MelvinBragg

Reading between the lines here obviously but you seem to be suggesting that AB is either moulding the club in his image or seems to the think of the club as his personal fiefdom. That's what I'm taking from your "inability to abstract" which sounds like horrendous management speak to me. Is that what you're suggesting?

I didn't rate Gorrin, that's a fact...

With which midfielders? Looking at the bench yesterday, we had one centre midfielder who is nowhere near good enough. If Cornelius had been there, or Maguire or Donnelly then I would see your point...

I find it interesting that you consider Kelly one of Robinson's signings. I know his loan deal was arranged before Alexander was here, but his decision to come permanently must reflect well on Alexamder, I'd consider him an Alexander signing. Agenda? On a general point, however, I tend to agree. Only Alexander signing that I'm convinced by is Slattery. Not writing off any of the rest of them yet, but they haven't impressed me that much...

343, utter nonsense. A recipe for disaster...

Scott has been unlucky with injuries at Hull. He has all the tools to make it at Scottish Premier or English Championship level. Need to bear in mind the lad is still only 20. I think people forget his age because he was 17 when he made his debut...

Cheers. If they're only delivering them now, should expect mine shortly...

I see the club have confirmed that we'll be back at full capacity for our next home game so we'll be able to see us lose from our own seats. Quick question though, I note on the article mention of getting your season ticket delivered. I was under the impression that we were just to continue using our existing cards. Was I mistaken?

Thanks. I thought I had misread that until I saw your reply...

I haven't seen Ojala or Shields yet. Having seen the rest of them, Slattery and Kelly look good enough, O'Connor looks to have potential. Van Veen, Woolery and Amaluzor don't look anywhere near good enough. They might come good but so far they look like out of their depth...

I'd be astounded. Plays for Galatasaray. Outwith our budget on that basis...

McGinlay also...

Are you sure? He played for Manchester United U23s as a trialist last night...

Correct. Huge issue on Sunday was the lack of options on the bench...

Pretty sure there will be clubs that took advantage of a loan and still charged their fans for season tickets. At least our supporters are getting an obvious benefit from it...

Jester shirt was fine. Shorts were the problem...

Ideal result for us. Chasing the ball for much of the game in that heat but still in the tie so will have at least one eye on next Thursday, which wouldn't have been the case had they been pumped 4-0...

I actually think 442 is less cautious than 433, given our wide players in a 442 will offer not much going back the way. The idea of playing Watt behind Woolery and Van Veen is fine in principle if Watt can be coached to think like a midfielder. If not, it's just 433 with a deep lying striker. If you want to start cautiously, with our squad it's 352.. Again you're only playing 3 central midfielders but you've got protection behind them. Kelly Mugabi O'Connor Lamie O'Donnell Slattery Donnelly Maguire Carroll Watt Van Veen Not a huge fan as I feel it can turn into 532 very easily and hand too much initiative to the opposition but if you're looking for a cautious approach, this is how I would go..

Again I ask the question, what formation are you using? 442? Who is playing wide midfield in your 442? Will your wide men really operate as wide midfielders or wingers, as I suspect Woolery and Amaluzor would do? So you would effectively be playing 424. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm having a go at you personally but the idea that 442 helps you win midfield is a nonsense unless it's a Terry Butcher style midfield with Pearson and Lasley at wide midfield. The last 442 we played to any kind of positive effect was McGhee second time around and that was a squinty 442 with 3 midfielders and one winger, so basically a 433.. The idea of only playing two central midfielders is a nonsense. Teams playing 343 invariably have two attacking midfielders in the front three who drop in to prevent being outnumbered. The 4231 is basically a 433 as the central figure in the '3' is a midfielder, who drops in. I seem to recall 352 taking a beating on here during periods when Robinson's team performed poorly. And likewise 433 when he used that. The only time I ever agreed with Maurice Malpas was when he said formations don't win you games, players do. The obsession with 'only' having three in midfield is a red herring. On Sunday we weren't tirng because we were chasing possession so much as we were tiring because of the lack of options on the bench. Hibs were able to freshen things up with no real drop off in quality. We couldn't... Obviously if someone comes up with a way to play four in midfield, I'm all ears...

What formation would you play?

Is there an option for muting posts from certain posters so I can't see it? If so, how...

Yawn....

Was about to post likewise in the match thread. First eleven looks ok-ish (assuming Ojala shores up the defence). But as we tired, our options off the bench were not going to win us the game. Maybe Shields will be one but probably another attacker required...

Ceremonial role and Alexamder has said as much previously in that he wants several leaders in the team. Given the captain is supposed to be the only player allowed to approach the ref, it might not be the worst idea in the world ro have a Scottish international doing it....

Why the banging of the head emoji?