DoofersDad

Nothing ironic in it all. Quite the opposite. These are two very different kind of issues. It is perhaps strange that the club is very reluctant to release certain information which one might think should be in the public domain, whilst the manager makes public criticisms of players which should best be kept behind closed doors.

Bear in mind that season ticket sales are up this year on the back of last season. Crowd figures include season ticket sales whether or not season ticket holder actually attended or not.

We started very brightly and a lot more positive than normal and I was thinking that we could be in for a really decent game of football. Then when we didn't get anything from that early pressure we steadily reverted to the more usual negative approach to the game. There was a bit of ambition in the last 10 minutes but by then I was resigned to the view that if we could hold on for a draw, it be more than the performance as a whole deserved. Hughes talks about looking for a player in the transfer window "to unlock the door and come up with a bit of magic". That sounds fine, but his actions and tactics seem to reduce the chances of anyone we currently have unlocking the door. Having Williams freed up from left back duties should allow him to play a freer more attacking role but it just doesn't happen. Time and time again when he does receive the ball wide, he steps inside and plays the ball across the park or backwards. He should be taking players on, getting behind the defence and getting balls into the box. We used to regularly enjoy the sight of the full backs steaming down the flanks to link up with the midfield on the overlap but that is now a rare, late in the game, chasing the game tactic. Last week after Mutombo's excellent performance Hughes criticised him for show-boating. Yesterday when several players were not contributing much to our attacking play, he left Roberts, Foran and Sutherland on the bench rather than mixing it up a bit. It is all so depressingly negative. What really frustrates me is these tactics might be OK in a team that lacked skill and flair but we have players who do have skill and flair. This skill and flair is being consistently stifled. The lovely team goal Vigurs scored against Stirling was a great example of what we are capable of when we get the ball wide and move the ball with pace. But how often do we do that? Time and time when the ball is moved wide and we see the space in front, our brief pang of anticipation of a break down the wing is stifled by a foot on the ball, check back and pass back inside again. We should be playing to our strengths but instead our play is dictated by a philosophy that wants to pass the ball through the middle of the park. It isn't working and it's boring.

Who's proposing namby pamby stuff? If there are players who are not pulling their weight they need to be told and I am sure Yogi does just that. But lets keep it in the dressing room and on the training pitch, please. Personally I get a little cheesed of with Yogi saying that he's an honest guy and then using that to justify some criticism of the players. A bit of honesty in admitting where he's got it wrong himself from time to time would not go amiss. He's the manager and the buck stops with him. He should shoulder the blame and support the players in public and give them a rollicking in private when appropriate.

I note Sturgeon has been on her high horse again in line with her rather confused understanding of the democratic principle. She wants Scotland to be exempted from the Trades Union Bill because she apparently thinks it is perfectly reasonable that workers be called out on strike on the say so of a minority of union members voting for strike action. She is also banging on about the the percieved outrageous situation there would be should Scotland vote to stay in the EU and the UK as whole vote to leave. What a short memory she must have. Had Highland voted to remain in the UK but Scotland as whole voted to leave, I don't think Highland would have been allowed to stay as part of the UK and nor would we have asked to do so. It was a decision made by the Scottish electorate as whole for Scotland as a whole, and it was all or nothing. The same applies with the EU. The people of Scotland recently reaffirmed their wish to remain part of the UK. What that means is that we should accept the collective will of the British people. Ms Sturgeon's persistence in trying to force the will of minorities over the will of the majority is really getting tiresome.

I know it happened a few days ago, but I simply can't let the SNP's cringeworthy contribution to the Donald Trump banning debate pass without comment. I think just about everyone in the UK condemned Trump for his comments but a significant minority were so outraged about Trump wanting to ban Muslims entering the USA that they felt Trump should be banned from the UK. Despite the obvious contradiction in that absurd position, sufficient people, urged on by the SNP, jumped on the unthinking outraged bandwagon to enforce a pointless Parliamentary debate on the matter. Politicians across the political divide from Farage and Cameron and through to Corbyn all took the very sensible view that a ban would be self defeating and it would be far better to allow him into the country where he could be challenged to debate and shown up for the total idiot he is. But not everyone took that view. There were a small number of labour and tory oddballs and then there was the SNP. Salmond had earlier made an appallingly flippant and crass comment about wanting to ban all Donald Trumps from the UK. On the day of the debate though it was left to Tasmin Ahmed-Sheikh to present the reactionary rabble's case for a ban. Rather than join the other parties in the call to debate with Trump, Ms Ahmed-Sheikh called for him to be banned on the grounds of "religious harmony"! She stated that Trump's comments made the UK an "uncomfortable place" for her and other Muslims to live in. What a completely moronic and frankly insulting thing to say. Trump's comments were made by an American politician in an American election and relate to immigration into America. It might make America an uncomfortable place for Muslims to live in and she should be glad she lives here and not there. I would also suggest that the almost universal condemnation here of Trump's comments were a wonderful demonstration of the religious harmony that exists here and should make Muslims feel very comfortable in the UK. On a more personal level, she should reflect on the fact that the people of this country have actually elected her to Parliament which should make her feel very comfortable that the muslim community is an integral and valued part of our multicultural society. Trump was at least right when he said the UK Parliament should be debating more important matters such as the economy. But clearly the SNP don't want that. With the UK economy continuing to do better than most others, with employment rising, with average pay rising above inflation and the price of oil dropping to below $30 a barrel, the benefit of remaining part of the UK is clearer than ever. Rather than talk about that, far better to express a bit more moral outrage against something and draw attention away from the real issues of the day.

It would be a different matter if Yogi made the pies himself.

Neither do the courts.

HT 0-1 FT 2-1 1st ICT Warren 1st Opp Dumbaya Time 13mins

And it was only when the crowd thinned out a bit that you could move enough to check whether it was urine or blood.

I always thought that someone who initiated a dangerous chemical reaction in the midst of a group of captive youngsters was called a chemistry teacher

Can't say I agree with that. Sure we had much more possession but in the first half we gifted them possession at the back on 2 or 3 occasions and they put a fair bit of pressure on us and won several corners in the 2nd half. Their pressure gave us the opportunity to break with speed but for the most part we did our usual of passing the ball across the back and providing the opposition the opportunity to regroup and maintain a good defensive shape. Stirling defended well and If it wasn't for the fact that their shooting was so woeful we could have been seriously embarrassed last night.

Two great goals. One a superb individual effort from Mutombo and one a lovely team goal with a composed placed finish from Vigurs. But what a lot of utter dross for most of the rest of the game! Mutombo was the one bright spark and regularly beat defenders and looked to make things happen. Fon Williams was never really tested but nobody else was better than average. Early on we lost possession at the back on 2 or 3 occasions and were lucky not to be punished for it. The 2nd goal showed what we can do when we get the ball forward a bit quicker, get behind them and cut it back to players following up.. So why does there seem to be such a reluctance to get the ball wide and and attack opposition full backs? At least we won and move on to the next round. We will need to play a lot better to beat Motherwell and we will need to play a lot better to get anything out of Partick at the weekend. One final point. After the first goal, Yogi seemed to be having a real go at Raven on the touchline. What on earth was that all about?

That's interesting. The logical extension of this is for there to be a ban on flares being taken in to grounds but allowing clubs to sell approved flares within the ground for use in a defined manner (e.g no throwing). In that way there would be a good atmosphere, a guarantee that all devices let off were safe and there would be a small additional income for the club.

I'm with Kingsmills on this. I note what Alex says but I would have thought that had Yogi been quoted out of context he would have very quickly put the players right on what he said. It is, of course, important that players are honest with the club about how they feel injuries are progressing. If the player thinks they are fit enough to play, the manager can then decide whether or not he feels it is in the interests of the team to take whatever risks he perceives exists. From the player's point of view, they will know that coming back too soon can risk worsening their injury and they will be taking professional medical and physio advice on just what they can or cannot do. In most cases, players will not want to risk their long term health by coming back too soon. However, if they had possibly a one off chance of playing in a cup final, they would be prepared to take a greater risk provided the manager also felt it was in the team's interest to take the risk. I therefore see absolutely nothing wrong with a player saying they are not fit to play in a 4th rd replay against Stirling when they might have said something different if it was the final. If any player is not being honest about how his recovery is going, then that would be a different matter, but it is really poor if the manager is putting pressure on players if professional advice is that they are not fully fit to play in a match. Lets face it, these lads will be looking for an offer to renew their contract or to attract offers from other clubs. They need to be on the park demonstrating their skills, playing the game they love. What they will not want is a team mate coming into the side, doing very well and preventing them getting back in the side when they are fully fit. I really find it pretty hard to believe that if a player had recovered enough to feel fit enough to play, he would not be knocking on Yogi's door to tell him so.

I find it hard to believe anyone actually thinks we are not already in a relegation fight. There are only 8 points between 4th and 11th position and all those clubs are capable of beating each other and all of those clubs will have good runs and bad runs from time to time. The truth of the matter is that we are both in a relegation battle and in the mix for a possible European place. Partick and Motherwell may have got thumped at the weekend but both were on a good run before that. Fortunes can change quickly and we are one of several teams who could become a little isolated in 11th place with a bad run of form. Similarly, if Dundee Utd go on a little run like Partick did recently, they could be well and truly back in the mix as well. Personally I think we will be safe enough but nobody should take anything for granted at this stage of the season.

It will be interesting to see how the Hospice and the club deal with this. For a number of reasons the Hospice has a clear duty to ensure they can use the shares to generate as much money as possible. It may be that one wealthy individual or a consortium would wish to buy the lot, or a large proportion, at a price well over the face value but then again, maybe not. At the other end of the spectrum, there are people who regularly donate to the hospice and who might well be persuaded to "donate" a little more in return for a few shares. For instance, the hospice could give a donor 1 share for every £5 donated. There may be a lot of people who would be happy to "donate" in this way as they would support a good cause and get a shareholding in the club as well. Good marketing might make this an attractive proposition. But many people who regularly donate or who make occasional larger donations make use of the gift aid scheme. Presumably if the Hospice sells the shares, the money used to buy the shares would not be considered as a donation by the tax man and the Hospice would not be able to claim the tax back. However, there might be a way around this if , for instance, the hospice offered to sell a share at face value for every £4 donated. Presumably the hospice will have expert tax advice available to them to ensure they don't lose out on gift aid income. The other problem area is the admin costs. If the hospice felt that it could best maximise its income from these shares by selling small quantities to a large number of people, then there will be a lot of admin involved in completing the documentation of change of share ownership. Who would bear the cost of that? The seller, the buyer or the club? Regardless of who bears the transfer costs, a large number of new shareholders would result in increased admin costs for the club on an on-going basis. There is a risk, therefore, that this generous gesture might create extra expense for the club whilst providing no new money for the club. The ideal scenario for all concerned might be that the Hospice sells to a small number of investors who are prepared both to buy at well above face value in order to ensure the hospice maximises it's income, and to put some level of investment into the club. The question is whether or not there are folk who would be prepared to cough up in that way. My guess is that if folk wanted to shell out a considerable sum in order to get a significant shareholding, they would have already made an investment into the club.

I just hope at least 2 of the 3 will accept contracts if offered. We are very lucky to have 3 such fine keepers on the books at the moment. None of them are contracted beyond the end of the season so we may actually be needing to search for a new keeper at the end of the season.

HT 2-0 FT 4-0 ICT Tansey Opp None Time 12 mins

HT 0-0 FT 1-2 ICT Polworth Opp Slater Time 51 mins

Stokes has had success under Yogi twice before and I reckon he would have been best served by spending a short while with Yogi again. It might be that the idea appealed to him but that his agent wasn't so keen. Anyhow, we've scored at least 2 goals in each of our last 5 league games so do we really need a striker?

Another interesting statistic is the results when Ryan Christie has been in the team compared to when he hasn't. In the 13 games he was involved in we got 14 points and scored 13 goals. In fact, 2 of those goals were scored after he went off injured in the Motherwell game. In the 8 league games he has not been involved in we have also got 14 points and have scored 16 goals. Are we a better team without him in the side?

Not in themselves in a strictly statistical sense, but in the context of other stats I think it would be a mistake to ignore the implications. Bottom line is that if you want to score goals, you have to risk losing possession.

Very interesting! The most interesting thing must be the inverse relation between possession and goals scored, together with the number of shots and corners per game. On the face of it, this would seem to reflect what many of us have been saying about the emphasis on possession that the manager has focussed on. The fact is that trying to play the ball out of defence whenever possible and patiently retaining possession in midfield until some opportunity emerges, simply allows the opposition to get players behind the ball and makes it harder to create chances. It can also be very boring to watch. The other interesting thing is that despite the emphasis on possession football, the stats would suggest we're not actually that good at keeping the ball. The lesson from all this would appear to be a need to move the ball out of defence quicker and to take a few more chances with possession further up the field in an attempt to create chances. In other words we need to look to play a few more through balls and we need to have players running at defenders more. If we do that we will inevitably lose possession pretty often, but if we lose possession in our opponent's half, it is far less dangerous than messing about at the back and losing possession in our own half. And if we take the risks and we don't lose possession, well, that is when we create the goal scoring chances. To be fair, it is now beginning to look as though the lessons are being learnt. We are unbeaten in the last 5 league games but have conceded 8 goals in that period (despite not having played Celtic!) At the start of the season, we only conceded 5 goals in the first 5 games against opposition other than Celtic, but failed to win. However, we have scored 12 goals in the last 5 games compared to only 2 in the earlier games. Significantly, we averaged 52% possession in those 5 early games but this has dropped to a shade under 50% in our recent unbeaten run. Clearly it is not keeping the ball that matters, it is what you do with it that counts.

I'm really not sure what Lopez, Sho Silva and Mutombo have brought to the side. Just the one goal between them and precious little else in the way of significant contributions to games. Mutombo certainly looks to be the best of the 3 but seems to lack a bit of awareness of what's around him and he ends up making the wrong choices. If only he could stick one or two away soon he could be a player for us but I can't see him being good enough to be a regular starter. The next few months are going to be a testing time for the manager. The outfield players he has brought in have been no great shakes. Wedderburn also looks like he is struggling at this level and it remains to be seen what Fisher and a hopefully fit again Roberts bring to the team. With so many players with contracts up at the end of the season it seems likely that there will be a significant number of replacements to be brought in at some point and I worry that Yogi has yet to demonstrate the ability to find the kind of players his predecessors were able to attract. It is, of course, very difficult on the kind of budget available but that has always been the case. To my mind, the key signings to make are extended contracts of most of the current squad. The sooner players can be tied into new contracts, the sooner we will be able to identify what kind of players we will be looking for next year.