Rousseau

I don't think the midfield 3 are RM, CM and LM; it's more like 3 CMs. The Attackers are LW, RW, ST. Aird can play RB, RW (and LW, I suppose), but not ®CM, IMO. Same with Clark: no way is he going to play ®CM.

By definition 'lean' suggests we are, not down to bare bones, but close to being short. If we do get a few injuries -- as is likely with the aggressive nature of the envious opposition -- then we will be in trouble. However, like I said above, our versatility will go some way to mitigating that problem.

This might be a bit pedantic, but if we go with the 4-3-3 model, McKay and Templeton are attackers. I suppose it comes down to a metaphysical question: are LW/RW Midfield or Forward positions? In the 4-3-3 model they have to be Forwards. So, McKay and Templeton are Forwards/Attackers, like Oduwa. McKay, Walsh and Oduwa have the versatility -- at least in this formation -- of playing both areas, though.

It is very lean, but it's also quite versatile. Going through the list there are a few players that can play in the midfield 3 and the forward 3. If anything, we might be a bit short defensively: I count 6/7 players for 4 positions. I'd like to get Eusatace as I feel we need that proper DM for the grittier games.

I thought there was more directness in Oduwa's play today. I don't know if I've read it somewhere, but Warburton must have said cut out the unnecessary tricks and take on your man etc. I thought there was a difference today. He can still entertain, but he needs to achieve something at the end of it.

He makes a good point actually. The process of promoting a youth player into the first team requires a sympathetic manager. We now know that Walsh, McKay etc were actually good enough to play. However, the manager and the system were not suited to them. MacLeod was a good player, and he actually fit into the McCoist system (if one can call it a system!); McKay was also a good player, but did not fit. There needs to be a holistic approach, where everything is connected, not what we had last year and in previous years. The same formation and style must be played throughout every level, and the players able to play their role.

The SPFL work was puzzling: surely, that cannot be deemed a successful tenure? The other stuff was more impressive. They should have omitted the SPFL work!

I thought it was really well written. The subject was always going to be interesting, but the depth was really surprising: analysing Sir David Of Weirs character etc. A lot more intelligent in his footballing philosophy than I had originally expected. Future Manager?

Interesting draw for them. I'm curious to see how they do against Ajax. We're quick to suggest Dutch sides play better football and are a level above, so it'll be interesting to see the gap; or if indeed there is one.

That's ridiculous. A team buying one of their rivals' best players? Immoral.

Seems unfair that seeding: it's stacked in favour of the Premiership sides. Nevertheless, I'll take anyone other than C*****.

Thanks for the replies! It's all very confusing. I thought that similarly 'ranked' teams (teams with a similar co-efficient) would play each other, otherwise it seems unfair? So, in a pure hypothetical situation: if every side was ranked according to their co-efficient (doesn't matter where/how the points are acquired), then seeded with similarly ranked sides. So we, because of our poor rank, would go into pot 5 say (pot 1 = CL group, pot 2 = play-off, pot 3 = 3rd QR, pot 4 = 2nd QR, pot 5 = 1st QR), and we'd then play those poor pot 5 sides in the 1st QR and move on to play pot 4 sides etc. as we win each round. Our level (the quality of our side) might actually be pot 2, but because the co-efficient is so low we get demoted down. Therefore, in that situation, would it not be better to win the every round until the play-offs, rather than entering at the play-offs an losing? I suppose then it matters where/how the points are acquired? Is it more for entering and losing at the play-offs, or more for winning 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounds then losing? But then according to Calscot, one gets points depending on where you exit, so it would actually be better to enter the play-offs and lose rather than win 3 rounds. So, actually, we do need the co-efficient to be better, to get more points. Seems very unfair. However, it is down to us. We have to make sure we are better, and have to try to get as far as possible.

I agree with you. I thought you were suggesting that a fullback hold back while the other bombs forward, but, like I said, that results in less width; it works best when you have two going forward stretching the pitch, which then allows a lot more space for the wingers. Halliday is not a DM; he is an attacking midfield player (he even played winger on occasion at previous clubs!). We do need a sitting midfielder.

My head says this is crap for Scottish football, my heart says GIRFUY!! On a more serious note: perhaps BH can enlighten me, would it not be better for us to end up playing several poor teams (because of the poor Co-efficient) and beating most of them, rather than playing fewer games? In other words, would it not be better for our Co-efficient to win 1st, 2nd, 3rd qualifying round matches, rather than losing 1 play-off game?

I hate to mention the 'A' word, but it just ocurred to me: could we not have used McGregor as a extra enticement to Hibs, plus a wee 100k?

Maybe, but you want the width. Maybe, split the CB and drop the DM into a third CB slot like Busquets at Barca; that would get add defensive cover and allow us to have the width.

Never a great player, but I'll not see a bad word said about him: tried his best, honest, did his job well enough. He was good in League 1, but poor in Champ (he had that injury as well IIRC?). I don't think it was solely down to the players though: the tactics, the confidence, the off-field problems created an absolute mess. I'm pleased to see most sticking up for the guy.

Never a great player -- first touch is abysmal! I think his reputation was ruined the last two years, simply because the tactics McCoist employed did not suit him (nothing new there!). We also must remember that at QotS he played almost every minute, and everyone was probably giving him the ball: the tactics were arranged to suit him. Like I said, he's not a great player, but I think he'd still score a few goals if he played every minute and the strategy was to provide him with the ball in the box -- he scored against Ayr (aye, ok...) when played in his preferred position. That will not happen now; he's a bit-part player now.

I agree with Craig: it was probably as exciting as a 0-0 gets. Saying that, I hate open games, because it always suggests a lack of control and defensive organisation. Arsenal annoy me, and Gary Neville was right when he suggested Arsene's problem is arrogance. They know the problems (DM, CB, and a top quality Striker etc.), but Arsene fails to change. Also he keeps putting in 3 (4 including Cazorla in that deeper role) number 10s in the midfield, all coming inside. I agreed with Carra when he said that Arsenal always used to play direct. It wasn't a long ball, it was quick passes played forward whenever there was an opportunity. Nowadays they pass around, trying to walk the ball into the net. I loved Arsenal of the early 00's, but now I really dislike them. The possessional (is that a word?) control of the game is great -- I like that --, but it doesn't negate the need for pragmatic defensive organisation and decision-making, and it doesn't mean you are going to win the game. It's as if they are looking for beauty over result. The beauty pointless without the result. Interesting point Thierry made about Arsenal changing to a more possession game because of Fabregas. Instead of a direct 4-4-2 they went possession-based 4-3-3. (I love MNF!)

I'm gutted for the big man, but if he wasn't going to get a game then fair enough. He wasn't great with the ball at his feat, so isn't really W&W material. Good servant last year, but at 30 he needs to be playing. I get the sense that he wasn't trying to take a wage for nothing. He'll get a half-decent Premiership club.

I thought the midfield 3 were disappointing today against Hibs -- far too static, and didn't make themselves available. We need someone to come on to shape things up -- Shiels is not the answer. This kid could be a great addition.

No wonder: McCulloch was playing! And Smith! And Boyd! Slow as stop. Feel the pain, but isn't it interesting that we were complaining about the same things! It seems a team is poor because of the same reasons. Perhaps it's pure frustration that makes us sprout the same p***, but it does annoy me. TBH, Locke is not management material...

I actually enjoyed the MU-NU game: quite tactical I thought. MU were superior in the first-half, but NU managed to organise themselves better for the second. MU just couldn't score -- which I suppose is the object of the game --; there was some nice play, 80% possession at times, but they just couldn't score. They look good defensively, but of course, they haven't came up against the big side yet. I think they'll do well and I think they'll finish higher than last year, but they're not title-contenders. In general it's too early to start making predictions. MC were good last year for spells, but just slipped up in key games; it looks like they've started well this year, but it's only 3 games in. Chelsea will get better, but there is no doubt they're lacking form. Mourinho made the decision to try to get back into the game against MC, taking off Terry for more pace because he had to play a high line (we know how Terry is in a high line!); and the full-backs were a lot further forward. It was no surprise Chelsea conceded more goals in that second half. It wouldn't have happened if it was 0-0 at half-time. Mourinho excelled at the big games last year, but his players, namely Ramires and Fabregas, let him down. I do think they need to invest, at least freshen things up a little; otherwise they'll find it a lot more difficult than last year.

I think we were debating the type of 'entertainment'. Do we watch football to be entertained by a rainbow flick that does nothing to influence the result, or by soaking up the visceral feeling of the competition and win? I'm the latter. I can be entertained, or appreciate, a rainbow flick, but if it does nothing to get the win, then I'd rather not see it. If we get the flick and the win, then great!

Ooh, I like that analogy: I appreciate a work of Art, but I'm not 'entertained' by it; likewise, I appreciate a rainbow flick, but I'm not 'entertained' as such unless it plays a part in the eventual win. Have I got that right? I've argued before that we don't watch Rangers to be 'entertained', rather to be apart of the visceral experience of the competition.