Rousseau

It goes to show: there is no gulf in class between top Championship sides and the bottom dwellers of the Premiership. It makes the case for an extended top division.

I actually think a two-leg tie gives us more of a chance. A one-off game would be nervy, but two gives us a margin of error. It's still not going to be easy though! Hibs will be tricky either way, and yes, ironically, the premiership tie could be the easiest one!

I am doubtful. As you say: the run in suits them better. I'm confident of beating Falkirk, but Hearts at Tynecastle is going to be very difficult. I can see them winning all their remaining games. I suspect we may have to do it the hard way.

You have summed up the last two years perfectly: Defense has remained the same (poor); Chances created has remained the same (average); goals scored has dropped substantially.

Hardie is another promising young player. I just hope he is given the chance with an extended run in the team.

Competition is excellent. Best problem there is! I'd agree with you in a normal season -- simple long-term development over short-term, which is a no-brainer. However, the play-offs are just a short-term mini-competition, so any player that would give us the best chance at promotion should be utilised, regardless of potential. Ferguson will not play beyond this season, but to exclude him from a significant series of games just because he will be leaving is irresponsible. I don't think the potential experience Walsh could gain outweighs the importance of promotion. Saying that: any youngster needs and should get a long run in the side -- it's the only way they will progress. I'd still use Ferguson over the play-offs if he will be beneficial to us.

Whilst I'm delighted for us to be linked with players -- and younger, promising players at that! -- I am suspicious of why. Has he been told he's not going to get a game at Birmingham? If so, do we really want a reject from a struggling Championship side?

Walsh has earned a game, but that shouldn't preclude Ferguson getting a run-out. If Ferguson can contribute, he should.

I don't think it would be too difficult to play them both. Vuckic could play off the striker -- he used to be one -- and Ferguson can take his wide spot. Simples!

Miller will certainly play again, but I would be surprised if Daly did -- i'm not sure he's fit enough, and there are so many ahead of him -- and Boyd I think has dropped out, but I can see him play a small role in the final 10 minutes of games. I was convinced Boyd would come good, as he always seemed to get a few chances a game, which I think was down to his movement -- not pace obviously, but that knack for finding space. The problem for Boyd has been his finishing; he's not recaptured that ability. Our game plans played a part but I think his failure is down to him ultimately. They are all past it now, unfortunately. It is a shame, because they were all good players -- even exceptional at times --, but they've had their day. I would be surprised, and disappointed, if any got new deals.

Get them in the first-team!

You missed out second half of the article in which he makes some good points about the future of Scottish football: extending the league, spreading the money less thinly etc. To be fair, it's nothing we haven't seen for ourselves. We need someone at the top to take a stand. They have a right to be upset at the decision, but the referee's missed it, so there is nothing to be done about it. To cry "Conspiracy!", "Cheat!" -- and even mentioning "Sporting integrity" is taking the mickey considering the Legia Warsaw affair -- is just taking it too far.

It's semantics: what constitutes a 'league game'? By definition the play-offs are not a league game, so therefore accumulated league bookings should not count.

I'm relieved someone grasped my meaning! Their age -- as well as their performances against us -- is what grabbed my attention. They're half-decent young, quick players that could be decent squad players. And like you said: we need squad players that can play a small role in a hard slog of a season. You presume we are getting promoted. I never suggested they'd be decent first-team players, simply squad players. We can't build a team of Scottish-Galactico's -- forgetting for a minute the financial impracticalty! --; there needs to be a mix of hard-working young players.

Yes, that's what I thought, but I was thinking as squad players. Like I mentioned: I don't tend to look at potential targets from this league, or even the Premiership, because I don't consider them good enough. However, they are young, pacey with a lot of energy and stamina -- good/half-decent squad players?

Queen of the South have ripped us apart a few times with their pressing and energy. I came across the above on the BBC Sport website. I don't pay much attention to player transfers from other Scottish sides, or players in general from this level, but their age stood out: 21, 22, and 24; young players with a lot of energy. Could they be targets for us? They've been quite good this year, could they add something to our squad? Don't know about cost, but could it be worth a punt?

Can someone remind me what the reason for the rejection of an expanded league was? If it was simply to get 4 Old Firm games, how that in accordance with 'sporting integrity'?

Law was never an easy pick for me because, as I mentioned, I don't see him as a destroyer, but I thought he had great energy which you need in there too. I cannot think of any other player we currently have that could play the destroyer role with lots of energy - Gattuso in is prime at Milan. I like Walsh a lot, but his ability is based on pace, so I don't see him as a creative player as such for the number 10 role; he's a good winger. Again, I cannot think of any other creative player -- with the ball at his feet -- that can thread passes through. I discounted Vuckic (a) because we are not sure whether he'll be here any length of time -- hopefully --, and (b) I don't think he has the deftness of touch or the passing ability to play the number 10 role; he's more individual, with the ability to beat a player and score, rather than one that is going to create chances for others. I like Walsh and Vuckic a lot, but I see them more as Wingers than central midfield players. Another Caveat would be that I don't think these players I've mentioned are the best to play these roles, but they are certainly the best we have at the minute. My point was not that these guys should be playing these roles, but that we need the roles, along with wingers; central midfield domination and width. I like the outline of your team. I'd like to see Gallagher and Sinnamon get a chance. And, on reflection, Walsh might not be unable to play that number 10 role: he's quick, got good control, and young enough to learn. I'd certainly like to see a young spine with the time to improve.

Aw shucks...

I have indeed missed out on a great deal of great sides. I caught the tail end of 9IAR - if that! On reflection, the only period of sustained success I experienced, or remotely enjoyed in terms of the football played, was perhaps the McLeish sides (The Shame...).

I did mention that in another post: outnumbering the midfield in itself is meaningless if we don't have width or forwards who are willing to run in behind. It's as if we play either/or, when we should be aiming for central dominance with width, whether by fullbacks bombing forward or proper wingers -- we have neither, really, Shiels and Vuckic are not proper wingers, and only Wallace bombs on.

Hardie, Gallagher sounds like a very promising front line for many years to come. Quite exciting really.

Players make formations in the sense they're suited for them; but a formation can also ruin a player. De Bruyne (Spelling?) was average at Chelsea out wide, now look what he is doing centrally with Wolfsburg. You do get these tales of very good squads that include very average players; it's because the player suits the formation and can contribute to a role, but will achieve little elsewhere. Bosingwa comes to mind: decent at Porto because he played a suitable role for him and the team to get a big-money move, but was absoloutely awful in the PL.

Agreed, but I think a DoF should be appointed to produce these player, so it would not matter if a manager did not get the time; there'd be a long-term production line in place irrespective of manager -- or coach. I like that a lot. The players seem to be playing in better positions, and at least we'd outnumber teams in the middle. Not sure about Templeton's ability in that role though. Perhaps, move Shiels into that free role, and play Law in the middle?

Our midfield 4 -- as you say -- is ineffectual because teams just match up and therefore, generally speaking, it's easy to defend against us. I disagree that it is the players. If you look at them individually, they are decent. But the system does not play to their strengths. Law does lack backbone, but needs someone else centrally to work with. Murdoch is a DM, so he can't -- or shouldn't -- be helping out with the attack, except helping to keep the ball moving and supporting attacking players. Vuckic, I think everyone can see, is much better further up the park; to me he is a forward the plays wide because he like to come inside, but he is not a LM as such. Shiels is better centrally where he can instigate attacks. Vuckic and Shiels can get isolated out wide. Because we can't dominate the central area -- because we get outnumbered -- we can't get the better attacking players into the game. Shiels is not a wide man, so the system fails him; Law doesn't get enough support, so the system fails him; Vuckic gets isolated and gets no support, so the system fails him; Miller is pointless coming deep, but he feels he has to because there is only two there, or one to attack, so the system again fails him. (I sound like a broken record...!) It's like we want width or midfield control, when I think we need both: Dominate the midfield with Murdoch, Law and Shiels -- those three should be able to pass through most other midfield's in the league -- to allow the wide players to get into the danger areas where they can do damage. We did that with the 3-5-2, almost inadvertently; we dominated the middle, and had width. Even the diamond we played against Hearts achieved this. I don't understand why we've reverted to 4-4-2? A 4-4-2 could work if we played proper wingers, with rampaging fullbacks, and left a central two back as support -- like Mancini at Man City; the wide men went about attacking, but the central players stayed back --, not leave Murdoch alone when Law tries to attack. Wallace goes forward on the left, but Shiels comes inside so we don't outnumber on the flanks; Vuckic attacks wide, but he has no attacking fullback as support, so again we don't outnumber. It's like we are trying to do too much without really achieving either. The best managers in the world -- I'm thinking of Guardiola -- try to outnumber in a key area, depending on the team. The great Barcelona team seemed to be able to do both! Soapbox over. Apologies, it turned into a bit of a rant! Oh, incidentally, you keep getting my name wrong on the main site: it's "Rousseau", not "Rosseau". (Sorry...)