MelvinBragg

Dunne is certainly going a long way to win over his doubters. Out of contract in the summer? I wouldn't be averse to him getting a new contract. Laughed when I read what you wrote about Main. Just before I had a look at this thread, I was thinking about Main and the phrase that crept into my head was 'I like the cut of his jib'...

No chance... It'll be 2-0 and Frear and Tanner...

It's a bad day when you look at the line-up and start praying it's a wacky 442 diamond midfield. Tanner was poor on Saturday (don't know how fit he is) and I suspect Frear isn't ready to start a game yet. But it's still not an eleven to get the pulses racing... EDIT Having said that. It's the exact same team as the league cup semi-final bar the two strikers and Hartley and all three are unavailable or have moved on...

You managed to say what I was trying to say a few posts back, but you used far fewer words. What I would say is that a manager having a clear idea of how he wants to play and the formation he wants to use is, in general, a good thing. Robinson has clearly managed to bring in central defenders that are comfortable in a back three. Tait is comfortable at right wing back and Hendrie may turn out to be the answer at left wing back. Problem is further forward. We don't seem to have come up with a midfield combination that allows us to compete, retain possession and create chances. I don't know if we even have the personnel to come up with the right combination despite midfield being the area where we have the most bodies. The other issue is that playing 352, I'm not sure where Cadden, Frear and Tanner fit in. Given they are three players that offer creativity (Frear and Tanner) or real powerful physical presence (Cadden) then you'd want them in the team. If we are going to persevere with 352, Robinson's third window should be used to get the midfield balance right, find his long term solution at left wing back and perhaps move on some of the players that don't fit the way Robinson wants us to play...

Apparently yesterday was the first time we'd conceded a goal from a header in the league this season* (we were informed this by another fan about ten seconds before Thistle scored, thanks Paul) so would suggest we're doing something right about defending free kicks... *Haven't checked this myself before anyone points out any inaccuracy there...

There is no easy answer as you say. I do think that Campbell and McHugh are being made to look worse than they are by the fact that they're being outnumbered in there. I like Tanner but when he's played as a central midfielder it becomes more like 3412 or 343 than 352. Which is a problem when pretty much every other team in the league plays three central midfielders. People have been slating McHugh's distribution but numbers are a factor there as well. With three opposition midfielders against our two, it makes it far easier for teams to close both McHugh and his passing channels down. I'm not absolving the players of any blame but I don't think the shape always helps. Cadden is another player suffering because of this. Playing at wing back, his starting position means that he has to do a lot more work before he gets into an area where he can cause the opposition problems. I guess what I'm trying to say is tgat people are focusing on personnel in midfield when it's not the only problem...

Voted for Dunne. Could have gone for Kipré but feel Dunne was excellent and deserves credit given some of the stick he gets...

As I see it, the problem with our midfield is as follows.. Early in the season, we played three workers in the midfield (invariably McHugh, Rose and Campbell). This allowed us to compete but the lack of creativity was less of an issue because we had an in form Bowman dragging defenders all over the place leaving space for Moult. And Moult could get us a goal out of nothing. Think of the last goal against Aberdeen in the league cup, the second goal in the semi final, his goal against Hearts. Were those goals 'created' for Moult? In the absence of Moult or another striker who can pull a goal of nowhere, we are now generally only playing two workers and Tanner. I like Tanner (although he had a poor game today) but he's not going to do the dirty work that a Rose might do. Basically I feel that the problem is not Campbell or McHugh but the fact that they are generally playing against three central midfielders. When players are of a broadly similar ability (as most SPL players are), numbers generally win the day. So what's the solution? Could Bigirimana or MacLean be the third midfielder in place of Tanner offering creativity and a degree of defensive work that isn't Tanner's strength. Could Cadden play more centrally as he did a couple of seasons ago under McGhee in a asymmetrical 442? Then he played with Pearson and Lasley in the middle, occasionally breaking into wider areas when we attacked. Johnson played wide, allowing us to still play two up front. As others have said, the 352 doesn't suit the attacking players in our squad. Tanner, Cadden and Frear don't really benefit from this system and we're not getting the best out of them in this shape. Maybe as Ciftci gets fitter, he'll start to pull goals out of nowhere as Moult did earlier this season and Robinson will be able to go back to his three 'battlers' in the middle of the park. Again not great to watch but it might be relatively successful. Depressing that it might be better for us to ditch our more creative players in favour of workers. A sad indictment on Scottish football...

I thought Thistle were the better team for much of the game. I think that their lack of ambition cost them as their midfield sitting deeper was a help to us. If they had kept pushing at 1-0, they could easily have picked up a second goal. We seemed to be second to every loose ball. Thought Tanner was as poor as I've seen him and offered little. Because of that Campbell and McHugh were getting overrun in midfield. Hendrie may have taken an early knock but was poor. Cadden looked better when we went 442, a formation that could have been exposed had Thistle wanted to show any real attacking intent (it nearly cost us late on). Thought our two best performers were Kipré and Dunne. Much maligned Dunne may be but it was his commitment and attitude that got us our equaliser and I thought he was excellent defensively. Given I thought we deserved to lose, I'll take the point and move on. You know how you prevent timewasting? Score the first goal...

The traditional flat 4 across midfield is dead. With a few notable exceptions (Leicester season before last), it just concedes too much possession. Most teams play at least three in the middle of midfield. Hence my reference to a 'suicidal' flat 4 across midfield...

Fact is that with Osman fit for them, it kind of justifies Robinson picking his more physical midfielders and leaving the ball players like Tanner and Bigirimana on the bench. Not saying it's what I would do but can see the justification. Hendrie gives us the option of a back four. But that would mean trying to pick two centre halfs out of four. And where do you then play Cadden without playing the suicidal flat 4 in midfield? Really need his running power or we risk not being able to get up the park. In short, I don't have a clue what team I'd pick...

Grimshaw and Tanner in for Cadden and Ciftci. Rose or Grimshaw at wing back? 442 with a diamond midfield? I don't know so hopefully neither does Neil Lennon...

Any word on the potential new striker we were supposed to be after? Given we have a game in a couple of hours, I'd have thought we would want our business done relatively early today...

You do realise that £180k is probably three players' annual salary for a year? So not fuck all in the grand scheme of things? Not that I'm advocating selling Carson for £400k, not with so little time to get a replacement in. But to say £180k is fuck all to a club like ours is patently nonsense...

Dare I say our current assistant manager?

I thought Celtic had moved on to other targets when we made it clear that we weren't letting Carson go on the cheap? £500k sounds like a lot for a guy you paid £10k for in the summer, but as you say and the point I made to a Celtic fan at my work, there's no point in being the richest team in the Championship. It's only a good deal if we have a replacement lined up...

That would be a bit disappointing given the valuations were apparently "miles apart" but not surprising if Carson wants to go. Hearing talk of a left back coming in this afternoon. Not been given a name though...

Nowhere near the worst we've had recently...

This is all true but we all know that if a player wants to leave, then there are many ways to engineer a move. Is Carson the type of player to threaten to down tools? I don't know. But this is not Hearts or Aberdeen where there would be a decent wage increase and not much else to tempt a player. This is Celtic, a sizeable wage increase and if Carson believes in his ability to displace De Vries, an opportunity to play in the Europa League this season and win a league medal. The lateness in the window counts in our favour as it doesn't give Carson that much time to agitate for a move if he wanted to. His background might mean he's not welcomed by some of their support and that might put him off. I honestly couldn't say how this will pan out...

Those saying that £500k would be a good return if we could get a replacement in. Problem is that chances are there will be no potential replacements out there that clubs would be happy to let go that would be worth having. Having said that, if Carson wants to go then the deal will happen. And why wouldn't he want to go? Massive wage rise, De Vries out of contract in the summer I believe, and Gordon at an age when he'll start to miss a few games? Goalkeeper is one position where a player probably realises that there's only one spot so being a sub is an occupational hazard. Losing Moult and Carson in the same window will be a real sore boot in the balls...

Had a quick look at his stats. 5 goals in 12 starts is impressive but hasn't scored since 9th September. Interesting looking at St Johnstone stats. Scougall, who many coveted in the summer, has 1 goal in 17 starts. Tanner, 7 goals in 16 starts. What does that tell us? Maybe that sometimes chasing a 'name' isn't always the way to go...

Not sure I'd be disappointed if we didn't get him. Not sure where he fits in to the system that we seem to be playing. And after a bright start to his loan spell at St Johnstone, he didn't do very much. And that's with a manager who had got the best out of him before and a fair number of players he had played with, ideal situation you'd have thought to rediscover his form...

I'm guessing (and I stress guessing) it means Left Hand Side...

Someone on one of the match threads mentioned the possibility of a journeyman left midfielder. Haven't heard any names mentioned though...

Let me first say that I like Andy Rose and don't think he's nearly as bad as some on here make out. But to me, dropping Tanner today looks like a way of keeping Rose in the team and that decision looks baffling to me. Hope I'm proved wrong...