Super_Ally

Probably Boyd for me too, thought there are another 5 or 6 that would grace any goal of the year tournament.

The season review will be fine. They'll edit out all the crap and we'll be left with highlights of "pumping the mhanks in their ain midden" and Pedro's thunderbolt. Boyd's goals v Motherwell and Partick. Stevie Whittaker's crackers. Pedro's other goals. Miller's goal in the 3-0 at Hibs. It's like when you get a youtube video of a mediocre player, it only shows the good bits and we'll come out of it looking like Barca. :devil:

Will miss it playing footy myself. Hopefully the Rangers boys do well again (Ness and Stirling scored in the first win)

Needed Panathinaikos to lose a play off in the Greek league yesterday, that would've helped. There is still a chance, with their being no seedings for the final qualifying round. Though we need 3 of the 5 sides who would be seeded above us, should they qualify, not to qualify; Arsenal, Lyon, Shaktar, Sporting Lisbon and Pana. Could happen but looking less likely.

Supposedly Moyes has recently signed a new 4/5 year deal worth �£4mil a year. Compensation would be enormous surely? Also read he's the third best paid manager in British football, but would be suprised if that is true.

Sorry, what I had written above obviously didn't come across well. I was saying i've seen a number of other fans say Lafferty was struggling at the end of the game due to tiredness. Whereas I thought he was poor the entire match so didn't necessarily notice if he tired later on.

I didn't mean yourself, just generally. I don't agree with it, I wouldn't pick Dailly for my bench. I can however see the reasoning for it, and I guess you are correct in that it did work. He played like Sebo upfront! :fish: And we saw the game out.

I think sometimes people just watch what Davis does on the ball as it is often ehadline grabbing. But they don't look at the fact that he is positionally naive and refuses to play on the right. Now I know it's not his favoured position, but if he's asked to do a job he should do it. Of course it may be tactical direction from Smith that he is to play very narrow, but I often get frustrated wondering why Davis is mia. Made a few points regarding this in the match thread I think.

Like it.

In a game where we are hanging on and about the only positive was the defence and your only two substitute options are Dailly and a kid do you not think it made sense to put the utility player on further up the field where he would be less likely to cost us the game as he got upto speed with the match. It can often take players a short time to settle into a game. IF we disrupted the one part of our team functioning reasonably well it could have backfired spectacularly. I've also seen people say Lafferty look tired, though I wouldn't necessarily use this arguement myself as I just thought he was poor all game (would haee to watch again), but perhaps Lafferty had to come off? Sure it was a bizarre sub, but is it worth lambasting the manager for it when it was merely a time-wasting sub and he didn't have any other options.

I wonder if it just comes down to perspective? You look at PLG and some people hark back to champagne football. Truth is, bar a few opening games we did not play great football that often. However, under PLG, the pressing concern was winning, and not the manner of the victory. Smith has achieved part one. Winning football. We now expect victory more than hope for it. So the next step, the next increment in performance of the club is to play exciting football. Whether people agree or not, I would say we have already come a long way under Smith. Interestingly, had he won the league last year, he may already be coming under a greater number of attacks as he would have delivered the winning football but this most recent season would have shown no improvement elsewhere. As I say, all about perspective. The next step forward for Smith is either progress in the CL or winning football domestically with a cavalier attacking style. We should always be looking to improve and build on success and in some respects Walter has made a rod for his own back if you like by bringing us a long way in terms of results in a relatively short period of time (short time when measured against how far we have had to come).

Surely for the new manager to decide? No manager likes having staff thrust upon them eh Strachan? :devil: Wise with Keegan (I think) at newcastle didn't work either.

Would certainly be more enjoyable to watch a few more of the 3-0 @ Tannadice, 3-0@ Easter Road and 4-2 @ the Piggery type games next season.

So when we blew a lead it was bad management. Yet when we overturn a large deficit it is luck? I also think you are over-selling Falkirk's goal threat in the Cup. One-off the bar? A long range effort that dipped to clip the top of the bar at the last minute. Keeper would have comfortably tipped it over if it was lower. Can't remember the 2nd effort off the post at the minute, but the one late on was bad luck. Again a negative bias though. When McCann hits a shot that is off target it is unlucky, when Novo scores an all-time classic Cup Final goal it is opportunistic? For all that we were poor and Falkirk played out of their skins, goal mouth opportunities were even and we scored a belter of goal. Of course you make many valid points there in questioning tactics, formation and line ups and also an often negative (defensive) approach to games). However, it appears you are willing to criticise when necessary, but not credit Smith with anything and put any success down to luck.

I don't think it's a case of pro-Smith fans thinking that's the arguement settled. Merely saying that he has earned himself a crack at next season and the CL, as you have stated. Have to agree with much of the rest of it though. Having said that, when were we last confident ahead of a Europen campaign. I'm not 100% convinced we have a lot to look forward to. But that's as much a grim acceptance of the quality of our squad and the finances to bolster the team as it is an assessment of the manager's capabilities. Do we judge his ability to achieve success in Europe on the "group of death" performance and subsequent UEFA cinfal or on Kaunus? Obviously with his struggles first time around (barring the excellent run of 92/93) taken into account? Much will depend on the strength of the group we are drawn in (likely to be very high), the squad we take into the tournament and ultimately carrying a bit of luck. McLeish and Strachan did not have outstanding squads or tactical acumen when they managed to qualify from a CL group. I would be contented by at least 3rd spot, and as likely 3rd seeds it would be churlish to describe that as a disappointment. Again though, a fairer assesment can be made when we see the group we are drawn in.

Unfortunate for Fleck, but we already had Naismith and Novo on the bench so I guess there wasn't really room for him.

Meant to post this one earlier in the week. Where Gav gets his moves for the dancing: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZHK6kTw5bU]YouTube - Super Ally Dancing[/ame]

I expect to get tore a new one by the rest of the forum. :devil: I think people are more worried about their pals who support other teams slagging them for having Dailly up front in a cup final rather than looking at the resoning behind the decision. Still don't think i'd put him on my bench, but I guess Walter's reasoning is that with less subs than usual it helps to have a player who can cover a number of positions.

The Dailly substitution on first inspection looks bizarre. However on closer examination, you are only allowed 5 subs in the cup. The keeper takes one. We had Novo and Naismith as attacking options on the bench with Wilson the defensive option and Dailly as a utility man to cover in a variety of situations. Not ideal but I understand the reasoning. If it were not for the injury situation would quite possibly not have made the bench. Smith made an attacking change, removing Boyd for the pacier Novo. He then brought on Naismith for the tiring Miller. In making his final substitution, his options were Dailly or an untried 17 year old centre back. Hardly ideal to bring him on for Weir/Bougherra when the team was misfiring. What would people say had we conceded a late goal. Then there's Dailly. As has been said, he started out as a forward and lafferty would have been knackered playing most the game in that heat too. It was perhaps the only option to Walter to fully utilise his bench without taking too big a risk with the result. Sure he could have brought him on in midfield I guess but often players need a few minutes to get upto speed with the game and if he had replaced say McCulloch (who I know was not performing either) it could have backfired. So he put utility player Dailly on to play a role he has played before and help seeing out the game chasing the ball up front. Whilst the Dailly substitution did look bizarre, looking at what happened over the course of the game and the options available, it was not that strange. Arguements could be amde over the make up of the bench, but again we were handicapped here by injury and Smith needed to include midfield/defensive cover on his bench. Though I will admit to once again asking "in what possible scenario is Dailly a good option off the bench" before kick off. I wouldn't have him on the bench most likely, but of the players picked on the day it was probably the right decision to run out the last few minutes. It is less likely you will lose from a winning position by making a "time-wasting" substitution up front to run the clock down and have fresh legs to chase any balls up front.

As long as they looked pretty doing it that's all that matters. :fish: I doubt Abramovich (sp) sees it as a success. League or CL would probably be seen as a succesful season by them.

Playing good, winning foorball costs millions though as few but the very top teams do it.

Keep it on topic guys, getting tiresome now.

That's seems like a bizarre assessment of the situation.

Don't want this to come across as a timmy-esque conspiracy theory. However, does the "best of a bad bunch" argument get trotted out when they win the league or are on top? I ask as I tend to avoid the papers etc when we've been beat or lost a competition. Charlie Ridiculous was so scathing of us it would have made RDB look foolish to have complimented us at all had he wanted to. As I say it seems this phrase is over used when we win. Was it used last year considering that the two teams have not changed massively in terms of overall quality the last couple of years. We've got a wee better maybe.

Keep it on topic guys.