DoofersDad

HT 1-0 FT 3-1 1st ICT Cole 1st Opp Tavarez Cruz da Silva Crows 16,123

Me too.

Yup. Motherwell's 2nd goal means that their attack has now scored more goals than us.

I'm surprised nobody has been able to name any of the pedestrians yet!

There have been some very critical remarks on a number of threads on this forum in the last day or two, so for what it's worth, here are a few thoughts in the context of the game on Saturday. Firstly, let's acknowledge that it was a superb performance by Celtic. For my money, that was the best performance I have seen against us by any team, ever, Their movement on and off the ball, the accuracy of their passing, the tight control on the first touch, the speed with which they closed us down, and their ruthlessness. They were also hugely disciplined at the back with Boyata and Sviatchenko not giving Mckay or Anier a sniff. And the fact that they can afford to put a player of Christie's ability out on loan to their nearest challenger illustrates just how far ahead of everyone else they are. We lost by 6 to an excellent team at the top of their game, but it wasn't as if Fon Williams had a lot to do except pick the ball out of the net - unlike Fox for County against Aberdeen! And what made the score so high was specific instances of poor defending. Fon Williams should certainly have done better for the 2nd goal and we clearly have a problem with that position. Whether he is carrying an injury or is just short of confidence, I don't know. But he did a great job for us last year and has not suddenly become a poor keeper. Injured or not, we need better cover for him than Esson can provide. But whilst OFW can be blamed for the 2nd goal, so can the defenders - and for Dembele's other two goals. He's the top striker in Scotland at the moment (and by some distance) but nobody was marking him for any of his 3 goals. With the sheer numbers Celtic attack with, including the quality of their 2 full backs, it is nigh on impossible to pick everyone up all the time - but you must pick up their main man. Dembele is clever how he drops back or wide and then just seems to drift into the right space at the right time, but everyone was watching the ball and nobody was watching him. That really needs to be addressed. There are some basic errors being made and just as defenders need to have confidence in their keeper, the keeper needs to have confidence in the defenders. Currently we are lacking the cohesion and confidence as a defensive unit as a whole. Having said that, there was a lot that was relatively positive about the performance. Folk have criticised some in the team for a lack of effort. Vigurs seems to have taken the brunt of this. I din't see any lack of effort from any of the players against Dundee and I saw none against Celtic. I think the message is perhaps getting through that unless players give 100% every game, then we will be going down. Richie needs to continue to impress this on his players, but unlike Celtic, he has little option in some positions if players slacken off. Meanwhile, we show real promise at the other end where competition is greater for places. We have scored more goals than all the 6 teams directly above us and whilst we managed very few efforts at goal on Saturday, that was testament to their defence rather than a reflection of our weakness. We did manage to get behind their defence and won no less than 7 corners. Not many teams have done that at Celtic this season. There's lessons to be learnt from Saturday. We are nearly a pretty good team but we absolutely must address our defensive frailties. Do that and we have the potential to go on a decent run. Fail to do that or fail to continue with the desire and commitment, and we will go down. The cup's gone and Foran's not going to be sacked. It's time to focus on the league. We rightly demand commitment from the players but it's also time for the fans to commit their support to the players.

Talking of starting thing. I don't know if the "highlights" will show the Draper booking for his kick out at Brown but it would be worth having a closer look at that. Not mentioned by the pundits, of course, but he kicked out in retaliation for Brown deliberately stepping back onto his foot - Brown knew fine what he was doing.

A 6-0 defeat is hard to take, but let's just put this in a bit of perspective and compare it with results in the previous manager's first season with us. Despite taking over the side when we were 2nd in the league and inheriting a significantly stronger squad than then he left us with, in his first year here Hughes took his team to Celtic Park twice in the league where we were hammered 5-0 and then 6-0 by a Celtic team which was not a patch on the team we saw today. In the cup we managed to scrape through against Stranraer after a reply before being thrashed 5-0 at home by Dundee Utd. As for the game itself, whilst accepting we clearly have issues at the back, I thought the result was more a reflection of the quality and application of a superb Celtic side than of a poor performance from us. I've seen us play worse than that and win.

What's happening at Ibrox? The club saying they have accepted Warburton's resignation and Warburton saying that he's not offered to resign! What a shambolic club they are.

HT 2-0 FT 6-1 ICT Vigurs Opp Mackay-Steven Crowd 15,028

Tower hotel?

Doesn't fancy managing in Division 1 then?

That's not the Board room above the entrance to the old Royal Northern Infirmary is it?

It's not a question of being positive or negative, it's about being objective. There's some on here who seem to think every critical comment is by definition negative. Nothing could be further from the truth. You can be critical and optimistic at the same time. Indeed, it is only by being objectively critical that you can identify things that are holding you back from making positive steps forward. In a footballing sense that applies equally if you are bottom of the table or it you are at the top. It is also just as important to give praise where things are good, and it is that mixture of praise and objective criticism that allows you to progress. I couldn't disagree with this more. Rather than "move on", have a conversation instead. In that way you both may come to understand why you have different viewpoints and will learn something from that. It is a failure to have a dialogue with those of different viewpoints that causes so much polarisation, mistrust and fear in our modern world. Moving on simply reinforces our own views and prejudices which may, with the best will in the world, be shaped because we are simply unaware of the issues which shape someone else's rather different view.

That's easy for Charles. He's got Turrets syndrome.

The reality is success requires one to be objective so that one can understand what is good and what is poor. You can then build on the former and address the latter. It seems to me that there are a number of posters who are reluctant to acknowledge either what is good or what is poor about the team and are intolerant of those who express views different from their own. Seeing as we are bottom of the table it must be obvious to even the happiest of happy clappers that all is not perfect, but equally, that does not mean that everything is wrong. Surely there is much to talk about and folk should be free to express their views and expect rational responses in reply rather than being shot down without one.

I think supporters of Hughes tend to overstate the problems caused by injuries last season. This is probably both because he complained about it so much and because the previous cup winning year was so remarkably injury free in comparison. If you look at our key defenders, Warren was out early in the season with a leg break but came back much sooner than I expected and was ever present after that. Meekings had a period out (as he has this year) but the big difference between this year and last is that this year we have McNaughton out for most of the season whereas last season Danny Devine had the most starts of any of our outfield players. Devine actually played very well to the extent that Hughes preferred him in the centre to Meekings. On Warren's return, Hughes therefore had options between Meekings and Raven at right back and also between Tremarco and Williams on the left. Those options look a good deal stronger than is available to Foran just now. Elsewhere in the side OFW was provided as cover for Brill's injury and then kept his place when Brill returned to fitness. Foran himself was always listed as long term injured but frankly he was never going to return as anything more than a fringe player. The joker in the pack was Roberts who seemed to go from one injury to the next without kicking a ball. He looked as though he might have been a decent signing but we never saw enough of him to find out. The big miss was Doran who has also missed quite a chunk of this season as well. Others who were injured were the likes of Fisher, Sho-Silva, & Ferguson who were hardly going to be game changers had they been fit. Hughes had the central midfield options of Draper, Tansey, Polworth and Vigurs available to him virtually all season along with Storey and Willams. On balance therefore, I don't think there is really much difference in the overall injury situation between last year and this. Had Hughes still been here, his record suggests he would not have signed such attack minded players as King, Cole, Anier Mulraney and Mckay. We may be bottom but I am still looking forward to the rest of the season. I wasn't saying that this time last year.

Motherwell in 5th place have only 1.04 ppg and must by any measure also consider themselves in the relegation battle. We are very fortunate that the table is not more stretched out but we do now need to pick up a few wins if we are to survive. Saturday's attacking performance will have given us confidence that we can score goals but we simply must address the failings at the back.

What is "beyond ridiculous"? I said "I see no possible way to conduct a vote in Scotland except by limiting it to those resident in Scotland" and you said "A Scot permanently resident in England or elsewhere abroad has a legitimate concern and interest in the future and wellbeing of their native country but, having left, has no right to vote in determining it's future." Sounds much the same to me. On the rather more important point, the EU vote is not a material change in the sense that this was a specific scenario brought to the attention of the Scottish people before the 2014 referendum. Given the First Minister's statement that this was a once in a generation vote, it was implicit that if that scenario was to occur, the Scottish people and the Scottish Government would be bound to accept it. Despite that, we voted to stay in the UK and now that the UK has voted to leave the EU, we must accept it. In any case, the "material change" concept is a complete red herring. The Scottish Government acknowledged the once in a generation nature of the referendum in their proposition to the people. There was absolutely no suggestion that there might be any reason to have another referendum in the near future whether there be "material change" or not. There is simply no justification for having another referendum.

Thank you for that first paragraph, Kingsmills, It is an important point that everyone who chooses to live in Scotland should have a voice in deciding it's future. But there is a big downside here. There are many people born and educated in Scotland who, whilst proud to be Scottish, are also proud to be British and who now feel themselves disenfranchised because they live elsewhere in the UK. These people are generally supportive of the Union because they are embracing the opportunities which being in the Union offers. Having said that, I see no possible way to conduct a vote in Scotland except by limiting it to those resident in Scotland. Nevertheless, the fact that there are so many Union supporting Scots living elsewhere in the UK who are denied a voice in the future of Scotland only serves to illustrate how divisive the subject of Independence is.

I'll give credit to Oddquine for at least not resorting to sound bite one liners. It doesn't make her statements true or her arguments valid but at least she makes an effort to engage in meaningful debate. Let's start with the oft repeated nonsense about us voting to stay in the Union because to do so was the only way to stay in the EU. Statements to that effect were made by "No" campaigners, but in the context of response to the completely unsubstantiated assertions within the Scottish Government's glossy 670 page document "Scotland's Future", that Scotland would take its place in the EU immediately on becoming independent. The "Yes" campaign pointed out that this was very far from certain and that the only way to ensure we remained in the EU was to remain in the UK. And, of course, they were correct in the sense that Scotland voted to remain in the UK and we do currently remain in the EU. Of course, Brexit means that we will not be in the EU much longer and the much more important thing here is what the Scottish Government said about that before the 2014 referendum. In "Scotland's Future" in the Q&A section, the Scottish Government specifically asked "What impact will the Conservative Party Proposal to have a UK referendum on EU membership have?" The response repeated the assertion that if we voted for independence we would be an independent nation within the UK before the rUK vote took place, But it concluded by saying "However, if we do not become Independent, we risk being taken out of the EU against our will," There is absolutely no suggestion of a 2nd referendum in the event of a UK vote to leave the EU. Given that they recognised and addressed the prospect of a UK referendum taking us out of the EU in the document they put before the nation to support the case for independence, they can hardly say it's a game changer and nobody could have seen it coming! As for the once in a generation bit, there were numerous times when both Salmond and Sturgeon stated it was a once in a generation (and on occasions, lifetime) opportunity. But again, we need to look at the Scottish Government's official proposal document to the nation, "Scotland's Future", when the then First Minister wrote in his preface "It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland - a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way". And then in the Q&A section the Scottish Government posed the question "If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on Independence at a later date?" The answer concluded that "It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once in a generation opportunity". This was therefore not an off-the-cuff TV interview remark, this was the clear and considered position of the Scottish Government. You make reference to the Edinburgh agreement and that there was nothing in that to say this was a once in a generation pledge. Well, it didn't need to! The legislation allowed for a single referendum and it presumably did that simply because the Scottish Government's position was that this was a one off!

Repeating all these unsubstantiated little Nat sound-bites ad-nauseum doesn't make them true. For a start, the SNP did not say in their manifesto that they would have another referendum in the event of Scotland being taken out of the EU against the will of the Scottish electorate. They referred to what they called "material change". But putting the facts of the detail aside, are you seriously suggesting that just because such a statement is stuck in a manifesto along with dozens of other policies, the SNP Government are justified in breaking their "once in a generation" pledge? Can you please explain why you appear to think it OK for the Scottish Government to lie to its people and to fail to honour the wishes of over 2 million of its citizens who, just over 2 years ago in the biggest vote in the history of our democracy, reaffirmed their wish for Scotland to remain a part of the United Kingdom? And where do you get this "your Brexit" nonsense from? It is not my Brexit or the Unionists' Brexit! You surely must be aware that most of the people who campaigned for Scotland to remain in the UK also campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU. We Scots voted to remain in the UK and the UK voted to leave the EU. My point is simply that the will of the people as expressed in these two historic referendums should be respected. It seems to me to a basic principle of democracy that it should be. It would therefore be interesting to finally read some rational argument as to why the SNP is justified in its refusal to honour the will of the people

That was some game!. A terrific effort from the lads and good support from the crowd as well. What a difference Mckay made! But credit Foran for picking a side to play to his strengths. Having Anier and McKay up front with King wide on the right and with Draper playing behind the front two caused Dundee all sorts of problems. All four of them were excellent and put in a fantastic shift. It left acres of space wide on the left which Tremarco exploited very well. He nearly scored when he hit the post early in the first half and had chances later in the game as well. Billy M was superb, but why was he taking the penalties? He has always been rubbish at spot kicks and I'd have any of Tansey, Draper or Vigurs taking the kicks before Billy. It was great to see Tansey score but why oh why does he not provide support to the front men a bit more? How often do we see attacks break down with the ball running loose around the edge of the box and there is nobody there to exploit it. Tansey's goal was a prime example of exactly why he needs to get up the park a bit more. We could have scored a few more, but whilst that attacking performance provides hope for the rest of the season, the defensive performance provides concerns. OFW has not been at his best this season but I'm not sure he deserved to be dropped. Esson's performance was not great and he was unable to command the box. The second goal came from a corner which should never have been conceded. A cross was aimed at the back post but was well short. It should have been an easy, unchallenged take on the 6 yard line but he stayed on the line and left Warren to deal with it. Again we looked pretty fragile in the centre of defence. Clearly it was difficult for young McCart to have been thrown in to this environment and I think that it would be unfair to criticise him. He needs time to settle in and gain a bit of experience. The fact that he was on from the start clearly demonstrates the lack of defensive options we have. There is some serious work to do to make the defence more solid. I predict a 7-3 defeat at Parkhead next week! Finally a word on the referee. He made a few odd decisions but full marks to him for awarding the two penalties. Far too often we see players wrestled to the ground in the box and the referees doing nothing, so it was good to see a referee prepared to take action for once.

Let's hope that OFW doesn't copy Joe's arm actions at crosses!

HT 1-1 FT 2-2 ICT Doran Dundee Ojamaa Crowd 2823

Good Pictures. The centre of Inverness looks very sad these days but looking up above the uninspiring shop windows there is a lot of interesting architecture. It is the same in any town and city where there are older buildings in the commercial areas of the town. Those who built these premises built them with these elaborate embellishments as a visible display of their wealth and status. The builders would also make a point of using ornate flourishes to demonstrate the quality of their craftsmanship. Unfortunately, much of this architectural heritage is falling into disrepair, but nevertheless, it is always worth pausing and taking a look above the shop windows.