...The players were b u g g e r e d after the superhuman effort they put in, in the Rangers match on Wednesday.

Falkirk, on the other hand, had an extra day's rest, having played and been beaten by StMirren on Tuesday.

Och I don't know, maybe I'm just looking for excuses, but it must genuinly be difficult to raise your game again so soon after a great night.

Tell you what, though, we can test out the theory again at the St Mirren match. By all accounts they've ran their heart out at Ibrox today in their 1-1 draw, whilst we've had our wee rest in Falkirk !!

Depends on the formation, the selection and the tactics.  :001:

If players were tired then they should have been rotated for ones that weren't surely? We have good cover for a lot of positions particularly midfield.

The real reason is that we were poor and Falkirk were much better than us and fully deserved their win.

Perhaps we are not as fit as we were under Brewster??  :001:

he does seem to be something of a phenomenon

he was good but only because we let him be.... I'd certainly have him at ICT but he's no Henry

If players were tired then they should have been rotated for ones that weren't surely? We have good cover for a lot of positions particularly midfield.

The real reason is that we were poor and Falkirk were much better than us and fully deserved their win.

Aye I know RiG, I wasn't being totally serious. Having said that, a day extra recovery time for an athlete, does make a fair difference.

He's a git! He has scored 1/3 of his goals against us or something like that!  :015:

He really is a great player. His first touch and skill are fantastic.

If players were tired then they should have been rotated for ones that weren't surely? We have good cover for a lot of positions particularly midfield.

The real reason is that we were poor and Falkirk were much better than us and fully deserved their win.

Aye I know RiG, I wasn't being totally serious. Having said that, a day extra recovery time for an athlete, does make a fair difference.

Yip. I can relate to that.

CC did rest Wilson but did he have much scope to make many other changes.

The real reason for the defeat is that Lapaty was given too much space and the defence forgot how to defend.

I don't buy any of that. Which of the goals did we defend poorly?

Much as I think a lot of our players, if you're gonna play top drawer football against the likes of Ross Tokely, Darren Dods, Grant Munro and Richard Hastings these guys are gonna be found wanting.

If you think these guys are capable of living with the pace and movement we saw from Stokes today allied to the vision and passing of Latapy you're having yourself on.

Today was a day for admiring. There was little else anyone could have done.

if that was the case then falkirk would be challenging at the top of the league, as our back line is comparable to that of most of the division.  the sad fact is we've been poor defensively against dundee united, kilmarnock and hibs recently (off the top of my head) and have been showing signs of weakness for a while against everybody.

its too easy to say the players just arent good enough to deal with stokes/latapy on an individual basis but they have dealt with better players than them in the past together.  so i dont think you can blame todays goals on each of their weaknesses but rather their collective sh1teness.  if that makes any sense :015:

Nah, these guys were on their game yesteday. Most teams will be lucky enought not to find them in such a rich veign of form.

The first goal started on Falkirks 18 yard line. The defending was deplorable. Stokes had YARDS of space and could have written a feckin Thank You card to Tassel Lapdancer before stroking it home. Second was good play from Stokes. Third was poor defending. Having said that I would have said that Falkirk are the most fluent footballing team in the SPL and we should have altered our tactics to counter that - but we did'nt.

Going by what everyone saying, is it time we signed new players? Or accept we have outplayed ourselves over the last couple of seasons & now reality is hitting home :024:

The first goal started on Falkirks 18 yard line. The defending was deplorable. Stokes had YARDS of space and could have written a feckin Thank You card to Tassel Lapdancer before stroking it home. Second was good play from Stokes. Third was poor defending. Having said that I would have said that Falkirk are the most fluent footballing team in the SPL and we should have altered our tactics to counter that - but we did'nt.

The first goal was caused by Rankin trying to keep the ball in when there was no need to. Tokely was caught hopelessly out of position because of this but if you give you full backs license to attack this will happen. Dods came across to cover Tokely's position and Latapy's pass was inch perfect and took Munro and Dods out of the game. There's not much you can do about such attacking incisive play. To say the defending was deplorable is a joke.

SO - why did Munro go forward to Lapdancer instead of holding his ground with Stokes? Why didnt Hastings tuck in ? Why didnt Dods cover for Munro. I have to agree with you that the defending was a joke.

Munro and Dods where caught out countless times by the pace and movement of Falkirk and if ever there was a time for a forced change in the central defence this was it, with Caff going man for man on Stokes .