The Queen of the South thread

[19QOS19]

And who says he wants to leave he's just waiting on the ok from the chairman to resign contract is in place

I'm confused now. Who is leaving, the player or the chairman?...

[palmy_cammy]

2 hours ago, Sloop John B said:

I'd say he's a very raw prospect with quite a high ceiling due to his athleticism and bringing people into play through flick ons and passing.  When he's motivated, he's able to outbattle defenders in the air and outrun them in a footrace which is quite unique for this level. 

Unfortunately it's when he doesn't have the ball is when he's an issue,  like you say there's games were he is very reactive to the play rather than taking charge. So many times he comes short and crosses it when he's the only person over 6 foot on the attacking side, not to mention he isn't the best striker of the ball and 3 goals in 23 games  this season is woeful.

I agree that he's progressed as a player this season and hopefully he can string performances together. It's also probably the first time in his young career that he has been a regular at a club over an extended period. The concern is that he doesn't progress beyond flat track bully and that Scottish Football isn't the most stable environment for a project type player. 

He has an ungainly style of play that reminds me a lot of Sean O'Connor, who at times was a big gangly mess and other times was completely unplayable.  He's definitely a rough diamond who has done enough to deserve the chance to develop further.

It really depresses my how easily our fans get on the back of young players and quickly turn them into scapegoats.  I love nothing more than watching a player develop over time, it reflects well on the club, and is just generally pleasing as a football supporter.  Obviously it would be nice if every player we had was the finished article but that's not realistic at our level.  You would think our fans would have patience where younger players are concerned given the sometimes erratic performances the likes of Harris, Holt, Durnan and numerous others put in early in their careers with us, before turning into solid performers.

[doonhamer64]

On ‎06‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 17:52, NM_1919 said:

I'm happy to send up a cheque for £20 - to where and to whom?

[NM_1919]

I'm happy to send up a cheque for £20 - to where and to whom?

Will message you pal

[NM_1919]

I'm happy to send up a cheque for £20 - to where and to whom?

Will message you pal

[The Caul Back]

3 goals in 23 games whoop whoop woody, get him signed

[football maniac]

Says on the main site Carmichael is probably but not definitely out with a hamstring injury for the rest of 2017 but this seems to imply he could be back relatively soon. He was also pictured with the squad on twitter. Seems like a few folk have started rubbish rumours about him never kicking a ball for us again

[19QOS19]

Out for 3 months I was told.

[Fae_the_'briggs]

10 minutes ago, palmy_cammy said:

He has an ungainly style of play that reminds me a lot of Sean O'Connor, who at times was a big gangly mess and other times was completely unplayable.  He's definitely a rough diamond who has done enough to deserve the chance to develop further.

It really depresses my how easily our fans get on the back of young players and quickly turn them into scapegoats.  I love nothing more than watching a player develop over time, it reflects well on the club, and is just generally pleasing as a football supporter.  Obviously it would be nice if every player we had was the finished article but that's not realistic at our level.  You would think our fans would have patience where younger players are concerned given the sometimes erratic performances the likes of Harris, Holt, Durnan and numerous others put in early in their careers with us, before turning into solid performers.

At what age does a "young player"  cease to become a "young player"  and is old enough to accept others opinions and criticism.  Like a few other posters my main concern with Dykes is his inconsistency,  both in showing ability and in attitude.  IMO his regular inclusion in the team owes more to his height for getting his head to the ball to  flick on for his fellow forwards than any other latent talent he may have.  The success rate of setting up decent attacks from this tactic is minimal I would say but that's not entirely Dykes' fault as the Manager obviously likes this approach.  The Manager and coaching staff see more of Dykes at training,  etc,  than the fans do on match days so they must think he is worth a contract extension,  at least I hope the Manager had an input in the decision. 

[Rjc-1988]

Out for 3 months I was told.

That is very unfortunate if true. I think we would have carried a decent threat with a fully fit Danny on one flank and Stirling on the other. That said it is pretty clear that the Manager has been pretty underwhelmed with Stirling so unlikely that he would have utilised both players even if they had been available.

As I have said previously if every player's performances were judged as harshly as Stirling's appear to be the subs bench would be a decent imitation of that timeless classic - "musical chairs".

[Northfield 53]

6 hours ago, 19QOS19 said:

 

 

I'm confused now. Who is leaving, the player or the chairman?...

 

 

What player are we talking about ?.

On the topic of players I think Dobbie could easily play another season .

McFadden is surely worth a deal to the  end of the season does his contract not run out in Jan .

Kane and Kerr I would try to keep Kerr but Kane works hard but has no goals in him so would not extend his loan .

Dykes has so much more to give but at times he is lazy looks like he can't be bothered like Kane I just can't see him score a lot of goals for us

 

 

 

 

[billyqos]

palmy_cammy  - well said!! I hear the lad getting pelters before he even gets near the ball and there is so little encouragement from the "supporters" around. I mean do we think he wants to stop the flow and intentionally fall over???????????????  I for one am glad he has signed an extension and hope young Connor follows suit because if there is any chance of us progressing it is through the youth development (supported by selective mature players of course!!)

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by billyqos
spelling error

[palmy_cammy]

5 hours ago, Fae_the_'briggs said:

At what age does a "young player"  cease to become a "young player"  and is old enough to accept others opinions and criticism.  Like a few other posters my main concern with Dykes is his inconsistency,  both in showing ability and in attitude.  IMO his regular inclusion in the team owes more to his height for getting his head to the ball to  flick on for his fellow forwards than any other latent talent he may have.  The success rate of setting up decent attacks from this tactic is minimal I would say but that's not entirely Dykes' fault as the Manager obviously likes this approach.  The Manager and coaching staff see more of Dykes at training,  etc,  than the fans do on match days so they must think he is worth a contract extension,  at least I hope the Manager had an input in the decision. 

Of course his age doesn't make him immune from criticism, but I just feel that a bit of perspective should be used when criticising younger players who haven't finished their development.  It's completely unfair for example to expect Dykes to perform to a similar standard as Dobbie or Lyle, neither of which were pulling up trees at the age of 22 themselves from what I recall.  If he stops improving that is the time to perhaps question if he is what we need, but whilst we are seeing improvement, which we definitely are, I'm happy to persevere.

On the subject of my bugbears, does anyone else think the current comments about our so called "hoof-ball" are being overstated?  It's become one of these things that is repeated often enough it becomes fact, but it's not really how I am seeing things, but perhaps I'm alone in this one.

Yes we are playing more long balls than we have in the past, but I'm not certain it is our main game plan, I'm not even certain it's a game plan at all.  To me when we opt for the long ball it is because of a lack of options.  This is caused by a number of things.  Mainly the lack of width in the team, and the lack of quality in the middle of the park.  This gives the defenders very few options when trying to play out from the back.  Rankin rarely drops deep to collect the ball from the centre backs, and the less said about Jacobs' passing ability the better.  Fordyce is never going to make rampaging runs from full back, and although Marshall can, with no-one playing in front of him to make overlapping runs he is left with the task of taking on 2 or 3 men, or taking the easy option of a long ball in behind for our forwards to chase.  Dykes and or Lyle being on the field also makes the long ball an easy option which players of limited ability tend to take.

I suppose it's a bit of a chicken/egg situation because the players and the system are Gary Naysmith's so if they end up playing "hoof ball" it falls on him, but to me it doesn't look like the players take the field having been purposely told to play it direct.  Certainly not in the same fashion as Livingston in the recent game who went long at the first opportunity, every time.

[Monkey Tennis]

10 minutes ago, palmy_cammy said:

Of course his age doesn't make him immune from criticism, but I just feel that a bit of perspective should be used when criticising younger players who haven't finished their development.  It's completely unfair for example to expect Dykes to perform to a similar standard as Dobbie or Lyle, neither of which were pulling up trees at the age of 22 themselves from what I recall.  If he stops improving that is the time to perhaps question if he is what we need, but whilst we are seeing improvement, which we definitely are, I'm happy to persevere.

On the subject of my bugbears, does anyone else think the current comments about our so called "hoof-ball" are being overstated?  It's become one of these things that is repeated often enough it becomes fact, but it's not really how I am seeing things, but perhaps I'm alone in this one.

Yes we are playing more long balls than we have in the past, but I'm not certain it is our main game plan, I'm not even certain it's a game plan at all.  To me when we opt for the long ball it is because of a lack of options.  This is caused by a number of things.  Mainly the lack of width in the team, and the lack of quality in the middle of the park.  This gives the defenders very few options when trying to play out from the back.  Rankin rarely drops deep to collect the ball from the centre backs, and the less said about Jacobs' passing ability the better.  Fordyce is never going to make rampaging runs from full back, and although Marshall can, with no-one playing in front of him to make overlapping runs he is left with the task of taking on 2 or 3 men, or taking the easy option of a long ball in behind for our forwards to chase.  Dykes and or Lyle being on the field also makes the long ball an easy option which players of limited ability tend to take.

I suppose it's a bit of a chicken/egg situation because the players and the system are Gary Naysmith's so if they end up playing "hoof ball" it falls on him, but to me it doesn't look like the players take the field having been purposely told to play it direct.  Certainly not in the same fashion as Livingston in the recent game who went long at the first opportunity, every time.

I think you've sort of answered your own question in your final paragraph.

I agree that 'hoofball' can be a bit of a default criticism if the team isn't on a great run.  It ties in with the nonsense talked about 'playing the right way'.  At the same time though, it really is currently evident and while it's maybe not part of a master plan, fielding a midfield devoid of footballers, will necessitate bypassing it. 

I don't have much difficulty with a direct game that leads to chances and goals.  Watching the opposition cope comfortably with balls launched at them however, has less appeal.

[Fae_the_'briggs]

1 hour ago, palmy_cammy said:

Of course his age doesn't make him immune from criticism, but I just feel that a bit of perspective should be used when criticising younger players who haven't finished their development.  It's completely unfair for example to expect Dykes to perform to a similar standard as Dobbie or Lyle, neither of which were pulling up trees at the age of 22 themselves from what I recall.  If he stops improving that is the time to perhaps question if he is what we need, but whilst we are seeing improvement, which we definitely are, I'm happy to persevere.

On the subject of my bugbears, does anyone else think the current comments about our so called "hoof-ball" are being overstated?  It's become one of these things that is repeated often enough it becomes fact, but it's not really how I am seeing things, but perhaps I'm alone in this one.

Yes we are playing more long balls than we have in the past, but I'm not certain it is our main game plan, I'm not even certain it's a game plan at all.  To me when we opt for the long ball it is because of a lack of options.  This is caused by a number of things.  Mainly the lack of width in the team, and the lack of quality in the middle of the park.  This gives the defenders very few options when trying to play out from the back.  Rankin rarely drops deep to collect the ball from the centre backs, and the less said about Jacobs' passing ability the better.  Fordyce is never going to make rampaging runs from full back, and although Marshall can, with no-one playing in front of him to make overlapping runs he is left with the task of taking on 2 or 3 men, or taking the easy option of a long ball in behind for our forwards to chase.  Dykes and or Lyle being on the field also makes the long ball an easy option which players of limited ability tend to take.

I suppose it's a bit of a chicken/egg situation because the players and the system are Gary Naysmith's so if they end up playing "hoof ball" it falls on him, but to me it doesn't look like the players take the field having been purposely told to play it direct.  Certainly not in the same fashion as Livingston in the recent game who went long at the first opportunity, every time.

The "hoof ball"  that bugs me,  and I would say is very much a part of Naysmith's tactics,  is when goal-kicks,  free-kicks from deep in our own half,  etc,  are punted up to Dykes or Lyle standing out wide with the intention of them knocking it down to a teammate.  As I've said before the success rate of setting up scoring chances using this tactic is so slim as to make it a complete waste of time.  I think Dykes' continued inclusion in the team is to use his height for this tactic.  It was worse last year when Lee Robinson seemed to be trying to set some sort of record in punting the ball straight into touch,  at least Martin seems to be a bit better at keeping the ball in the playing area,  but the number of times it leads to scoring chances has not increased.  As for Livingston's tactics,  they play to their strengths and have the front players physically capable of playing route one football,  most of our better players are suited to playing it on the deck not up on the air. 

[NM_1919]

I'm happy to send up a cheque for £20 - to where and to whom?

 

 

I’ve tried sending you messages on this but doesn’t seem to be working. If you let us know what number you’d like and name.

 

27 loch Road

Dumfries

Dg2 9je if your wanting to send cheque

[Nithsdale Wanderer]

15 hours ago, palmy_cammy said:

If he stops improving that is the time to perhaps question if he is what we need, but whilst we are seeing improvement, which we definitely are, I'm happy to persevere.

Have seen no improvement whatsoever .

Cannot hold the ball up - far to easily knocked off it by defenders- and not exactly a prolific scorer.  For some-one, cannot recall who , to compare Dykes to O'Connor is proposterous.

Big Sean had a dominating physical presence allied to a great touch and an ability to score with both feet as well as his head.

16 hours ago, palmy_cammy said:

On the subject of my bugbears, does anyone else think the current comments about our so called "hoof-ball" are being overstated?  It's become one of these things that is repeated often enough it becomes fact, but it's not really how I am seeing things, but perhaps I'm alone in this one.

Yes we are playing more long balls than we have in the past, but I'm not certain it is our main game plan, I'm not even certain it's a game plan at all.  To me when we opt for the long ball it is because of a lack of options.  This is caused by a number of things.  Mainly the lack of width in the team, and the lack of quality in the middle of the park.  This gives the defenders very few options when trying to play out from the back.  Rankin rarely drops deep to collect the ball from the centre backs, and the less said about Jacobs' passing ability the better.  Fordyce is never going to make rampaging runs from full back, and although Marshall can, with no-one playing in front of him to make overlapping runs he is left with the task of taking on 2 or 3 men, or taking the easy option of a long ball in behind for our forwards to chase.  Dykes and or Lyle being on the field also makes the long ball an easy option which players of limited ability tend to take.

I suppose it's a bit of a chicken/egg situation because the players and the system are Gary Naysmith's so if they end up playing "hoof ball" it falls on him, but to me it doesn't look like the players take the field having been purposely told to play it direct.  Certainly not in the same fashion as Livingston in the recent game who went long at the first opportunity, every time.

It's quite clearly the Manager who has instructed this and it is his main game plan, all the time.

[SUPERSOUTH]

On 07/12/2017 at 22:39, SUPERSOUTH said:

Dykes signs contract extension till May 2019, wonder if any more will follow.

DOBBIE must be the next player to sign an extension to his contract come on board get it sorted early Xmas prezzie for all the fans please.

[queenslad]

18 hours ago, palmy_cammy said:

On the subject of my bugbears, does anyone else think the current comments about our so called "hoof-ball" are being overstated?  It's become one of these things that is repeated often enough it becomes fact, but it's not really how I am seeing things, but perhaps I'm alone in this one.

Yes we are playing more long balls than we have in the past, but I'm not certain it is our main game plan, I'm not even certain it's a game plan at all.  To me when we opt for the long ball it is because of a lack of options.  This is caused by a number of things.  Mainly the lack of width in the team, and the lack of quality in the middle of the park.  This gives the defenders very few options when trying to play out from the back.  Rankin rarely drops deep to collect the ball from the centre backs, and the less said about Jacobs' passing ability the better.  Fordyce is never going to make rampaging runs from full back, and although Marshall can, with no-one playing in front of him to make overlapping runs he is left with the task of taking on 2 or 3 men, or taking the easy option of a long ball in behind for our forwards to chase.  Dykes and or Lyle being on the field also makes the long ball an easy option which players of limited ability tend to take.

I suppose it's a bit of a chicken/egg situation because the players and the system are Gary Naysmith's so if they end up playing "hoof ball" it falls on him, but to me it doesn't look like the players take the field having been purposely told to play it direct.  Certainly not in the same fashion as Livingston in the recent game who went long at the first opportunity, every time.

The other telling factor is how the opposition does not give our defenders time to settle on the ball at the back and pick a pass to a team mate. The last few weeks have seen opposition playing with more forwards than us. This is very evident at corners when they leave 2 and sometimes 3 players up the field. This immediately puts us under pressure and not having time results in the hoof ball

[Northfield 53]

Think Dobbie should get a new contract for next season definitely could play another season .

1st thing Naysmith should do on Monday is get Dobbie contract sorted for next season.