Smith leaves his spine at home again...

[Super_Ally 0]

Smith can only pick his team from what he has and I defy anyone to say, WITHOUT HINDSIGHT, that the starting XI yesterday was the right one.

 

With our squad decimated, he picked the same players that destroyed all before them last month making the fewest changes possible to maintain the continuity of the good run.

 

Wilson for Bougherra the only option.

 

Lafferty or Novo upfront with Whittaker or Smith coming in on the wing were the only options at LM.

 

I don't see what he could have done different and was pleased by the XI he had picked given the absentees.

[craig 5,199]

With our squad decimated, he picked the same players that destroyed all before them last month making the fewest changes possible to maintain the continuity of the good run.

 

Wilson for Bougherra the only option.

 

Lafferty or Novo upfront with Whittaker or Smith coming in on the wing were the only options at LM.

 

I don't see what he could have done different and was pleased by the XI he had picked given the absentees.

 

Exactly the point I was making. Look at the subs we had - Alexander and 6 young lads (Smith, I think, the oldest at 23 ??). So of those on the bench you really could only look to Smith or Edu. But when you look at the starting line-up it was the BEST that Smith could go with given his options.

 

I can understand people venting over a poor performance - but to suggest Smith left his spine at home when he had NO options open to him is pushing it a bit far.

 

Those players had swept all before as you say. We lost all our pacy, mobile players either before the game or 10 mins in. It was always going to be a struggle given that.

[Super_Ally 0]

Exactly the point I was making. Look at the subs we had - Alexander and 6 young lads (Smith, I think, the oldest at 23 ??). So of those on the bench you really could only look to Smith or Edu. But when you look at the starting line-up it was the BEST that Smith could go with given his options.

 

I can understand people venting over a poor performance - but to suggest Smith left his spine at home when he had NO options open to him is pushing it a bit far.

 

Those players had swept all before as you say. We lost all our pacy, mobile players either before the game or 10 mins in. It was always going to be a struggle given that.

 

I would contend he was brave (particularly compared to what we expect and feared from him). An 18 year old CB coming in from the cold when our star defender jetted off to France. He kept the 4-4-2 and the attacking out look that has served us so well in recent weeks, at least as much as he could with the players available.

 

If he'd gone 4-5-1, dropped Boyd and/or refused to start Wilson then I could understand the OP.

 

He picked the same formation and players as best he could yet recent performances were not replicated due to star performers missing, a lack of pace in the first team and also Celtic's urgency requiring them to force the day.

 

We did not turn up on the day but I would not blame that on a lack of ambition on Smith's part (though that has previously been a fair criticism in Europe for example).

[andy steel 0]

To borrow a phrase from somewhere else - Walter Deserves Better.

[Union City Blue 0]

As has been said by Craig, you only need to look at the bench on Sunday to judge how good a draw was for us.

 

Average age of the 6 outfield subs? 20. Three of them barely even kicked a ball for the club, then we have Edu (23) playing for the first time in 7 months, 18-year-old John Fleck plus in-and-out man Stevie Smith (24).

 

Make no mistake, we were down to the barest of bones on Sunday and they still couldn't beat us. I'd say Walter deserves a lot of credit this time round rather than criticism.

[Super_Ally 0]

Makes it look an even better point when you consider that UCB.

 

The performance was not good but sometimes you have to accept it, move on and vow to improve and not let it happen again.

[johnnyk 158]

7 points clear and apart from yesterday (where we never got beat did we) we have been playing well......

 

no pleasing some fans is there

[maineflyer 0]

While I can see the temptation of the obvious, I'm not sure I buy into the rationale that missing players somehow caused those who did play to turn in such a shite display. Unless I missed something important, I think we still had 11 players on the park.

 

I do think Smith got it badly wrong playing Lafferty (at all) up front and then on the right wing. He could have started with Boyd and Fleck or Boyd and Novo in attack. Poor old Walter can't seem to shake off his natural tendency for one up front, even when it is presented by events outwith his control.

[craig 5,199]

While I can see the temptation of the obvious, I'm not sure I buy into the rationale that missing players somehow caused those who did play to turn in such a shite display. Unless I missed something important, I think we still had 11 players on the park.

 

I do think Smith got it badly wrong playing Lafferty (at all) up front and then on the right wing. He could have started with Boyd and Fleck or Boyd and Novo in attack. Poor old Walter can't seem to shake off his natural tendency for one up front, even when it is presented by events outwith his control.

 

True, but WS can't control how a player plays. He can only send them out with instructions and formation.

 

We DID start with 4-4-2 and it could easily be contended that Novo started wide right to assist Broadfoot with McGeady as well as get forward. Novo, had he not been injured, would have offered more protection to the full back than Lafferty would. I may be in the minority but I think that was the right decision because McGeady was the best player on the park yesterday, without a doubt for me. If he had an end product he WOULD be a multi-million pound player - thankfully for us his end product is pish.

 

Yes, Lafferty was dire yesterday but hindsight is wonderful. He was part of a marauding December Rangers team and we were already missing some influential players so can we really abuse WS for trying to make as few enforced changes as possible ?

 

WS will never win with some - we constantly hear that the problem is that WS doesn't pick a consistent XI and then when he tries to do exactly that it still isnt good enough because he should have dropped this player or that player. The reality is that Lafferty was poor, as were many others - but had he scored the winning goal yesterday how many would have given WS the credit for selcting him ? Very few I fear.

 

We had been rampant in December and WS went with as few changes as possible and he went with a formation that had plundered points and goals in abundance. I fail to see what is wrong with that.

 

We hear often enough that "Walter got lucky" - and even heard it yesterday. But how many of us have been as quick to say "Walter was unlucky" when we lost Miller to a harsh red card, lost Beasley to another training ground injury, lost Novo to injury early doors, lost our most influential defender due to the ANC, lost Thomson to injury - all just as things were clicking....... that's right, I haven't seen many "Walter was unlucky" posts.

 

Sometimes the reasons for results dont lie with the manager. Yesterday WS picked what probably was his strongest team with only, possibly, Fleck being one who could have played that wasn't in the starting XI - but as I said, his last outing at the Mechanodome wasnt exactly a roaring success.

 

The subs bench said it all to me.

[Gazza_8 233]

True, but WS can't control how a player plays. He can only send them out with instructions and formation.

 

Isn't that attempting to control how a player plays?