Dumbarton v QOS

[Howlin' Wilf]

Is Rogers better than Grindlay or Ewings? Is Nish better than Fleming or Prunty (If so, why does the manager seem to think that the latter two can rescue a game?) If you had been manager yesterday, whom would you have hooked first? Campbell or Nish?

[Hawk]

Do you think we will stick with 4-4-2 for Ibrox Hawk? Do you think we should?

Yes I think we should as we have nothing to fear. Don't let them play out from the back. Lyle is on form and Reilly is the best I've seen at closing teams down. If we go to Mr Mac's 4-2-3-1 we will not press them as well and will therefore invite them on to us.

With Lyle and Reilly playing we don't let teams come out.

What I would do and what Mr Mac does could and probably will be totally different.

[Hawk]

We changed before the third and fourth goals, Lyle was playing deeper than an out and out forward.

Interesting question. Under normal circumstances, I would say its a stick on the McIntryre would revert to five in midfield. However, with Kerr, Burns and McKenna all out his hand might be forced.

A lot depends on the results and performances against Livi but if we continue picking up wins lining up 4-4-2 I say stick with it and have a go at them.

I generally encourage the idea of altering tactics dependent on the opposition, but this Rangers team are nothing special. If it doesn't work we'll know for next time. It's not like a cup tie were we need to keep it tight for a potential replay.

If he decides to revert to a midfield 5 I certainly won't have a meltdown over it.

So to revert to a midfield 5 who would you drop?

[Homer Thompson]

Yes I think we should as we have nothing to fear. Don't let them play out from the back. Lyle is on form and Reilly is the best I've seen at closing teams down. If we go to Mr Mac's 4-2-3-1 we will not press them as well and will therefore invite them on to us.

With Lyle and Reilly playing we don't let teams come out.

What I would do and what Mr Mac does could and probably will be totally different.

Maybe yes, maybe no. The two wide players could push up to cut off supply to the fullbacks. If Moshni is playing, Id happily let him have the ball night!

Also, if Rangers play with a deep midfielder then whoever is playing off the striker can close them down. I dont think Rangers do really play that way though.

ETA all fairly moot as Rangers dont play out from the back

So to revert to a midfield 5 who would you drop?

I wouldnt revert to a midfield 5. I dont know who McIntyre would drop, probably Lyle

[ThirdrockfromtheSon]

Is Rogers better than Grindlay or Ewings? Is Nish better than Fleming or Prunty (If so, why does the manager seem to think that the latter two can rescue a game?) If you had been manager yesterday, whom would you have hooked first? Campbell or Nish?

Nish. Contributed not a great deal. Looks like a fish out of water.

Sorry, he's never really impressed me. He appears more interested in winning the foul than the ball, most of the time.

[palmy_cammy]

Reilly offers more work rate as you so the obvious change would be Kerr for Lyle.

[Jan Vojáček]

1) Is Rogers better than Grindlay or Ewings? 2) Is Nish better than Fleming or Prunty (If so, why does the manager seem to think that the latter two can rescue a game?) 3) If you had been manager yesterday, whom would you have hooked first? Campbell or Nish?

1) Yes, the only thing that let Danny down yesterday was a failure to adapt his kicking to the wind. Stevie has been playing at the rock for 10 years and so is probably best at kicking into it but his hesitancy at crosses may have been exemplified in yesterdays weather. Jamies kicking isn't as good as Rogers imo and I don't think any of the 3 'keepers would've saved any of Queens goals.

2) Debatable. Towards the end of last season he came onto a game and looked a different player. Prunty is a goalscorer and a different type of player so it's difficult to compare the two. Garry on the other hand would be far more effective than Nish as he doesn't just give up as Nish did after the 1st went in yesterday. He also has far more pace than Colin.

3) Nish. He was poor and looked as if he wanted come off (heading over to the dugout everytime a sub was made) Campbell was our only player who showed any real urgency.

[Hawk]

Maybe yes, maybe no. The two wide players could push up to cut off supply to the fullbacks. If Moshni is playing, Id happily let him have the ball night!

Also, if Rangers play with a deep midfielder then whoever is playing off the striker can close them down. I dont think Rangers do really play that way though.

ETA all fairly moot as Rangers dont play out from the back

I wouldnt revert to a midfield 5. I dont know who McIntyre would drop, probably Lyle

Reilly offers more work rate as you so the obvious change would be Kerr for Lyle.

Not fair on him the way he has started the season.

[BallochSonsFan]

Got to worry at Murray's comments post game from today's Sun:

"That wasn't acceptable. It didn't look as if the players knew what they were doing and that's down to the management."

Now on one hand he looks like he's admitting that a big part of the result yesterday is down to poor tactics. But then...

"That's my responsibility but I don't take responsibility for their work-rate or misplaced passes."

So Murray accepts that it's a management failure that the team looked disorganised but doesnt attribute the poor passing and work-rate down to the way he set the team out to play. For me the 2 are absolutely linked. If the players aren't comfortable with the role they've been asked to play and are disorganised on the park then every other part of their game will suffer. Did they misplace passes because they can't pass the ball? Or because they didn't have decent outlets for their passes because of the confusion over formation and player roles? Was the work rate poor? Or did the disorganisation mean that players didn't know who they should have been marking? I don't completely absolve the players of blame but its impossible not to put a big part of our performance down to the way we were set up to play. Get the organisation right, get the players comfortable with the role they're playing and that should minimise the simple mistakes.

This is where we'll see whether or not Murray is willing to learn from mistakes and make changes or if he'll stick to his guns at the risk of the club being dragged into a position we really can't afford to be in.

[George Parr]

• Rigid system with no width that doesn't play to our strengths - management at fault
• Lack of effort - players at fault
• Misplaced passes - players at fault.

Ian will need to pull something out the bag soon or the usual suspects will be itching to seem him bombed out sharpish.

The striker debate is an interesting one. Nish seems to flit between hopeless and sublime, with Saturday falling very much into the former. I think its clear he should have been hooked long before he was. Either way I'm not convinced we should be relying on him as our main scoring outlet.

Prunts is a limited football player with no lack of effort. Some of his goals are phenomenal but he does disappear for long periods of games without offering much.

Archie Campbell has looked useful the few times that I've seen him and I'd like to see him get a full 90 mins to try and bang in some goals.

Fleming is probably worth a run in the team as well. Plenty of energy with an eye for a cross-field pass, he'll harry and hassle defenders in the way that QOS were so effective against us. As others have noted though, on other occasions he seems completely out his depth.

[Homer Thompson]

Not fair on him the way he has started the season.

Agreed. Which is why no-one has suggested it actually happens

[The Moonster]

Agree with much of Consolidates post. The players have to take some blame here but I do feel that Murray is doing them no favours with the way he's sending them out. We're trying to keep the ball more, I'm fine with that as long as we're doing something with it. We pass the ball along the backline, maybe give it to Agnew who has a look wide to see no one there, back to the defence and repeat until your eyes are sick. The formation with 4 very narrow centre midfielders doesn't help either, the goal from Lintons passback a prime example. He got the ball moved it on to his left foot and looked up the line - no one there for a pass and hes under instruction not to hit the ball long. He turns back to go the only place he can and makes a total arse of it. In my opinion that demonstrates that both player and manager have to take blame here.

I hope it really is lesson learned now. Some of the subs have been strange too, two weeks in a row now but I'm not panicking. Two games gone, aye we don't look good and it's disappointing but we, out of anyone in this league, should know there's plenty time to get ourselves back on track. We also need to acknowledge that Queens are a solid side and if they can play like that with a number of first teamers out then I don't think it's unreasonable for them to be pushing hard for 3rd or 4th. To Ibrox we go...

[squeezebox-son]

Interesting that so many have mentioned things like Jack Ross and saying we lack things that he brought. So many folk are also saying that Nish is finished. I thought he looked finished last year until we brought in Kane. Perhaps he is one of the players we miss most? Also worth mentioning that we played Nish and Fleming up front together last season in the last match vs Raith (and most of the other games towards the end of the season) yet walked that game - albeit against a different Rovers side. Murray seemed to be trying that out to see how it would go but as soon as he brought Campbell in he has dropped Garry and Archie has stayed in the 1st team.

I'm not saying Archie won't work out at Dumbarton, but we have had plenty of players who run about and put in 110% effort week in week out but don't quite cut it with us. I hope he proves me wrong, but just have a feeling.

So might be worth dropping Campbell from the start as opposed to subbing him off for Garry once the game is already out of reach.

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

At the end of the day if our strikers get shite/no service from the midfield it's hard for them to do much.

Whilst I agree Nish hasn't looked up to much he's had heehaw to work with. Archie will chase the ball which Nish wont so he probably comes out of it looking a bit better. Play the ball to Nish's feet and let him play Campbell in or put some balls into the box. Punts from the keeper to Nish just don't work. Nish could improve his effort for sure but the midfield have to take some criticism.

[juniorlegend]

Is Jamie ewings still playing at Dumbarton?noticed he hasn't been in the squad recently.

[aftershocker]

Is Jamie ewings still playing at Dumbarton?noticed he hasn't been in the squad recently.

yes - he's currently injured, but is 2nd / 3rd choice at the moment

[O'Kelly Isley III]

Got to worry at Murray's comments post game from today's Sun:

"That wasn't acceptable. It didn't look as if the players knew what they were doing and that's down to the management."

Now on one hand he looks like he's admitting that a big part of the result yesterday is down to poor tactics. But then...

"That's my responsibility but I don't take responsibility for their work-rate or misplaced passes."

So Murray accepts that it's a management failure that the team looked disorganised but doesnt attribute the poor passing and work-rate down to the way he set the team out to play. For me the 2 are absolutely linked. If the players aren't comfortable with the role they've been asked to play and are disorganised on the park then every other part of their game will suffer. Did they misplace passes because they can't pass the ball? Or because they didn't have decent outlets for their passes because of the confusion over formation and player roles? Was the work rate poor? Or did the disorganisation mean that players didn't know who they should have been marking? I don't completely absolve the players of blame but its impossible not to put a big part of our performance down to the way we were set up to play. Get the organisation right, get the players comfortable with the role they're playing and that should minimise the simple mistakes.

This is where we'll see whether or not Murray is willing to learn from mistakes and make changes or if he'll stick to his guns at the risk of the club being dragged into a position we really can't afford to be in.

Too much is made out of tactics at our level. If Rory McIlroy used my 3-wood he'd hit the ball 80 yards further than me; that is largely down to technique and basic ability, and both of those were sadly lacking on Saturday. As I've said on here before, too many similar non-defensive type midfielders is creating an imbalance and that in turn is creating all sorts of problems.

We simply can't play Agnew, Kilpatrick, Megginson and Gils in the same team - three of them tops, and even that's a stretch. If Shug Murray is fit to play (and if he isn't then some questions need asking) then he should patrol the area in front of the back four; on Saturday the QoS front pair were dropping off and finding oceans of room to play in their midfielders. Workrate-wise, every Queens player was at it for 90 mins. The body language of the respective dugouts was also concerning.

I genuinely feel Ian Murray was too quick to sign up almost the entire squad from last season, very admirable as that campaign was. Significantly the three best performers in the last months were McGinn, Kane & Miller, all now away with absolutely no blame attached. IMO some hard decisions needed to be made and they weren't, let's hope it doesn't come back to bite us.

[squeezebox-son]

Too much is made out of tactics at our level. If Rory McIlroy used my 3-wood he'd hit the ball 80 yards further than me; that is largely down to technique and basic ability, and both of those were sadly lacking on Saturday. As I've said on here before, too many similar non-defensive type midfielders is creating an imbalance and that in turn is creating all sorts of problems.

We simply can't play Agnew, Kilpatrick, Megginson and Gils in the same team - three of them tops, and even that's a stretch. If Shug Murray is fit to play (and if he isn't then some questions need asking) then he should patrol the area in front of the back four; on Saturday the QoS front pair were dropping off and finding oceans of room to play in their midfielders. Workrate-wise, every Queens player was at it for 90 mins. The body language of the respective dugouts was also concerning.

I genuinely feel Ian Murray was too quick to sign up almost the entire squad from last season, very admirable as that campaign was. Significantly the three best performers in the last months were McGinn, Kane & Miller, all now away with absolutely no blame attached. IMO some hard decisions needed to be made and they weren't, let's hope it doesn't come back to bite us.

Have to agree to an extent. I have been saying for months (since Aggy came back into the team at the start of the year) that we cannot play Kirkpatrick, Turner and Agnew together. Was discussing it on our way to the Raith game last weekend and I just think that Agnew is too much of a luxury. Best passer of the ball that we have... on his day! Won't argue completely if he starts with either Turner or Kirky, but I just think the other 2 offer more and perform a wee bit more consistently. We need to start with 2 centre midfielders and 2 wingers though.

Don't get why we couldn't play Kirkpatrick, Agnew, Gils and Megginson together though? Would be better than what we are fielding at the moment surely?

[Sweet Pete]

Have to agree to an extent. I have been saying for months (since Aggy came back into the team at the start of the year) that we cannot play Kirkpatrick, Turner and Agnew together. Was discussing it on our way to the Raith game last weekend and I just think that Agnew is too much of a luxury. Best passer of the ball that we have... on his day! Won't argue completely if he starts with either Turner or Kirky, but I just think the other 2 offer more and perform a wee bit more consistently. We need to start with 2 centre midfielders and 2 wingers though.

Don't get why we couldn't play Kirkpatrick, Agnew, Gils and Megginson together though? Would be better than what we are fielding at the moment surely?

A midfield 4 of Gilhaney, Kirkpatrick, Agnew and Megginson would get steamrolled off the ball by players who have far less ability but more muscle than them.

[untitled00]

Have to agree to an extent. I have been saying for months (since Aggy came back into the team at the start of the year) that we cannot play Kirkpatrick, Turner and Agnew together. Was discussing it on our way to the Raith game last weekend and I just think that Agnew is too much of a luxury. Best passer of the ball that we have... on his day! Won't argue completely if he starts with either Turner or Kirky, but I just think the other 2 offer more and perform a wee bit more consistently. We need to start with 2 centre midfielders and 2 wingers though.

Don't get why we couldn't play Kirkpatrick, Agnew, Gils and Megginson together though? Would be better than what we are fielding at the moment surely?

We have a tendency to get overrun in central midfield when that happens. Murray experimented with Agnew in a defensive mid position last year and while it wasn't a disaster we don't look comfortable defensively - not that we look too clever just now tbh.

Either Turner or Murray really need to start in CM - given Turners current form a case could be made for Murray - otherwise what was the point in signing him?