Livingston v Queens

[LIVIFOREVER]

Just now, Distant Doonhamer said:

Third Lanark?

Thought it might've been Gretna.

[Durnford]

45 minutes ago, KingfaetheSooth said:

Who did you support before the Livvie franchise? Meadowbank? And if so, who did you support before Meadowbank? Ferranti Thistle? 

As you're so interested I moved to Scotland from Pen-y-coedcae and my local team was Cardiff.

Happy now?

[orco]

43 minutes ago, Durnford said:

As you're so interested I moved to Scotland from Pen-y-coedcae and my local team was Cardiff.

Happy now?

Telt! 

[JessieField]

2 hours ago, LiviBoy2603 said:

A vlog of today's action packed match
 

Not a bad attempt at a Vlog, but slowing down speaking (too rushed) and finding another word or phrase to replace "but" would make a better presentation.

[QOSQOS]

9 hours ago, LiviBoy2603 said:

A vlog of today's action packed match
 

It's great to see such enthusiasm, well done. Good range of predictions, anything from 5-0 to 0-5, that covers all bases! Although we did lose to Livi 7-0 in the cup back in (our) dark days......

[Fae_the_'briggs]

14 hours ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

Yep, the top 3 teams just now all played poorly against us, our players (particularly our midfield) work their arses off to make them play poorly but away fans don't see it that way, they only see their own players having a bad day.

As you probably haven't seen as much of Queens this season as Queens' fans have,  I think we are better qualified to comment if yesterday's performance was below the level of our previous league performances so far.  Without doubt it was below par but the result certainly wasn't dictated just by a few of our players having,  by the standards they have set so far,  an off day. Our setup in the first half of having three up front allowed Livingston to control the middle of the park with an extra man,  we lacked creativity out wide and we also struggled to deal with long balls forward with our midfield being forced deep to defend.  It was Rankin helping out back there that led to the penalty. Livingston played with a high tempo,  backed each other up and harried us when we had possession,  forcing errors but they also had players who were more direct and creative on the ground.  Bringing on Lyle,  for the ineffectual Kane,  and Stirling and McFaddden to give some width,  swung the game in our favour. We really should have seen the game out. But as Gary Naysmith concedes it was probably a good point gained as Livingston were on top for 60 minutes of the game.  He really should have made changes sooner though as it was obvious we weren't getting enough joy down the flanks. 

 

[LIVIFOREVER]

1 hour ago, Fae_the_'briggs said:

As you probably haven't seen as much of Queens this season as Queens' fans have,  I think we are better qualified to comment if yesterday's performance was below the level of our previous league performances so far.  Without doubt it was below par but the result certainly wasn't dictated just by a few of our players having,  by the standards they have set so far,  an off day. Our setup in the first half of having three up front allowed Livingston to control the middle of the park with an extra man,  we lacked creativity out wide and we also struggled to deal with long balls forward with our midfield being forced deep to defend.  It was Rankin helping out back there that led to the penalty. Livingston played with a high tempo,  backed each other up and harried us when we had possession,  forcing errors but they also had players who were more direct and creative on the ground.  Bringing on Lyle,  for the ineffectual Kane,  and Stirling and McFaddden to give some width,  swung the game in our favour. We really should have seen the game out. But as Gary Naysmith concedes it was probably a good point gained as Livingston were on top for 60 minutes of the game.  He really should have made changes sooner though as it was obvious we weren't getting enough joy down the flanks. 

 

I'm not disputing you played poorly, i'm saying our players had something to do with you having an off day. Reading your post it looks like you even agree with me on that.

[Fae_the_'briggs]

18 minutes ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

I'm not disputing you played poorly, i'm saying our players had something to do with you having an off day. Reading your post it looks like you even agree with me on that.

Obviously the way Livingston played went a long way in dictating how we were allowed to, or not allowed to play. I don't think anyone is arguing about the fact  that you were the best team for two-thirds of the game. Quite a few of our players, however, performed below the level they have done in recent games, in their passing, decision making, tackling, reluctance to take men on, balls into the box, even when under little pressure. How our team was setup until the substitutions also gave you an advantage. You had commented on the apparent coincidence that the three top teams you have played all claimed to have played below par rather than give Livingston greater credit for their play, I can only talk about Queens yesterday and for a few players it just did not happen for them on the day. I'm not trying to detract from how your team played, you probably deserved to be further ahead at half-time on pressure and chances, but the fact is that we failed on regular occasions to do the basic things.  

[ATLIS]

8 minutes ago, Fae_the_'briggs said:

Obviously the way Livingston played went a long way in dictating how we were allowed to, or not allowed to play. I don't think anyone is arguing about the fact  that you were the best team for two-thirds of the game. Quite a few of our players, however, performed below the level they have done in recent games, in their passing, decision making, tackling, reluctance to take men on, balls into the box, even when under little pressure. How our team was setup until the substitutions also gave you an advantage. You had commented on the apparent coincidence that the three top teams you have played all claimed to have played below par rather than give Livingston greater credit for their play, I can only talk about Queens yesterday and for a few players it just did not happen for them on the day. I'm not trying to detract from how your team played, you probably deserved to be further ahead at half-time on pressure and chances, but the fact is that we failed on regular occasions to do the basic things.  

We had an off day yesterday and our midfield was fairly poor, but our midfield always tend to make oppositions look below par/off form. It's credit to how well we control the entire game in there and make oppositions look bad. It's a nice trait to have, making other teams look bad but we aren't clinical enough up front at all

[Homer Thompson]

3 hours ago, Fae_the_'briggs said:

As you probably haven't seen as much of Queens this season as Queens' fans have,  I think we are better qualified to comment if yesterday's performance was below the level of our previous league performances so far.  Without doubt it was below par but the result certainly wasn't dictated just by a few of our players having,  by the standards they have set so far,  an off day. Our setup in the first half of having three up front allowed Livingston to control the middle of the park with an extra man,  we lacked creativity out wide and we also struggled to deal with long balls forward with our midfield being forced deep to defend.  It was Rankin helping out back there that led to the penalty. Livingston played with a high tempo,  backed each other up and harried us when we had possession,  forcing errors but they also had players who were more direct and creative on the ground.  Bringing on Lyle,  for the ineffectual Kane,  and Stirling and McFaddden to give some width,  swung the game in our favour. We really should have seen the game out. But as Gary Naysmith concedes it was probably a good point gained as Livingston were on top for 60 minutes of the game.  He really should have made changes sooner though as it was obvious we weren't getting enough joy down the flanks. 

 

I dont disagree with the main point of your post but I think its wrong to say Livingston had an extra man in the middle of the park. We had three narrow central midfielders which matched up with Livis 3-5-2. 

[Livilion28]

I feel Livingston 3 in midfield were better than queens midfield 3 yesterday. Pittman Keags and byrne were better than tapping rankin and Kyle Jacobs imo

[Distant Doonhamer]

17 minutes ago, Livilion28 said:

I feel Livingston 3 in midfield were better than queens midfield 3 yesterday. Pittman Keags and byrne were better than tapping rankin and Kyle Jacobs imo

No issue with that. Very fair point. 

[MOTD Wannabee]

 

[Young gun]

16 hours ago, Distant Doonhamer said:

Third Lanark?

Ha ha that fucked them up 

[LIVIFOREVER]

Stirling and Lyle couldn't have hit them any better, Alexander had no chance. Same goes for Mullin's pen, hopefully he's taking them from now on. I've been critical of Mackin and his lack of pace, but that's 4 goals this season, have to give him credit for being able to score some goals, that was an important one there. I'd have been fucked off for days if we'd lost that game so well done Mackin. 

[LIVIFOREVER]

5 minutes ago, ATLIS said:

We had an off day yesterday and our midfield was fairly poor, but our midfield always tend to make oppositions look below par/off form. It's credit to how well we control the entire game in there and make oppositions look bad. It's a nice trait to have, making other teams look bad but we aren't clinical enough up front at all

I thought Byrne had a decent game, saw him coming away with the ball nearly every time he went in for a 50/50 challenge and broke forward with it time and again.

 

Mullin, Pittman and Jacobs all stood off Stirling when he hit his shot for his goal, Mullin in particular allowed him to cut inside and come over to our 18 yard box. Read Hopkin's saying he had told them to make sure Stirling doesn't come inside to do that and show him down the line, must've went in Mullin's ear and out the other side because that's exactly what he allowed Stirling to do.

[Sloop John B]

Alexander managed to get a fingertip to Stirling's goal which would have a ridiculous save.

 

The second Livi goal, I would have thought that Martin would have probably went for the first ball but  it was a good reaction save for Lithgow's backheel which I didn't realise at the time but the defence switched off after Fordyce messed up, Lyle and Brownlie ballwatching probably caused Mackin to get in there. Just a mess from our point of view.

[Durnford]

Have to say about the highlights that the behind the goal scenes were pretty impressive. Obviously seen them before but not so well done; whether that was by luck or design you might have been forgiven for thinking someone was actually controlling them.

[QOSQOS]

Re the Livi second goal, I hadn't realised it was a Queens player that allowed the ball to hit off them and roll across the box, and it was a clever back heel that set it up for almost a tap-in. Leighfield getting a hand to it made it easier to score. 

But if you give away free kicks in dangerous positions, sooner or later you will be punished.

[palmy_cammy]

Another two cracking goals to add to the collection, we've scored a few belters already this season. The Livi penalty was a great finish as well.

Definitely the sort of game we would have lost last season by the sounds of things so we take the point and move on. I don't think anyone would have turned down 10 points, 1 defeat and 2nd in the table at this stage.