All things Dundee FC

[Boo Khaki]

17 minutes ago, Yenitit said:

Good post however team’s like Motherwell seem to recruit a new team without much fuss and to success. 

Aye, because they tend to have at least some carry-over from season to season, and retain competent management for more than two minutes at a time.

McCann dispensed with most of what was left over from the Hartley era, then recruited practically an entirely new side at the beginning of last season, McIntyre binned that less than six months later, recruited another entire squad of players that left the club last summer. We had three managers in the space of 7 or 8 months. 

I honestly don't think you can compare clubs that lose successful players but are otherwise stable, with the total three-ring circus we've been since we punted Hartley. We need a period of being exactly like a Motherwell or St.Johnstone (pretty much what seemed to be the M.O. when Hartley was recruited and the few seasons after), the problem is we've ruined any chance of that by recruiting incompetent managers, who then recruit players who aren't up to it. We're still seeing the after-effects of appointing McCann, then following it up with another poor appointment in McIntyre. I don't think it's fair to blame McPake for things that preclude his time as manager. He didn't employ two clowns back to back, or bin the entire squad three windows on the spin, but he's the guy charged with trying to sort it out.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Boo Khaki

[Dee Bliss]

3 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Aye, because they tend to have at least some carry-over from season to season, and retain competent management for more than two minutes at a time.

McCann dispensed with most of what was left over from the Hartley era, then recruited practically an entirely new side at the beginning of last season, McIntyre binned that less than six months later, recruited another entire squad of players that left the club last summer. We had three managers in the space of 7 or 8 months. 

I honestly don't think you can compare clubs that lose successful players but are otherwise stable, with the total three-ring circus we've been since we punted Hartley.

So we’re agreeing the manager’s have been piss poor! 

[Boo Khaki]

1 minute ago, Yenitit said:

So we’re agreeing the manager’s have been piss poor! 

Yes, and sorry for the edit, but as you can see, appointing a pair of clowns back to back and binning the squad three times in the space of a year isn't McPake's fault, but he is/was still getting the blame for the lingering effects.

[Twinkle]

However since you ignored it. The tactics have been brutal , first half of the season.

Yeah maybe he is starting to learn and do better mcpake but it has cost us this season

Are you Mcpake in, or Mcpake out? Just for future reference of course

[Robin.Hood]

Are you Mcpake in, or Mcpake out? Just for future reference of course

Get back to me end of the season.
Currently we are on a good run but overall he has under achieved

[Dee Bliss]

2 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

Yes, and sorry for the edit, but as you can see, appointing a pair of clowns back to back and binning the squad three times in the space of a year isn't McPake's fault, but he is/was still getting the blame for the lingering effects.

Agreed but it is his fault about the tactics and the selection of a certain goalkeeper for example. Last night was the exception to the rule where there wasn’t a bizarre substitution etc. 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Yenitit

[Crawford]

1 hour ago, G_Man1985 said:

Currently we are on a good run but overall he has under achieved

Exactly. I'm beyond happy that things have started to work for him, but still don't understand even a little bit why now? What made the night and day difference?

Berra - class act but he didn't make Forster suddenly decent. He didn't shore up the back on his own. Is it because the defence trust Hazard in goal behind them?

Is it because Danny Johnson was as toxic as reported?

[Twinkle]

Get back to me end of the season.
Currently we are on a good run but overall he has under achieved

Thats the cowards way out. Either you have an opinion on the man or you dont, its not really a difficult question

[RossBFaeDundee]

9 minutes ago, Twinkle said:

 

 

Thats the cowards way out. Either you have an opinion on the man or you dont, its not really a difficult question

 

I'm sure your opinion on Neilson right now is as cut and dry as the one you're expecting from him.

[Shadow Play]

2 hours ago, G_Man1985 said:

Get back to me end of the season.
Currently we are on a good run but overall he has under achieved

 

18 minutes ago, Twinkle said:

 

 

Thats the cowards way out. Either you have an opinion on the man or you dont, its not really a difficult question

 

As I’m sitting here sipping down raki and reading (John) Maynard Keynes it got me thinking about one of his famous quotes - “When the facts change I change my mind.  What do you do?”

A very sensible approach G_Man.

[Fifespud]

If I’m honest I thought we carried a bit of luck last night which we didn’t in the first part of the season. They do say you make your own luck and last night I thought the whole team closed Ayr down far better than any other game this season. When we lost possession we were fouling on the halfway line, magic to see. It was a real contrast from the 6 pointer against ICT earlier in the season when we just folded. I thought Gowser was our best player in the first half but faded in the second. Maybe tiring but we weren’t so dominant either. Hazard looks miles more solid than the flapper. Dorrans remains a disappointment in my eyes, he defo should do more.

[Boo Khaki]

1 hour ago, Yenitit said:

Agreed but it is his fault about the tactics and the selection of a certain goalkeeper for example. Last night was the exception to the rule where there wasn’t a bizarre substitution etc. 

I don't think there have been any 'bizarre' substitutions since the Partick game we lost at the death when we stuck two schoolboys on when trying to cling to a 1 goal lead.

I remember you complaining about him taking Byrne off in a match when Byrne had been booked, and he's done things like take McGowan off and replace him with Nelson etc when it's effectively been a like-for-like positional swap even though one of those players is regarded as a midfielder and the other a striker, but we don't know who isn't 100% fit before the matches, players get tired and pick up niggles during matches, and also, the club will monitor a player's total minutes over time and have some idea of who it's prudent to withdraw from a match from time to time.

I can't say I can recall anything truly egregious for months. In my book, 'bizarre' subbies are stuff like taking a striker off when you're a goal down and sticking an extra CB on.

He even made the point that playing Kerr from the start down in Ayr was because he felt Christie needed a rest and wasn't up to starting. Personally I'd be happy if I never saw Cammy Kerr in a Dundee shirt ever again, but if Christie is struggling for fitness then you have to be pragmatic and accept that you have a perfectly fit option to replace him in your squad, he's earning a wage to play football, you really should be using him. It's a 40 game season give or take. It's not realistic to expect a totally unchanged team week after week, so I don't really understand the moaning when we swap a player here and there either. You want to play your strongest possible team, but not when that means playing half-fit players every week, or grinding the same 11 to the point that they break down completely.

I never thought Hamilton was up to the job of being our #1 keeper and said as much at the start of the season, but, the club did pay a fee for him, so I can understand why the persistence with him, and also, he did have a spell around Sep/Oct time where he was playing fairly steadily. Although I wouldn't have been happy with a Hamilton/Ferrie pairing myself, I can understand why McPake felt the need to persist with Hamilton a bit. Give him the chance to prove to everybody he wasn't up to it. Sink or swim if you like.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Boo Khaki

[Robin.Hood]

Thats the cowards way out. Either you have an opinion on the man or you dont, its not really a difficult question

I see where this is going.

I'm a coward :-)

[Boo Khaki]

1 hour ago, Crawford said:

Exactly. I'm beyond happy that things have started to work for him, but still don't understand even a little bit why now? What made the night and day difference?

Berra - class act but he didn't make Forster suddenly decent. He didn't shore up the back on his own. Is it because the defence trust Hazard in goal behind them?

Is it because Danny Johnson was as toxic as reported?

I realise you're not asking me, but fwiw, I'll say a few things about why I think we've mibbe started to click a wee bit.

Keeper - yes, important. I think beyond the footballing aspect of having a solid keeper, it's enormously dispiriting for the rest of the team when the guy between the sticks keeps making howlers. You want your team mate to perform well, and I think the players would have had a lot of sympathy for Hamilton, but it must take a toll on every single player's confidence when one guy is consistently costing you results and goals. Not just the defenders, but the entire team.

Berra - Yes, definitely a steadying hand

The biggest thing for me is the switch back to 3/5/2. Berra has helped, and so has Meekings actually getting a run in the team and regaining some sort of fitness. The switch to a three man mid has helped masked the problems we were having earlier in the season when we regularly just got over-run trying to play with 2. The changes at fullback have been helpful. I think it would be nice to have Marshall back, but simply getting Cammy Kerr out of the side has helped. McDaid has been pleasantly surprising in the wingback role, but I don't think that's a viable long-term proposition, hence why I think it's important to get Marshall back.

When we played 3-5-2 earlier it was clear to me we were struggling because our CH's weren't comfortable enough with the ball to act as playmakers, our WB's sat far too high up the pitch at all times, so we were losing the ball in midfield and immediately coming under pressure as a result. The changes in personnel have helped a lot in that regard, but i think the whole 3/5 concept has obviously been worked on and become a lot more comfortable for the squad.

It's a lot of little things adding up in reality, but there are still a couple of obvious problems. We struggle to create chances, and I still think we're a bit lightweight in that having a midfielder who could burst forward and put himself about a bit would really help. That's not Gowser, even though I think he's still a valuable member of the side. I just don't think it plays to his strengths the way we currently use him, although I appreciate we're not currently blessed for options to play off/behind Hemmings. 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Boo Khaki

[D TOTAL]

I think people are confusing the goalkeeper situation with football manager it’s not just a case of looking through a search engine to find out of contract keepers to replace one we already have(let’s not forget we also paid a fee for)

[Dee Bliss]

2 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

I don't think there have been any 'bizarre' substitutions since the Partick game we lost at the death when we stuck two schoolboys on when trying to cling to a 1 goal lead.

I remember you complaining about him taking Byrne off in a match when Byrne had been booked, and he's done things like take McGowan off and replace him with Nelson etc when it's effectively been a like-for-like positional swap even though one of those players is regarded as a midfielder and the other a striker, but we don't know who isn't 100% fit before the matches, players get tired and pick up niggles during matches, and also, the club will monitor a player's total minutes over time and have some idea of who it's prudent to withdraw from a match from time to time.

I can't say I can recall anything truly egregious for months. In my book, 'bizarre' subbies are stuff like taking a striker off when you're a goal down and sticking an extra CB on.

He even made the point that playing Kerr from the start down in Ayr was because he felt Christie needed a rest and wasn't up to starting. Personally I'd be happy if I never saw Cammy Kerr in a Dundee shirt ever again, but if Christie is struggling for fitness then you have to be pragmatic and accept that you have a perfectly fit option to replace him in your squad, he's earning a wage to play football, you really should be using him. It's a 40 game season give or take. It's not realistic to expect a totally unchanged team week after week, so I don't really understand the moaning when we swap a player here and there either. You want to play your strongest possible team, but not when that means playing half-fit players every week, or grinding the same 11 to the point that they break down completely.

I never thought Hamilton was up to the job of being our #1 keeper and said as much at the start of the season, but, the club did pay a fee for him, so I can understand why the persistence with him, and also, he did have a spell around Sep/Oct time where he was playing fairly steadily. Although I wouldn't have been happy with a Hamilton/Ferrie pairing myself, I can understand why McPake felt the need to persist with Hamilton a bit. Give him the chance to prove to everybody he wasn't up to it. Sink or swim if you like.

Ayr Utd - dropping Elliot for Kerr. Citing a lack of game time previous to joining, the same situation that Berra finds himself in. Berra ok to continue tho. Very fortunate that Kerr’s mistake didn’t cost us the game.  Substituting McDaid for Field. Not starting Crankshaw and bringing Nelson on before him who’s been struggling since coming back from injury. Watching McGhee clearly struggle to run for around 20 minutes after taking a bad injury before replacing him at halftime. Leaving Dorrans on the set pieces who hit the 1st man with numerous corners and freekicks. 
 

Alloa - not starting Crankshaw after a good performance in the previous game after coming on for the anonymous Nelson which arguably changed the game. With how the team had performed in the previous game for around 80 minutes the obvious change in the line up was Crankshaw coming in for the ill Hemmings keeping the rest of the team the same but no he plays McGowan up front and playing McGhee midfield. Nelson misses chance after chance in a goal less draw that might end up very crucial at the end of the season. Watching McGowan playing in an advanced position continually slowing the game down by taking touch after touch before moving the ball on allowing Alloa to get back behind the ball into shape.  

Queen Of The South - seeing a tight game out comfortably with Gowser, Byrne and Dorrans controlling the game. Replacing Gowser with Kerr around 10 minutes to go resulting in us losing our control of the ball with Kerr putting himself about but regularly losing possession. Went from having the ball in our possession high up the park to being under a bit of pressure for the 1st time in the game. Could’ve lost a goal right at the end when with 10 minutes to go we were pushing for a 2nd, under no pressure until his decision to take Gowser off who was having a decent game.  No need in the substitution, leaving us in a difficult position with others around me at the game discussing it and criticising McPake’s decision. 

Partick Thistle - the game you are on about Byrne being booked in. 2 nil up and comfortable. Takes Byrne off and replaces him with Robertson with 30 minutes to go  (ring any bells about the last game against Partick at Dens) leaving himself with no midfield options on the bench with still half an hour to go. 10 minutes later Callaghan  gets a bad injury and we have no midfielders left on the bench after needlessly subbing Byrne who was having a decent game. Partick now get a foothold in the game and are creating a few chances for the 1st time in the game. 
 

Morton - playing directly against a strong wind in the 1st half but breaking with a bit of pace in the team for the 1st time in a while. Crankshaw and McDaid’s pace causing problems and Dorrans  playing much higher up the park off of Hemmings causing problems for Morton. 2nd half takes Crankshaw off after 10 minutes whilst having good possession of the ball and replaced him with a right back, we now have 2 right backs on the park (wtf) 1 playing right midfield. Looking like Crankshaw or McDaid were going to be the one’s to open up the well organised Morton defence but let’s replace one of them with a right back. This sub with 35 minutes to go leaves us with only young Cameron as an attacking option on the bench with so much game time to go. This is the same young boy he hung out to dry playing him out of position on his 1st start in the previous game on tv. 10 minutes after the subbie Morton get a man sent off and we have no option to exploit this from the bench because the manager’s signing policy in January has left us short up front. Dorrans then starts playing deeper losing our ability to open up 10 man Morton. 
 

Im not going to go back and watch the games to rejog  my memory better and pick holes in his tactics but these are just a few of things that stick out on my thoughts of the games where we’ve gone 3 draws and 3 wins out of 6. Imo his decision making during the games against Morton and Alloa has cost us victories.  
 

Imo you don’t alter a defence that has performed well in the previous few games. Couldn’t care less if the same defenders played every single game if they are keeping clean sheets. He’s regularly making changes in the games that see us from seeing games out comfortably to being under pressure. 
 

Before these 6 games the season has been nothing short of a disaster. I’ll give him an opportunity to change my mind between now and the end of the season but unless we continue on our current run of form between now and then I’d want him out. Harsh but I’m done with giving manager’s time to hopefully turn things around. An unlucky playoff final defeat I could live with but anything less and he had to go 
 

As for Hamilton it isn’t a case of giving him an opportunity to prove doubters wrong, it’s about signing someone who is up too the task which Hazard looks like he is. Hamilton wouldn’t have played for me again after his debacle at Dens against Hearts around November/December time 2018.  How many poor goals do we let a keeper concede before not giving him anymore chances? 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Yenitit

[Boo Khaki]

So you're not happy about the fact he frequently substitutes players off after 80 minutes when we're in control?

You do realise that this is something that all managers do? That players are frequently tired and in need of being replaced late in games?

Just because you're a goal or two to the good doesn't mean you leave the same 11 on the pitch for the full 90 minutes.

I'm still not seeing a single example of an egregiously poor substitution in any of the examples you've given. Every single one of them is either injury-forced, a like-for-like, or entirely understandable due to player fatigue. Gowser isn't a 21 year old laddie any more. It's no wonder he's often subbed after 80 minutes when he never stands still during a match. The example I mentioned about Byrne stuck with me in particular because at the time you hit the roof about that substitution. He'd been booked, had just been spoken to by the ref again for an unwise challenge, and yet you're still adamant that substitution was 'needless'? And no, it's not reminiscent of the earlier Partick game, as we were two goals to the good, not one, and the substitutions in the game we went on to lose weren't prompted by a player who was already on a booking charging about like a headless chicken. To be frank, I actually thought this was one of McPake's few examples of sensible, proper sideline management. Byrne was asking to be sent off. Getting him off the park likely saved that result, whereas his substitutions in the earlier match went a long way towards blowing it. Callachan's later injury is irrelevant. If our keeper had gone down injured and the sub then got injured, would you be blaming McPake for not having a third keeping option on the bench? You don't make substitutions on the basis of the fact that another player might need replaced later in the match. Fair enough, nobody is daft enough to make three subs in the first ten minutes, for good reason, but Byrne needed yanked right there and then. It's sometimes a matter of a sub being necessary right there and then, to hell with hypothetical maybe/maybe not's somewhere later on.

Presumably you'd have McPake name the same starting 11 every single week, and then have them play a full 90 minutes, week in, week out? That's the impression you're giving.

As I already said, the dropping of Elliot was explained, perfectly rationally, by McPake at the time. Elliot is not Berra. They play different roles in the team, different players have different physiologies. I don't know how you can conclude that one player must be 100% fit, ready, and capable simply because another is. That's not how humans work.

Being short of bodies up front is entirely down to Danny Johnson flouncing his way out of the club at the last minute in a transfer window. McPake tried to bring a replacement in, but due to finding that we'd just lost two fullbacks and a CH to injury, was forced to use the last of the budget bringing in Field instead. Fine, it left us thin up front, but you can't have everything. Field hasn't played because McDaid has performed surprisingly well, but the fact remains that without bringing in Field we'd have had no left-sided fullback available for any of the fixtures we've played since Marshall, McGhee, and Kerr all got injured at the end of January. We still had Hemmings fit, and Nelson due back within a week or two, so given the options, what was McPake supposed to do? Blow the last of the budget on a 3rd striker and ignore the fact all of our fullbacks were injured, or accept that the striking corps, as thin as it was, was a far less pressing matter than the fact we didn't have a single healthy fullback?

When I see fans blaming McPake for the striking issue I just shake my head. Johnson threw his toys out of the pram and wanted to leave. There's no cogent argument for keeping him around. What is McPake going to do? "Right Danny, I know you're totally in the huff and don't want to be here, and you've already shown a total lack of professionalism, but we're going to FORCE you to lead the line for us today, and heaven help you if you don't bother your arse or score a bucketload". Johnson quit. Keeping him around would have been cancerous and solution to absolutely nothing.

There's no denying McPake has had his share of mistakes, and I agree that the most obvious example of late was handing a start to a 17 year old laddie in Dunfermline when he looked nowhere near ready for 1st team football. Especially so when we'd just loaned in a 21 year old player who plays in the same role and actually has some experience of 1st team football. You don't know until he shows you otherwise I suppose,  and McPake sees the lad training and playing in the reserve/youth teams, but I thought it was immediately obvious the laddie either wasn't at all ready, or totally froze on the occasion to the point whereby he was an utter liability. That really shouldn't happen at all. Someone screwed up there. However,  you're questioning literally every substitution and every change to the starting eleven, and also whining about instances where he hasn't changed the starting 11. You just come across as being impossible to please to be honest. (that doesnae sound like Dundee fans, nope )

I thought after McPake started Hamilton in the final league game of last season, when were already relegated and under no pressure, and he let two weak shots go straight through him and was arguably at fault for a third goal, that McPake would have thought better than to go into this season assuming he'd be an adequate #1. Again though, as @D TOTAL rightly points out, it's not as simple as whipping open a list of out of work keepers and signing the guy you like the look of. I've mentioned this before, but I think because of the fact we paid a fee, it's not impossible that McPake was told that Hamilton was to be given the opportunity regardless. I was disappointed Parish left the club because I think he'd have been a more than adequate starting keeper in the Championship, but you can't force a player to sign a new contract when he doesn't want to be here, just as you can't go signing hypothetical replacement keepers that don't exist. Perhaps Parish was aware that Hamilton was going to resume #1 duties no matter what, and simply thought better than to consider a new contract.

Edited March 12, 2020 by Boo Khaki

[Girth]

So Hazard, Crankshaw and Berra are absolute ballers and Gowser has a now refined liquid touch!?

Sounds good!

Thank you.

[Dee Bliss]

6 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

So you're not happy about the fact he frequently substitutes players off after 80 minutes when we're in control?

You do realise that this is something that all managers do? That players are frequently tired and in need of being replaced late in games?

Just because you're a goal or two to the good doesn't mean you leave the same 11 on the pitch for the full 90 minutes.

I'm still not seeing a single example of an egregiously poor substitution in any of the examples you've given. Every single one of them is either injury-forced, a like-for-like, or entirely understandable due to player fatigue. Gowser isn't a 21 year old laddie any more. It's no wonder he's often subbed after 80 minutes when he never stands still during a match. The example I mentioned about Byrne stuck with me in particular because at the time you hit the roof about that substitution. He'd been booked, had just been spoken to by the ref again for an unwise challenge, and yet you're still adamant that substitution was 'needless'? And no, it's not reminiscent of the earlier Partick game, as we were two goals to the good, not one, and the substitutions in the game we went on to lose weren't prompted by a player who was already on a booking charging about like a headless chicken. To be frank, I actually thought this was one of McPake's few examples of sensible, proper sideline management. Byrne was asking to be sent off. Getting him off the park likely saved that result, whereas his substitutions in the earlier match went a long way towards blowing it. Callachan's later injury is irrelevant. If our keeper had gone down injured and the sub then got injured, would you be blaming McPake for not having a third keeping option on the bench? You don't make substitutions on the basis of the fact that another player might need replaced later in the match. Fair enough, nobody is daft enough to make three subs in the first ten minutes, for good reason, but Byrne needed yanked right there and then. It's sometimes a matter of a sub being necessary right there and then, to hell with hypothetical maybe/maybe not's somewhere later on.

Presumably you'd have McPake name the same starting 11 every single week, and then have them play a full 90 minutes, week in, week out? That's the impression you're giving.

As I already said, the dropping of Elliot was explained, perfectly rationally, by McPake at the time. Elliot is not Berra. They play different roles in the team, different players have different physiologies. I don't know how you can conclude that one player must be 100% fit, ready, and capable simply because another is. That's not how humans work.

Being short of bodies up front is entirely down to Danny Johnson flouncing his way out of the club at the last minute in a transfer window. McPake tried to bring a replacement in, but due to finding that we'd just lost two fullbacks and a CH to injury, was forced to use the last of the budget bringing in Field instead. Fine, it left us thin up front, but you can't have everything. Field hasn't played because McDaid has performed surprisingly well, but the fact remains that without bringing in Field we'd have had no left-sided fullback available for any of the fixtures we've played since Marshall, McGhee, and Kerr all got injured at the end of January. We still had Hemmings fit, and Nelson due back within a week or two, so given the options, what was McPake supposed to do? Blow the last of the budget on a 3rd striker and ignore the fact all of our fullbacks were injured, or accept that the striking corps, as thin as it was, was a far less pressing matter than the fact we didn't have a single healthy fullback?

When I see fans blaming McPake for the striking issue I just shake my head. Johnson threw his toys out of the pram and wanted to leave. There's no cogent argument for keeping him around. What is McPake going to do? "Right Danny, I know you're totally in the huff and don't want to be here, and you've already shown a total lack of professionalism, but we're going to FORCE you to lead the line for us today, and heaven help you if you don't bother your arse or score a bucketload". Johnson quit. Keeping him around would have been cancerous and solution to absolutely nothing.

There's no denying McPake has had his share of mistakes, and I agree that the most obvious example of late was handing a start to a 17 year old laddie in Dunfermline when he looked nowhere near ready for 1st team football. Especially so when we'd just loaned in a 21 year old player who plays in the same role and actually has some experience of 1st team football. You don't know until he shows you otherwise I suppose,  and McPake sees the lad training and playing in the reserve/youth teams, but I thought it was immediately obvious the laddie either wasn't at all ready, or totally froze on the occasion to the point whereby he was an utter liability. That really shouldn't happen at all. Someone screwed up there. However,  you're questioning literally every substitution and every change to the starting eleven, and also whining about instances where he hasn't changed the starting 11. You just come across as being impossible to please to be honest. (that doesnae sound like Dundee fans, nope )

I thought after McPake started Hamilton in the final league game of last season, when were already relegated and under no pressure, and he let two weak shots go straight through him and was arguably at fault for a third goal, that McPake would have thought better than to go into this season assuming he'd be an adequate #1. Again though, as @D TOTAL rightly points out, it's not as simple as whipping open a list of out of work keepers and signing the guy you like the look of. I've mentioned this before, but I think because of the fact we paid a fee, it's not impossible that McPake was told that Hamilton was to be given the opportunity regardless. I was disappointed Parish left the club because I think he'd have been a more than adequate starting keeper in the Championship, but you can't force a player to sign a new contract when he doesn't want to be here, just as you can't go signing hypothetical replacement keepers that don't exist. Perhaps Parish was aware that Hamilton was going to resume #1 duties no matter what, and simply thought better than to consider a new contract.

It’s fair to say we see football entirely differently. Let’s all make subs because in your words everyone else does. I’m not sure if you’re at the games or not but his substitutions change the flow of the game from being in control to under pressure. If you’ve got a settled defence you don’t alter it, simple as. Liverpool as an example under Klopp on an unbeaten run of over a year didn’t chop and change a defence because‘injuries might occur’, the keeper and defenders play virtually every minute of every game and they play a huge amount of games more than us. Arsenal’s defence was the same for about a decade. It’s a vital area of the pitch. If you’ve got a defence not letting in goals you don’t change it He’s putting young strikers out on loan who have featured for us yet sells a striker, has another 1 injured and leaves short up front in the Morton game dropping 2 points because we are playing 1 up front isolated on his own against 10 man Morton and you don’t see a problem in this for example let’s also take players off with half an hour because they’ve been booked leaving us with no options off the bench in their position. 
 

Byrne’s never charged about any place never mind as a headless chicken. Callaghan’s injury isn’t irrelevant and Gowser was far from standing still in the Queens game, if you were there you would’ve noticed and as I said people around me at both the Queens game and Morton were far from happy at his substitutions. 
 

Are you employed at Dens, do you know Johnson threw his dummy out the pram? I’m left shaking my head a people who think we shouldn’t have replaced him when he was sold, even the manager wanted to!

We are 27 games into the season, on a piss poor points total and on +1 goal difference in the Championship. McPake  so far has had a shocker, I presume you’ll disagree with this?

 

As for the impossible to please comment I take it you haven’t went back and read my comments after the game on Tuesday? The game went back to the defence that had been working and made no daft substitutions coincidentally. 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Yenitit

[Derry Alli]

23 minutes ago, Yenitit said:

 I’m left shaking my head a people who think we shouldn’t have replaced him when he was sold, even the manager wanted to!

He did want to, then he decided that funds would be better spent elsewhere.