Rousseau

He's a good character. It'll be good to get a few laughs beside the 'analysis'.

Quite impressive considering the squad was relatively young. Was Dykes the one that the Manager said had to be given a run in the team? Or am I mistaken?

It was like watching Rangers last night: possession, work-rate, enthusiasm, passing, and a slightly shaky defense. Shame it was Germany. Scotland games annoy me. We hear the same comments from the commentators, regarding work-rate and atmosphere which are usually quite good. Then we hear things like, "Scotland are unlucky to go behind there," and "Scotland don't have an out-ball." No wonder! If you are defending on your own six-yard box, then of course you are going to loose 'unlucky' goals, but they're not unlucky because you can avoid it by pushing up when the ball goes back; and of course there isn't going to be an out-ball: everyone's in their own box! For me, the commentators epitomise a complete lack of understanding in the Scottish game; the views are out-of-date. Wotte was a step in the right direction, but many in authority don't have the understanding or foresight to appreciate what he was doing. Of course, that was only one step; much more has to be done. Alas! Nothing will change as long as the same idiots are in charge. In all honesty, I think the Scotland squad would be better if it was a mix of Rangers and Hearts players. However, they'll continue to be overlooked until they move to the English Championship or Celtic.

Loaning several players to one club is farcical -- for the side receiving the loanees --, but I don't think having 30 out on loan is farcical. Italian sides have much the same number of players out on loan, and sometimes more; although some are joint-ownership situations. It can be considered anti-competitive, but if one is developing the players, one is entitled to retain them and loan them out to gain a better player later, or simply to make a little money. Moreover, surely it improves player development?

I liked Miller's attitude to the celebration: he makes sure they all acknowledge that Oduwa was the player to get them the 5th goal even although Waghorn scored the penalty. Great attitude.

He's not a great player, but I think he's a good squad player. He works hard, high energy, enthusiastic. Like Pete says, he could be a decent back-up WB.

Our Striker is top scorer in the league, but what is scary is that our 2 fullbacks are joint-second! Holt typifies my opinion on players. Every player has qualities, but not every team can bring them out or use them. Hearts didn't need his type, and so he never played and was released, looking quite average. In many ways he has made a step up into a team that can use his qualities and he has been a revelation.

I'm not saying there is a conspiracy here, but the team seems to be picked on where they play (EPL, EC, Celtic), rather than how well they play together. It's like they are shoehorned into the team regardless of how they play, their style, or their form. Anya is a perfect example. He's a decent player that comes into plans out of nowhere because he played a good role in Watford's promotion. He is a WB for Watford, but Strachan has him playing LM and drifting inside (not entirely different but it is a different role). Morrison is more an attacking player, but is shoehorned into a defensive role. Maloney is a decent player, but I think he's wasted on the wing. A team of average players that work well together are surely better than a group of individuals that may be better players individually? If one forgets for a second that Wales have Bale, they play a 3-5-1-1 (sort of?) because it suits the players they have: decent CBs, couple of players that play well at WB, and have very good CMs in Ramsey and Allen etc; the system has been developed to take advantage of their players strengths. Their Striker is a worker rather than a goalscorer to allow Bale that free role. A Bale gets you to 9th in the World!? Once again, Scotland are out-of-date.

Warburton says he wants an impact player on the bench: that's why Miller is dropped, which makes sense. Pleased to see Thompson get a place on the bench -- we may see him get game time. Quite an exciting front three.

Is there an injury update for the game? Wallace, Bell (no point asking about Templeton!) etc.?

We are just not good enough. Poor collection of players, and a poor manager. However, I still think, as Warburton has shown, a decent manager could get something out of that squad. We should be trying something different, not the same old stuff. Georgia played 3-5-2 last night, with 3 really attacking and pressing. Their back three would suggest there was space on the flanks, but we maintained the same formation. We set up one way; the oppositions system doesn't factor in, which is so out-of-date. We could have played a 3-5-2, because we have a decent enough WBs in Hutton (not great defensively but quite good going forward), Robertson, or Anya; decent couple of forwards in Fletcher and Martin; Maloney or Adam are decent enough to play in the hole; and we've got decent, high-energy CMs. I actually think we've got decent enough players, but they are not being used properly.

Ha! I've been justified by the Manager: McKay is a forward, not a midfielder (although he can play behind the striker).

I don't think the midfield 3 are RM, CM and LM; it's more like 3 CMs. The Attackers are LW, RW, ST. Aird can play RB, RW (and LW, I suppose), but not ®CM, IMO. Same with Clark: no way is he going to play ®CM.

By definition 'lean' suggests we are, not down to bare bones, but close to being short. If we do get a few injuries -- as is likely with the aggressive nature of the envious opposition -- then we will be in trouble. However, like I said above, our versatility will go some way to mitigating that problem.

This might be a bit pedantic, but if we go with the 4-3-3 model, McKay and Templeton are attackers. I suppose it comes down to a metaphysical question: are LW/RW Midfield or Forward positions? In the 4-3-3 model they have to be Forwards. So, McKay and Templeton are Forwards/Attackers, like Oduwa. McKay, Walsh and Oduwa have the versatility -- at least in this formation -- of playing both areas, though.

It is very lean, but it's also quite versatile. Going through the list there are a few players that can play in the midfield 3 and the forward 3. If anything, we might be a bit short defensively: I count 6/7 players for 4 positions. I'd like to get Eusatace as I feel we need that proper DM for the grittier games.

I thought there was more directness in Oduwa's play today. I don't know if I've read it somewhere, but Warburton must have said cut out the unnecessary tricks and take on your man etc. I thought there was a difference today. He can still entertain, but he needs to achieve something at the end of it.

He makes a good point actually. The process of promoting a youth player into the first team requires a sympathetic manager. We now know that Walsh, McKay etc were actually good enough to play. However, the manager and the system were not suited to them. MacLeod was a good player, and he actually fit into the McCoist system (if one can call it a system!); McKay was also a good player, but did not fit. There needs to be a holistic approach, where everything is connected, not what we had last year and in previous years. The same formation and style must be played throughout every level, and the players able to play their role.

The SPFL work was puzzling: surely, that cannot be deemed a successful tenure? The other stuff was more impressive. They should have omitted the SPFL work!

I thought it was really well written. The subject was always going to be interesting, but the depth was really surprising: analysing Sir David Of Weirs character etc. A lot more intelligent in his footballing philosophy than I had originally expected. Future Manager?

Interesting draw for them. I'm curious to see how they do against Ajax. We're quick to suggest Dutch sides play better football and are a level above, so it'll be interesting to see the gap; or if indeed there is one.

That's ridiculous. A team buying one of their rivals' best players? Immoral.

Seems unfair that seeding: it's stacked in favour of the Premiership sides. Nevertheless, I'll take anyone other than C*****.

Thanks for the replies! It's all very confusing. I thought that similarly 'ranked' teams (teams with a similar co-efficient) would play each other, otherwise it seems unfair? So, in a pure hypothetical situation: if every side was ranked according to their co-efficient (doesn't matter where/how the points are acquired), then seeded with similarly ranked sides. So we, because of our poor rank, would go into pot 5 say (pot 1 = CL group, pot 2 = play-off, pot 3 = 3rd QR, pot 4 = 2nd QR, pot 5 = 1st QR), and we'd then play those poor pot 5 sides in the 1st QR and move on to play pot 4 sides etc. as we win each round. Our level (the quality of our side) might actually be pot 2, but because the co-efficient is so low we get demoted down. Therefore, in that situation, would it not be better to win the every round until the play-offs, rather than entering at the play-offs an losing? I suppose then it matters where/how the points are acquired? Is it more for entering and losing at the play-offs, or more for winning 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounds then losing? But then according to Calscot, one gets points depending on where you exit, so it would actually be better to enter the play-offs and lose rather than win 3 rounds. So, actually, we do need the co-efficient to be better, to get more points. Seems very unfair. However, it is down to us. We have to make sure we are better, and have to try to get as far as possible.

I agree with you. I thought you were suggesting that a fullback hold back while the other bombs forward, but, like I said, that results in less width; it works best when you have two going forward stretching the pitch, which then allows a lot more space for the wingers. Halliday is not a DM; he is an attacking midfield player (he even played winger on occasion at previous clubs!). We do need a sitting midfielder.