Kmcalpin

Dundee were also very lucky - they won't get that good fortune every week. We on the other hand are due a break. Bad refereeing and bad luck has dogged us for the past 3 games.

Very true. On the pitch he's a very abrasive character and not one of my favourites. Not the way I like to see football played.

I know why you posted this but we have no left hand side at all and haven't had for months and its cost us. Personally I'd play ZFA wide left midfield with Steve Hammell at left back, if he's ever fit.

Decent shout but I'd be tempted to replace Carswell with Reid. Some pace in the engine room wouldn't go amiss.

Quite right too. Adam Stokes is a very capable replacement and had he not made the step up with us we may have lost him. On the issue of injuries - any news on ZFA? He seems to have disappeared wthout trace.

Good post. In a nutshell its why we lose so many goals. Players are allowed to run at our defence and take pot shots at goal at will. They can also run to the by line, usually without challenge to whip in crosses. Why do our two full/wing backs have to play so far infield? Time and again it leaves us vulnerable. Our left hand side is simply non existent and had been for months now. It was noticeable from the TV highlights yesterday (and every week at Fir Park) that if our wingers want to get in a cross they have to beat 2/3 men to do that. Thats defending. Against Aberdeen we also conceded far too many cheap and avoidable corners. In the absence of any shout or advice from Dan our central defenders would attack the ball, as you would, and put it out of play when in truth a simple shout would stop them.

Our defence isn't playing well nor has it being playing well for some time with or without Hutchinson and Hammell. No arguments from me there. However we simply can't judge how bad it is until we get a decent keeper but more importantly a decent midfield, particularly in the middle, who can shield the defence. The central defence is getting no protection whatosever and is under constant pressure. The keeper is left exposed time and again. We need a central midfield with a bit of steel, pace and most importantly character. Without that protection, even the best defence in the world would struggle.

I've never been a Keith Lasley fan but he's always been committed and reliable. Last season should have been his last as his legs were starting to give out. That though was a very unpopular view. Very, very fans questioned Stuart McCall's decision to give him a 2 year extension. Times change though and its now clear that this season has been one too far for him. that said, he has no-one decent to partner him or run for him. His heir apparent Stuart Carswell has been found out to be nothing more than an honest journeyman; a latter day Mark Fitzpatrick.

You're 100% right - see my post under ins and outs. If you give opponents time and space in or on the edge of your box then all it takes is a bad deflection, defensive blunder, refereeing error or a freak effort on goal and the ball is in the net. Currently we have no left midfield and no central midfield to speak of. That immediately puts your central defenders and goalie under pressure. Week after week we see our wing men having to beat 2/3 defenders to get in a cross (same again today) but our opponents have all the time and space in the world to pick their spot. Its not rocket science the more shots you have on target the more goals you will score.

In short we need to strengthen in all areas and that just won't happen this month. As money is tight I'd prioritise our central midfield. If we can only bring in 2 players it should be one creative player and one defensive player. Preferably both should have some pace. Central midfield was the root cause of many of our problems today, as it is most weeks. As things stand I don't think I'd renew the contracts of any of our established central midfielders. Thats a damning indictment of Stuart McCall.

Just watched the highlights and yes we were atrocious, but Dundee also got all the breaks. That won't happen too often. First goal was a horrendous deflection, second one the scorer was lucky in that the ball rebounded off woodwork straight to his head. Third and fourth were horrendous blunders. Still if you give teams time and space on the edge of your box thats what can happen.

Thats been the case since the start of the season, and possibly before that.

Whatever our line up, the central midfield looks very weak. Thats the crux of our problems this season.

Agreed. I think the slope is of the order of 4/5 feet. In terms of the pitch alone it would mean removing or building up thousands of tons of soil not to mention possibly having to drill/blast underlying rock depending on the geology. Its simply not an option and could cost millions taking into account associated works to stands etc.

Not so. This season, Derek McInnes and Tom Wright have expressed concern about playing on artificial pitches. They said the surfaces would influence their team selection. Thats quite consistent with your statement above. However, both Alan Johnston at Kilmarnock and Alex Neil at Hamilton have also expressed identical comments. Johnston said recently on BBC Radio that he had not been able to pick Eremenko as often as he'd like due the surface at Rugby Park. Across the Clyde, at the time of our League Cup tie, Neil said that the surface there had exacerbated the injuries of a couple of players (Antoine-Curier being one?) Football clubs' attitude to artifcial pitches has not changed over the years. Directors love them for economic reasons but managers and players hate them.

Thats correct although its a best case scenario. During his temporary spell in charge and in the first week or two of Ian Baraclough's reign, Kenny Black had the opportunity to try out one or two different things selection and tactics wise and did not take that opportunity. If something fails why continue ad infinitum with it? You might have thought that he felt he had scope to do his own thing up to a point. Ian Baraclough will now have overall control of team matters. Kenny Black's role, as far as we know, is to advise him, but not follow his instructions blindly without question. Is he giving the boss the correct advice? Based on what he did during his spell in charge I question whether he is providing the right advice. Quite apart from that would you want to retain the services of a disillusioned employee who cast doubt on his employers' actions in public?

What do I base my opinion of Kenny Black on? Well I've heard from various sources that he was been in charge of training under Stuart McCall and we have concerns about fitness and preparation for this season etc. However I disregard that as I don't know that for certain. What I have based my view on was in his temporary period in charge. With the exception of one single game in which we beat Dundee United he didn't manage to improve results. I don't hold him responsible for that. During his temporary spell in charge I specifically looked at games to see if there was any discernible change in team selection or tactics ie were these purely down to Stuart McCall previously and did KB have his own ideas? Perhaps KB had a huge input beforehand? Now I didn't notice any change in team selections, tactics or fitness during his temporary spell in charge. In short he persisted with decisions which had failed us all season. More of the same in other words. I therefore concluded that we needed fresh ideas and a new broom. To be fair to KB he didn't have a completely free hand due to our injury list. Still there were other options which he didn't pursue, one being limited introduction of youth. Thats what I based my view on. I'm sure that Kenny Black is a decent guy who knows football inside out but he's maybe not the right man to continue as No 2. At the time of Ian Baraclough's appointment he was clearly disillusioned as was clear in his radio interview. Ian Baraclough may want to bring in his own man when the opportunity presents itself. Time will tell, as KB's contract is up in the summer.

Its more than likely that we'll play a counterattacking game either willingly or not. Given that, we need pace and striker(s) that are mobile and some creativity. For this reason I'd play Ainsworth, Ojamaa, Thomas and Erwin. If however, at some point, we're pinning Dundee back in their box or they are sitting deep then Suttons your man. Sutton is very much a penalty box player.

Of course not but he's bound to have had a significant say in selecting him in a position to which he has proved unsuited in the past.

Good post Andy and I think that sums things up well. We do know that the club is trying to extend the deals for Ojamaa and O'Brien. Apart from that Ian Baraclough did suggest in a recent interview that there was some scope to make one or two personnel changes albeit through wheeling and dealing. One or two fringe players going out on loan or a loan player or two coming in.

Ordinarily yes, but not in this case I would suggest. I don't know how much Ian Baraclough knew about the squad before he signed on the dotted line but I would guess not that much. On starting he may have gleaned information directly from the players themselves and perhaps the physio he may have had access to Stuart McCall's files. I don't know. However, its almost certain that he would have relied very heavily on Kenny Black's advice. How much would he know about Luke Watt or David Ferguson for example? Now the team doesn't seem to be playing much differently from when SM was in charge. Unless the players themselves have heavily influenced tactics and team line ups by their comments then I would suggest KB was the source of much of this information and advice. IB has only had a few games in charge but by now he's bound to be forming his own opinions surely. I would doubt very much if his own thinking is identical to Kenny Black's given their different backgrounds etc. So up until now I would expect Kenny Black to have had a much more comprehensive input into team selection and tactics than he would normally do as a No 2. That will change. Its very possible that IB will conclude that more or less sticking to the normal "Fir Park" way of doing things hasn't worked this season and its time to change things a bit.

Yes our injury list is horrendous and options limited. There were still various options and changes that could have been made after New Douglas Park? Dom Thomas to start? Josh Law to right back? Lee Erwin to start in place of Sutton if we insist on playing one man up front? Ojamaa and Ainsworth up front and play the classic Hearts game? Still I'm pleased that we now seem to blooding more youth and that is a positive sign.

Good points Alan. I was more than a bit surprised that we made so few changes in the aftermath of the New Years Day game. After watching us for say 3/4/5 games its now time for him to be own man and take his own decisions. I agree that he has been left with a poor and very unbalanced squad and we need to bite, kick, scratch and claw our way to safety - any way we can. Teams like Aberdeen and St Johnstone may not be the best to watch but they are big, fit, well organised and streetwise and for the most part dependable. If we can secure 10th position in May I'll be relieved and Ian Baraclogh can have a clear out and start rebuilding.

I'm curious about comments that we should drop Stephen McManus. Now I'll agree readily that he's not playing well. No argument there. However who would we replace him with? There are some who don't like O'Brien, and many who don't like Kerr (personally I think his time is up after one mistake too many). Who does that leave? What about Adam Cummins? Maybe Craig Reid? Simon Ramsden, when fit? John Sutton perhaps? The untried Morgyn Neill? Any views?

We were in the Main Stand and heard nothing whatsoever untoward. There was some jeering of Willie Collum for the penalty decision, and David Goodwillie, for his dive, but neither was abusive or undeserved.