MelvinBragg

As I said in the Humphrey thread we need to get back to the shape that served us well earlier in the campaign Ruddy Moutaouakil Craigan Reynolds Hammell Hately Jennings Humphrey Coke O'Brien Sutton Could even play Murphy wide right if Humphrey is not match fit. Having Forbes on the bench could keep Coke on his toes. If Coke's not having a great game, we have Forbes to come on directly in his place. It's a bit harsh on Saunders getting dropped, but I feel we need a wee bit more organisation at the back as slackness is creeping in...

Not so much changing the system, it means reverting to the system we were using until Slane and Humphrey became unavailable. For me the ideal line up would be GK RB CB CB LB DM DM RW CM LW ST It's the system we were using pretty effectively at the start of the season and only stopped doing so when Jutkiewicz arrived. Even against Kilmarnock, we played a similar system with Jamie Murphy playing as a right winger. Sadly it seems that that doesn't really suit Murphy. With Humphrey and Slane unavailable we've been playing more of a GK RB CB CB LB DM CM CM LW ST ST No real balance to the side in my opinion. And maybe part of the reason that Moutaouakil is bombing up the field quite as much is simply to offer width on the right side. I know that one up front with three playing off him will not work against every opponent, but I reckon we'll create more goalscoring opportunities playing this way. And while not being a fan of one up front, at the moment I can't really see an obvious partnership from any two of the four strikers. For me, as soon as Slane or Humphrey look anything like match fitness, one of them should be in the team...

Went for Humphrey. In 10 minutes or so, he showed more enthusiasm and threat than most others on the park...

Spot on. Nae use greetin about it. Fans are quick to dish it out...

Someone mentioned Nish not being booked for diving. If that was the one in the box in the first half, I wouldn't complain. Looked like a stonewall penalty to me and those around me...

I'm sure I mentioned Steelboy's point about goals from open play before now. We don't look like creating much at all. Which is fine, if the defence holds. An over-reliance on Jim O'Brien and Ross Forbes. If one is off the park and the other is off form, we offer nothing. We need to get one of the midfielders a lot closer to Sutton and get back to playing two wide men so that teams don't know which way we're going. I know thay Gannon's hands have been tied by the fact that both right wingers have been unavailable for the last few weeks, so hopefully the return of Humphrey will give a bit more balance to the side. Bright spots? Humphrey looked up for it and showed some nice touches when he came on. O'Brien still looks dangerous (can't do it all himself though). Still scoring from set pieces. Negatives? Ooooooh, where to start? Coke's third bad game in a row. Forbes apparent lack of fitness. Defensive errors creeping in again. Sutton and Jutkiewicz not really looking like a partnership. For the first time under Gannon, the whole shape of the team looking wrong. I notice some saying how Hibs bullied us physically in midfield. I don't think that's the case. There were no real physical midfielders on show (Hately excepted and he was dropping so deep it looked like 3 at the back on occasions), just that their guys hounded our guys better. Ach, well, there's always next week...

Y'know if we get 5-0 up, I'm going to go down and when Yass is taking a throw in, pass on the message to let McBride score. Just for the comedy value...

It may surprise you to know that I'm not his biggest fan...

Please take a seat. I have to defend McShovelface here (I told you to sit down). I think he said something similar before last season's opener against Hearts. Something about it being a bigger job but not necessarily a better one, I'm sure someone could dig out the actual quote if they could be arsed (I can't). It was McShovelface's actions rather than his words that I took issue with most of the time. For the most part, he talked a good game... But your general point does hold. Gannon seems to have a knack of saying the right thing to the media...

Being selfish, I have had a seat in the back row for a while now, which enables me to stand up and not bother anyone (obviously I still bother people with my incessant noisy pish-talking but I could do that sitting down). Due to that, again selfishly, I fear a clampdown which would cause problems for us noisy pish-talkers up the back (for there are a few of us). I know I should be more mindful of the whole support, but if any confrontation (sorry, civil disobedience) leads to a more strict enforcement of the rules, it won't just be the young bouncying guys who suffer but people all along the back row of the East Stand whose standing doesn't block anyone's view and who tend not to trouble the stewards (well, exept for Frazzle and you know what he's like )...

I think that they overstate how good we are. Having read their forum, they seem worried about losing headers in defence. Not a problem we'll really be causing them. Stack must have been poor tonight though as some of their fans (70-odd % in a poll!!!) want Makalamby back between the sticks. I must confess I have a bad feeling about Saturday no matter how pessimistic the Hibs fans are. A game we could easily lose, not that defeat would bother me. Just the prospect of either of their two posers up front scoring sticks in my throat...

Somehow I find it kind of reassuring that despite the unMotherwell like start to the season we're still able to do things the Motherwell way. Struggling against a lower league team in the cup, that feels more like normal... Part of me thinks that one of the problems tonight might have been expectations. for the first time this season, we were going into a game with the pressure of being expected to win comfortably. A different kind of pressure that some of these players won't have experienced before... Alarming as it is to say, I think Gannon might have hit upon something in his post match comments when he said about us looking slightly tired. He has always said that with young players you'll get ups and downs, and for me that's why I was surprised that Jennings and Craigan didn't play tonight. I suppose that when you add the names of Hutchison, Sutton, Humphrey, Slane and Lasley to those two, then we have seven players to bring in who didn't start tonight. My concern would be our over-reliance on O'Brien and Forbes. You wonder where the goals would come from without these two... There were positives and negatives to take from tonight's game. The positives. We got through. This was the sort of game we've lost in the past... Robert McHugh looks like he'll be ready for regular first team action sooner rather than later. Two goals already this season and a very good performance up at McDiarmid Park bode well... The full backs. I thought both full backs did well going forward and Moutaouakil seems at least to give us an alternative out ball to O'Brien. Goals from open play. Had forgotten that we could do that... The negatives. The basic errors that had seemed to have disappeared since the McDiarmid Park seemed to be back tonight. Two goals lost from basic crosses again... For me, Jutkiewicz looked poor. On a night when I thought his pedigree would have stood out, he seemed to make the wrong decisions all too often. Appeared greedy when he had better options. Trying to hard to break his duck...? The lack of pace when you take O'Brien out of the team. Moutaouakil offers some but when subbing O'Brien tonight, I would have given a lot to be able to bring on Slane or Humphrey in order to better stretch their ten men. McGarry is good technically but sadly lacks the athleticism to get into areas where he can use this ability... All in all, a good night. We're through without playing well. We still have players to come back. Maybe a wee reality check for some players in that they were reminded that we have to do the basics right and work hard in order to win games...

What time is kick off? Half past or quarter to...?

I reckon JG will go pretty much full strength, but I think the fact that Craigan, Jennings and Jutkiewicz could probably do with some game time will allow him to rest Coke (or Forbes), Reynolds and Sutton for the games ahead. I think if we had another option, he might rest O'Brien as well...

Tomorrow night sees the visit of Inverness Caley Thistle. Thanks to our good league form this game seems to have been forgotten a wee bit on this forum. I'll be interested to see how seriously JG treats this game. In previous seasons, we've played a weakened side against the lowere league sides in the cup. Strikes me that he might pay a bit more respect, though he could look to give Jennings and a couple of others game time in what could be perceived as an 'easier' game... I'd go with Ruddy Moutaoukil Craigan Saunders Hammell Hately Jenning Forbes O'Brien McHugh Jutkiewicz Thoughts...? EDIT Simultaneous threads with another number. Great minds and all that. Can a mod please merge...?

Saw a bit of Saturday's game on my tea break. Not a fan of girls' football (sorry!) but the Motherwell team definitely looked a class apart from the Falkirk one...

I don't think anyone is pining for anyone too much, Steve. The question is simply would any of them improve the very good team we have at the moment. We all know that this is a hypothetical as we need the fees received from Clarkson and Quinn, and the wages freed up by the departures of the others to improve the squad. You'd have to be blind or stubborn not to admit however that Clarkson would be having a field day in this team. I'm not a believer in looking backwards and saying what if McFadden/McCormack/Porter?McDonald were in this team. But if you want to look at it less hypothetically, I would argue that at the moment the only question marks over whether players have been adequately replaced is in terms of Clarkson and Quinn. The new right back looks the part at the moment - time will tell, and the same applies to Jutkiewicz. I think the adequacy of the replacements for the players lost in the summer is a valid question. Having said that, like you I'm loving every minute of this season...

Another thing that's pleasing at the moment is the fact that if one of our main players isn't on top form we seem to be coping. For me Forbes didn't have anything like his usual game against Rangers, and from all accounts of those who were there Coke was off-form at Tannadice. Despite this we got results in both games. I think it's relevant to mention this in this thread because the guys mentioned in the title of the thread were heavily relied upon last season and if one or two of them didn't perform, we'd struggle for a result. Much more of a spread of responsibility throughout the team at the moment... On the subject of Slane, I'd like to see both him and Humphrey back soon. We're undoubtedly a quicker team than last season (compare Coke and Hately with Hughes and Klimpl, Moutaoukil with Quinn) but O'Brien is the only real blistering pace we have in the final third at the moment (and look how grief he is causing defenders). Slane or Humphrey would offer the same pace on the other side. Good to have both opposition full backs with something to think about...

Strangely, I was giving this very question some thought last night. And came to the same conclusion that Dave did in his original post. Right back is still up for debate, but the one player that left in the summer that would without question improve our team right now would be Clarkson. Particularly given Gannon's preference for players with a bit of mobility... As to Shallow Dave's point regarding clean sheets, this struck me as well. After the Killie game, if you'd told me we'd keep three clean sheets in a row, two without Craigan and all three without Hutchison, I'd have laughed my head off. And I'm laughing now . Given how crucial everyone thought that Slane would be following the European games, the fact that our reasonably impressive start to the season has come without him kicking a ball also bodes well...

As they were last week and, I think, the game before that. No need for the panicky exclamation mark. I would have liked Slane or Humphrey available if only to stretch a tiring defence late in the game (and so that O'Brien wasn't our only out ball), but looking at our bench last week the squad we have is not too bad...

We could embarrass ourselves trying to work out how Gannon is going to have us lining up, he foxes us every time. He's been talking up Cadamateri in the press, if that's not kidology then if he's seen as the danger man then I reckon Reynolds will play centre back due to his pace. Beyond that, who knows. I'd be tempted to start with McHugh or Murphy up top and keep the ball on the deck as neither Sutton nor Jutkiewicz (sp?) will get much change out of their land of the giants defence. Working the channels might be our best bet, I reckon. Right now, I'd rip your arm off and beat you with the wet end for a point...

Cheers for the good words. Have just read the blog on the BBC website regarding the young Stockport striker who's lost his brother to leukaemia and and all that the club have done/are doing for the charities associated with the disease. BBC Article Hats off to Stockport. It sets an example of how a club can conduct itself in these circumstances. Certainly won this Well fan's admiration...

Prepare yourselves for the biggest understatement ever seen on this forum... I wasn't McShovelface's biggest fan. But the constant mention of him and his time with us gives him more importance than he actually deserves. I know most of the stuff posted on here recently is negative about him, and therefore should be music to my ears, but I'm just glad he's away and I'd rather we ignored him as he did our planning for this season. Generally things are really positive around Fir Park at the moment. Stop bringing my buzz down by mentioning the shovel faced prick...

See, normally, I'd be all for jumping all over this sort of comment. But chances are that the guy Wilson has played against half of what is now our first team in the U19s in the last couple of years. Forbes, Murphy, Hutchison, McHugh, he'll have played against them all. I don't think that's what the guy who posted had in mind, he probably thought this would be an easy game. I, for one, am desperately hoping that they pick Weir tomorrow. His age and two international games, I'd be setting Murphy in and about him...

I don't think Tweed was volunteering to go and sit among the Rangers's fans bedecked in Claret and Amber from head to toe. But every other sport in the world, the fans seem able to sit together without too much hassle. What is it about football fans that means we have to be segregated? Why can't we all just behave...?