Jump to content

Kmcalpin

SO Well Society Members
  • Posts

    9,687
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    60

Everything posted by Kmcalpin

  1. Agree about Moult, but Skippy is probably just p****d off at the type of game he's being asked to play and the appalling service he's receiving. Yes, he can be huffy but he's human and few of us like being asked to do someone else's job, which is different to our own's when we turn up for work. A bit like a cabinetmaker turning up for work and being asked to do a roughing joiner's job, or vice versa and being given the wrong tools to do it.
  2. Maybe a tad harsh no? Are you not confusing lack of pace with lack of fitness? That said he's still not fully match fit.
  3. I'd agree that yesterday's back four is probably our strongest and maybe McGhee does too given that Hammell did not get a starting slot. Both full backs lack pace however and given that our central midfiefders also lack pace it seriously limits our attacking options as we witnessed yesterday. Samson didn't do much wrong yesterday although his communication with Heneghan and Chalmers was very poor at times with the pair conceding totally needless corners (not their fault|). Agree that Brill deserves a chance to show what he can do. Clay? I thought he played reasonably well although he faded in the second half and made 2 or 3 perhaps careless, but understandable, errors. He is a decent player, probably an all rounder rather than an out and out attacking player, but badly lacks pace and lies fairly deep. Thats ok if one of his colleagues in the middle is quick off the mark but we don't currently have anyone that fits the bill. Cadden tends to play a good bit wider. That means we either have to play the long high ball, which we did yesterday, unsuccessfully, or bring back the likes of Johnson and Ainsworth which we also did yesterday. In the process that allows their markers to play in more advanced roles. Any runs our 2 whippets make have to be from deep positions. A feature of our play yesterday was a painfully slow, laboured and overelaborate build up, only broken by Cadden's impressive but ultimately unsupported runs. Older fans will remember the days of Ged Brannan when he would collect the ball from defence and then virtually walk 50/60 yards up the pitch to be faced by serried ranks of defenders and then turn back or make a square pass. It was a bit like that yesterday for long spells. By the time our midfield had mounted an attack our opponents had raced back and set out rows of defenders to repel them. Certainly the return of Moult will enhance our attacking options and McHugh will add a bit of protection to a shaky defence.
  4. Some good points but it does throw up some selection issues when everyone is fit. Presumably you think we ought to go 4-4-2? On that assumption we'll say that MacDonald and Moult play up front. The defence may pick itself with the exception of left back and goalkeeper (my view). That then leaves midfield. Assuming that McHugh, Cadden and Johnson are first picks who then do we select for the attacking central midfield role? Clay, who lies deep and lacks pace for all his assets; Lasley; or someone else?
  5. Given the team we put on the park I was happy with a draw. The same weaknesses we witnessed against St Johnstone were again evident today. I thought McManus, Clay, Cadden and Heneghan were the pick of the bunch, with the latter unfortunate to be yellow carded given what had gone unpunished before. Cadden put in a hard shift but unfortunately most of his work had no end product due in no small part to colleagues being unable to support him. Clay is a real enigma. I thought he had a reasonable game especially in the first 45 but faded in the second with a number of unforced errors. That aside though I just don't see where his style of play fits into our team. His lack of pace along with that of Lasley meant that our attacks were painfully slow in the build up. Skippy had a thankless task trying to win short aerial balls against a man mountain who strolled through the game. Again he was forced to play too deep and just didn't link up with Johnson and Ainsworth who were played on the wrong wings and also sat too deep. It was really disappointing that Jacob Blyth didn't make the bench as I thought he had turned the corner fitness wise last week. We enjoyed a lot of possession but had no cutting edge whatsoever. It took us until the 41st minute to register our first shot on target. When defending we again sat in too deep making it easy for an equally toothless Dundee side, but fortunately they couldn't do much either. In the short term I think our objective should have been to reach the Ross County game pretty much in the pack and we've done that. Hopefully Moult, McHugh and Blyth will return by then to bolster a suspect midfield and toothless attack. But we do need to sign an attacking central midfielder, hopefully with pace, next week. If we do I don't see a place for either Lasley or Clay in the side, except as back up or as part of a proper 5 man midfield. It would be churlish not to mention Dundee's defence today who I thought were outstanding. Admittedly their job was made a bit easier by only having to face a lone striker with little midfield back up. They chased, harried, tackled and gave our lads little or no time and space. Any effort on goal we had to work damned hard for it.
  6. Hateley was an ok right back and on a scale of 1 to 10 I'd award him a 7. quite good but by no means the best I've seen play for us. Good at dead balls but he badly lacked pace and often got caught out when trying to outrun an opponent on the overlap.
  7. My understanding, and its only an opinion, is that Les has moved the goalposts for "personal reasons" whatever they may be.
  8. Initially your criticism sounded very harsh and negative but the more I think on it the more I think you're right. At the moment we're playing with a deep lying defensive central midfield and a solitary striker and that doesn't aid creativity. Yes, Ainsworth, Johnson and Cadden are fast but most of the others are one paced. You've also got our 3 veterans in Hammell, Lasley and McManus. Of the newcomers, Clay and Tait do seem slow. Unfit? Yes, I'm beginning to wonder as we seem to tire badly in the second half of games. A slight chink of light is that Moult and McHugh will return from injury. Hopefully too we'll sign a attacking central misdfielder with a modicum of pace next week. However the team and in particular central midfield are unbalanced. Early days though.
  9. Good post David. The alternative to a Society takeover would be sale to any party if one came forward or I suppose administration/liquidation in the worst case scenario. I agree with Dennyc that the ball should be in our court as Les Hutchison has moved the goalposts after the game kicked off. However we don't know whats written into the original agreement which may give him licence to do that. At the best though its been unfair.
  10. The Society and Club are not classed as public bodies in the same way that local authorities are for example. Therefore they are not covered by Freedom of Information or Environmental Information Regulation legislation. I suspect that if the Society or Club were to stipulate that all information be available to members then Les would have walked away. I agree about communication being poor.
  11. I don't know. Our core support is say 3,600 and the Society membership is 1,912. On that basis the Society membership represents about 53% of our support. Thats a maximum figure as not all members attend games and so I'd say its about 50%. Of the half who haven't joined a significant proportion, and I wouldn't care to quantify that, would never ever join under any circumstances. The Society and club know that perfectly well. I do however share some of your concerns. I am confident that the Society will take over the club in the not too distant future. The Society wants it, the club does and so does Les. The problem is that Les moved the goalposts a little way into a five year period. Not surprisingly the Society had to rip up financial plans and rejig them. As far as I can see, the only feasible and fair way for the Society to pay our benefactor back is to do so through a cut of future transfer fees. A lot of money is stake and I'm not in the least bit surprised that lawyers are painstakingly going through details. In my career I've was assured several times that a project was all but signed sealed and delivered only to be delayed for months or even a year by lawyers going through seemingly straightforward issues and raising problems. I've no doubt that the Society takeover is exactly the same.
  12. Jim McMahon certainly does have the club's welfare at heart and woe betide any party that threatens it. As Onthefringes said he wasn't at the AGM but was at the meeting downstairs in the Centenary Suite. He was pretty forthright as he always is. As for your questions, some remind me of sports journos questions on BBC. 1) If the club, and indeed Society, doesn't think that its a good deal they will not simply not sign up for it end of. Why would they? 2) Very similar to 1). If the MFC Board doesn't believe in it why on earth are they pursuing it? A bit like asking Mark McGhee if he wants to win on Saturday - I doubt if he wants a defeat and would be shocked and very very annoyed if he did. 3) Les is the current owner and as such the ball is in his court, not ours. If the Society bid fails, and I hope it doesn't, he could either wind the club up or put it up for sale to the highest bidder - neither is likely according to what we were told. 4) If it was a no goer pulling out early would only exacerbate his problems as less cash would have been repayed to him.
  13. Sounds like progress is being made. Good to read a set of minutes at last.
  14. Of course not. The Directors will be well aware of Mark McGhee's views and vice versa. No need to play silly games by proxy. It may be that Mark McGhee knows his strongest team, taking account of injuries, and wants them to get 90 minutes under their belt for fitness reasons. Also possible, although unlikely, that he doesn't like playing subs because it means paying them appearance money - remember the Terry Butcher era? There could be any number of reasons for his decision.
  15. The original question was the best midfield for this season. From what I've seen and read McHugh would appear to be first choice defensive midfielder. To my mind both Lasley and Clay are also defensive midfielders. IF you look at the current situation I'd pick McHugh, and one from Lasley and Clay to play in the middle, probably the latter given the former's age. Depending on the game you may want to field both but I'd see that as being very rare. But to go back to the original question and looking at the longer/medium term I'd say we need to sign an attacking central midfielder as neither Las nor Clay fit that bill. Pearo may return at the end of the year who knows. Johnson and Cadden would also be my first choices for the wider roles.
  16. I'd go with McHugh + one other maybe not signed yet. Clay and Lasley can slot in as and when needed. From many posters' comments Keith is playing with us a year too long. As far as Clay is concerned we need to give him a chance.
  17. I agree Jim but this is where financial clout comes in. Clubs like Dundee United and Hibs have traditionally offered such youngsters very lucrative salaries and deals to retain them, whereas we couldn't afford to do likewise. That said even Hibs couldn't compete with Burnley. If youngsters are offered a deal with a largish English club they'll be offski.
  18. Just to put a few posters' minds at rest - Mark McGhee said that 3 of our Under 20 Cup winning side moved on - Leitch, Hall and Long with the first two generating fees.
  19. Thats worrying and does little to dispel fears about the squad's fitness.
  20. One game doesn't make or break a season but this is one we really should be looking at winning. As Gregy has written they are of a similar standing to ourselves although they're spending cash (they don't have).
  21. Just watched the 8 minute highlights and while we seemed to have played better than the in the previous week we still showed similar weaknesses. The two goals we lost resulted from criminal defending with Rangers' players being given acres of space and loads of time in our box. When will we learn that such poor defending costs games.
  22. What exactly was his role if you don't mind me asking?
  23. I have no problem with us sitting back and soaking up pressure but we have to have the players to do it and we don't. You have to have two giant centre backs who will win everything in the air and two full backs who play out on the wing. In front of them you need a mobile midfield which protects its defence and sits about 40 yards out from goal to prevent any crosses; shots at goal and runs into the box. You don't hold firm by defending deeply.
  24. Its probably down to a number of factors. As you say we weren't giving players on the ball any options - maybe tiredness, maybe lack of confidence. Defensively our off the ball play was woeful - not hassling opponents and not closing them down.
×
×
  • Create New...