Clydeside

I thought we approached the game perfectly. That is, in more or less exactly the same way we approached the last game at Broadwood against Cove. We had a compact defensive shape which made it tough for them to get behind us. And we generally kept enough pressure on the ball as well as flexibility in our shape when transitioning to attack so that we stood a chance of scoring as well as keeping a clean sheet. All of our defenders put in solid shifts insofar as they done the jobs they were asked to. Livingstone was man of the match for me. He clearly plays with something extra against Cove. He looked a class apart at times today. Gomis was outstanding as well. And Docherty's experience, reading of the game and composure in possession shone through at times. There was an excellent physicality about our midfield and about our defending today. Having said that all of that, we were barely a threat without Goodwillie. We rarely got behind Cove. And we were terribly wasteful with our corner kicks, so many of which didn't get past the near post. At the same time, it must be remembered that Cove are a weaker side without Megginson. They were a much more lethargic side today than I remember them. But in the round, with the players available to us, I think the only disservice we done ourselves was with (sigh) our throw-ins. And Cuddihy's loss of possession was uncharacteristic. Albeit were we a bit smarter, we might've avoided throwing out to him where he was as I thought Cove had been giving him special attention, knowing how much more he brings than Nicoll, being a box-to-box capable midfielder.

Next Wednesday, aye. Maybe I'm wrong to assume it goes into a midweek slot. Don't mind many call offs of ours getting a Saturday/Sunday slot.

Was going the way of a bigger win for Airdrie in my opinion. A midweeker against a full time mob won't likely end well for us. That said, maybe we learn some lessons about how to approach a game against Airdrie. Not so openly, I hope.

On a knife edge. They've got into our back third far too easily and often. On the other hand, we've broken them up and countered well a few times. Good links between Jones, Goodwillie, Love, Docherty and Livingstone answerable for that. Bit of a cringe that it once again took us to go behind to fortify our defence, and the left hand side in particular. But we've drawn most of our team over there to do it. If they squeezed a pass inside, they were all but through on goal. Going to harp on about a back four being a bad move until we pack it in or sign better players. That said, at least we're starting play with two up at times and not being totally bossed. Progress of a kind. Nervous for the second half, knowing they're full time and knowing that there'll be more space available as the game goes on. Need to use the subs well and think about tightening up at some point, just like at Alloa.

Bit predictable...

The press we're putting on Airdrie with a fairly high line looks a risky business. Especially with a player like Easton who can jink through easy. Space between the full backs and centre backs is still a glaring vulnerability to my mind too. Airdrie have a better, tighter two than Alloa by the looks of it too.

Couldn't agree more. Lang and Cogill were used as full-backs too. The former for quite a while. And they were the best two centre backs we've had in ability terms under Lennon in my opinion. They'd breeze this league if we still had them.

Deveney and Livingstone should start every week with one on his weaker side. There's barely any risk in it compared with all the other switchabouts we've tried down the years. Livingstone done well on his weaker side yesterday. Danny recognised that in his post-match interview. It may even be that having one of those two come inside gives a new dimension to our attacks or helps our possession in the long run. It would also mean we could have Cuddihy in midfield. He is our best centre midfielder and we're desperately weak in there. It's been glaring for a while that the answer to our full-back/wing-back misery is to get the most athletic options the park for those positions despite their inexperience (Livingstone, Deveney). Having Munro, Docherty or Rumsby filling the gaps is an insult to their ability.

See a back four. Does anyone really think it's a serious option any longer? Arthritic defenders and big spaces don't recommend themselves to one another. And that's our lot. At least while Lennon insists on Docherty, Munro before him or Rumsby getting in before Livingstone and Deveney. The only shape we can play without being picked off easily is a 3-5-2. The only games in which a four has worked is where we've played the most toothless teams in the league. Dumbarton. East Fife. QP with their one front man. Alloa with their two defensive midfielders. How you can want Goodwillie up top alone is beyond me too. When we had McStay, Banks, Rankin, Grant, Lamont, Syvertsen or Boyle behind him in a poorer league, yes. It worked very well. Now? It's a wild choice in my opinion. We have nowhere near enough about us to sustain any pressure with the midfield pool we have. Counter attacks, individual Goodwillie goals and set pieces are about our only hope. And we don't even have (cringe) McNiff to help us with the latter any longer. That four or five in midfield will only work if it isn't inviting pressure onto itself. Goodwillie himself doesn't have it in him to stop advances. And a four at the back would only work if it never moved higher than the penalty spot, a la the first half at Links. And even then... As for 'we don't have a decent partner for Goodwillie'. A warm body is better than the alternative, playing him alone. We gain no extra protection from it versus a 3-5-2. Cunningham. Andrew. A warm body is fine. If they can run just a bit more than Jones it'd be ideal.

Decent point. As it turned out they were probably there for the taking. But hats off to the lads for a disciplined performance. Didn't see it coming. God bless any team that thinks they can play like Liverpool in league one. Dumbarton were at it last week with only one forward really making a point of busying our central defenders. And Queen's Park done much as they done at Broadwood. Their inflexibility will be their downfall. Having Bob McHugh and pretty much nobody else to deal with made it easy for us. What did Queen's Park have, two shots on target the whole game? First clean sheet since East Fife nigh on two months ago. And only our second in competitive matches this season.

To be fair, we've played it spot on from an approach perpsective. Queen's Park are minus Murray which I didn't account for. They look even less threatening than they did at Broadwood. On the other hand we look even stuffier than we did at Dumbarton last week. We've also got just as much if not more experience on the park than Queen's Park do and we seem to be following our instructions to the letter. That all bodes well for us albeit it makes for a rotten game.

Chances of taking anything without Cuddihy are next to nil. Hope it's a back three but looks a four with Rumsby right back. Take Goodie out of that team and we're where we were ten years ago. Hate to be pessimistic but QP will need to make individual mistakes for us to take something.

Never a truer word written. Alloa done that against us as well. Bad decision. Especially if they'd watched us.

Two positives for me. We stopped the rot insofar as we didn't get beat again. And we showed that our spirit isn't broken insofar as we came back to draw despite losing one so late. Having said that, with the slightly patchwork eleven they had out today, Dumbarton weren't up to much. Our defenders weren't put under much pressure in possession and their individual battles were simple ones to wage. Dumbarton's forwards weren't very dynamic and tended to receive it with their backs to goal or in busy areas so our defenders only had to get to the ball first over very short distances and make sure they won their headers. We kept the midfield quite crowded and seemed to have some flexibility in our shape. That was, that Livingston could leave the midfield to support the left flank, seeing Docherty tuck in to the left of Page and Cuddihy was licensed to play further up on the other side at times too, so that there wasn't always a straightforwardly flat back four. It seemed that way to me anyway. Add the conditions into the equation and you can see why we kept the score down. Yes, we weren't up against as much as we have been in previous matches. But both in personnel and system terms, given the opposition, we played something like our strongest hand. I can only echo what other have written about Cunningham. I'm not sure what his role was today and he certainly wasn't very involved. Tade showed more aggression, strength and intelligence in the last few minutes of the match than any of our foward players had before then. More an indictment on them than praise of him but god bless him for doing what he managed to with the fitness constraints he clearly has. I thought Dumbarton had the better of the second half. Particularly after they made their subs. They broke free from midfield, having won the battle in there more often than they had in the first half and stretched the pitch well a few times. Enough to merit the goal they got. They'll be a tougher prospect with McGeever and Hopkirk back in their side I expect. Individually I think Docherty, Splaine and Gomis showed up fairly well for us today. I thought they showed a toughness, if nothing else, that the game deserved and managed to string the odd (and I mean the odd...!) good passage of play together, as well as register shots on goal, get balls in and all the rest of it.

Highlights up on Falkirk TV. That penalty and red card is a nonsense. Doesn't even resemble a foul. Hetherington might've put his hand on Cunningham but Cunningham was on his way down lunging for the ball in any case and there looked to be no pressure applied by the contact. A more potent attacking team would probably have done us for five (again).