[David W]

gav-ffc, on 03 January 2012 - 08:50, said:

Think he would just be back up to Farid, heard he`s 6ft 4 i hear? Plenty of crosses to get on the end of from Duffie and Sibbald.

The two QP centre halfs who must barely scrape 6 ft won around 95% of the headed challenges against him. He doesn't jump. Indeed, Cusack probably caused them more problems in the air.

On the second goal, I'm sure it was McQueen and Sharp that Daly ghosted between. It was diabolical marking but perhaps QP deserve credit as it's the third goal they've scored like that against us in the past month.

[ClydeyJax]

So frustrating... really thought after we scored the equaliser we would go on to win the game.. Even with 10 men.
Have to agree and say we will really benefit from getting Gray and Gallagher back in the team - and now Whyte is away who will play up front?! Possibly move Neill?! He does continue to be our best player in almost every game, alongside Oliver yesterday, possibly they two & Cusack up front? 4-3-3...
We really need to keep our best players fit & playing - Sweeney was a joke yesterday, deserved the red card, and put the team under real pressure - let us down!
Still optimistic for the next few games!

[General Martok]

I actually thought this was a fairly entertaining match, though there's no doubt that it was the visitors who were responsible for most of the entertainment. Least until Clyde had a player sent off.

Why people continue to apologise for John Sweeney's fecklessness is nearly but not quite beyond me. My theory is that they simply don't want to admit to their earlier error of proclaiming him a new player (since Duffy's arrival). Perhaps for fear of vindicating Sao Paulo? Who, if I'm not mistaken, also called it right regarding the need for something a bit more substantial up front and was certainly the first to hail John Neill as our best midfielder.

Injuries and suspensions hit us hard in this one I reckon. The way we started the match, and the way we've started so many this season, reeked of inexperience. Queen's Park waltzed through our awful midfield which offered little protection to the back four as it lacked a holding player. Gray let little or nothing past him down his side but Sharp yielded to Watt regularly. I wouldn't point the finger at the centre halves as much because I don't think there was an awful lot they could've done in order to prevent the concessions. I was impressed by Marr's reading of the game and his tackling but underwhelmed by his ability in the air. Worth a try as a full back or a sweeper, but not in a pairing

Sweeney's red card energised us. Queen's Park were sloppy in conceding so soon after that incident. In the second half we done well considering the disadvantage. Michael Oliver and John Neill especially, showed up very well. Sometimes I think we would be better off with Oliver through the middle as he's far better with the ball than Sweeney and much quicker on the turn. Irvine however offered absolutely nothing and should've been hooked quicker. Cusack was barely involved and I've never liked White playing with his back to goal, though I do think he's a player with some talent. He really needs a better feed than he's getting at the moment. In fact I really think it's full-time football that he needs more than anything else.

Call me old fashioned but I don't think teams should be allowed to get away with a defender as small as the (ironically named) Ricky Little. Especially playing so centrally. Embarrassing to see him compete with White in the air. I would say as well, on Little, that his booking was an awful decision; a completely fair tackle, not from behind, forceful and fair. The sort of tackle you want your sweeper to make.

Back to the drawing board.

[Gall09]

General Martok, on 03 January 2012 - 15:08, said:

Call me old fashioned but I don't think teams should be allowed to get away with a defender as small as the (ironically named) Ricky Little. Especially playing so centrally. Embarrassing to see him compete with White in the air. I would say as well, on Little, that his booking was an awful decision; a completely fair tackle, not from behind, forceful and fair. The sort of tackle you want your sweeper to make.

Thankyou!

Highlights

It's a great challenge. Think the reaction of the crowd had a lot to do with it, though in fairness it would probably receive the same reaction if a Clyde player had made the same tackle at Hampden. Litle and Brough have been tremendous this season and always seem to win more than their fair share of headers.

Anyway, like Duffy said, we could have been 3 up after half an hour but only had the inevitable Longworth goal to show for our efforts. After the sending off (in they highlights you hear someone shout "Aye, the number five referee." ) Clyde came back into it and gave us a few problems, usually when John Neill got the ball. Thought he had a very good game.

Then it was time for Daly to do the business. Terrific header right in the corner from a perfect Murray cross, though he didn't even have to jump for it. We've played better, but i don't think the pitch helped either team yesterday. Delighted with the 3 points though.

Thought McGinn (no 2) was MOTM. He's getting better all the time.

[bhoonaman]

General Martok, on 03 January 2012 - 15:08, said:

I would say as well, on Little, that his booking was an awful decision; a completely fair tackle, not from behind, forceful and fair. The sort of tackle you want your sweeper to make.

Back to the drawing board.

I would agree with you but we saw Christian Smith getting a straight red for a similar tackle a few years ago so it is the "forcefulness" that is being stamped out.

[David W]

bhoonaman, on 03 January 2012 - 20:28, said:

I would agree with you but we saw Christian Smith getting a straight red for a similar tackle a few years ago so it is the "forcefulness" that is being stamped out.

Studs up, straight leg and forceful it was always going to be a booking. I don't agree with it at all myself but those are the rules.

[bigbulllywee]

David W, on 03 January 2012 - 12:09, said:

The two QP centre halfs who must barely scrape 6 ft won around 95% of the headed challenges against him. He doesn't jump. Indeed, Cusack probably caused them more problems in the air.

On the second goal, I'm sure it was McQueen and Sharp that Daly ghosted between. It was diabolical marking but perhaps QP deserve credit as it's the third goal they've scored like that against us in the past month.

I don't know what game you were watching or maybe you are still a bit hungover from hogmany. White won the majority of balls in the air with great flick ons which Cusack should be aware of but is not anticipating.At Falkirk he will benefit from having better players around him and wish him well. Also feel the abuse that was dished out to some players yesterday was nothing short of disgraceful. Not a great way to start 2012. For what its worth my top 3 players yesterday were White Oliver and Neil. happy new year.

This post has been edited by bigbulllywee: 04 January 2012 - 02:05

[qpsnapper]

bigbulllywee, on 04 January 2012 - 01:48, said:

Also feel the abuse that was dished out to some players yesterday was nothing short of disgraceful. Not a great way to start 2012.

There was a group of a dozen or so Clyde fans sitting to the the right of the tunnel (as you look up from the pitch) giving abuse non-stop to all and sundry. As you would expect the ref and QP got stacks of abuse, but as you say they also gave a fair bit of stick to their own players, even Jim Duffy was shaking his head at one point when one of the "ladies" in the group went on an expletive filled rant.

Also thought the normally good surface was poor; not helped by all the rain of the last few weeks, but plenty of divots on the pitch before anyone set foot on it, it didn't look as though it had been touched since the last home game.

[mon the mo]

qpsnapper, on 04 January 2012 - 11:20, said:

plenty of divots on the pitch

Plenty of divots in the Clyde crowd by the sounds of things too! Time and again you hear about those idiots behind dugout; surely can't be good for the team

[Hampden Diehard]

mon the mo, on 04 January 2012 - 12:42, said:

Plenty of divots in the Clyde crowd by the sounds of things too! Time and again you hear about those idiots behind dugout; surely can't be good for the team

I know a guy whose son played for Clyde. He said that the abuse dished out to the team from the home fans was so bad, he used to sit with the away fans. To be honest, I can remember that is wasn't much different back in the Shawfield days.

[Convenor]

shawfield shed boy, on 29 December 2011 - 20:29, said:

gd point scott..Only time they got near a 4figure crowd or over it wos when we attended n outnumbered em...x

Aye, ok pal. You keep having yer crowd wanks, we’ll just keep enjoying watching our team horse you

Another tremendous 3 points for the lads. We should have been out of sight at half time before we lost a daft goal. The sending off seemed to galvanise Clyde a bit and the second half was pretty even but we always tried to play the better football and you can tell our team spirit is amazing. Mick Daly's header made me moist.

[forehead7]

qpsnapper, on 04 January 2012 - 11:20, said:

There was a group of a dozen or so Clyde fans sitting to the the right of the tunnel (as you look up from the pitch) giving abuse non-stop to all and sundry. As you would expect the ref and QP got stacks of abuse, but as you say they also gave a fair bit of stick to their own players, even Jim Duffy was shaking his head at one point when one of the "ladies" in the group went on an expletive filled rant.

Aye those are the group known as the "spazoids", I believe.

Shocking "fans". That "lady" was probably the banshee you can hear throughout it, constantly screaming at the ref, most of the time for non-issues.

[David W]

bigbulllywee, on 04 January 2012 - 01:48, said:

I don't know what game you were watching or maybe you are still a bit hungover from hogmany. White won the majority of balls in the air with great flick ons which Cusack should be aware of but is not anticipating.

Complete rubbish, though not surprising from someone that can't spell "bully". Even our own assistant manager spent the entire game screaming at him to jump and to use his body better. And I don't drink.

[my left foot]

The worst abuse I've been hearing over the last few games against clyde players was from the guy at the rear of the stand who has been screaming for Ryan kane to play as "insert name" is "insert insult"(there was quite a few).I was starting to think it was a relation of his.

[General Martok]

David W, on 03 January 2012 - 22:47, said:

Studs up, straight leg and forceful it was always going to be a booking. I don't agree with it at all myself but those are the rules.

Well, in fact they are not. The rules concerning tackling in football, with their loose wordings, delegate discretion to officials, in the same way as the ambiguous 'natural/unnatural' handball rule could be said to do.

'Studs up' is fatuous. There's never been a successful tackle made by a player whose foot and studs has or have been flush with or planted in the ground. That's a nonsense. And in fact in Little's case his studs didn't bear at Cusack, there was no risk of them jagging into our player - none at all.

'Straight leg' is even sillier. Self evident; you can't tackle with a fully extended limb? Piffle. Since when does a player make a sliding challenge with his leg folded inward?

Force hasn't been outlawed and excess is entirely subjective. The tackle could have been viewed as completely legitimate. I agree with the QP poster who notes that Cusack's reaction probably bought the decision.

[General Martok]

I'd also add that Marr made two challenges pretty much identical in force and in angle to Little's and received no reprimand.

[David W]

General Martok, on 04 January 2012 - 20:05, said:

Well, in fact they are not. The rules concerning tackling in football, with their loose wordings, delegate discretion to officials, in the same way as the ambiguous 'natural/unnatural' handball rule could be said to do.

'Studs up' is fatuous. There's never been a successful tackle made by a player whose foot and studs has or have been flush with or planted in the ground. That's a nonsense. And in fact in Little's case his studs didn't bear at Cusack, there was no risk of them jagging into our player - none at all.

'Straight leg' is even sillier. Self evident; you can't tackle with a fully extended limb? Piffle. Since when does a player make a sliding challenge with his leg folded inward?

Force hasn't been outlawed and excess is entirely subjective. The tackle could have been viewed as completely legitimate. I agree with the QP poster who notes that Cusack's reaction probably bought the decision.

I did not claim that any of those three things were worthy of a foul or booking. However, together they are. Claiming there's never been a successful tackle been made by a player without them having their studs up it mind-boggling.

[C. Muir]

my left foot, on 04 January 2012 - 17:54, said:

The worst abuse I've been hearing over the last few games against clyde players was from the guy at the rear of the stand who has been screaming for Ryan kane to play as "insert name" is "insert insult"(there was quite a few).I was starting to think it was a relation of his.

I sit very near him. To be fair he's pretty funny.

[NathanQP]

I think i might know the screaming women's husband

[David W]

C. Muir, on 04 January 2012 - 20:40, said:

I sit very near him. To be fair he's pretty funny.

The Wee Jimmy Krankie abuse down at QotS was legendary. He hugely overstepped the mark on Monday though and a few fans did answer him back at one point.

[Jack Burton]

I've sat up the back of the stand the last couple of home games he does seem a bit of a character but the abuse he was dishing out to Irvine was way over the top. It was Scullion getting it the week before. Kane hasnt exactly been great whenever he has played so not sure why he likes him so much.

I used to sit down at the dugout for years, they dont normally shout abuse at our players but the ref gets the brunt of it. I've been at games where they've been shouting abuse at the officials during their warm up. Its probably their warm up as well to be fair saving the main abuse for during the match. You can actually hear the banshee from away at the back of the stand its quite impressive in a way.

I've sat in a few different areas of the stand this season as they've put the red covers over where we used to sit.

[Jack Burton]

NathanQP, on 04 January 2012 - 20:42, said:

I think i might know the screaming women's husband

The two of them are pretty decent folk, I've spoke to the numerous times at the games. They generally dont join in the ref bating apart from when the woman starts screaming. I think there just the same as us and have just sat there for years out of habit.

[NathanQP]

Jack Burton, on 04 January 2012 - 21:16, said:

The two of them are pretty decent folk, I've spoke to the numerous times at the games. They generally dont join in the ref bating apart from when the woman starts screaming. I think there just the same as us and have just sat there for years out of habit.

ohwell if the guy goes to the game then its a different screaming women- clyde must be famous for them

[Mushroom]

forehead7, on 04 January 2012 - 15:59, said:

Aye those are the group known as the "spazoids", I believe.

Shocking "fans". That "lady" was probably the banshee you can hear throughout it, constantly screaming at the ref, most of the time for non-issues.

I thought they were the "shitgibbons"

The screaming wifey is unbelievable. If the abuse made sense I would understand.

NathanQP, on 04 January 2012 - 20:42, said:

I think i might know the screaming women's husband

Yeah, they're well known amongst the Clyde support - and most of us will have spoken to them at one time or another and they're fine to talk to. Just wish the woman would calm down a little. She'll live longer, appear less thick and give everyones eardrums a rest.

[Shawfield Stallion]

I've said it before and I'll say it many more times no doubt, but those poisonous fucking megamongs at the dugout have cost us a countless number of points down the years with their constant ref baiting and abuse, most of which is way over the line

They must be fucking raging when the ref and the team put in a good performance, because it means that they don't have an excuse to take out the frustration of their miserable home lives on a bunch of kids playing for £25 a week

Gfrehrjg53gr&£ddxujzz

This post has been edited by Shawfield Stallion: 05 January 2012 - 11:49