capt_oats

Out of curiosity did Laing improve any once Law went off?

I thought Chalmers might have been an option worth considering in that role too. Whilst he may not tick all the boxes at the very least his height and build would give us a bit of presence in there that we sorely lack at the moment and don't get from either Taylor or Leitch.

This is largely what I don't get either. We have a position/role that is clearly key to the way we're trying to play but by all accounts only have one effective player to fill that role. Certainly Pearson is, for us, an excellent player and it'd be a stretch to see us having a back up at an equal level but even still we don't seem to have anyone with vaguely comparable qualities that we're willing to start. By extension you then have to start asking what our alternative/plan B is.

Interested to see who we're looking to bring in, what position/type of player, permanent or loan etc. Looking at it from a glass half full perspective I suppose a reasonably sensible approach, given the sort of transition we've seen over the summer etc, would be for us to have held something back & given it a few games with the new players and proposed first XI to see how we're playing and what the lie of the land is, if we need to strengthen and where before the window shuts.

Just for the sake of comparison here's the Hearts 2nd goal. Obviously the ball goes right through Ripley and that's where the blame lies however worth looking at Law again since it's the same side of the park as the St Johnstone 2nd. He's certainly closer to Laing but again he's not actually engaged defensively in any way. McManus goes to press the ball, which leaves Laing again with 2 men to mark, he's touch tight with the guy at the back post but lets's say Ripley gets a decent hand to it and keeps it out (as he should) your man in the centre there has a tap in. Edit to add: here are two of the goals we've conceded from the other side, I know Hammell has his critics but it's worth noting the difference in how we're set up (I know we still concede but that's not really the point). Hammell is touch tight to the attacker at the back post in both cases. McManus could certainly be a bit closer to his man in the case of the United goal but nevertheless I'd imagine that's how we should expect to be when defending from the other side.

I understand the 2 year deal in so much as having him as a (presumably inexpensive) utility player with a bit of experience at the club to cover a couple of positions. I actually don't have too much of an issue with that although you could just as easily argue that for scenarios like that we should be looking to promote from the u20s or that a year's extension would have sufficed. What I don't understand and have a genuine difficulty with is him being considered our first choice right back (if indeed that is the case).

The frequency with which Law is getting caught out of position is clearly having a knock on effect with Laing. With St Johnstone's 2nd goal Law is stood on his own, marking no one and as far as I can see contributing nothing defensively which sees Laing having to cover 2 players (not the first time this has happened either, also the case with Hearts 2nd as well). Surely he has to be tucked in at the back post and allow Laing to get tighter to the man in front. Yes, the whole thing about defending as a team rings true but right now he's making the same mistakes week in, week out which is a concern that one way or another needs to be addressed.

I felt this is how it looked as well. Most of the stuff you read about him has him as a left sided midfielder. The fact that we started the first two games with Chalmers standing in on the left while Johnson filled in on the right while Ainsworth was suspended made me wonder whether we might be a bit light on the left given that Chalmers is also doubling as back-up for Hammell (and presumably McManus). Taylor seemed to me to be a guy to fit in who'd possibly offer a bit more balance than having two rapid wingers. Given Johnson's potential for inconsistency that still seems a legitimate issue. With no wish to write the guy off on the basis of 3 games, on the face of it (physical build etc) he's no replacement for Pearson and doesn't seem particularly suited to playing the box to box position, given how key that role is in terms of how we're supposedly aiming to play and the fact that Pearson is no stranger to an injury it'd seem evident that the central midfield still needs urgently addressed one way or another. Whether that means playing 3 in the middle or sticking with the 442 and changing personnel we can't really just sit and kick our heels, writing off games simply bemoaning the fact that Pearson's not fit.

Nah, just the 2nd.

Ha! Quite. I suppose that was what I was getting at by saying if he can play there. You're right though he might be bloody awful in that position. Would be interesting to hear where he plays this afternoon for the u20s. Also quite interested to see who gets the nod if Fletcher is fit and how that affects McDonald's role, if it does at all. Was noted that Bara was saying in his post match interview that he felt Moult's game was more suited to playing with a partner. Curious to see if one is preferred to the other depending on formation, you get the impression that Skippy will start every game as long as he's fit.

I'd be surprised if there's much, if any, change to the starting XI. However depending on how the game is going you might see subs a bit earlier if we're winning. Maybe along the same lines as Saturday; Thomas, Cadden + another getting 5-10 mins longer than they have been. Personally I feel if Kennedy can play right back then I'd like to see him in for Law, not just because the latter's been struggling for form of late and had a part to play in 2 of the goals conceded by not dealing with crosses into the box but simply because I quite like the idea of having a more dominant back 4. Kennedy is 6ft+ and by all accounts looks like he's a more imposing player physically than Law.

The weird part of this is that when we have been playing out from the back via full backs, centre backs and even balls thrown out to Lasley we've looked vaguely competent, the goal on Saturday (fortunate break of the ball aside) came from the keeper playing it out to Law and working it up the right. I've no issue with us going a bit longer or playing diagonals if it's working (ie: Moult vs their full back) but when it's clearly not and we're either clipping the ball into touch watching Johnson consistently fail to win a header and the keeper fail to find his range or quite simply just giving the opposition the ball back by battering it down the park then it's frustrating.

So, Adam Cummins set to sign for Bangor City in case anyone was wondering where he'd end up. http://www.dailypost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bangor-city-fc-set-make-9868472

ha! well pointed out. I'm now acutely aware that I've been misusing that particular phrase for years!

I've no real truck with Law being in the team if he's playing well. He's a perfectly serviceable squad player however at the moment he looks completely lost to the point where opposition are targeting him as a weak link. 3 of the 6 goals we've conceded have come from the right back position and the number of times Laing is having to get dragged out of position in order to cover is a definite issue. Every player will go through dips in form, that's just natural and there are a few in the XI at the moment who are struggling to find the right gear however that's 4 games now and 6 soft goals conceded where the opposition have barely had to work for them. I'm interested to see whether the manager decides to make some changes with the personnel or whether he persists in the hope that they get it right. I understand the logic of giving an XI time to find their feet but at the moment this defence look guaranteed to simply gift goals in every game. The obvious choice would be Watt to come in however even then we've brought in Kieran Kennedy who by the clubs own admission can play right back: "A centre-back to trade, but with the ability to also play at right-back,". We've brought the player in and he plays in a position in which we're having issues, presumably he's not here simply to sit on the bench or indeed do we have players who are viewed as "undroppable".

Just watched the highlights. I stand corrected about their 2nd, totally legit. Ripley just ends up on his arse when he should be cleaning everyone out to collect.

No stand outs by any means but Moult put in a shift and 2nd half in particular showed some fine touches and intelligent running off the ball.

Draw would probably have been a fair result but to let them back into the game with as soft a goal as we did was absolutely criminal. Unless it was his own man who blocked him it looked like a blatant foul on Ripley for the 2nd. Thought Moult looked like he came on to a game in the 2nd half when McDonald and Ainsworth got closer to him. Some nice touches & link up play but ultimately he doesn't seem much of a goal threat at the moment. Goal aside Johnson was fairly brutal, was surprised he lasted as long as he did before being hooked. Thought Thomas looked bright and pleased to see Cadden get on the park. All in all, much like the United game it's one that we should have got something from but didn't. Hopefully we can start picking up some wins from now. Agree re: Josh Law, if Kennedy can play right back then we really should be giving him a run. It goes without saying Collum was absolutely chronic.

He took a knock in the United game, which is why he was subbed off.

I'd argue that if we're looking for someone to step in for Law then rather than playing a left back at right back we could maybe play someone like Kieran Kennedy who it's suggested also plays right back as well as centre half.

I suppose the positive there is that at least he sees it, which to an extent is reassuring. If he was oblivious to the need for a physical presence in the centre of the park then I'd definitely be worried.

Depends whether or not we can identify and rectify the issues in midfield and similarly aren't relying on getting the ball out to Johnson & Ainsworth as our only attacking option. If their full backs shut them down then it's really difficult to see where we're going to create chances from at the moment. If we stick to 2 central midfielders I think we'll probably get beat. If we change things up and go with 3 CMs (Taylor, Leitch & Lasley for example) with Johnson and Ainsworth wide of them it might give us a better chance of retaining the ball and give us something to work with. I'm not generally a fan of playing 1 up top but if we've got it in us to transition between 451 without the ball and 433 with it then I'd be (a bit) more optimistic. Right now, I'd take 1-1 tbh.

I know, that was the point I was making about him getting games etc. Reading back it does look like I was suggesting he was still here though.

My 2p here (apologies in advance for the tl;dr post btw): - As far as "our" youth goes, it's fairly clear there are 3 or 4 who the manager would like to be involved: Watt (currently injured), McLean (currently injured), Dom Thomas (has already made appearances from the bench) and Leitch (ditto Thomas with a start to his name too) with possibly Cadden to make a 5th. As Lobey_Dosser says above, if they're good enough they'll get the chance. For what it's worth I too think that of those 4 it's Watt who's currently best placed to step up to being a first choice. I'd say it's fairly clear who the pool of home-grown young players are and that over the course of the season they'll be utilised. - Twardzik: clearly I don't know what the manager has said to Twardzik during pre-season however I'd speculate that given the fact that Long came in and kept his place after the last window it's apparent to Dan that his role at the club is that of back-up goalkeeper. You can argue the rights or wrongs of that as much as you want but if you're the back-up keeper then you shouldn't really be too surprised when another goalie comes in and takes your place. The assumption is that Dan had been told that he was first choice but had that cruelly snatched away from him, I genuinely don't think that was ever the case, yes he was our first choice at the start of last season but as evidenced by the arrival of Long, the manager clearly doesn't see Dan as his first choice. I'd imagine that with regards the ICT game he would have been told "we're looking to bring in another 'keeper, however if we don't then you'll be playing at the weekend so be ready". Such is the life of a back-up goalie I guess. - Taylor/Leitch: Personally I thought the choice to start Taylor last night was the wrong one however by the same token I've always felt that Leitch's role within the squad at this moment in time is to offer a rotation option for Lasley so in a sense I'm not surprised that we went with another player who in theory (if not in practice) should have offered something more in an attacking sense to pair with Lasley. - Clarkson: it seemed apparent to me when Clarkson signed that he was replacing Sutton's role in the squad ie: an experienced head to come off the bench when needed. I don't think that this impinges on Moore's development if the manager doesn't feel Moore's ready to do a job at Premiership level. - Moore: going by his goalscoring record for Motherwell coming off the bench for 10-15 minutes (as Clarkson is) then I'd argue that it's in Moore's best interests and development to be starting games and actually scoring goals rather than coming off the bench here and there and not scoring goals. From what I saw of him in pre-season games (highlights granted) and his appearances last season he looked like a player who was snatching at chances and frankly needs to be starting games to get some sort of form.

Depends on whether or not the manager thinks Pearson (or Taylor) can do Lasley's job and also how Lasley's playing. Both Pearson and Lasley perfom two fundamentally different roles in the team after all. In the most general terms one attacking, one more defensive. You're right though, just because he's Captain shouldn't mean he's undroppable if we have a better option to perform the role but by the same token you'd hope that if he's performing to a high level that he'd be selected on that basis.