Fearchar

Absolutely. They report on players' actions without even reminding themselves that the listening public might not know which teams they're playing for, or at what grounds. As for saying anything about the position of play - even leading up to a goal - you're left to guess. They're now taking to giggling at "in" jokes among themselves, too. Oh, and it would be nice to have pundits who could cope with the present perfect tense and using prepositions most of the time. If they can't do any better than the "We [sic - guess which clubs!] huv went fur tae ge' a resul'" style of chat, perhaps the licence-fee payers could do without their services, at least until the pantomime season is back.

QoS showed tactical superiority: the manager fell for it: his superior team lost because he failed to prepare them to cope with the typical tactics of an inferior team: retain possession, don't allow the other team to move and shepherd any attacks to the wings where the only option is a cross. Let's hope that Jackie Mac can learn from this. Not that the team doesn't have to share some of the blame. After all, Archie seems to have developed club feet and a cubical head; Cairney's floated corners are destined never to result in a goal (while his short corners are just as bad); and Sinclair really does have a big problem spotting those bright yellow shirts when he's throwing the ball in. This team is, as has often been said before, much too nice: they need some grit - someone who will ensure that when they're failing they don't keep trying to do the same thing, nor do they let their heads go down, nor do they stop covering for team members (especially the midfield, which is atrociously slow in tracking back and in picking up free opposing players). The current captain won't provide that kick up the backside. At the moment, Paul Paton looks like the only one who gets upset when things aren't going right. Both midfielders and strikers need to feel that a shot that goes past or gets saved is not good enough (even if it gets a clap or a gasp from the crowd) but that it's an opportunity wasted, for which they'll bear responsibility after the game.

Yes, the polis all look no older than 12 to me, too.

Armand2 also said this, but multiquote won't function: "Our strikers kept coming deep to get the ball and as a result had their back to goal, with Raith's back four intact." Doolan looked very alert today and he might have scored but he is, if anything, too enthusiastic - he keeps tracking back to help out in midfield or getting shepherded out to the wings. He is a player who should not move far from the penalty box, and should seize the opportunities to shoot or to lay off the ball to others. With his good first touch, you'd expect to win a few penalties each season, as some of the cloggers less cultivated centre backs in this division assaulted him paid him too close attention - if the officials deigned to see it, of course. It's all very well saying what our weaknesses are, but much of that game was spent blootering high balls up the park (with Scott Fox one of the miscreants) against a side that we all know plays this type of game as a matter of course. How hard is it to figure out that if it doesn't work for a quarter of an hour or so, it's not going to work for the rest of the time remaining either? (A special mention for Sinclair's throw-ins here, which seemed to be an attempt to show that he could give the ball away repeatedly while throwing it as well as passing it. )

Credit where it's due: his holding-up play was excellent. You're joking, of course: if we played either of those two off the park and had 4 goals by around halftime, we'd just manage to squeeze in a 4-4 draw - everyone on here knows that! Absolutely!

Yes, but it's a good example of the lack of heart in this team: the gulf in standards was obvious, but wasn't reflected in goals. Scoring just one in the second half, in particular, against part-time opposition that was tiring while facing a gale, is sub-standard. Bare pass marks.

Can you pay me back my transport costs, then?

Losing a goal from outfield is always collective - dependent on more than one mistake. Balatoni lost his footing, as he had done several times before - perhaps food for thought in the dugout about what boots he was or should have been wearing? Before even blaming Balatoni for a lost goal, it's worth remembering who gave away possession in the first place: Cairney, the darling of some posters on here. It's a team game, and blaming one player is unfair; when that player is on for less than half the game, it's just plain silly.

"We don't have players with the right attitude." That's it in a nutshell. This team has been crying out for leadership since the season started. It's clear that it's not going to come from Archie. Surprisingly, the one player who looked as if he had the grit to take the opposition on in the match against Culter was Erskine, and the opposition support realised that and did their best to get on his back.

I never thought I'd say this, but I am really sorry it was Grampian's finest (in absentia) and not Tayside's today.

Not dissimilar to today's performance, in fact - the team only began to string passes together once they realised the game was approaching its conclusion. It could have been worse: nightmare scenario number 1 would have been for one of the Culter breakaways to have resulted in a goal against - which would have been perfectly possible. Just to add to the variety, nightmare scenario number 2 would have been for the referee to have abandoned the game and awarded it to Culter because some neds were throwing smoke bombs on to the pitch. With supporters like these, who needs opposing fans?

A débâcle rather than a defeat. The lack of a captain to organise on the field is so obvious: kick-and-rush is entirely the way that Ross County has always played, and today was no exception. So what does our team do? Play them at their own game - throw-ins in abundance, the long ball, and letting attacks fizzle out down the wings. In my opinion, Balatoni did what was needed to shore up the defence - in the absence of anyone beside him who was fast enough to snuff out crosses. Did any of Archie's headers go to a Thistle player today? Hutton is keen to show off his skills, but, understandably, he isn't prepared to get stuck in when the team goes behind. He could have been usefully replaced earlier on with a more attack-minded midfielder, with Rowson taking over the role of defensive midfielder. (Rowson failed to score again today, despite a good opportunity.) After going behind, our team seemed to want to play square balls across the defence as if they were 3 ahead. Erskine and Paton were off form today; these things happen, but at least one of them should have been substituted early on. Letting them play on the same side until well on into the second half was suicidal. Both keepers did well today, although Scully had to be much more agile.

Maybe the club is better informed about men's health than your friend: the Movember campaign garners funds for the Prostate Cancer Charity, whose main policy (introducing universal testing for prostate cancer) contravenes the advice of most of the medical profession. That advice is based on large-scale peer-reviewed studies which have shown that such testing leads to more deaths and more unnecessary medically-caused harm among men. That charity continues pushing its policy despite the harm its policy would cause if adopted. A friend of mine, who is a senior representative of GPs in Australia, has publicly described the advocates of that policy as "evil".

Surely you couldn't possibly mean the way in which Simon Donnelly used to react, and which has been adopted by several others in the current team!

The UK Government insists that at least a quarter, and up to a half, of BBC broadcasts come from non-BBC productions. This is an open door into our broadcaster for outside producers - a bit like insisting that all the window locks on your house be removed to encourage an attitude of share-and-share-alike. Obviously, standards will drop if staff are subjected to a remorseless series of redundancies and terms and conditions being whittled away for years on end: Broadcasting in the UK If you don't like The Comedy Unit's productions, then I suggest you write to your MP to ask why the BBC keeps getting mauled by successive governments - because that's the real cause of falling production standards. It seems that in this country people like Alasdair Campbell and Rupert Murdoch are allowed to have more influence over broadcasting policy than anyone who's committed to making good programmes. That can only be changed by MPs in Westminster.

Which - BBC Scotland or The Comedy Unit? http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/ http://www.comedyunit.co.uk/

If nothing else, I think it's hugely encouraging that McNamara was obviously watching the same game as us, and sees where things need to be put right. That hasn't been the impression I've gained from recent managers on all occasions.

This team has no heart (i.e. no effective captain): instead of playing football, they just responded to Rovers' long ball game in kind. We can go and see that kind of rubbish in Sunday league football - for free. Only in the closing stages did anyone seem to realise that playing the ball on the ground just might give us an advantage, but by that time the game had been lost. Surely McNamara should have torn a strip off them during the break and told them to play the ball on the ground.

So, to sum up: 1) Because the Jags Trust decided to abstain, the Trust is a "deid duck". 2) If the Jags Trust had voted to oppose the motion, it would have been savaging the current angelic board's progressive aims and abusing its position because it had no mandate from the majority or backing from a quorate meeting (according to people who haven't a scooby how many members the Trust has, or how many would form a quorum). Indeed, they have no intention of participating in forming any opinion, since they've rejected membership of the Trust. So the Jags Trust is a "deid duck". 3) If the Jags Trust had voted to support the motion it would have been ignoring the opinion of the vast majority of fans vast majority of commentators on this forum, setting obstacles in the path of the current board's progressive aims and abusing its position because it had no mandate from the majority/backing from a quorate meeting (according to people who haven't a scooby how many members the Trust has, or how many would form a quorum). Indeed, they have no intention of participating in forming any opinion, since they've rejected membership of the Trust. So the Jags Trust is a "deid duck". Who on earth would want to try to serve on the Jags Trust board or even write in defence of the Jags Trust, given this kind of unreasonable antipathy? Perhaps some commentators on here need to learn something about combining to influence events: if you don't participate (at the very least by paying a subscription), you don't get a vote nor do you have any right to have a say. You don't count, and that's your own choice. Those are the rules in a democratic society for any trade union, political party, pressure group or other legal body. If you expect anything else, you're just trying to sponge off others' commitment while contributing nothing - freeloading, in other words. Why not whinge about some other organisation you're not a member of? I suggest starting with - oh, I don't know, the Chinese Communist Party, or the Pentagon, or the Cats Protection League.

If our team keeps putting 5 goals past them, can you blame them?

The crowd seemed to be less of a mixture, i.e. it was mostly adult males. That may be a consideration for the future, too. If we regularly give out doings to visiting teams, visiting support numbers will drop, which makes encouraging a growth in home support numbers more important. Although it was warm, it was also very wet, and Friday nights in the winter will probably be even less inviting for anyone considering going out to see a game. This was the first game in a long time when I've seen the Jags threaten the opposition noticeably more on the right wing than on the left. Tommy Stewart is still too slow. A number of our goals are coming from rebounds because players (especially Elliott, Doolan and Erskine) are positioning themselves well to take those after the initial attempt on goal is blocked.

I agree.

Fox was left exposed on several occasions by our slow central defence. In order to survive in this division, we probably need one tall central defender whose task is to head the ball clear, but using two slow central defenders is costing us. Today Fox had to act as sweeper as well as goalkeeper on more than one occasion. The winning goal was scored because he was being manhandled in the box (after which the ball broke). Certainly, the officials should stop that immediately, but today they weren't interested: so the central defenders should have been protecting him. Exactly. Corners and free kicks into the box from him today didn't even look like reaching one of our players, let alone providing a scoring opportunity. Admittedly, Sinclair had been assaulted earlier on, but surely he could have been deputed the task of taking one or two corners, if only to change things round a bit. The linesman on our side wasn't keeping up with play at all. Many instances of offside weren't given, and as for the assault on Sinclair, it's astonishing that it didn't result in a straight red card. Exactly, but Fox's "errors" only arise when he has slow central defenders in front of him.

Poor play in general. Second to the ball for most of the game. Failing to close down players with the ball, allowing them to spray around long passes and catch our slow defence on the hop. Failing to defend high balls into the box, in particular, led to this becoming the preferred option for County. Among other penalty-box incidents, this led to the handball which won County a penalty. Erskine saved a point for us, and it was a joy to see the obvious pleasure he took in scoring. (If his shot had not been handled in the box previous to that, he would have scored earlier.) He is the only player who is creative enough to turn a game for us in midfield. Hutton was anonymous, and added another defensive midfielder to Rowson and Cairney, to no great effect. Stewart was incapable of seeing where to position himself: at one point he checked himself as the play went past him - among the other Jags players. Either he needs to be trained to position himself, or he needs to be dropped. Against ten men, we just scraped a draw. Oh, dear!

Arguments about the past are irrelevant when we're discussing now and the future. Is Archie effective now? The goals scored by opposing sides getting past our central defenders, and the way in which both fullbacks have to come back to cover suggest that this is not the case. Jackie McNamara is in a difficult position, but he should be backed to do what's necessary for the team. That may include slaughtering some sacred cows.