So, for me, the priority would be the wide areas of the team, full backs and wingers please. But I'm not holding my breath...