Rousseau

Where'd you copy that from...?

Better first XI, but I don't see any improvement -- other than goal difference. I don't think Murty knows what system he wants to play; neither do I think he has any experience of any particular style. The basic shape is 4-2-3-1, but we don't play it properly. The players are left to do what that want. I'm not criticising Murty: he needs to gain that experience first, as an assistant to a more well-rounded manager; we've just thrown him into the deep-end because we were desperate. Rodgers spent his own time travelling around Spain, learning coaching methods, and then worked with Mourinho (indirectly) for a few years.

Gone are the days when you said, 'you're playing here; go and play'. Teams are far too organised for that now.

I thought the difference was in both 45-minutes was down to our wingers. In the first half they played wide, cutting themselves off from support, and also leaving our midfield isolated. There was never any easy passes to make. Windass, Murphy and Candeias kept trying to do it themselves and screwing up. You need support. Playing wide suited Thistle, as they could dominate the middle, and then double up when we invariably went wide. Second half, it seemed like the wingers played inside. There's more support all-round, and players have easy passes. Windass assists Tavernier because he runs inside. It was a better structure, both offensively and defensively. We were able to recover the ball well too. That game summed Bates up: atrocious with the ball; every pass was wayward, and actually hit the byline several times. We need to tell him to play it simple -- although I'm sure teams force us to go through him. Then the second half he was immense, clearing everything, tough tackles, heading the ball away. That latter is what he's good at. Well done Windass. He gets an unfair amount of abuse, simply because fans want a certain player-type that just doesn't exist as much anymore. We slate him for the least wee thing. He's one of our best players at the minute. We praise Cummings for showing arrogance, but criticise Windass for it. Cummings has scored 1 goal; Windass has 7. And, as Ian posted above, he's very close to a double-double season of goals and assists; something no one in the league did last year. Several have their minds made-up, and whatever he does will get a response. He doesn't have to do it, but who cares? It's a GIRUY to those who think they can abuse players, then get in a state when something gets flung back. Well done Windass. He's showing a bit of back-bone. (I actually thought he was poor last night, but did the business, which is all that matters.)

You do not talk abou...

Windass presses as well as anyone; he works his socks off (or gloves... ) to attack the ball-player. An attacking player shouldn't really be putting in tackles anyway (they're then out the game); they should be instigating pressing traps, forcing the opponents into channels/spaces where our players can win the ball back. Have you ever seen Salah, Firmino or Mane out in a tackle for Liverpool?

Welcome to Gif club!

I had chosen players that weren't injured, so yes, McCrorie would come in; Dorrans and Jack come close too. When we play a back-four at home, it's actually a back-two: Tavernier and John are high and wide. Having three at the back would actually leave more players back. For me, you can't just put wingers into a wing-back slot. Just because they track-back doesn't mean they are defenders. They're good when they are tracking-back, but they need full-backs to help them. I could see one natural winger playing there, but not two; it would need to be one of Murphy or Candeias, with a full-back (probably Tavernier, because he can't be dropped!). I'd like to see a front two. However, I think it needs to be John and Tavernier as wing-backs. The reason the 4-2-3-1 is not working is because we're not playing it quite right. The three should be narrower, both supporting the forward and supporting the defensive screen. We really shouldn't be getting overrun in the middle. The average positions against Hibs had Murphy, Windass, Morelos and Cadeias all in a front four, with Holt and Goss miles behind on their own. That shouldn't happen. The 5 in midfield have to work together in a pentagon, to press and screen. I'd like to see a back-three trialled, but I don't think we can put natural wingers there; that's my issue. A 3-4-2-1 or 3-4-1-2 may suit us better. The former would allow natural wingers, but only one striker; the latter would allow two strikers with no wingers. However I think about it, I can't fit in natural wingers and two strikers -- unless we go 4-4-2, or 4-2-4, which doesn't solve any of our issues!

I wonder if it means something that he was the first player that came to mind... ?

Jason "HHolt"? Unfortunate mistake, there... Murphy could be very useful in that position: he has the dynamism, energy and craft to cause trouble for any defence.

I agree. I'm not suggesting Windass is the new Laudrup -- that's even difficult to type... -- but for now, he's better than the majority of our players. Preferring Miller over Windass is just bonkers to me. (Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but everyone also has a right to challenge it.)

I don't know what gloves have to do with it? I never mentioned the Cup game. In the league he has 6 goals and 7 assists in 23 games. You can take any two games throughout the season where he does nothing, then take another where he scores and assists. You're suggesting Miller should be preferred to Windass. Miller has done nothing in his previous 8 games before his injury. I don't understand how you can come to that conclusion? Heart? What is that?

In the grand scheme of things, yes. But for now, we have a choice: Miller or Windass?

Oh, come on? Miller over Windass? What era are you from? Miller has 2 goals this season, Windass has 6; Miller has 2 Assists, Windass has 7. But no, play Miller because Windass is 'spineless', and has 'nae heart'. What does that even mean?

3-5-2 doesn't fit with the players at our disposal, IMO. The wing-back is a specialist position: you can't just put wingers in there. Tavernier and John would need to play there and then we're without our best players, in Candeias, Windass and Murphy. Fod Martin - Bates - Cardoso Tavernier - Docherty - Goss - Holt - John Cummings - Morelos* (* without injured players) I agree with the need for more in the middle, but I think 4-4-2 (Diamond) fits better. It means overloading the middle, Windass -- one of our best players, no matter what anyone says -- and two up top. However, you lose the wingers (Murphy and Candeias) too -- just like the 3-5-2. Fod Tavernier - Bates - Martin - John Goss Docherty - Holt Windass Cummings - Morelos* (* without injured players) I still think 4-2-3-1 is our best basic formation, but we need to use it better. We just need to tweak it in some games to be more compact. Bring on Docherty for WIndass in the bigger games (or Windass up front alongside Morelos), into the No.10 role but play more a 4-3-3 to get the three in the middle. Fod Tavernier - Martin - Bates - John Docherty - Goss - Holt Candeias - Murphy Morelos For me -- although it certainly was an issue -- it was more to do with the ineffective screening of Holt and Goss, rather than the fact we had two in there; they were too disjointed, playing miles away from each other. WIndass could've done better too, to mark midfielders instead of defenders -- that switch is down to Murty not Windass. Teams like Athletico, and Leipzig do very well with a 4-4-2 in leagues that predominantly use either 4-3-3 or 3-5-2.

What's he smiling at!? We were just gubbed. I expect a sickened, angry expression until at least the next win.

I don't know; Dalcio has a certain cult appeal...

I don't understand the logic: some seem to be saying, 'he's not going to be a complete player, so let him go'. Forgetting for a moment that every player can improve and progress, a less than complete player can still be a very good squad player; every team needs them.

Possibly, but he's not a replacement for Windass; different players, playing different roles. I think Docherty would be a replacement for Holt; same box-to-box type but with better physical presence and a more direct attacking style. Shame for Holt though, as I think he's been good, but his stature is a big limitation.

I'm struggling to comment on the game, as I was caught up it at the time. I'd need to watch it back to comment on what went wrong, but I can't bring myself to do that. My gut reaction was we played ok, but didn't take our chances, and basically gave them two sloppy goals. It's clear to see the old scapegoats have been trundled out again. The stats provide an objective view of the game, cutting out the emotion, and they suggest we should've won the game. Of course, they don't show everything.

A box-to-box player that can score goals? I agree with the first part, but how many did he score for Hamilton in 6 years? He scored 6 goals. We're looking for a silver bullet again, and projecting it onto any player that's new.

There's not much worse than losing to those scummy b******... Ugh.

I didn't see much, other than Windass and Stevenson go down. But it was miles away from Morelos, so how can he chop it off?

I don't think we were bad; we just didn't take our chances, conceded a stupid first goal, then Tavernier gives the Referee a decision to make -- he wasn't going to pass it up -- although it was a soft penalty. The mental fragility annoys me: we equalised, then conceded straight after; we should've consolidated, then built on it. It wasn't a bad game, it's just these little moments are going against us. You have to make your own luck, and we're not doing that at the moment.