Jump to content

Hamilton Academical v Partick Thistle


Recommended Posts

Zzzzzz  for over 2000 people.Nervy football from both sides who look a shadow of what both were/are capable of.

Good penalty shouts for both,two bad misses and more huffin and puffin than a 30 stone man at an all you can eat challenge.

Worrying for me Clueless saying it was a good point for Accies;any side playing a relegation rival at home should be disappointed not to win.Sums up the loser mentality in our dressing room/board room compared to the likes of our neighbours over The Clyde.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Only positive thing from tonight was having Woods back in goals, didn't have a lot to do save wise, but it's clear to see he commands things so much better than Jamieson or Fulton, the rest of the team know what he's going to do in each situation, rather than the last few match's where every time the ball is our first third, everyone is scrambling about panicking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At half time on Saturday I would have bitten your hand off for 4 points from these two games, so reasonably happy. No doubting that both sides are going to be at the bottom end this season and possibly filling the bottom 2 positions. Our only saving grace is that come January we hopefully will have quite a few of our long term injured back and that should freshen the squad up a bit without the need of delving into the transfer market!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On reflection to end the 6 match losing run was pleasing.The defence Imrie apart played well individually, and collectively were as secure last night for as long as I can recall. Imrie needs to have a sit on the bench soon , he looks like he is playing on memory , very unsure what to do in possession , and a lack of hunger might even be time to concentrate his efforts on his coaching role.Was quite happy with Rojano's constant movement , in a game we are more on the front foot than we were last night his movement will create goal scoring chances for himself or the team as a whole .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Fuctifano said:

Pretty dreadful fare all round... rain, wind and the pitch made it impossible for either team to get the ball down.

Best summed up by the passage of play where we were caught offside. Accies took the FK long but were flagged offside from the kick. We took the FK and went straight to one of their defenders who battered it out of play in our half.

Both teams missed a sitter, both teams should have had a penalty I think -the Keown foul (or Neil Neon as the Accies anouncer said) at the end of the first half looked inside the box to me and the handball by Imrie seemed blatant, both teams were shit scared to lose. Draw was fair.

Not making any subs was a bit odd, don't know if it's a squad rotation thing with so many players out but Doolan was getting no change at all 2nd half and Sammon as a big lump might have been useful.

One small query, how could someone be offside from a free kick taken in his own half? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

 

 


Oh my.

Thistle posters are usually among the most sensible on here as well.

 

 

I'd have said the same about you, but for some reason you've really gone on the defensive over a couple of tongue-in-cheek comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had to leave at half-time as my girlfriend was hit by some stomach bug/food poisoning thing (I'll not mention which Hamilton pub we ate in pre-match). By the sounds of it walking up the wee lane to the station with someone stopping every 5 yards to vomit was a far more pleasurable experience than the second half. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never a penalty on Doc.
Looked like Rojano was in the box.
Stonewall for Imrie’s handball.
Not to mention McLean being consistently inconsistent throughout.
Also, surely our fans realise that what Canning will say in the media is probably different from what he actually believes? So many are getting hung up on his comments saying it was a point gained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some thoughts:

  • From the way we approached the game to the lack of action from management to Archie's post-match comments, it's not difficult to arrive at the conclusion that we set the team up not to get beaten and were happy with a point which is pretty criminal. Whilst not to be sniffed at, the post-match praise of the clean sheet is empty flattery at best - we were up against a toothless attack yet did our best to gift them a goal.
  • I really struggle to understand why Archie saw fit not to introduce any substitutions last night. After proclaiming the benefits of having a strong bench on Saturday, it seems bizarre that he decided to ignore the options of Erskine and Sammon, both of whom could have offered something different. He might not be everyone's cup of tea but I thought last night's game was perfect for Sammon and as the game stretched, it provided the spaces in which Erskine thrives. 
  • It was yet another game with a different attacking combination - and the absence of substitutes along with the fact Dools and Storey ran themselves into the ground would suggest that Saturday will be much the same. This constant tinkering with the starting XI is hardly conducive to developing any kind of cohesion in the team. It's fair enough to say 'horses for courses' and all but for me, Archie isn't even choosing the right horses at the minute. It's not always possible but the value of having your squad completed in pre-season cannot be underestimated.
  • Few players were willing to take any responsibility which is perhaps a symptom of low confidence. For example, the ball broke to Edwards on the edge of the box and instead of putting his laces through it, tried to dink a through ball to nobody in particular which was easily collected by the keeper. The reluctance to shoot was reminiscent of McCall's impotent teams.
  • Storey did some things well and others pretty badly. He held the ball up well in the channels and caused problems with his pace but his movement was poor and his tendency to run with his head down, totally ignorant of what is around him, will wear thin fast. Only he knows what he was trying to do after being played in by McGinn. There was little evidence of any understanding between him and Dools which renders the decision not to make any changes all the more bizarre.
  • Lawless did a fine job at left wing-back (shout out to the guy behind me who didn't know what a wing-back was - "it's like he's playing as a full-back but further up") and McGinn was improved on Saturday's dismal showing. Barton put in one of his better midfield performances, did well in the air and at least tried to play something resembling football.
  • A crumb of comfort in an otherwise very turgid night was that there's at least one team in the league just as poor as us. I don't think many people will be surprised if ourselves and Hamilton are propping up the table come the end of the season. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just viewed the tv footage , the Rojano incident which I felt was just outside the box as it happened , was from the tv evidence inside the box , as the ref  deemed foul play by awarding a free kick the award should have been a spot kick , the Docherty incident was 2 players jostling for the ball no clear evidence of foul play and ref called it correctly, the Thistle claim for Imrie hand ball is a harder 1 to call , Archibald in his interview mentions Imrie has put his hands up for self protection, most referees in that situation normally interpret handball as being accidental and wave play on, on the footage I saw I don't see Dougie move his hands deliberately from protection mode to blocking the path of the ball, It's one of the decisions for referees that is impossible to appease both camps with , but strictly on the rulebook where a penalty can only be awarded for deliberate and not accidental hand ball I would suggest the ref probably made the correct call despite Archibalds post match protestations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Fuctifano said:

I think -the Keown foul (or Neil Neon as the Accies anouncer said) at the end of the first half looked inside the box to me

I had a perfect view of this incident. It was maybe the only correct call McLean made all night. Definitely outside the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hammer Jag said:

I had a perfect view of this incident. It was maybe the only correct call McLean made all night. Definitely outside the box.

TV evidence shows the contact was made whilst Rojano was on the pitch markings defining the penalty area , it was a penalty , if your view of the incident was perfect I strongly suggest a visit to the nearest opticians is in order .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The front three seemed full of running at the end and I agreed with Archibald's decision to leave things as they were unless and until tiredness became an issue.    I know I'm going on a bit but the front three we had seemed best suited to that horrendous pitch..

Given Erskines apparent loss of confidence and poor form the last thing he needed was trying to play on that plastic abomination.    Salmon may have given us something a bit different but who would be have replaced?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, happyaccie said:

TV evidence shows the contact was made whilst Rojano was on the pitch markings defining the penalty area , it was a penalty , if your view of the incident was perfect I strongly suggest a visit to the nearest opticians is in order .

Nae bother Charlie Nicholas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pie Of The Month said:

Nae bother Charlie Nicholas. 

If you had cared to read all my posts bellend you would have seen that watching the game the angle I had suggested contact was made outside the box TV images are conclusive that the contact was made on the line which constitutes a penalty ,you will also find that I have examined the other 2 penalty incidents and answered why they were also not given,by the letter of the law the referee called 2 of the 3 correctly and got this 1 wrong by awarding a free kick when it should have been a penalty ,if that equates to you referring to me as Charlie Nicholas it sums up your biased opinion .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, happyaccie said:

If you had cared to read all my posts bellend you would have seen that watching the game the angle I had suggested contact was made outside the box TV images are conclusive that the contact was made on the line which constitutes a penalty ,you will also find that I have examined the other 2 penalty incidents and answered why they were also not given,by the letter of the law the referee called 2 of the 3 correctly and got this 1 wrong by awarding a free kick when it should have been a penalty ,if that equates to you referring to me as Charlie Nicholas it sums up your biased opinion .

I was talking about your horrific opticians patter but that was quite the reaction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...