The result is great but ..

[rbr 1,247]

The problems didnt stem fro our formation or players in defense , christ it was Arbroath we were playing , its the insistence on playing players out of position .

 

Andy Little is never a wide player and brings next to nothing , possibly if played forward as part of a 3 , Peralta doesnt look comfortable wide right and it was ironic that his display was markedly improved once he moved into the middle , and I hope Clark has something to offer becasue his first tiouch and ability to hold the ball is awful , however I accept he needs time.

 

We also didnt start the game at anywhere near the tempo of previous weeks and as has been remarked by many , we are a far better team playing at a high tempo

[RANGERRAB 3,337]

The younger players who played last season may find their first team opportunities harder to come by this season & it's vital they make the most of them when they come along.

Unfortunately I don't see too many of them lasting the course on the journey back to the top. Only McLeod, Aird & maybe MacKay look like they might make it IMO

[Super_Ally 0]

I don't think Lee McCulloch is forced into the team at all. I think that he is McCoist's first pick whenever he is available.

 

McCoist had the chance to play him in defensive midfield yesterday, which I think would have given Law more opportunity to go forward, but he didn't. This makes me think that McCoist sees him as a first choice centre back who will play up front if Daly is out. Individually I prefer Faure but I'd bet that McCoist will only play an 'inexperienced' pairing when forced to.

 

The decisions to play Little on the left and Faure on the right were underwhelming but peripheral. I thought that we missed Black and that when he plays Law can go further forward. I think that this is what the big difference was yesterday. Perhaps Peralta should move into the middle in MacLeod's place. This, of course, might upset even more people online.

 

A common sense view I can get on board with. Not sure about the McLeod part but based on this weekend it is hard to argue.

[Zappa 0]

Another thing you could say regarding the 'shoe-horned' comments, is that they could also be used in the case of Faure and Little who were both played out of position as well. Playing Little on the left wing I find the most baffling of the two. Playing Faure at RB is baffling too, although it may be that Foster wasn't 100% or something. TBH, I think Ally might have grown fond of Faure because of his great attitude.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

yes but they are good enough to start

[ian1964 10,474]

Every manager has favourites,but not because they are best buddies,managers see players that they can rely on consistently not forgetting he is the captain.

[Super_Ally 0]

Every manager has favourites,but not because they are best buddies,managers see players that they can rely on consistently not forgetting he is the captain.

 

In a nutshell.

 

It is more that fans have issues of favourites or even more likely least favourites. They struggle to discuss their inclusion and performance logically and objectively. They accuse the manager of some form of nepotism (for want of the word I am looking for) yet it is the fans whose views appear more tainted by emotion.

[andy steel 0]

I know we have 'agree' & 'thanks' to avoid this sort of thing, but Super Ally's comments in the this thread have been so spot on that they deserve higher praise than the 'agree' button.

 

Let's not forget McAusland is fairly certainly a CB shoe-horned in at RB, as well.

[TheTinMan99 0]

If Jig isn't up top, he shouldn't be in the team. He's a bomb scare in any other position, although we get away with it against teams like Arbroath. If anyone is getting shoe-horned in, it's Daly. It should be a straight choice between him and Jig for the target man role, and in my opinion, Jig is better in that position. He's also a better goalscorer than Daly.

 

We actually looked pretty shite until temps came on and gave us a bit of spark going forward. We will get away with it this season, but next year we will have to be on the ball from the start, especially away from home.

Edited September 15, 2013 by TheTinMan99

[craig 5,199]

McAusland has benn pretty decent overall. "Outstanding" is people getting carried away as it suits their anti-jig shoehorning argument.

 

There was a game not too long ago, I forget which, where McAusland was right back and we really struggled with everything coming down their left.

 

I would have kept McAusland and probably dropped Faure who again has been decent enough but not as fantastic as people make out.

 

The shoehorn thing does my box in though. Up with the Barry back pass and monster munch chat. The phrase suggests the manager would play LM at left back, right wing, anywhere to get him in the team. In reality the mananger just thinks Lee is one of our best options at centre back who can play upfront too (like DJ or as as happened with many physical centre forwards late in their career).

 

It is insulting to the manager to use the shoehorn phrase in regards to his selection of Jig at CB. Instead you could merely state that you disagree with his opinion that LM is one of our best CBs. I associate "shoehorn", "Barry back pass" or "monster munch" with a lack of maturity or an inability to make a coherent argument. It is lazy, childish and not conducive of decent debate.

 

He moved 2 players out of 4 defenders either out of position or out of the team in order to accommodate jig. Whether you dislike the term or not, it IS shoe-horsing.

 

As the person to first mention shoe-horinng I take offense at being called lazy, childish or immature.

 

What is immature is having to try to turn the debate away from your inaccurate statement that because jig scored a hat trick it automatically meant that he wasn't shoe-horned, and suggesting I at humble pie.

 

Your argument was exposed as inaccurate and you have resorted to name-calling in order to defend your own position. It reeks of hypocrisy when you began others for name-calling.

 

I respect much of your posting but you are not only way off target on this one but also coming across as being arrogant too.

 

Each to their own I suppose.