Rousseau

Bates made a shaky start but he grew into the game; he used his physical presence to good affect, heading a few balls away from set-plays. I don't think he's the best with his feet, but he tried to play forward -- maybe our anonymous midfielders did not help matters. Beerman was good. You can clearly see that he was a former winger, as elfideldo said; very confident with the ball, linking up and running at the defence. He did ok defensively too considering he was up against a big brute of a forward in Sammon. He wasn't troubled too much and he pretty much marked him tightly.

Halliday doesn't have the technique or vision to play DM, but he's got good energy and pace so I feel like he could be used further forward. He's at his best -- not great I'll admit -- when he's running at defenders. We could've just swapped Halliday for Hyndman, letting Hyndman dictate the play from deep, with Halliday in the N0.10 role using his energy to press and run at the back-four. (Hyndman was probably removed because of the pitch -- which is a disgrace at this level -- so it's a moot point.)

I tend to agree with the sentiments. We suck offensively: too many players are isolated, make wrong decisions and/or just fail to hit the bloody target. We peppered their box with crosses but outwith a few Garner headers we didn't do enough; there was no quality. Hyndman was anonymous for me; I wasn't really surprised when he came off (partly because of the surface too I suspect). Too many players dawdle on the ball, wanting too much time; and there was no tempo. Second half was better, but still not good enough. The only positive for me was the performances of the youngsters -- Bates had a shaky start but grew into the game, using his strength and height, and Beerman was decent going forward and did ok against a brute in Sammon -- and the fact that we did well defensively -- we weren't really troubled outwith the odd corner and Tavernier getting caught upfield leaving the Killie winger loads of space. I think the double pivot is helping; Holt was quite good for me, bringing lots of energy and breaking up play etc. Halliday can't control a ball and on the rare occasion he does he passes it back; Toral is significantly better.

He's injured.

I believe so.

[tweet]849226273360678912[/tweet]

Oh... just noticed it will be Garner up top with Waghorn instead of Miller. I think Garner deserves a run in the team. Halliday looks to be a straight swap for Toral.

I quite like the youngsters coming in; better that than other players playing out of position. Also, it seems Senderos was injured so couldn't come on at the weekend. It really was a perfect storm. We have been saying for the last 2 seasons that we're very light at Full-back.

[tweet]849225187358896128[/tweet] I assume it will be Foderingham in goal?

The changes were forced, but I don't think changing like-for-like (Hill for Senderos, or Senderos on for a Full-back) would've seen a better result; it would've been inferior players playing out of position, with the same problems as the first-half. It was better to go gung-ho, with another striker in there and giving Toral more space to play. It could've cost us, but it almost payed off too.

We were completely bullied that first half and failed to win the second ball. I'm getting sick of saying that with this group of players.

In peace there's nothing so becomes a man As modest stillness and humility: But when the blast of war blows in our ears, Then imitate the action of the tiger; Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage; Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;

All the changes were forced. To be honest, if we approached the second-half the same as the first with those players -- Halliday, MOH and Toral at the back -- we would probably have been beaten; forcing them back helped ease the pressure on the back four -- other than the scary counters! -- and allowed us to start the half on the front-foot. PC changed it completely, going gung-ho; it could've worked, but it could've came back to haunt us.

Yeah, try it against anyone else and we could've been on the end of a hiding. Motherwell were dirty; wasting time at every opportunity and putting in reckless and dangerous tackles every two minutes.

I think it was a perfect storm of changes. Wallace went off sick, so Halliday was the only replacement. Hodson was poor, giving nothing offensively, so the only option was a "winger" in MOH. And then Garner for Hill is a twist, to get Toral more space and Waghorn a partner. Crazy.

It looked like a simple 4-4-2 with MOH and Halliday replacing both Full-backs, and then Garner came on for Hill, meaning Toral went into defense: Garner - Waghorn McKay - Holt - Hyndman - Miller Halliday - Kiernan - Toral - MOH Fod But when we attacked, Halliday stayed back and MOH went forward to create: Garner - Waghorn McKay - Hyndman - Miller - MOH Holt Halliday - Toral - Kiernan Fod so, 3-1-4-2. I think the idea was to get Toral more space to play forward passes, which worked, and to give Waghorn a better partner in Garner. MOH and McKay were the wide-men; MOH couldn't quite attack the Full-back as well as McKay as he kept coming inside. It was gung-ho -- never has a formation or performance been defined as well. We were poor first-half; bullied in everything. We weren't second-half; We risked it defensively for more players in forward areas. It might have worked on another day.

Ooft! Two changes at Half-Time. Hodson and Wallace off?! Wallace with sickness. I don't know how they will fit in? Halliday at LB? Garner on too!?

We keep getting bullied; McKay, Hodson -- who has been garbage, putting team-mates under pressure with loose balls -- Miller, Holt and even Hyndman are being out-muscled in everything they do. Should we have had that penalty? I couldn't really see it.

[tweet]848158747444883456[/tweet]

I thought it was as is, until I read the Rangers tweet saying there were two changes: Hodson and Kiernan in for the suspended Tavernier and injured Wilson -- the Rangers site has Kiernan as "the big englishman"! Halliday on the bench. Looking forward to it!

It's 2-1 Liverpool coming up for Half-time, with three typical Liverpool goals: sublime counter-attacking from Mane, Firmino and Coutinho; and then they concede from a corner.

It's a moot point because I don't think the transfer will happen, but it was the way he went about it, with the conference etc. We all would've accepted that he had to move for the good of his career -- like Davis and Edu -- but to come out with the New Club crap and to leave without the club getting anything was unnecessary. I always watch out for Davis' performances but I couldn't care less about Naismith. As a player, he would improve the team, but we'd only get a year or two out of him. Having Naismith instead of Miller in the first-XI would improve us significantly. I don't know if that would make up for what he did -- I may come round if he performed well. I think it's unlikely in any case.

The majority of the suggestions can be linked to the McLeish era -- I forgot how bad some of them were!

Thomson seems to be one of the few that we would all agree on. I can't believe the difference in the man compared to the player; aggressive, almost dirty player, who loved a strong tackle compared to the mild-mannered, intelligent man. He's one of the few I actually enjoy listening to on BT.

That's it published! Frankie -- let me know if I included the correct scripts this time!