INVERNESS CT: Esson, Raven, Warren, King, Graeme Shinnie, Tudur Jones, Draper, Sutherland, Andrew Shinnie, Doran, McKay.

Subs: Mathieson, Ross, Meekings, Oswell, Morrison, Laing, Polworth

ST MIRREN: Samson, van Zanten, McGregor, Mair, Barron, Teale, McGowan, McLean, Imrie, Parkin, Guy.

Subs: Adam, Robertson, Reilly, Kelly, Jack Smith, McGinn.

Typical. Folk complain we dont have enough of the local yoof coming into the team. And when one does get a few minutes, we go why the feck did he do that. This is how they get experience, and did he do any wrong, dont think so. Hearts appeared to do ok with two 17 year olds, and its what we have been asking for. Polly is an international at each of his age groups and is our youngest ever yoof to appear in the first team.

sorry if i have caused offence. just been reading over what i posted, cant see where i complain we dont have enough local youth coming into team.

as i said was not at game so was not commenting on polworths contribution.

i just thought the most experienced player on the bench was morrison so for me he would have been the choice to help contain st mirren and hold out for the win. as i have said if shinnie had connected with the ball when he tried to punt it upfield we would probably not be having this discussion.

these 2 points may be the difference come the end of the season.

As I may have started this off in ma Smilemometer post I will explain.

I wasnt having a pop at Polworth or nay of the yoof as I agree with all of that. Polworth came on and took a very attacking role - and had a couple of nice touches. Morrison would have been my choice and I would have taken off OTJ - morrison becos he is more defence minded and OTJ cos he basically looked fecked. If you are going to close out a game you strengthen the defensive aspect. Oswell is more of a centre forward type but does not have the bulk yet to lead the line. Only TB can explain but he was perhaps going offensive and therefore there would be a rationale for throwing on either Oswell or Polworth as they both have pace in abundance.

I wasn't at the game so can't comment on how we tried to defend the lead in the last few minutes but what I can say is that we have conceded late in a lot of games and there must be a reason for that. Too often the tactic is simply to pack the defence leaving one at most up front. That doesn't make sense to me. Hoofing the ball up the park to clear the pressure simply gives the ball back to opposition who come at you again and again, players are out of position, get in each others way, get put under pressure and make mistakes. Opponents are given new hope and are roared on by their support.

Better is to make sure you keep possession as much as posible. That doesn't mean you throw yourself into attack but if you can keep the ball in the opposition half as much as possible it means they get fewer chances to put pressure on. That means they are under more pressure to make it count when they do get the ball. If they over commit then they are vulnerable themselves.

This retreating into a defensive shell is like handing a mugger a knife just to show you are no threat to them. If we do that, is it any wonder we get mugged so often.

Can't believe people are complaining we never sat back and defended....is that not what a lot of the mumping an moaning was about last season? Our strengths against St Mirren were in going forward, and it's better to "defend" by keeping the ball at the other end of the park....which we did fairly effectively.

I would have been more than a little disappointed to see us try to sit in when, IMO, there was absolutely no need to do so.

OK, so we lost a goal in the final minute....que sera....it could easily have been a loss if we'd invited danger by sitting back.

I wasn't at the game but I have seen the highlights. I would rather we pushed forward and passed at the risk of conceeding the odd goal. If we continue to play attacking football we could be in for some entertaining games this season.

Can't believe people are complaining we never sat back and defended....is that not what a lot of the mumping an moaning was about last season? Our strengths against St Mirren were in going forward, and it's better to "defend" by keeping the ball at the other end of the park....which we did fairly effectively.

I would have been more than a little disappointed to see us try to sit in when, IMO, there was absolutely no need to do so.

OK, so we lost a goal in the final minute....que sera....it could easily have been a loss if we'd invited danger by sitting back.

That's encouraging. It seems there is a more positive approach generally this season. I look forward to the Kilmarnock game with anticipation.

To be honest, St. Mirren were always going to come right back at us after we had got our second and we defended quite easily up to the point of the goal. After making a great stop from Parkin, Ryan made a bit of a hash of the cross for the goal, and that's the only reason they scored. C'est la vie.

Can't believe people are complaining we never sat back and defended....is that not what a lot of the mumping an moaning was about last season? Our strengths against St Mirren were in going forward, and it's better to "defend" by keeping the ball at the other end of the park....which we did fairly effectively.

I would have been more than a little disappointed to see us try to sit in when, IMO, there was absolutely no need to do so.

OK, so we lost a goal in the final minute....que sera....it could easily have been a loss if we'd invited danger by sitting back.

Can't believe people are complaining we never sat back and defended....is that not what a lot of the mumping an moaning was about last season? Our strengths against St Mirren were in going forward, and it's better to "defend" by keeping the ball at the other end of the park....which we did fairly effectively.

I would have been more than a little disappointed to see us try to sit in when, IMO, there was absolutely no need to do so.

OK, so we lost a goal in the final minute....que sera....it could easily have been a loss if we'd invited danger by sitting back.

I don't think that is what people were moaning about last season, it was that we were constantly lumping a high ball, if the team are defending a lead of course there are times they will have to sit back and defend.

I agree that we could have lost the goal if we did sit back and defend but I understand those that are complaining we perhaps should have introduced a more defensive minded player with a bit of experience.

Myself I just think it was a mistake by Esson, unfortunate and disappointing but would have been more than happy with a point at the start

Edited August 7, 201213 yr by gordieict

And Esson WILL make up fer it.