Sao Paulo

Big emphasis on clean sheets in the post-match interviews lately. Which is fine, but we should be mindful of the trade-off: we have and will continue to score far fewer goals as our set-up is a very stuffy one, designed to paper over the cracks which poor-to-average players create by fact of being our only options in some positions (e.g. McNiff at left back). Personnel is the problem: we need movement in January. If we do nothing, and those round about us strengthen, we'll almost certainly be looking over our shoulder at come Feb/March. On players, I think if Lennon could speak completely honestly - and you can't really, on this subject, as a manager - he'd say that some signings were made because nothing else was available for the dough. I don't think he thinks they're good players, in other words, but needs must.

U no nufing about it m8 x

"Not only did we lose two points, we also lost a baw..." - Alistair Love. Na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na Ally Ally Love... Ally Love! Ally Ally Love! An' aw the rest e' it.

It's always that bit harder without Goodie. Would've converted the penalty and edged it on another day. Sacrificing a midfielder to put another player beside Smith would've exposed our ropey defence quite badly so I wouldn't be critical there. However, putting on a newly recovered Love to play with his back to goal in place of Smith who'd done - without great service - alright wasn't a good decision. Love should've come on in place of Lamont or Johnston; probably the former, with one of Johnston or Love taking up Lamont's role between the lines. Love's a lot better when he's got the game in front of him and Johnston had clearly put that fuckin' ring on a few times in the second-half, meaning he was as good as invisible out wide. Could've been worse of course. But we are, as Lennon said, very average or worse when we don't play 'our game', meaning a game with Goodwillie leading the line and the ball getting played through the opposition. I think it was Dick Campbell who, in a recent interview said: rin-tin-a-min. Broadly speaking, I'd agree with that.

Decisions in possession: that's Love's biggest strength. The right pass. Experience. Experience. Dick Campbell. Experience.

I think we're disintegrating now lads. Saying McStay was pish on Saturday is an utter fiction, he was very visibly bursting his arse to make things happen and to win possession, both of which he done well in so far as he put Johnston into position many a time and won plenty to start us away up the pitch. We might've done better to swap Johnston for Lamont in the hole as the former is that bit more quick to create - and in the hole is the area where we'd have stood a better chance of unlocking Sons - but I don't think Lamont was particularly bad. Dumbarton stopped us doing what we do naturally. If we're saying McStay was pish on Saturday and not Grant, we're just scapegoating; Grant barely had a kick. You can say that either player has had more prominent performances but they played as they did largely due to our inability to respond at a tactical level to Dumbarton.

Coaching theoreticians at the SFA stand by its efficacy; I'm almost certain it's taught as part of their C licence. The view is that 60% of the time it works, every time. I know I've been able to turn games around by the simple expedient of shouting that very thing. Science, init?

Never called this out as it wasn't as prominent as the game closed but yes: I couldn't agree more. He was timid, weak and indecisive more or less throughout. Didn't seem to me to be moving well, maybe even looks a bit heavier than he was.

We only got our goal because we came out the traps quicker. We could be playing still and wouldn't have scored another. I thought it was both the case that Dumbarton dealt with Goodwillie well and that he played very, very poorly. Grant was a redudant player for most purposes today - nothing about the way Dumbarton went about beating us was mitigated by him being his usual sitting-midfield self - and we'd have done better to swap him out with a big partner for Goodwillie or Smith, even the likes of Tony Wallace. We were never going win by converting CJ's deliveries, whether from open play or dead-balls, notwithstanding how much better or worse you want to say those deliveries might've been. We needed another player on the Dumbarton defenders' shoulders to make it more difficult for them; they simply eat up and spat out whatever we fed into their domain of the pitch. And we simply needed - and need, enduringly - more quality at the back to thwart the sorts of goals they scored. We're a gang back there. The minute we open up, especially at home where we're in it to win it from the off, we're found out. Clean sheets at EF and ICT were obtained by playing much more guardedly than we did today - we had to sacrife goals for a clean sheet - and the one at Stirling proves little more than that Stirling are an awful team, deserving of their current position in league two. I would repeat the 'Roll on January' line but I've heard whispers of money woes which make me think I might be sorry I ever said it.

Basically the Walter XI from the 2010-2011 season for me: last group we had that were any kind of good. The XI that started his last game, give or take a player or two, would be it for me.

Kinky bitch.

I think this is what you call a selection headache migraine.

Bomber. No contest.

Amusing quote from Jim Duffy here about Gallagher: "I remember at the time [when Gallagher was with Clyde], Barry Smith was the manager at Dundee and I phoned him up and told him to have a look at Declan, because he was more than good enough for them in the Championship at the time". Always good when your team has a manager that's just gantin' tae gee yer best players away. Just to prevent a backlash: I'm absolutely at peace with ambitious players wanting up the levels; and I'm not actually raging with Duffy for facilitating it. Daresay it happens a lot.

Recently off the hook for woman beating, on the Graham Roberts verdict. Get him in.