MelvinBragg

It was the worst kind of setup for us. They were happy to sit deep. Clearly they've watched us and plan A, B and C has been to play the ball behind the opposition defence for Bair to use his pace. Leave no space behind and we don't have anyone to unlock a defence. Maybe a winger who could go past a man would have been useful in this situation? Even at that, the greater concern would be how simple long balls in the air were causing so many problems.. A bad night at the office...

True but you have to factor Butcher being injured and the loss of the pace of Furlong and Johnston. Butcher was very much the talker and organiser of the back three. Unfortunately he's had to focus a bit on his own form as he had been out for so long. Furlong and, in particular, Johnston allowed us to defend a wee bit higher up the park due to both their recovery pace when we lost possession and the fact that teams were more wary of their pace going forward. Souare and O'Donnell don't bring the same pace. Things have improved since Butcher found his feet a bit and since Gent became a starter and I don't think it's a coincidence...

Given how he played I always felt Noel Hunt was more appropriate...

Team played reasonably well on Saturday (also reckon O'Donnell didn't have a bad game). I'd argue that tonight's game is huge so not one to gamble with untested players..

Maguire has already played for two clubs this season. So for him to play in the second half of the season, it'd have to be us or Kidderminster. And they don't want him back so...

I thought the consensus was that we played well last week and simply didn't take our chances? So why should an unchanged lineup be a surprise?

For those suggesting we "pushed the boat out" for Van Veen, how far should we have pushed? Are you 100% convinced he'd have got the goals to keep us up? So you're guaranteeing he's fit and in form? And guaranteeing he won't get injured? Any player can get injured, can we afford to have stretched our budget for a guy only for him to be injured? Pushing the boat out for Van Veen would have been lunacy...

Oh, I haven't forgotten. Neither will Stevie Hammell as Van Veen basically downed tools for Hammell's last month in charge...

Van Veen had an outstanding six months where everything he hit went in, in a team that Kettlewell had set up with the tactic 'Play to suit Van Veen'. Looking at the rest of his career, I wouldn't (as it appears Killie have and St Mirren were willing to do) have been pushing the boat out for him...

My brother who has a season ticket at Ibrox says he can play either side. Phrase used was "Played a few games there under Beale. Didn't look out of place"

I think we may look back on not getting Van Veen as a bullet dodged...

My understanding of the Van Veen situation is that it's a loan so wages probably not the issue here so much as how much each club can contribute. So it might be Groningen that decides rather than Van Veen himself...

That's a separate issue, number of starts. You said two goals in fourteen games like he'd started every game. But when you're called out on it, you move the goalposts. It's now not about how many goals he scored, it's about how many games he started is why he's 'shite'. Which is what you're talking...

Apparently we're one of several clubs in for Van Veen. Unsure whether it'd be a good idea or not...

I was wondering about this. Might they take the approach that the last manager they pinched from St Mirren didn't work out so that might count against him? Dunno and care less... Regards Saturday's game, until we see what business we do, it's impossible to guess at our lineup. And that'll dictate my level of optimism/hope ahead of kick off...

Read what I wrote, then do some basic research and then come back to me...

You're right. Two goals having only started five games, appalling...

He started three league games. They clearly make up their mind there as quickly as some here do...

If you look closely at his stats, Vale only started five games for Lincoln and scored two goals. On at least three of his eleven sub league appearance, Lincoln City were down to ten men when he came on, or a minute after.. Do these stats mean he's any good? No, but it's context. More context than a simple 'he scored two in seventeen appearances for Lincoln, he must be shit'. As with most of our signings, we won't know til we see him play...

Don't be troubling people with facts now..

More to the point, how in the name of all that is holy is he only 32?

It hasn't worked out badly for Girona or Union St Gilloise...?

I don't disagree that January signings, you want them to hit the ground running. There's no preseason to try and show them what you're after and fine tune. This guy wouldn't be top of my shopping list. Also for the same reasons as Halliday, lack of match sharpness (although I don't know how often he's featured for St Mirren reserves). But the Bair example (not to mention others who don't work out at one club but do at another - John Sutton at St Johnstone and Hearts?) means I'm not automatically reaching for "Awfirfuxake". Sceptical, yes. Convinced he'll be a flop? No... And again this is if we sign him...

Have fans on here not learned the lesson of Theo Bair? Can we not wait and judge what someone does in claret and amber if they sign? Am I enthused by the name Nahmani? Not particularly but Kettlewell has managed to get a tune out of someone who scored one goal last season so I'm willing to trust he might see something in him...

Who are the six? Are they any good?