Kmcalpin

I can't speak for anyone else but my opinion isn't based on one game but quite a few. Before Brian's first injury he struggled at full back. He came back last season and I felt he struggled at full back then too. What is he? I'd say he has the makings of good centre back. Time will tell. He has shown great strength of character to come back from serious injury twice and I hope he can progress from that. He deserves a bit of luck.

My view exactly Grew. The strange thing is that we have a full squad to pick from or at least appear to have. The one question mark is hanging over David Clarkson as there is some suggestion he's motoring on empty. The telling thing for me,watching the telly, was that some midfielders hardly received a mention indicating that they simply weren't in the game.

I can't speak for everyone of course Flow but for me it was the manner of our performance that disappointed so much. Before hand we knew it was a huge game for a poor Killie side. It was also a very important game for us so much so that Mark McGhee took the squad down to Ayrshire on Friday night. The pitch looked ok although a bit bumpy it has to be said, but presumably able to sustain a decent game of football. For long spells we were camped in our own half and it took until the 83rd minute for us to muster a shot on target. I think we had 3 efforts on goal all day. The strikers looked forlorn and very isolated and our midfield seemed very unwilling to advance much away from the defence. We lost too many 50/50 battles. These for me were the really disappointing facets of the game. In short we just didn't seem up for it. Its anybody's guess as to why this was. Was it cautious tactics? Was it simply that the team had a bad day? Was it a combination of both. Were Killie simply too aggressive and pumped up to handle? All SPL teams, not just us are capable of turning in poor performances, but this season we seem to have put in flat performances in a number of key games. The joys of supporting MFC! Who'd have it any other way?

Firstly, well done to Eileen O'Donnell - it sounds like a very worthy thing to do. I wouldn't be too critical of the club though. We don't know why this was said. My last recollection of the tributes, unfortunately, was that many were soaked with the rain we had at the time. I recall a fan asking "What on earth do we do with thousands of soaking garments?". I doubt if MFC would have the facilities to wash and dry them. As with life in general, there are sometimes practical considerations which many folk don't, understandably, appreciate. All credit to the folk who did launder them. Not an easy task.

I agree up to a point Andy. Like you I think I know why MMcG has done this and I agree the type of game in which it should be used. However of the two, Paul Quinn is an out and out full back whereas Brian MacLean isn't. I don't know if MacLean has done brilliantly in absolute terms since coming back though. It might be that MMcG feels that he absolutely has to play Brian MacLean for some reason (to test him out, get him match fit) and the best way to do do it is to shunt his best RB, Paul Quinn, upfield. It gives us more of a defensive look in midfield although Killie clearly, and rightly, saw this as being our achilles heel yesterday. The situation on the left is a wee bit different. Many of us, but by no means all, don't see Steve Hammell as being our best left back. Mark Reynolds is perhaps better suited to that role. It could be of course that MMcG is playing a long game (in terms of his team planning) and is considering moving MacLean into the centre and Reynolds to left back. Craigan and Quinn would then take up the other two places at the rear. That would give us alot more height certainly.

No, I don't think so. He simply isn't a right back. Add to that the guy in front of him, Paul Quinn, is also playing out of position and you have the makings of a problem, which Killie exploited, but not fully thankfully.

Pretty much sums up my views too. I'll take some convincing we didn't set out for a draw. It was a case of safety first which is a bit of a let down as Killie aren't the best side in the SPL. If we HAD to play such a game today then Sheridan should have started with Clarkson, or if he wasn't fit then Murphy. We desperately needed pace and running in the side.

Null vote from me. The fact that we didn't lose a goal was more down to luck than design.

Overall I was happy with a point today. It was always going to be a difficult game and with Kilmarnock fired up and fighting for their very survival a point can't be bad. Killie were pretty poor but at least they showed ambition and fight. But how many times have we lost such games in the past? We didn't play badly just didn't play or maybe played to a limited gameplan. I had this down as a certain defeat beforehand, especially given our line up. I was baffled by our line up and taking all the evidence into consideration we probably set out to stop Killie, which in fairness we did. The right side combination of Quinn and MacLean just didn't work and the sooner Coach is restored to right back the better with someone decent in front of him. The midfield was quite frankly awful and left our 2 strikers totally isolated apart from the dying stages. That said John Suttton is a decent penalty box player and perhaps not suited to today's type of counter attacking game. Even the Setanta pundits couldn't fathom out why we were trying to stifle the game and slow it down. When Steve McGarry came on for Sheridan that confirmed my suspicions that we were trying to sit out the game and perhaps sneak a late goal if we were still in it by that stage. The team was certainly well prepared but I think our tactics and selection let us down. More fight, desire and ambition would not have gone amiss. The free flowing adventurous football of last season was replaced by a dull, boring, safety first performance today.

I won't say too much as its perhaps up to the club to make any announcement about this and I don't want to steal its thunder. However, mention was made, without any prompting from the floor, about concentrating on the existing support / season ticket holders rather than initiatives to attract new fans. Make of that what you will.

BOTH were mentioned at the AGM. The money from Faddy's sell on clause was split with creditors, which seems reasonable enough.

That is correct. I've never particularly liked the term "punching above our weight". However John Boyle was 100% correct in what he said. He said that, based on turnover, we were more efficient than many other clubs. Teams like Hearts, Aberdeen, Hibs and Dundee United have turnovers way in excess of ours (2X, 3X and 4X) and yet finished below us last season. In other words, our money was more effectively spent. No shareholder took, or could, take issue with what he said.

A lot easier said than done. Had the club held out for that, it might well have been a deal breaker, with the player eventually leaving for nought and remaining on the books totally demotivated and disinterested. It would also send out the wrong message to potential signing targets. If we manage to secure players on long, well paid contracts then you can start insisting on such clauses.

Good point. This struck me as being odd also. I still think this is tantamount to differential pricing for the same product. The prices for the Main Stand, East Stand and Chadwick Stand are the same yet only the latter has an "end on" view? The prices might be the same but the facilities certainly aren't. Clubs should be encouraging armchair fans to attend live matches and this will not help.

No comment from me about our own pitch - its all been said before. Whilst Easter Road might be be slightly better and certainly looks better it was still a disgrace. Ball control was virtually impossible and bumpy is an understatement. To their credit though, Hibs did admit that it helped to spoil the derby.

I agree - thats my understanding too FC. Ironically, was it not Killie fans who complained about our "unfair" charging regime?

Some fine play by Jim O'Brien. Both sides had their chances, but some of our defending was absolutely awful. Undecided about United's penalty claim. There may have been contact but the lad did go down very easily. Any club looking at Graeme Smith can't have failed to be impressed by his shot stopping but his attempts at United goal will certainly not have gone down well with them. At least if he moves to another SPL club we'll know how to put him under pressure.

I can't believe you're saying that FC. According to Andrew Smith, writing in the Scotland on Sunday, EVERYONE in the ground (and that included you) apart from Brines thought it was a penalty. Journalists can be a bit patronising at times eh? I can only assume he didn't consult you before writing on your behalf.

I heard an interesting comment on BBC during the game, which I think echoes the thoughts of a few of us. His shot stopping was praised to high heaven but it was felt he would have to improve his cross ball skills significantly if he had any ambition to make progress in the game. Unless I picked things up wrongly he was blamed for the goal we lost. He also had a misunderstanding with Brian MacLean at one point. As things stand I wouldn't be overly concerned if he moved on. Of the current top six sides the only one in which he would have a chance of making the starting line up would be Hibs. If he wants to move down south then he really will have to improve his handling of cross balls.

Firstly I hope I'm proved wrong but to date they have picked up several more points than we have. If that continues they'll finish higher than us. Thats not to say we don't play the better football but as Hearts proved tonight thats totally irrelevant if we can't score more than they can and we let in cheap goals.

Exactly Jim. Much as I dislike them, Hearts will prove by mid May that they're a stronger side than us and tonight's result will in no way be seen as a disgrace - they had to fight all the way for the points. I think too Aberdeen & Dundee United will prove to be better than us over the course. Our real battle is with Hibs for 6th spot. The Hibees are capable of beating us to it but by the same token we're capable of pipping them. Defensive mistakes are costing us dearly just now and we really can't have any complaint whatsoever when we lose games because of them. Thats not to say of course that St Mirren and Accies aren't capable of securing 6th spot -they are.

Exactly. A defeat was always the likeliest outcome this evening and so it proved. However a 2-1 reverse away from home against the 3rd best team in the league isn't an embarrassment. They've now beaten us twice on their patch this season and that must say something. Of more concern to me tonight than the result was the fact that Craggs was stretchered off and Maros Klimpl was booked. Still mustn't complain too much - we had luck against Accies and Celtic. Swings and roundabouts I guess. Our next 3 games are much more winnable than tonights was ever going to be. Like one or two others I was a bit puzzled tonight by Davie Clarkson in midfield. If he's not considered good enough for a start up front then he should warm the bench. Personally he'd always be in my my strikeforce but then again I'm not the manager. Has Steve McGarry impressed in the reserves recently to warrant a subs appearance?

Of course there will be. Its virtually impossible to get our entire support to agree about anything. There will be those who want action now and not at the end of the season. There will be those who will be worried, very worried, about the effect of bulldozers on the pitch. I could go on and on. Me? I'm encouraged the club seems to be taking the problem seriously.

A very interesting article by Pat Nevin. First things first, the club should have done more to keep our pitch in decent condition. That said much of the criticism of the club in the media frenzy has been downright unfair. Too many journalists have axes to grind. I've watched the FP pitch for a good number of years, and while I've seen it in some right messes it has got worse in the past few years. I well recall John Chapman (being a farmer knows a thing or two about soils), during his spell in the hotseat, saying to me that USH would be the ruination of the pitch. Its tantamount to firing a clay water pot in a kiln. MFC has expended a lot of time, money and effort over the years to rectify problems and still not cracked the problem. On several occasions the turf has been relaid but on each occasion it hasn't taken properly. In short the solution is not simple, as Pat Nevin rightly points out. I believe that the SPL is to send out an independent expert to check that any remedial work is carried out properly. I also hope they have the good sense to send them out BEFORE it is carried out to advise on the best course of action. That might be more constructive. We've discussed this issue many times before on this board and a few of us have raised the issue of the water table, hydrology and surrounding sewerage. I don't pretend to know the details of our problem but if these are all contributory factors, as Pat Nevin suggests, then there is no straightforward or cheap solution in sight. Does anyone recall the torrential downpour after the Aberdeen game last season and the damage it inflicted? That gives an indication of the drainage/hydrolgical and topographical problems associated with Fir Park. Maybe its time to give the club a wee break here. Many have been critical of the club's silence on the issue and I have some sympathy with that view but bear in mind that we have had to present evidence at Hearings. Also its possible, perhaps even likely that the club and experts simply don't know what the underlying problem is. A new stadium can't come quick enough. The cash to be spent on the pitch could be better put to other uses. PS. I respect your view Matt and fully understand why you hold it.

I'm a wee bit surprised by some posters' reaction to my idea. I quite appreciate that not everyone would want to contribute or indeed could afford to contribute and I have no problem with that whatsoever. Thats life. However providing fans were approached in the right way i.e. "Here is the scheme do you want to contribute ...No? ok thanks anyway" I don't understand how anyone could take offence. I could quite understand a reaction if fans were hassled or made to feel inferior about not not giving but there's no suggestion that would ever happen. I have the impression, maybe wrongly, that some posters would take offence even if asked politely or would even take offence if someone else wanted to contribute. My message is chill out. If you want to contribute then fine but if not thats ok. Folk should have a free choice on both sides. The club has every right to ask, and we, the fans, have every right to say no or conversely yes. FWIW I also agree that that our pitch problems are not all USH related. Once again on Sunday the wing under the POD Stand was sodden. Perhaps its no coincidence that its also the lowest part of the ground. There are still drainage problems.