Montrose -vs- Stenhousemuir

[Scorge]

Should be a fairly even game on paper, haven't seen us since Brechin but encouraged by the flying start last week. Ballantyne back is a big plus. Would expect both teams to score, f**k knows the result though. 

 

[Neilly]

12 hours ago, Brummo said:

So that constitutes referring to a team as a "laughing stock", as Neilly referred to it, does it?

It's a comment like that, leads me to think that you are the ones needing to "pipe down".

You were a laughing stock to me at that time. Why does that upset you?

You were only saved by default at that time that the Shire were about as the worst club in Scotland.

[Ivo den Bieman]

That 2-6 defeat was horrible and one of my lowest points watching our club. Henry Hall sacked after the game.

0-5 the following year whilst fielding Davis Robertsons expensively assembled team of iron-filings-without-a-magnet was ghastly, too.

As FF says though the days of Jered Stirling, Willie Martin and Michael "The Human Skittle" Hankinson are long gone.

Still away so will miss this one. Hoping for a decent result and performance ahead of next weeks home game v Cowden which will be my first of the seasob

[berwick-the-unbeatable]

On 10/08/2017 at 15:04, Brummo said:

False memory syndrome. F.Y.I. though the Mo undoubtedly had their bad moments, they were never a "carry on" fitba team.

Aye, okay then

[Scorge]

Fairly drab stalemate in the end which Stenny had much the better of, especially second half. Could and should have won 3-1, despite their comically bad keeper. We looked quite careless today, barring the 10 minute burst in which we scored.

Will take that, and move on.

[montrosefc]

Montrose dominated possession in the first half but seemed to run out of ideas in the final third of the pitch. Real difference for us in the second half was when Cammy & Kerry Hay came on and started creating more chances. Overall I thought a a draw was a fair result.
If we can iron out the occasional mistakes at the back, I think we will be a really difficult team to break down this season. Just need to make more use of the flanks & hopefully we can sign someone with a bit of pace up front to play alongside Temps.

[jd_mo]

Not sure who picked the Montrose MOTM today: didn't feel Callaghan was anywhere near warranting that accolade.
Anyway, very dominant first half but with zero threat in the final third.
Start of second Stenny looked far more lively. Felt we had nothing about us in the middle of the park and once Foxy got booked we looked vulnerable. Rightly or wrongly Cammy came across to support the middle, leaving their lad free at the back and goal. Still thought we would score and happy to see us do so and to be honest I won't complain as it's an unbeaten start to the season.

[Neilly]

2 points dropped. Created 4 or 5 clear cut chances second half and lost a goal to an awful error.

Montrose had a lot of the ball but created nothing.

[Gtops]

Agree with the above posters, Montrose had the bulk of the first half possesion wise but created nothing.
Stenny much better second half and the game opened up somewhat.
Personal opinion, draw about right.

[Francesc Fabregas]

Although I would have been happy to take a point before the match, I'm disappointed we didn't win all three. We had some excellent chances to score - Mark McGuigan hitting the crossbar with a header and then forcing Allan Fleming into a good save - before netting the game's opening goal, but we then undid all our hard work with another defensive mistake. Ruaridh Donaldson seemed to lose his position and misread the flight of the cross-field ball, allowing Graham Webster to take it in on goal and eventually score. It was a sore one to take - I'm sure that was the Montrose's only shot in the whole match.

The first half was a very tedious affair, low on any quality whatsoever. The home side were the better of the two teams, purely based on possession and territory alone, but they didn't do anything with it. No shots, no crosses on top of our "comically bad 'keeper", nothing of note. That's not to say they didn't give us something to think about, right enough, and big Chris Templeman proved himself to be a nuisance. Stenhousemuir didn't really do much other than punt it long towards McGuigan and Jamie Longworth. It begs the question - why play a three-man midfield if you're going to bypass them entirely?

We appeared to settle down after David Marsh's injury forced us to rejig the team into a 4-4-2 formation. I think we're better suited to this system than the 3-5-2 but, either way, we'll really need quality wide players to make it work as sticking Eddie Fearns and Nathan Blockley on the wings doesn't do anyone any favours.

We started the second half well and looked to get Harry Paton on the ball as often as possible, and this led to our two aforementioned best chances, McGuigan's header and his shot at Fleming, before opening the scoring. McGuigan's goal was nicely taken but it was Blockley's cross with the outside of his foot that made it; as the players celebrated in front of the away support, Blockley said to the scorer, "How about that for a cross?!"

Stenhousemuir had a couple of snatched chances before Montrose unexpectedly scored. It was disappointing to let them back into the game as they had spent most of the second half on the back foot, but even more frustrating because it came from our error rather than their ingenuity. Two league games in and two of the four goals we've lost have been through boobs (Ross Kavanagh's winner last weekend should never have come to pass). Nothing much happened after that but we probably finished the stronger.

No-one really stood out for Montrose - there was no-one who made me stop and think, "Wow, who's that guy?!" - but they looked alright on the whole. They're a fairly stolid outfit and will probably have a decent season. All the best to them.

As for the Warriors, I was reasonably content with our back four (Donaldson's mistake notwithstanding) and the front two, McGuigan especially, but something needs to be done about the middle of the park. Harry Paton looks the part but he's lightweight and needs support, and I don't think that'll come from a leggy Mark Ferry or Blockley, who seems to pay too much attention to the ball rather than what's going on around him. We've got so many central midfielders and I'm unsure about what they can do. We also, as mentioned above, need two wingers in soon. Here's hoping Bomber's already onto it.

[beaver1]

Good to get a point on the board but it should have been 3.

We were rubbish first half but despite their possession other than a header past the post Montrose did nothing with it. In fact we had the best chance when Donaldson screwed his shot wide.

Second half was a different story. The shot off the bar, which might have crossed the line, McGuigan's miss when 1 on 1 with the keeper, and then the goal. Frustratingly the Montrose goal came from a Donaldson gaffe. Even then Smith saved the initial shot, and the striker got the break McGuigan didn't get when the ball landed back at his feet. He had an open goal.

I'm becoming more content that we are going to do ok this season, but need one or two players to make it a successful season. Ferry and Blockley don't do it for me. Montrose were solid but not a patch on Stirling.

[Scorge]

55 minutes ago, Francesc Fabregas said:

No-one really stood out for Montrose - there was no-one who made me stop and think, "Wow, who's that guy?!" - but they looked alright on the whole. They're a fairly stolid outfit and will probably have a decent season.

Agree 100% and would say similar about yourselves, no-one really put their hand up and took ownership of the game (MOTM picker had an unenviable job, I'd have copped out and given it to the goalscorer). Early doors but would be surprised if you aren't in the mixer for promotion.

 

[MOFOREVER]

You can have the best back four in the world but unless you are sharp up top your back four will eventually crack under pressure. Stenny clearly realised that at half time and came out firing. Mo need to get players forward down the flanks and the midfield need to follow up to get the second ball. All too often there was only one man to aim at up top and that's not good enough. I think SP will re-jig his side at Stirling midweek. For all Sanny gives his all I'd rest him on Tuesday and go with pace up front. Kerr Hay and Connor McLaren maybe. I'd have Cammy and Steevesy at wing backs with Webby in the hole behind the front two. Certainly can experiment again as it isn't that important we get the win on Tuesday, more important to get our formation right for the next couple of league games which are winnable before the trip to Balmoor. 

[MO7S]

6 hours ago, Neilly said:

 

Montrose had a lot of the ball but created nothing.

Which was still 100 times more than the old  Shitey toffee created.

 

[Neilly]

I'm assuming you are blind.

[Neilly]

12 hours ago, beaver1 said:

Good to get a point on the board but it should have been 3.

We were rubbish first half but despite their possession other than a header past the post Montrose did nothing with it. In fact we had the best chance when Donaldson screwed his shot wide.

Second half was a different story. The shot off the bar, which might have crossed the line, McGuigan's miss when 1 on 1 with the keeper, and then the goal. Frustratingly the Montrose goal came from a Donaldson gaffe. Even then Smith saved the initial shot, and the striker got the break McGuigan didn't get when the ball landed back at his feet. He had an open goal.

I'm becoming more content that we are going to do ok this season, but need one or two players to make it a successful season. Ferry and Blockley don't do it for me. Montrose were solid but not a patch on Stirling.

Just for reference it was not even close to crossing the line.

[adventpc]

highlights from Links Park,Montrose.

Warriors TV

[beaver1]

Great pass from Paton for our goal. What a fcuk up at their goal. 

[MontroseMedia]