Albert's Ghost Posted February 18, 2019 Report Share Posted February 18, 2019 Seems Souley set up our goal for Ally on the counter. The Fish scored for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld Jag Posted February 23, 2019 Report Share Posted February 23, 2019 When Roy and Mansell get on before Coulibaly, why do even bother listing him as a sub. I think it is obvious we have no intention of playing him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARu-Strathbungo Posted February 23, 2019 Report Share Posted February 23, 2019 For information, in the reserves game against Motherwell last Monday, Roy was by far the better of the forward players, then Mansell then Coulibaly. Coulibaly managed to get himself a yellow card for having a spat with one of the Motherwell players for no reason whatsoever. IMO If Coulibaly wants to get a start in the first team he has to show more, maturity and skill, he did give the final pass for Roy to score his goal, but was anonymous for the majority of the other 88 minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dl1971 Posted February 23, 2019 Report Share Posted February 23, 2019 16 minutes ago, ARu-Strathbungo said: For information, in the reserves game against Motherwell last Monday, Roy was by far the better of the forward players, then Mansell then Coulibaly. Coulibaly managed to get himself a yellow card for having a spat with one of the Motherwell players for no reason whatsoever. IMO If Coulibaly wants to get a start in the first team he has to show more, maturity and skill, he did give the final pass for Roy to score his goal, but was anonymous for the majority of the other 88 minutes. There is something very wrong about this situation. I think the club should elaborate. If there is no chance he will play what's the point? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld Jag Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 1 hour ago, dl1971 said: There is something very wrong about this situation. I think the club should elaborate. If there is no chance he will play what's the point? My point exactly. Why have him on the bench, if he is not going to get any game time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eljaggo Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 Having him on the bench cost us dearly yesterday, with no replacent midfielders available as we tired badly in the second half. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 If Coulibaly is not fully fit, how different is that to playing Harkins? Both will tire so Coulibaly could easily come from the bench with 30 mins to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 16 minutes ago, sandy said: If Coulibaly is not fully fit, how different is that to playing Harkins? Both will tire so Coulibaly could easily come from the bench with 30 mins to go. Struggling with the fitness bit with Coulibaly , he’s only 24 yrs of age , how long does it take to get fit at that age unless he’s carrying an injury. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, jlsarmy said: Struggling with the fitness bit with Coulibaly , he’s only 24 yrs of age , how long does it take to get fit at that age unless he’s carrying an injury. Very possibly. And yet he looks so keen to get on the park; he enjoyed celebrating Aidan’s goal from the touchline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, sandy said: If Coulibaly is not fully fit, how different is that to playing Harkins? Both will tire so Coulibaly could easily come from the bench with 30 mins to go. Slightly off the subject matter but we really needed to up the pace yesterday and not replace like for like. Saying that McDonald for Doolan, altho' a like for like, was probably pre-planned and certainly an acceptable substitution. Where things really started to go wrong yesterday was in the very area where we were previously bossing the game, midfield. In fact just about anything that could go wrong in that area more or less transpired in that 2nd half. Banzo booked a couple of minutes into the half. Slater, who performs better the further forward he plays, pushed back into a holding role. Spittal, who was having one of his least effective games anyway, tiring partly due to additional running covering for Harkins, who in turn was at best described as poor. Then Bannigan hobbles off probably at a time Harkins would've been getting replaced. So we're left with only one substitution. Clearly that has to be Harkins, meaning a 17 year old wide player has to complete 90 mins. Again far from ideal. Bringing Roy on, rather than Coulibaly was the obvious substitution. At 2-3 our best chance of getting a point was an out and out forward whose running & pace could compliment McDonald. All a kinda long winded way of simply saying that replacing one tiring player for another who may only be good for less than a third of the match most likely wouldn't have worked. Edited February 24, 2019 by lady-isobel-barnett 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 Fair points LIB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norgethistle Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 4 hours ago, sandy said: If Coulibaly is not fully fit, how different is that to playing Harkins? Both will tire so Coulibaly could easily come from the bench with 30 mins to go. That is Harkins fit, at his age he’s not going to get faster, sharper or last longer, currently he’s good for 45-50 minutes which means we need to use a sub for him. Let’s see how long he lasts this time next year 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, Norgethistle said: That is Harkins fit, at his age he’s not going to get faster, sharper or last longer, currently he’s good for 45-50 minutes which means we need to use a sub for him. Let’s see how long he lasts this time next year I suspect the 18 month contract was not a good investment. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld Jag Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 4 hours ago, sandy said: I suspect the 18 month contract was not a good investment. Not signed by Archibald, so he must be a good signing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, sandy said: I suspect the 18 month contract was not a good investment. Don't agree. You'd need to have forgotten your glasses if you can't see that Harkins playing in front of the back two has seen an improvement. Yes he tired yesterday and you might be right that all we get out of him is 45 to 50 minutes but don't tell me he's not contributing and that we shouldn't have signed him unless you know of a better option which would involve signing someone for that role cos clearly we don't have one. His worth was evident when he came off. Of course you could say he dropped out of the game after half time but my point is that he or similer player is clearly needed to protect a fragile defence. I submit it is a worthwhile investment cos the alternative is/was much much worse Edited February 25, 2019 by Guest Poss purr spooling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted February 25, 2019 Report Share Posted February 25, 2019 I'll stay out of the argument re whether Harkins's 18 month contract is a worthy investment or not. Besides we don't know the terms of the contract in any case. What I thought was fairly evident is Harkins has been poor over the last two matches. Perhaps not all his own fault. A team with more pace could carry him and allow him more time on the ball to do what he does best. I was hoping that GH would be good for 60-70 minutes but that appears to be not the case. On Saturday he was not much more than a passenger for the last 15-20 minutes he was on the park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Murray Posted February 25, 2019 Report Share Posted February 25, 2019 Disagree with some of the above. Harkins did run out of steam on Saturday but was involved in a lot of our good play in the first half. I did think Caldwell should have had him off earlier but options on the bench made it difficult. The pace of the game really did tell on Gary. If if you look at the Alloa game he created a number of good opportunities for us and had a big hand in the second goal. We would not be having this conversation is he had been substituted at the correct time. Gordon and McCarthy are needed back fit as soon as. As for Sol - there must be a problem with him and the manager or he would be playing. You don't leave a player of that quality on the bench for no reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third Lanark Posted February 25, 2019 Report Share Posted February 25, 2019 42 minutes ago, Alan Murray said: Disagree with some of the above. Harkins did run out of steam on Saturday but was involved in a lot of our good play in the first half. I did think Caldwell should have had him off earlier but options on the bench made it difficult. The pace of the game really did tell on Gary. If if you look at the Alloa game he created a number of good opportunities for us and had a big hand in the second goal. We would not be having this conversation is he had been substituted at the correct time. Gordon and McCarthy are needed back fit as soon as. As for Sol - there must be a problem with him and the manager or he would be playing. You don't leave a player of that quality on the bench for no reason. I had almost forgot about Gordon - is he even likely to be back before the end of the season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dl1971 Posted February 25, 2019 Report Share Posted February 25, 2019 On 2/24/2019 at 9:42 AM, sandy said: Very possibly. And yet he looks so keen to get on the park; he enjoyed celebrating Aidan’s goal from the touchline. That applies to me too. Alas I seem to have as much chance of getting a game as he has! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fearchar Posted February 26, 2019 Report Share Posted February 26, 2019 As a very sedentary watcher of the game, it amazes me that professional athletes allow themselves to be unprepared for playing 90 minutes + 30 minutes + taking an accurate, scoring penalty for every game they play in. It's their job and, bar the very odd exception (i.e. Barton), they say they love what they're doing. Why wouldn't they be prepared (barring injury) for that potential big occasion all the time - just in case it arrives? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elevenone Posted March 1, 2019 Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 Sounds like it could get messy. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/partick-thistle-facing-1million-bill-14071917 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad-jag Posted March 1, 2019 Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 6 minutes ago, elevenone said: Sounds like it could get messy. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/partick-thistle-facing-1million-bill-14071917 Let's just hope we had pretty decent legal advice and there are provisions in place based on the ruling, so we are not liable for anything. I suppose it's possible we got conditional registration from FIFA saying we could play him pending the result of the appeal. This ruling (if accurate) may mean we never see him in a Thistle strip again. I just hope we dont have to pay a penny for the pleasure of a few cameo appearances!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted March 1, 2019 Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 57 minutes ago, mad-jag said: Let's just hope we had pretty decent legal advice Nae worries. It's not as if legal advice has ever let us down before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators admin Posted March 1, 2019 Administrators Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 1 hour ago, elevenone said: Sounds like it could get messy. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/partick-thistle-facing-1million-bill-14071917 Surprise, surprise The Daily Record headline doesn't accurately reflect the substance of the article. In the article Al Ahly's legal consultant says that upon losing his appeal Coulibaly has to "pay the fine in person or get the club, Partick Thistle, to pay it for him". There isn't any suggestion that a £1million bill is heading our way. The reality is that the dispute is between Coulibaly and Al Ahly. Al Ahly didn't release his registration when we signed him. We appealed to FIFA and Coulibaly was given a temporary registration enabling him to play for us. It is possible that that temporary registration could now be revoked given that Coulibaly has lost his appeal against the fine imposed on him. After 4 sub appearances that wouldn't be any great loss to us although I still think the signing itself was well worth a punt at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordanhill Jag Posted March 1, 2019 Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, admin said: Surprise, surprise The Daily Record headline doesn't accurately reflect the substance of the article. In the article Al Ahly's legal consultant says that upon losing his appeal Coulibaly has to "pay the fine in person or get the club, Partick Thistle, to pay it for him". There isn't any suggestion that a £1million bill is heading our way. The reality is that the dispute is between Coulibaly and Al Ahly. Al Ahly didn't release his registration when we signed him. We appealed to FIFA and Coulibaly was given a temporary registration enabling him to play for us. It is possible that that temporary registration could now be revoked given that Coulibaly has lost his appeal against the fine imposed on him. After 4 sub appearances that wouldn't be any great loss to us although I still think the signing itself was well worth a punt at the time. Edited March 1, 2019 by Jordanhill Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.