The Clyde FC 2018-19 Thread

[cfcuk]

....point blank blocks (plural) I said. When you watch the highlights, you'll see he saved our bacon....but no excuses bud, if Currie had another (decent) keeper vying for his place, he'd be dropped by now.....but he hasn't. JF 

So we can now add Hughes to the ever increasing list of players signed in the summer by Lennon who aren't good enough to play in the starting eleven?

[haufdaft]

So we can now add Hughes to the ever increasing list of players signed in the summer by Lennon who aren't good enough to play in the starting eleven?

 

Yet no left or right back cover of quality other than converted midfielders. 

 

Why re-sign Duffie and Millar and sign Gorman.

 

None are close to being regulars or putting pressure on others to perform.

 

Wasted money

 

Jury is still out on Belmokhtar .

 

 

 

 

 

[haufdaft]

Deleted (duplicate post)

[Jeremy Fisher]

3 hours ago, haufdaft said:

Are we now saying that Hughes is not good enough to be an alternative to Currie?

Yes....

[Jeremy Fisher]

2 hours ago, cfcuk said:

So we can now add Hughes to the ever increasing list of players signed in the summer by Lennon who aren't good enough to play in the starting eleven?

Yes

[Officer Barbrady]

I'm surprised that ANYONE is surprised with an outcome like yesterday, in all honesty. 

 

Why and how is it permitted to praise Currie for getting one thing in the match correct, in the 89th minute!!, yet speak ill of the statuesque mute he ALWAYS  becomes under opponents' artillery fire at your peril? Berwick spotted it after three minutes. That's simply not good enough.

 

These duplicities do nothing but nail the club mentality to the floor and gives rise to the sizable (and sadly rising) collective of dunces hellbent on ignoring these shortcomings (reasons for trailing 3-0 at half-time in real-speak) to preserve his feelings? He's clearly not bothered enough by this utterly embarrassing goals-against column ESPECIALLY at home to prepare work on any aspects of his game, so why protect him? It's not Martin or Dylan's job to guide him through games and you'd think he met them for the first time in the dressing room, every single week, such is the deafening silence. He's the goalie, its his box. Or should be. Needs looked at, urgently. 

 

Aside from Calamity Blair, other aspects of our play resemble a Christmas panto when under pressure. Fullbacks who aren't fullbacks, and no seemigly designated wide-right operative in the first half (Rankin seemed to start wider of McStay but drifted way in) but although not a great match from Syvertsen, the concept of providing at least one close-proximity teammate for Goodwillie shouldn't be discarded as it had no effect on the conceded goals, from open play at least. 

 

That's now ten points dropped at home. From twenty one available. I've yet to see a good reason for why that is, or hear the correct questions asked of selection, and indeed recruitment. The Chapman Defence League ("well it's a lot better than last year", they'll cry) or any time-wasters need not offer their suggestions. We already know what they think.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Officer Barbrady

[clyde_r_us]

How long can McStay keep his place???

[Officer Barbrady]

35 minutes ago, clyde_r_us said:

How long can McStay keep his place???

If he shows the level of responsibility he took yesterday (a justified criticism of him at times this season) over a prolonged period then why shouldn't he? If doing so like yesterday is a sign of his growing maturity as a player then i can only see it becoming an increasing factor of which to build the team around him and our other good young players. There's that, and also the fact his best central partner is being shunted out to left back instead of Lennon  altering a failing system to accomodate for zero fully fit natural fullbacks. We're paying for this, now. 

[Only one David Marsh]

I don't think we have the players for a back 3 especially on the left wingback role 

[SLClyde]

I didn’t hear anyone shouting or criticising Lamont for a few poor deliveries from free kicks yesterday, if that was mcstay he’d have been on the end of a few shouts at least. 

We need a left back in January plus one or two more. I’d move a few out as well 

[HughieMc]

I think a back 3 would work if we had Stewart fit or a natural left back replacement- sadly we have neither right now.

They could convert to back 4 during the game dependent on how the game was going and how the opposition set up- by bringing either wing back in as traditional full back and or both and one of the starting back 3 shifting forward to frontal sweeper or further forward to holding role.

we simply don’t have the resources to have natural cover in all positions- but Cuddihy has done brilliantly.

Currie- well I’ve been clear on my thoughts previously 

[BrigtonClyde]

The defence seems pretty straightforward to me. He doesn't appear to have any natural fullbacks available to him but he does have 4 centre halfs on the books

We've been lucky Cuddihy's adapted pretty well into his new role but as with the 2nd half on Saturday, he's still far more effective in an advanced position on the right offering an option and linking up the play.  Not the same story on the left, Grant's tried his best but he's clearly not a defender

If he wants to stick with a back 4, only option is to play McNiff there and Cogill inside with either Rumsby or Lang

Personally I'd go with a back 3. That at least covers a bigger area defensively and allows Cuddihy the freedom to play further forward.  True, the other side still doesn't have a natural option, but at least we're talking about a more advanced role than leaving a major gap at the back. Could be Grant's more suited to that. But on assumption Stewart's injury is longer term than hoped, only a January window's going to sort that out

As for GK, Currie's not the worst I've seen by a long way. Good shot stopper but yes, other areas not so strong. I thought Hughes looked good against Motherwell, certainly very vocal, but if his form's dipped again have to go with best option. But if you rely on having a really good GK it points to problems elsewhere in the team.  If the problems in the team are addressed you should only need a decent one, certainly at this level.

Edited December 3, 2018 by BrigtonClyde

[++Ammo - Airdrie++]

Just a passing interest guys....
What's happened with McStay? He was one of the ones I'm sure I read in the summer that most wanted re-signed? Loss of form? Moved position?
Now it seems most want him dropped?

[cfcuk]

The defence seems pretty straightforward to me. He doesn't appear to have any natural fullbacks available to him but he does have 4 centre halfs on the books
We've been lucky Cuddihy's adapted pretty well into his new role but as with the 2nd half on Saturday, he's still far more effective in an advanced position on the right offering an option and linking up the play.  Not the same story on the left, Grant's tried his best but he's clearly not a defender
If he wants to stick with a back 4, only option is to play McNiff there and Cogill inside with either Rumsby or Lang
Personally I'd go with a back 3. That at least covers a bigger area defensively and allows Cuddihy the freedom to play further forward.  True, the other side still doesn't have a natural option, but at least we're talking about a more advanced role than leaving a major gap at the back. Could be Grant's more suited to that. But on assumption Stewart's injury is longer term than hoped, only a January window's going to sort that out
As for GK, Currie's not the worst I've seen by a long way. Good shot stopper but yes, other areas not so strong. I thought Hughes looked good against Motherwell, certainly very vocal, but if his form's dipped again have to go with best option. But if you rely on having a really good GK it points to problems elsewhere in the team.  If the problems in the team are addressed you should only need a decent one, certainly at this level.

Which all points to the signing policy in the summer no cover for Stewart we do have right back duffie but doesn't get played ( no idea why he was resigned ) if you count Lang as a central defender think that's his natural position would be , we have 5 on the books which would make you think the plan was to play three at the back The success of the top two in this league is a solid formation with a couple of goalscorers and not conceeding unnecessary goals We can play some good stuff going forward but a lot of the time we look all over the place leaving huge gaps all over the pitch . As for the goalkeeper he won't come for a cross ball yes decent shot stopper but for me isn't anywhere near as good as some would have you believe, don't think he installs much confidence in the defence and that might be reciprocated but he isn't the type of goalie who you woukd say he got us three points or saved us from defeat. We will make the play offs comfortably don't think ( kmow ) this present squad won't win this league a couple of decent recruits in January that's our best chance if winning a play off .However we are apparently running with the highest budget in years ( rumour of course but might be confirmed at AGM ) so unless we can shift a few it's going to be difficult.

8 points from 18 and last home league win September out the cup second round
The manager certainly has to improve those stats considering the backing he has had.

[David W]

McStay is just young and still learning. He is one of those players who always takes a risk and when he plays a poor pass, his next couple of passes are similarily ambitious which means he attracts criticism.

He is still exceptionally talented and he has played really well the last two games. The same people who want him dropped would have him back in the team the next game.

[Officer Barbrady]

11 hours ago, Only one David Marsh said:

I don't think we have the players for a back 3 especially on the left wingback role 

Who said anything about wing-backs? Not me. 

 

We're overstaffed through the centre for defenders and midfielders- very little of our play comes from wide areas, and equally we concede A LOT from play started in the opposing zones 4 and 6.

 

Back three of Lang (Rumsby or Nicoll deputising if still not 100%) Coggill and McNiff- both TL and MM have been unfairly asked to provide this missing width out of their characters but as members of a three who dont cross the halfway line they'll be fine. Shoehorning a back four is wreaking havoc for us far more than our oppponents are. And the p***k behind them - we need to sort out. 

 

Middle three of McStay Grant and Rankin- Lamont or Love and Cuddihy hugging the touchlines and stopping play at its source- and Boyle playing off Goodie.

 

You're welcome. 

[Officer Barbrady]

1 hour ago, BrigtonClyde said:

The defence seems pretty straightforward to me. He doesn't appear to have any natural fullbacks available to him but he does have 4 centre halfs on the books

We've been lucky Cuddihy's adapted pretty well into his new role but as with the 2nd half on Saturday, he's still far more effective in an advanced position on the right offering an option and linking up the play.  Not the same story on the left, Grant's tried his best but he's clearly not a defender

If he wants to stick with a back 4, only option is to play McNiff there and Cogill inside with either Rumsby or Lang

Personally I'd go with a back 3. That at least covers a bigger area defensively and allows Cuddihy the freedom to play further forward.  True, the other side still doesn't have a natural option, but at least we're talking about a more advanced role than leaving a major gap at the back. Could be Grant's more suited to that. But on assumption Stewart's injury is longer term than hoped, only a January window's going to sort that out

As for GK, Currie's not the worst I've seen by a long way. Good shot stopper but yes, other areas not so strong. I thought Hughes looked good against Motherwell, certainly very vocal, but if his form's dipped again have to go with best option. But if you rely on having a really good GK it points to problems elsewhere in the team.  If the problems in the team are addressed you should only need a decent one, certainly at this level.

Until the last four words, you had me. 

Its this thinking that keeps us from making the right decisions, and i include Lennon in this when signing players. Ferguson had a helluva revolving door policy but once he signed a player he was given a run. Signed because he was 'better than what i/we have', he said - and i agreed, and still do, on this policy. Ferns didn't. Gorman hasn't. Hughes hasn't. Lyon hasn't. Belmokhtar has started one game, on the left wing!! Hopkirk didnt even meet half the squad!!!! 

 

Six wages there, how much £££ do we reckon? And how much are right and left backs paid 'at this level'? That's not utilising the full resources correctly at all. The problem must be starting somewhere. 

[cfcuk]

McStay is just young and still learning. He is one of those players who always takes a risk and when he plays a poor pass, his next couple of passes are similarily ambitious which means he attracts criticism.
He is still exceptionally talented and he has played really well the last two games. The same people who want him dropped would have him back in the team the next game.

Maybe in a better team with more movement he would look sensational a good technically gifted player but can disappear in games I certainly wouldn't drop him one of our better midfielders

[cfcuk]

What we need to do first is stop conceeding cheap goals if that means having a more rigid system then that will do for me
Yes second half Saturday was great entertainment but it ended in us drawing 3 3 against Berwick rangers and dropping a further two points behind the league leaders For me getting out this league is what it's all about this season and we need to get results if you can entertain then great

Wasn't it bobby Williamson who said you want entertained go to the pictures [emoji23]

[BrigtonClyde]

40 minutes ago, cfcuk said:

Which all points to the signing policy in the summer no cover for Stewart we do have right back duffie but doesn't get played ( no idea why he was resigned ) if you count Lang as a central defender think that's his natural position would be , we have 5 on the books which would make you think the plan was to play three at the back The success of the top two in this league is a solid formation with a couple of goalscorers and not conceeding unnecessary goals We can play some good stuff going forward but a lot of the time we look all over the place leaving huge gaps all over the pitch . As for the goalkeeper he won't come for a cross ball yes decent shot stopper but for me isn't anywhere near as good as some would have you believe, don't think he installs much confidence in the defence and that might be reciprocated but he isn't the type of goalie who you woukd say he got us three points or saved us from defeat. We will make the play offs comfortably don't think ( kmow ) this present squad won't win this league a couple of decent recruits in January that's our best chance if winning a play off .However we are apparently running with the highest budget in years ( rumour of course but might be confirmed at AGM ) so unless we can shift a few it's going to be difficult.

8 points from 18 and last home league win September out the cup second round
The manager certainly has to improve those stats considering the backing he has had.

His signings were mixed.

Rankin was a good idea if played in the correct position.  2nd half Saturday, he's finally got the kind of young players with the legs to make all the movement, he picks out the passes.   We were a striker light, he tried to address that with Hopkirk but we know what happened there so he then moves to get Karim.

We needed a back up keeper which again he addressed.  If it doesn't quite work out that can happen with any signing, but at least the intention was right.

But the defence has been an issue for years.  Cogill is a huge prospect and if possible I'd have liked another centre half brought in who'd played at a higher level, his experience helping the team now and also helping bring on younger players - that's nothing new, loads of examples.   He presumably wasn't to know he'd get unlucky with Stewart at the time, but of course there was no back up there.    Similar story at right back, whereas we have enough midfielders for two sides.  Some of the signings looked a bit like "fillers" when probably better to use the money on one of quality.  There again I don't know who was available.  

So I'd agree his overall signing policy in the summer would have questions to answer, but we are where we are and the idea is you adapt to what's available.  There are changes that can be made to the defence now which would likely help, and as for being all over the place further forward, they looked much better with the change made at half time, definitely looked more like the team from the latter half of last season.

Is Danny blameless for some of the performances this season?  No, and he's admitted as much.

But I suppose he should view himself a very luck boy to get a draw on Saturday because according to you, if we lost he should be given his jotters right away, despite being in the job only a year and being third in the table.  This coming from the guy who said Barry Ferguson should be given endless amounts of time to get it right while suggesting his team were actually playing great football !  You've no fall back on comparable resources because we all knew what was going on there.

Secondly, for a guy like yourself who's watched football for decades, you must know that shouting and balling at  kids still learning the game isn't likely to help much.  You need to rein that in, it's embarrassing.  

There again, maybe the Whatsapp Club can sort it all out, what a meeting of great fucking minds they are