Kmcalpin

Yes, at the moment he is the better option of the two but I think his deal at Tynecastle runs out in the summer of 2017. I don't see a future for him there though. Big decisions at the end of this season for us. It would be totally wrong to blame Keith Lasley for yesterday's defeat and I'm not. In his defence he was playing in an unfamiliar midfield where players weren't comfortable with what they were being asked to do. However he was bullied by the much bigger and faster Ross Draper but you can't fault him for that - it was simply an unequal contest. He did though hold up our attacks by dithering on the ball and as I said earlier repeatedly passed to colleagues who were being closely marked, Marvin Johnson being a perfect example. Others' off the ball movement didn't help him to be fair.

You raise a good point. If you look at our squad on paper we seem to have a lot of options but that isn't really the case. I still haven't fully sussed out Cadden yet but he seems to a right sided version of Pearson, but with more of a tendency to play wide. IF thats the case then you couldn't really accommodate Ainsworth and Cadden together. Ainsworth is the better attacker although he can't defend. Cadden is probably the better defender, although a bit raw - I'd like to see him play more in the centre to test him out there. Likewise I don't think Lasley and Gomis can play together and if they are picked again in the same team then the alarm bells should be ringing.

To some extent you're right but the real fault lies with Law and/or Cadden. The Inverness No 3 runs up our right flank unchallenged and neither player picks him up. Law cottons on belatedly probably because he was watching another Inverness player but Cadden just stops and ends up covering no-one. The No 3 is given time and space to fire across a Davy Cooper type cross into the 6 yard box. For the second goal Law doesn't look too clever. He makes a poor, half hearted attempt to close Roberts down and allows him space and time to showcase his shooting skills. Had it been the other way around, we would have seen 2 Inverness players harrying, hassling and bodychecking our forward to deny him the chance to shoot. Both very poor goals to lose and totally preventable.

Thats true although the trick is to play these players together in a way that they complement each other; in fairness to McGhee maybe not easy. That said, we also have players like Hammell, Lasley, and McManus who are all past their sell by date. Add to that players like Josh Law and Joe Chalmers who are out of depth at this level and you can understand why McGhee is experiencing problems. What I find especially frustrating at the moment is that we're repeating the same mistakes week after week. As I wrote earlier, you didn't have to be a nuclear physicist to foresee the problems that yesterday's line up and tactics was going to cause us. We'd been there before.

Gomis gets my vote for being a solid presence in a packed midfield. He also lasted 90 minutes. Cadden almost won my vote but disappeared after the break.

That struck me too. I've very very rarely seen us play well with 1 out and out striker. To do so you have to have wingers who link well with the striker and midfielders who can bomb up and down to support him. When we play with 1 striker you tend to find that invariably he has no support and/or drops back to a deeper position - which is exactly what happened today. I looked at our line up today and asked where exactly is our attacking threat going to come from?

Yes, I accept that to an extent. The problem is that Johnson is best suited to an open game where he can run onto balls and attack the defence. Today's game just wasn't like that. In short it became clear by half time that he was not the answer. I quite accept that Thomas has his faults (not big enough and his poor final ball). However whilst we know that Johnson was not the answer, we know that Thomas might have been the answer. In short try something that might work as opposed to sticking with something that isn't working.

We have to address late goals - the number we are losing cannot be coincidence. An important game as I can't see us taking anything at Tannadice.

When I heard the line up I feared the worst. You didn't have to be a nuclear physicist to predict: MacDonald would be isolated - Tick MacDonald would receive short high balls - Tick Midfield would be dogs dinner - Tick Johnson would receive shocking service and be double marked - Tick We'd defend too deep and pay the price - Tick The formation was designed to nullify Inverness nothing more nothing less and it failed. At the back Hammell and Law had very poor games and McManus wasn't at all impressive. the midfield was all over the place and it was clear that Gomis and Lasley can't play in the same set up. Gomis had an ok game but no more. Lasley had a poor game and kept putting colleagues in trouble with poor passes. Pearson was played out of position. Cadden had a good first half but largely disappeared in the second. Johnson received shocking service - Steve Hammell's first 2 passes to him were 3/4 yards behind him. MacDonald all too often was isolated and at times played in 6 man midfield - a home cup tie I ask you! The changes made were far too late. A number of sub options were available to McGhee - Lasley could have been subbed at half time; Johnson could have been taken off at half time replaced by Dom Thomas (someone who can open up tight defences); and Cadden ought to have been hooked early in the second 45. Overall our defending was poor with both full backs having an off day and we conceded far too many avoidable free kicks and corners. Inverness's winning goal was a shocker - the lad advanced and advanced as we backed off looked up and saw a virtually empty goal (as we all did) and picked his spot. A typical Motherwell goal. Inverness worked far harder and defended better and deserved their win. Some bright spots though - no points lost today; Cadden had a great first half and is progressing and our goal came straight off the training ground.

I don't know if you listened to Mark McGhee's interview, but he mentioned that Gomis had been brought in as replacement/cover for Lasley.

The STV evening news sport bulletin's football coverage comprised solely the East Kilbride V Celtic game. That is one reason why Scots football is in the state its in.

I think we're being overly hard on Louis Moult. In a lot of the gametime I've seen recently he has received little or no service and what he has received has been scraps. He's suffered in part because Pearo has been asked to play deeper, and he's missed that support. I'm confident if he's given the correct ammunition he'll fire it and hit the target.

If Pearson isn't fit, as some reports suggest, then leave him out. Otherwise Cadden or Lasley - a bit of a toss up but would probably retain Cadden for his fitness against a fit physical team. I'd play Moult as he's suffered from appalling service these last few games - not his fault.

No point in bringing Gomis in on loan and then not playing him (unless he isn't fit). We've been lacking a defensive midfielder for some years now so,other things being equal, he'd be one of the first names on my team sheet.

Ross County fans told me that they were surprised that we signed him because of his back problem. It was well known up north and was a factor in his move to Barnsley breaking down.

I think folk have been just too quick to jump to conclusions and it suited the anti Mark McGhee brigade. Its one of those situations where you need to know the facts first.

Absolutely. This is the kind of goal we routinely lose and its not all down to one player, who comes on as a sub now and again.

Not impressed either. It very much depends on the personality and character of the player concerned. If its someone who is thick skinned or arrogant then maybe ok but if the individual is more sensitive or humble maybe not the best idea in the world. We don't know what was said or how it was said however. I'm far from convinced that Ainsworth was 100% to blame anyway. It sounds as though he was wheeled out for a public humiliation, although that may not be right.

The Scotsman's take on Morgaro Gomis "Morgaro Gomis to Motherwell (loan from Hearts) He’s been harshly squeezed out by Hearts and will have something to prove at Fir Park. It remains to be seen what Mark McGhee’s plans for him are. One would imagine the Motherwell boss will push Stephen Pearson out to the left of midfield and station Gomis alongside Keith Lasley, with either Lionel Ainsworth or Marvin Johnson at the right wing position. It’ll be a gamble putting Pearson, arguably their best player, out of position on the left, but the midfield four is crying out for more balance. When Ainsworth and Johnson, both out-and-out wingers, start games in the 4-4-2 then Motherwell tend to lose."

Lots of issues here but I'll confine my comments to policing/stewarding. From a policing point of view, our fans are an easy target and provide "an easy win" so to speak in a high profile political issue. They are few in number and are involved in what we'll call "controversial incidents". Would they behave in the same way towards Celtic/Sevco fans? We all know the answer to that.

We do. Not a huge range of options admittedly but assuming all midfielders are fit, Gomis could replace Lasley, Pearson or Cadden. We do need a defensive midfielder and badly.

Come on Busta you can do better than that I'm sure. Folk are quite entitled to discuss this if they so wish.

What the lad did was wrong but you're right Dee. We frequently read about more serious offences which attract lesser sentences so this seems inconsistent. This is a "Political" issue whether we like it or not. It'll be interesting to monitor the sentences dished out for other kind of offences.

I don't agree with the original poster either, but come on Graeme you are well capable of posting better comments than this. Lets try and promote sensible informed discussion.

The sentence seems a bit OTT but may be related to the specific case. That said it has set a precedent for other such cases but we'll need to wait and see to find out if they are treated consistently by the courts.