calscot

I think we played reasonably well with the same team as last season but showed the frailties that those players seem to possess - bombscare in defence, not creating enough in the opposition box, as well as missing the target with some otherwise good chances. We did dominate and kept possession well, although at times we did so in an overly conservative way, which was paradoxically a bit risky at 1-0 up - I think we needed to press more for a second goal. Without changes at the back, I'm not too comfortable about a bit of sitting on a one goal lead. At least Waghorn saved us from a nervy added time. The good thing is that despite no changes to the team from last year, we coped well with an SP club, despite the obvious higher level of the opposition. However, that higher level did show that it wouldn't take much bad luck for us to drop points. So I'm looking forward to a few of the new signings starting the game. Krancjar definitely showed a lot of promise, and I'd like to see him get a wee bit fitter and sharper and start alongside Barton and Hill. I think that will close some of the holes and raise us to a higher level where we should dispatch most teams a bit more easily, at least when we're not suffering from a lack of form. As Celtic showed in the cup game, their best chance to beat us is to concentrate on our weakness at the back, and especially high balls and crosses. I'm hoping Clint will fix that, and Joey will reduce the number of times they are able to get those chances. In attack, it seems our main tactic is to get deep in the box and check the ball back to an oncoming player, or square it across goal. While this is good football, I think we have to be careful not to be too predictable, as there was plenty of times we ran out of room or ideas. I still want to see us mix it up a bit to give the opposition more variety to worry about - especially against the top few sides.

I see it's live on BT Sport 1. Great for me as I have that included in my mobile phone deal so can "Mirrorcast" to my TV.

I know what you mean but I think the qualifier is that they only need to be prolific in a relatively modest league playing in a team of much better players than the opposition most of the time. I agree with that as well, my fear is that we continue with the current players who will do well in most games, but at a higher level than the championship, we could rue not taking as many chances as we need, and drop a lot points where we dominate the game. The obvious scenario is the opposition scoring an early goal and then parking the bus - although some will probably park it from the first whistle. I think the problem there is that he's got to turn his back on a chance of playing for an EP side... But mabye.

What, the manager with one of the best win rates in Scottish football history? #LetsBashAllyAsMuchAsPossibleEvenIfItsPointlessAndIrrelevantMeme

I think it's hard to be completely and utterly objective, but most decent and intelligent people usually do actually try - and try incredibly hard when it's their job. Doesn't seem to apply to most of Scottish football and damningly so for the Scottish football press. They might be good at their job description as click baiters, but they are certainly no journalists by any definition of the word.

Personally, I think we need one more striker that is of a more prolific scoring level than any that we currently have. I think all the ones we have will get goals but there are many times when they miss their chances. We need someone more clinical to play alongside two of them. For defence, I think we suffered last year from a lack of depth, and while we did ok injury-wise, we were playing virtually the same back four most of the time even though 2 or 3 of them weren't performing to the level we need - as we didn't really have much choice to take over, or competition for places, Ball apart. But I think the midfield and in goal are fine.

Problem is, we've just voted to leave the EU, so looks like they are safe.

Bit of Poe's law there...

While I'd be very surprised if we didn't secure a top 4 finish, think we definitely have good enough for a likely top 2, and a decent chance of winning, I can't help but feel the squad is slightly makeshift in its construction. Maybe it's just the state of the Scottish football getting worse and worse relative to the EP in that it seems good enough, but when you compare to our UEFA final squad, which was in itself making the most of a difficult situation, it feels well down from that level. I think a lot of it depends on how some of our players from last season, make the step up to a higher level, as most of them should be developing into our stars of the next few years; however, our win record against SP teams and the next best two of the SCh, wasn't actually that great. Some of our newer players are coming in from a relatively higher level and so you'd expect them cope fine.

I don't think the measure of how a board is backing a manager can be fully based on transfer fees, it's more whether the manager is able to choose his squad from a certain level of quality - all a fee does is increase the number of players the manager can look at, as they don't have to only take players who just happen to be out of contract or on a free. £1m doesn't get you a top player at his peak, and in the middle of a contract, it just allows you have a half decent player released with about a year or so left of his contract to run. But it's all about counting up the cost of having that player along with his wages, and subtracting his sell on value. So spending that kind of money is all about whether Warburton actually finds a player that he wants, that requires the fee and demonstrates enough value for money. It's not about looking for such a situation for the sake of it. Also spending that kind of money, while peanuts in the EP, is quite a bit of our up front cash flow while we're still running at a loss and basing our finances mostly on ticket sales. Once we've re-established a much higher income from TV and commerce, then we will be more in a position to splash out. So in the current context, it's a bit of a risk to put that much money on one player; you just have to look at the strange flack McCoist still gets for the 700k on Templeton, even though the net spend was negative for that year - not including about 20m+ worth of talent walking away for free. The manager seems to have done well so far without spending much in fees, but I agree you can't be expected to find every player for a bargain basement price, so hopefully the money is there if he needs it to secure the right player.

As it's the first game and against us and on tv, I fully expect Motherwell to play their strongest side.

Never heard of the Scots opposition but wouldn't put money on Aberdeen and Hearts getting through...

I hope we achieve enough to make it impossible to give Celtic a whole stand when we play them.

I do hope there are no anomalies and it means that we face all three at home in the last 5 games.

The biggest problem I have with facing the top 3 sides twice away before the split, is that it means that with the amazingly short-sited seeding system, that we have a chance of facing one or more of them 3 times away, with no chance of facing them 3 times at home. The fact it's all three is highly suspicious as the chances of that in a draw with a random element is very low and you'd expect them to build in a seeding system whereby this shouldn't happen to any team. What about teams that might not qualify for the top 6? If they received this draw it could mean they have only 3 home games against the top three sides from the previous season, in total. Not only is that unfair in a sporting sense, but also potentially in a financial sense, and even just giving season ticket holders a chance to watch their side against the top sides of last season. It seems there is no mechanism to match the previous one where all teams were guaranteed 3 homes games in total against the OF, either one way or another, so in future, even if the OF finish first and second, some clubs could get the OF twice and home and others four times. It's turned a sort of almost workable split system into a complete farce with no sporting integrity. Although with that last phrase, I can't see how we can be surprised.

Fair enough. I go for more results based analysis, and for a small country I can see the need for defensive football, which I think is a valid way of playing - which to do well in a cup competition, means you still need to play at a certain level. Just like when we got to the UEFA cup final. They didn't really do much at the finals with one win getting them through... but 6 wins 3 draws and a loss to top the group in the qualifiers is pretty decent, even if it wasn't the most difficult of opposition. So I wouldn't call them a great team or anything, but I don't think they are poor compared to their normal level, which will reflect the size of the population. I also have no illusions that on the evidence, we've signed anyone all that special, but I'm hoping he's of the required standard.

Considering what they've achieved in the Euros, I find the description of "poor" more than a bit unfair. Won't dispute he didn't play, which I think is a pity. Players often improve for the experience.

Hibs gained the same points as last season, after swapping a storming Hearts for a poor St Mirren, I would say that makes their form pretty similar. Albeit they did lose an extra 3 points to Rangers. They won the SC, so deserve praise for that, but it didn't make them more formidable in the league. They certainly weren't running away with it like Hearts. St Mirren were no better than an average 2nd tier side. A strange argument that one.

Show me the transfer fee stats - it's easy to look up and DB recently put them in a thread you were on so no excuses there. AM had a negative transfer fee balance in every season. MW's is positive in every season so far. You are arguing against indisputable and verifiable facts, it's not good for your argument, or the validity of your opinion. It's not that bad and when you add in the cup games, especially against SPL teams, the gap closes. But the significant bit of info from that is that 6 points were lost Hearts... A better team than MW's at a time when he was losing to St Johnstone...

You mean they only matter to you because they work for you. I produced various stats to get as like for like as possible, in the most like for like, where it was the same teams, AM won by a margin. I really don't know how you can say yours are like for like when you include a much better team like Hearts whom MW didn't play. That would be similar to comparing AM's third tier season with MW's 2nd tier. But the funny thing is, that your own stats prove you wrong. It shows even though there was an off-field crisis, a fan boycott, a resignation by AM, the presence of a much better side than MW's, despite all that, AM was only slightly worse... What would they be like on a level playing field? As I've also said, the most non-turbulent time for AM was the 3rd tier, and he didn't lose a game, despite still having the equivalent of one hand tied behind his back. So how can we get a really supportive board, the fans back and excited, money to spend, and instead of the worst manger in the world, one of the best, and still do much worse merely one division up? We're talking going from the Scottish 3rd tier to the 2nd. Hardly a huge step up. You can make up what you like but Hearts had no more preparation time than MW, in fact you could argue they had less. We will probably be better than them next season, but it's hard to judge the manager when he has a far greater budget. I agree it's impossible to prove, but the we can only compare with what we have and be sensible about it. I think the sensible conclusion is that Hearts were better. Warburton had an even record with Hibs and Falkirk who were obviously lesser sides. I can see why you would want to disagree but I can't see how it's sensible. That's just not true - as we've been discussing. Please just look at the facts. In what way don't they match? You just want to ignore them because it doesn't suit your narrative.

I think that's a bit glib. Firstly, like I said, I don't believe he'd have come to Rangers for well below the national average wage. I don't think anyone at Rangers would believe that either and so not risk insulting him with such a ludicrously low offer. 2K a week is incredibly low for Rangers and so if you're thinking you're going to get the same performance from him as a 20k player of the past that we are used to, then your expectations are just too high. Even if he didn't live up to expections, all managers have that, and as this thread shows, the players can't have been that bad as results wise they were not significantly worse than under MW despite all the doom and gloom at the club. Which must also apply to MW. See, again you want to argue things in a paradoxical way again. Your saying he played 11 internationals in the 4th tier. Now as I recall, this is where he played a LOT of young players from the academy, in a way that absolutely trounces MW, but the argument is that he only played them because he "had to". Now if he had 11 internationals at his disposal, why did he "have to" play so many academy graduates? And again, if he "needed 11 internationals", why did he play so many home grown players? Bringing Gretna into it, shows a lack of understanding about what the club was going through at the time. But if doing worse than a team in a previous season who had less money than you had is a crime, then MW is obviously also very guilty - especially when you consider he had an easier league. But that's the problem with all your criticism, you think Ally was crappiest manager ever but you can't seem to argue consistently about why you think that, and all the evidence is against you. The thing is, for me to argue Ally was average instead of the worst, I just need to show he was a good bit worse than MW but not devastatingly so. The thing is that the facts show, at least when it comes to results, he wasn't very far behind at all.

The stats I gave are not "massaged" they are very fair and give different viewpoints. You call them so because you don't like them as they don't fit your narrative. Can you explain in what way they are not valid? I have not treated either manager with any preference. It's obvious Hearts are a special case, and their form meant that Warburton could not compete with them either and would have been second place also. Then to compare like with like, if you take out the Hearts results, and concentrate on the teams they both played, there is not really any difference between the two. Hearts were in a different league to the teams Warburton played, and as Craig would say, "apples and oranges". If Warburton's results were much better than Ally's then every comparison like this would show him as much better, but they don't.

Disappointed he didn't get a game at the Euros.

I think we need a striker but also at least one more defender - if the numbers for other positions are a consistent strategy...

I was really hoping it would hit that number. Be interesting to see how much it increases the attendances by as many of those extra I would guess are also those who regularly turned up to the gate anyway. But then, they may not have come every home game... Be great to see us back to the 48/49k. Of course there's a load more people who've also bought seasons so they can see us at other stadiums... Especially one in the east end.