SuperMario wrote:

Be brave, best we have played this season is against Dundee for the opening 60 mins, go back to the 3-4-3 with a winger on the right hand side, it’s absolutely killing us not having someone in front of Stephenson, if we are getting over run in the midfield someone isn’t doing there job correctly or we are setting up wrong- it’s no difficult.

Walton
Manny Gallagher Graham
Stephenson docherty babunski ferry
Thomson VDS trapa

Agree with all of that.
I'd go further, to me it's about giving free rein to the attacking abilities we have.
 

I'd play this on Friday:

Walton

Stephenson
Gallagher
Graham
Ferry

Docherty
Sibbald

Thomson
Babunski
Trapanovski

Moult

4-2-3-1.

SuperMario wrote:

Be brave, best we have played this season is against Dundee for the opening 60 mins, go back to the 3-4-3 with a winger on the right hand side, it’s absolutely killing us not having someone in front of Stephenson, if we are getting over run in the midfield someone isn’t doing there job correctly or we are setting up wrong- it’s no difficult.

Walton
Manny Gallagher Graham
Stephenson docherty babunski ferry
Thomson VDS trapa

 
Same lineup for me and for the same reasons.

Finn Seemann wrote:

Don't get the love in for Moult.  Not a bad player in his day now passed it.  I'd give him the last half hour unless we've won the game and are just managing it out (in which case last 10/15 and for VDS).

I'd want to see:

Walton

Stephenson
Manny
Graham
Ferry

Thomson
Sibbald
Docherty
Trapanovski

Babunski

VDS

With VDS told not to play so deep and Babunski told to play higher too.  Pace down the wings

 
I hate this "Love in" expression. Firstly Moult has done nothing wrong in a united shirt and at least deserves the opportunity to do better in front of goal than anyone else has managed so far. VDS does put in a good shift but hasn't threatened the goal once so Moult deserves his opportunity.  Secondly it's not a Love in,it's simply folk giving their opinion on who should start.

Fair comments on Moult.  My issue is that we know he's probably not going to be the answer at this level  and certainly not with the way we are trying to play the game at the moment (which is predicated on VDS being a focal point for holding the ball in short/knock-ons).  For me, asking for Moult in that structure, is just naïve.  We'd have to change the formation completely to accommodate what he is now capable of and that isn't going to happen.  Happy to be proved wrong obviously but I was also surprised that he wasn't moved on and a striker that better fits what we need sourced in the summer.

As for 'love in', it's just an expression intended to suggest that those who are expounding a point are somehow clouded by past emotion.  ADS caught hook, line...

Last edited by Finn Seemann (19/9/2024 8:29 am)

Arabdownsouth wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

Fair comments on Moult.  My issue is that we know he's probably not going to be the answer at this level  and certainly not with the way we are trying to play the game at the moment (which is predicated on VDS being a focal point for holding the ball in short/knock-ons).  For me, asking for Moult in that structure, is just naïve.  We'd have to change the formation completely to accommodate what he is now capable of and that isn't going to happen.  Happy to be proved wrong obviously but I was also surprised that he wasn't moved on and a striker that better fits what we need sourced in the summer.

As for 'love in', it's just an expression intended to suggest that those who are expounding a point are somehow clouded by past emotion.  ADS caught hook, line...

 
Aye ok,if you say so.

I did.   

Arabdownsouth wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

Arabdownsouth wrote:

 
Aye ok,if you say so.

I did.   

 
Strange that you admit to baiting folk ( although I think your whole last paragraph was shite tbh) and yet you call the same folk( ie. Me) argumentative?

I didn't admit to baiting anyone.  I've explained what I meant by 'love in'.  If people want to take mock offence at that, pile on in, but it was never intended as bait.  I'll admit to finding it slightly amusing when people seem to want to turn a comment into a hook, bite it and then complain they're being baited.  

As for argumentative, again I didn't call anyone argumentative.  On the contrary I'm keen to get a little debate going.  Makes these places more interesting than if we all agreed, does it not?  You may be right re. Moult, I might be wrong (and would ultimately be happy to be wrong for obvious reasons).  Doesn't mean I shouldn't share that opinion and that you shouldn't debate/argue it, but just argue about Moult and not how I might have phrased my argument.  That is just being argumentative for the sake of it...

Finn Seemann wrote:

Arabdownsouth wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

I did.   

 
Strange that you admit to baiting folk ( although I think your whole last paragraph was shite tbh) and yet you call the same folk( ie. Me) argumentative?

I didn't admit to baiting anyone.  I've explained what I meant by 'love in'.  If people want to take mock offence at that, pile on in, but it was never intended as bait.  I'll admit to finding it slightly amusing when people seem to want to turn a comment into a hook, bite it and then complain they're being baited.  

As for argumentative, again I didn't call anyone argumentative.  On the contrary I'm keen to get a little debate going.  Makes these places more interesting than if we all agreed, does it not?  You may be right re. Moult, I might be wrong (and would ultimately be happy to be wrong for obvious reasons).  Doesn't mean I shouldn't share that opinion and that you shouldn't debate/argue it, but just argue about Moult and not how I might have phrased my argument.  That is just being argumentative for the sake of it...

 
I don't think for a minute you were trying to bait me,it was just your hook and line comment really. I don't think your last paragraph really made any sense either which is why I called it shite. I was referring to past interaction with yourself regarding the argumentative part not specifically today. I simply don't like the 'love in' expression which gets bandied around a lot,not just here,so I said so. As for Moult,we'll he doesn't really have much to beat where scoring goals is concerned does he? He's one of our 3 options up front so I refuse to accept he's past it until he's had a decent run of games at this level. I like him as a player and he has my support even if he doesn't have yours. I don't dislike VDS but think ,like others, that it might be worth trying them both together from the start.

Arabdownsouth wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

Arabdownsouth wrote:

 
Strange that you admit to baiting folk ( although I think your whole last paragraph was shite tbh) and yet you call the same folk( ie. Me) argumentative?

I didn't admit to baiting anyone.  I've explained what I meant by 'love in'.  If people want to take mock offence at that, pile on in, but it was never intended as bait.  I'll admit to finding it slightly amusing when people seem to want to turn a comment into a hook, bite it and then complain they're being baited.  

As for argumentative, again I didn't call anyone argumentative.  On the contrary I'm keen to get a little debate going.  Makes these places more interesting than if we all agreed, does it not?  You may be right re. Moult, I might be wrong (and would ultimately be happy to be wrong for obvious reasons).  Doesn't mean I shouldn't share that opinion and that you shouldn't debate/argue it, but just argue about Moult and not how I might have phrased my argument.  That is just being argumentative for the sake of it...

 
I don't think for a minute you were trying to bait me,it was just your hook and line comment really. I don't think your last paragraph really made any sense either which is why I called it shite. I was referring to past interaction with yourself regarding the argumentative part not specifically today. I simply don't like the 'love in' expression which gets bandied around a lot,not just here,so I said so. As for Moult,we'll he doesn't really have much to beat where scoring goals is concerned does he? He's one of our 3 options up front so I refuse to accept he's past it until he's had a decent run of games at this level. I like him as a player and he has my support even if he doesn't have yours. I don't dislike VDS but think ,like others, that it might be worth trying them both together from the start.

OK.  I don't think we are that far apart on the football front.  Moult pulls on the shirt and gets my support.  I don't object to trying VDS and Moult from the start.  My objection was Moult instead of VDS which I don't think works for the game we are now trying to play (as I said).  So the upshot of that is your vapid dislike of the term 'love in' seems to be the main issue, but I'm the argumentative one?  Any other words/phrases we should steer away from to avoid triggering you?

Last edited by Finn Seemann (20/9/2024 10:53 am)

Finn Seemann wrote:

Arabdownsouth wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

I didn't admit to baiting anyone.  I've explained what I meant by 'love in'.  If people want to take mock offence at that, pile on in, but it was never intended as bait.  I'll admit to finding it slightly amusing when people seem to want to turn a comment into a hook, bite it and then complain they're being baited.  

As for argumentative, again I didn't call anyone argumentative.  On the contrary I'm keen to get a little debate going.  Makes these places more interesting than if we all agreed, does it not?  You may be right re. Moult, I might be wrong (and would ultimately be happy to be wrong for obvious reasons).  Doesn't mean I shouldn't share that opinion and that you shouldn't debate/argue it, but just argue about Moult and not how I might have phrased my argument.  That is just being argumentative for the sake of it...

 
I don't think for a minute you were trying to bait me,it was just your hook and line comment really. I don't think your last paragraph really made any sense either which is why I called it shite. I was referring to past interaction with yourself regarding the argumentative part not specifically today. I simply don't like the 'love in' expression which gets bandied around a lot,not just here,so I said so. As for Moult,we'll he doesn't really have much to beat where scoring goals is concerned does he? He's one of our 3 options up front so I refuse to accept he's past it until he's had a decent run of games at this level. I like him as a player and he has my support even if he doesn't have yours. I don't dislike VDS but think ,like others, that it might be worth trying them both together from the start.

OK.  I don't think we are that far apart on the football front.  Moult pulls on the shirt and gets my support.  I don't object to trying VDS and Moult from the start.  My objection was Moult instead of VDS which I don't think works for the game we are now trying to play (as I said).  So the upshot of that is your vapid dislike of the term 'love in' seems to be the main issue, but I'm the argumentative one?  Any other words/phrases we should steer away from to avoid triggering you?

 
All agreed on the football points👍

I don't actually remember calling you argumentative though.

Maybe just avoid me altogether if it makes you feel better? I'm pretty much done with this conversation now anyway, looking forward to the game though and won't actually care who scores so long as we win.

RogerTheAlien wrote:

Really nervous for this. From about 2007-2015 i was used as a 14-22 year old of making quarter finals with ease and a few Hampden trips. We got relegated in 2016 and it’s never been the same.

Buzzing for the trip down and half day but my stomachs going crazy with nerves.

I’m not saying Jim will be sacked or anything but if we win this he’s safe with the fans until at least Christmas, also a few more league wins, clubs down south will start to watch Jim again…

Agree with this we have a tough run of games for the next six weeks or so so it wouldn't take a lot for fans to turn on him. What I will say is we look very organised and don't give much away so we should still be able to keep the points ticking over.

Utter powder puff.

2nd to absolutely everything all night, completely pathetic performance- hoof ball and hope for the best all night.

Don’t even get me started on the subbies utterly bizarre from Goodwin

Why has miller Thomson been completely frozen out??

Babunski and trapa are absolutely miles off it- useless for a few weeks now, can go on about playing babunski out of position but you cannot excuse the ammount of times he gave the ball away tonight, and trapa Middleton looked much more dangerous when he came on- says it all.