Rousseau

I'm always looking at players from a universal perspective: are they actually good players in the grand scheme of things, but perhaps we just need players -- as JohnMc has said -- that can do well now, in the Scottish game. I've not watched Martin at all really -- not even Scotland games -- but surely he should be strolling this league, considering the level he's played at? I think Alves strolls it, without being spectacular: wins every aerial duel, clears his lines, can pass into the final third accurately etc. Underwhelming, but maybe it's what we need?

I find this is an appropriate response for most underwhelming signings:

18:00 hrs. The full-game highlights are on Sky Channel 424 at 16:00 this evening.

An apt alliterative abstract.

I read that we at least share the cup. It's just a friendly, but any trophy is pleasing.

Oh, well. I got my hopes up there...

That sounded like a superb comeback -- can't wait to watch it back. And... is Dalcio realistic option?!

Well...

Kranjcar is playing as one of the two in the 4-2-3-1. It may suit him playing deeper, allowing him to pass the ball more, and without needing to put in as much of a shift defensively; he's still technically superb with the ball at his feet.

It's strange listening to a positive commentary of our club.

If that's the case it's a 'no-brainer' that this deal should not happen? It's basically owners picking the team. If the football department don't fancy him, then that should be the end of it.

Perhaps. We can't influence it either way, and I can opine until my fingers bleed. In this case I really don't know; and I can't see how so many can be so sure he's a 'no-brainer'; there are too many assumptions. However, as buster. said, I may as well complain about the rain.

Just that if we're in competition with Hearts for him, there's only one choice -- I would hope! And, like Frankie said, if we really wanted him, he'd be here. The fact that Hearts look to be in pole position suggests he isn't an option for us. My wording was messy.

Very true. It's just the jumping to conclusions based on nothing concrete in this case. I suppose that's par for the course! I believe you may be right.

Carrick-esque! Jack can sit either way, but McCrorie gives more of a driving presence, while Goss is more of a deep-lying playmaker. Depends on the opposition, I suppose. Actually, a 4-1-4-1 with McCrorie behind Goss and Jack would give us a good strong base against the 'better' teams. Maybe allows a three-at-the-back too. I don't want to get too far ahead of myself! I'm too easily excited!

Yes, a quick check on Wikipedia suggests it wasn't Guardiola that sold him: Guardiola left in 2012/13, whereas Sanchez left in 2014. I really can't see him choosing Utd over Guardiola and City.

Absolutely. The next issue is who is best to support them -- both offensively and defensively. Jack and McCrorie could be a good double-pivot?

I'm complaining about the fans conclusions, not our scouting approach. We're too quick to make conclusions, when it's all based on rumour -- which is all we can do, to be fair, but I prefer to keep a more balanced view. If they miss out on other options, I would hope they don't just go for Naismith for the sake of it! That's a bad route to go down! He "wouldn't be expensive and IMO is actually more likely to deliver" is pure assumption. I can only base my opinion on facts, and the only fact I am certain about is that he's not the player he was. I really couldn't say if he'd be good enough. If Hearts are going for him, perhaps not! Moreover, all the baggage that come with him (dividing support etc.) is quite a mark against the signing.

Looks very nice, but is there any income opportunity? Or am I being insensitive?

They're not connected, though. There are gambles involved in every name we've been linked with, mainly around whether they can step up. Like I said above, if all assumptions are correct then they're very good signings. I'm sceptical, and prefer to air on the side of caution. One bad game and we're slating them again! My main issue is we keep calling the Naismith one a "no-brainer", when I think there are still too many assumptions and variables involved. As Craig said elsewhere: we're too keen on that silver bullet.