Radford 72

The problem Callum Davidson faces is that when you start weighing it up, there are so many facets of his management that you can pour scrutiny on, whereas the defence is limited to past achievements that don't really provide much source for optimism in our current situation. 
He turned it round last season - by luck or design - with the introduction of a couple of new players into his system but the big difference was that despite not getting results, all the indicators pointed to a change of form. Basically we created a lot and gave little away. 
That brings us to the first aspect of his management, tactics:
The system he developed last season was good and became even better when you added the predatory instincts of Melamed and everything that Rooney offered. Wide diagonals were effective with the aerial prowess of the latter and Tanser, McCann would snap in and win the balls off those contacts. Wotherspoon understood and thrived in the inside forward position behind a main striker. Kerr advanced up the field to give the extra man you need when pressing in games but operating with a back three. 
It wasn't perfect - we didn't score enough goals - but it worked. It looked a system that the manager had developed to suit his squad, which is always encouraging, and he received plaudits for his ability as a coach. 
It was understandable that he wouldn't change much going into this season in that sense but as the team changed, so did the results. We no longer had the ability to win the first or second contact on the diagonals, nobody to pick up the ball in the pockets of space in attacking midfield and nobody to step out from defence. Yet he has persevered with the same system for now four months with no upturn in form, results or performances. Quite the opposite and it's drained the belief and confidence from the squad of players it is his job to manage. 
At some point (in my opinion about a month ago) he had to realise this wasn't working and try something different. I think the players would have relished it as much as the fans. It might not have worked straight away but it would have shown an acknowledgement and willingness to rectify a worsening situation. 
We now don't know if he can come up with something different tactically when assessing where to go from here. 
The morale of the players looks at rock bottom and that's part of his remit, to manage a group of individuals and the unit. He said yesterday that they hadn't done what he asked of them in the first 40 minutes. The problem with that is that we were so well-drilled last season and the system has hardly changed. So why aren't they doing what he says? It's hard to believe they don't understand what is being asked of them given where we were previously. Have they stopped playing for him? The reaction to going a goal behind in the defence of your trophy was as limp as it could be.
Is the bigger picture that he can't inspire players in the way some of his predecessors could? Saints have always lost their better players to clubs with greater resources but have largely avoided seeing the sort of defection witnessed with Scott Tanser's switch to St Mirren. The list of players not interested in signing a new contract under the manager is far longer than the list of those that are. 
Maybe that's purely financial and you can't judge him overly on that but you can on his business, or lack of, in the transfer market and his failure to evolve the squad he inherited. 
There is a defence, the uncertainty of the pandemic, the timing of his own arrival and most certainly the timing of the August departures of Kerr and McCann. But there is also a pretty damning case for the prosecution:
Despite the success of the team last season, at just 0.47 goals per game, Saints recorded the lowest goals per game at home of ANY club in ANY division in the HISTORY of the Scottish league... AND we lost Guy Melamed. Yet this summer the manager made no proven additions to his striking options that he was clearly going to be happy with. How did he think that was going to work out? 
Tanser was replaced with a young loanee with no experience and the potential sale of Kerr was prepared for in the same manner. Loans have been the order of the day until this month, when it's potentially too late in any case. 
The advantages of Saints making a change now are you hope it lifts the players, we see something different tactically to surprise the opposition and you have a few days left to recruit some reinforcements with a lot of scouting having been done on potential players by others at the club. 
Sad to say but what are the potential disadvantages? I think when you get to the stage where you ask yourself if it can get any worse, you probably already know the answer to both that and whether the manager should remain in his role... 

The problem Callum Davidson faces is that when you start weighing it up, there are so many facets of his management that you can pour scrutiny on, whereas the defence is limited to past achievements that don't really provide much source for optimism in our current situation. 
He turned it round last season - by luck or design - with the introduction of a couple of new players into his system but the big difference was that despite not getting results, all the indicators pointed to a change of form. Basically we created a lot and gave little away. 
That brings us to the first aspect of his management, tactics:
The system he developed last season was good and became even better when you added the predatory instincts of Melamed and everything that Rooney offered. Wide diagonals were effective with the aerial prowess of the latter and Tanser, McCann would snap in and win the balls off those contacts. Wotherspoon understood and thrived in the inside forward position behind a main striker. Kerr advanced up the field to give the extra man you need when pressing in games but operating with a back three. 
It wasn't perfect - we didn't score enough goals - but it worked. It looked a system that the manager had developed to suit his squad, which is always encouraging, and he received plaudits for his ability as a coach. 
It was understandable that he wouldn't change much going into this season in that sense but as the team changed, so did the results. We no longer had the ability to win the first or second contact on the diagonals, nobody to pick up the ball in the pockets of space in attacking midfield and nobody to step out from defence. Yet he has persevered with the same system for now four months with no upturn in form, results or performances. Quite the opposite and it's drained the belief and confidence from the squad of players it is his job to manage. 
At some point (in my opinion about a month ago) he had to realise this wasn't working and try something different. I think the players would have relished it as much as the fans. It might not have worked straight away but it would have shown an acknowledgement and willingness to rectify a worsening situation. 
We now don't know if he can come up with something different tactically when assessing where to go from here. 
The morale of the players looks at rock bottom and that's part of his remit, to manage a group of individuals and the unit. He said yesterday that they hadn't done what he asked of them in the first 40 minutes. The problem with that is that we were so well-drilled last season and the system has hardly changed. So why aren't they doing what he says? It's hard to believe they don't understand what is being asked of them given where we were previously. Have they stopped playing for him? The reaction to going a goal behind in the defence of your trophy was as limp as it could be.
Is the bigger picture that he can't inspire players in the way some of his predecessors could? Saints have always lost their better players to clubs with greater resources but have largely avoided seeing the sort of defection witnessed with Scott Tanser's switch to St Mirren. The list of players not interested in signing a new contract under the manager is far longer than the list of those that are. 
Maybe that's purely financial and you can't judge him overly on that but you can on his business, or lack of, in the transfer market and his failure to evolve the squad he inherited. 
There is a defence, the uncertainty of the pandemic, the timing of his own arrival and most certainly the timing of the August departures of Kerr and McCann. But there is also a pretty damning case for the prosecution:
Despite the success of the team last season, at just 0.47 goals per game, Saints recorded the lowest goals per game at home of ANY club in ANY division in the HISTORY of the Scottish league... AND we lost Guy Melamed. Yet this summer the manager made no proven additions to his striking options that he was clearly going to be happy with. How did he think that was going to work out? 
Tanser was replaced with a young loanee with no experience and the potential sale of Kerr was prepared for in the same manner. Loans have been the order of the day until this month, when it's potentially too late in any case. 
The advantages of Saints making a change now are you hope it lifts the players, we see something different tactically to surprise the opposition and you have a few days left to recruit some reinforcements with a lot of scouting having been done on potential players by others at the club. 
Sad to say but what are the potential disadvantages? I think when you get to the stage where you ask yourself if it can get any worse, you probably already know the answer to both that and whether the manager should remain in his role... 

The problem Callum Davidson faces is that when you start weighing it up, there are so many facets of his management that you can pour scrutiny on, whereas the defence is limited to past achievements that don't really provide much source for optimism in our current situation. 
He turned it round last season - by luck or design - with the introduction of a couple of new players into his system but the big difference was that despite not getting results, all the indicators pointed to a change of form. Basically we created a lot and gave little away. 
That brings us to the first aspect of his management, tactics:
The system he developed last season was good and became even better when you added the predatory instincts of Melamed and everything that Rooney offered. Wide diagonals were effective with the aerial prowess of the latter and Tanser, McCann would snap in and win the balls off those contacts. Wotherspoon understood and thrived in the inside forward position behind a main striker. Kerr advanced up the field to give the extra man you need when pressing in games but operating with a back three. 
It wasn't perfect - we didn't score enough goals - but it worked. It looked a system that the manager had developed to suit his squad, which is always encouraging, and he received plaudits for his ability as a coach. 
It was understandable that he wouldn't change much going into this season in that sense but as the team changed, so did the results. We no longer had the ability to win the first or second contact on the diagonals, nobody to pick up the ball in the pockets of space in attacking midfield and nobody to step out from defence. Yet he has persevered with the same system for now four months with no upturn in form, results or performances. Quite the opposite and it's drained the belief and confidence from the squad of players it is his job to manage. 
At some point (in my opinion about a month ago) he had to realise this wasn't working and try something different. I think the players would have relished it as much as the fans. It might not have worked straight away but it would have shown an acknowledgement and willingness to rectify a worsening situation. 
We now don't know if he can come up with something different tactically when assessing where to go from here. 
The morale of the players looks at rock bottom and that's part of his remit, to manage a group of individuals and the unit. He said yesterday that they hadn't done what he asked of them in the first 40 minutes. The problem with that is that we were so well-drilled last season and the system has hardly changed. So why aren't they doing what he says? It's hard to believe they don't understand what is being asked of them given where we were previously. Have they stopped playing for him? The reaction to going a goal behind in the defence of your trophy was as limp as it could be.
Is the bigger picture that he can't inspire players in the way some of his predecessors could? Saints have always lost their better players to clubs with greater resources but have largely avoided seeing the sort of defection witnessed with Scott Tanser's switch to St Mirren. The list of players not interested in signing a new contract under the manager is far longer than the list of those that are. 
Maybe that's purely financial and you can't judge him overly on that but you can on his business, or lack of, in the transfer market and his failure to evolve the squad he inherited. 
There is a defence, the uncertainty of the pandemic, the timing of his own arrival and most certainly the timing of the August departures of Kerr and McCann. But there is also a pretty damning case for the prosecution:
Despite the success of the team last season, at just 0.47 goals per game, Saints recorded the lowest goals per game at home of ANY club in ANY division in the HISTORY of the Scottish league... AND we lost Guy Melamed. Yet this summer the manager made no proven additions to his striking options that he was clearly going to be happy with. How did he think that was going to work out? 
Tanser was replaced with a young loanee with no experience and the potential sale of Kerr was prepared for in the same manner. Loans have been the order of the day until this month, when it's potentially too late in any case. 
The advantages of Saints making a change now are you hope it lifts the players, we see something different tactically to surprise the opposition and you have a few days left to recruit some reinforcements with a lot of scouting having been done on potential players by others at the club. 
Sad to say but what are the potential disadvantages? I think when you get to the stage where you ask yourself if it can get any worse, you probably already know the answer to both that and whether the manager should remain in his role... 

The system doesn't suit Middleton or O'Halloran, who both want to get white paint on their boots and face up a full back. Hence why Davidson ends up playing them as strikers, something that has to stop if we we are to improve. 
It was a poor decision to bring them both back this season, rather than try and find players that are better suited to the systems we use.

I must've blinked in those instances where he was doing really well. 
He had some huge moments, which in itself can be a useful trait in a footballer and could be the only justification for bringing him back. He only started four games and two of them were when we played much-changed teams. 
You can call them wingers but you need far more in your locker than Middleton or O'Halloran offer to play in Davidson's 5-2-3 system. 

Bottom line with all of this is that the time to attract talent like Deas and Rudden was last summer when our stock was high and had European games forthcoming. 

Then the xSv numbers would reflect that. In reality though, rather than baseless claims, he was conceding goals that were usually prevented. And a lot of them. 
Thankfully, he has improved massively in the past 10 months and deserves all the praise he's getting. 

Then the xSv numbers would reflect that. In reality though, rather than baseless claims, he was conceding goals that were usually prevented. And a lot of them. 
Thankfully, he has improved massively in the past 10 months and deserves all the praise he's getting. 

Then the xSv numbers would reflect that. In reality though, rather than baseless claims, he was conceding goals that were usually prevented. And a lot of them. 
Thankfully, he has improved massively in the past 10 months and deserves all the praise he's getting. 

Then the xSv numbers would reflect that. In reality though, rather than baseless claims, he was conceding goals that were usually prevented. And a lot of them. 
Thankfully, he has improved massively in the past 10 months and deserves all the praise he's getting. 

Then the xSv numbers would reflect that. In reality though, rather than baseless claims, he was conceding goals that were usually prevented. And a lot of them. 
Thankfully, he has improved massively in the past 10 months and deserves all the praise he's getting. 

Losing Clark would be suicide.
Expecting Parish to be number 1 next season would be stupid regardless of what division we end up in.

Letting Clark go this window has to be a non-starter. Without him, who knows how far adrift we’d be. We aren’t in the position to risk bedding in a new ‘keeper. I think I’d rather take the hit and lose him for free in the summer than go through what United went through with Kawashima, or Killie went through last season. 

Absolutely no danger we should be letting go of Clark this window. Not even for £250k. Let him leave on a free in the summer, he’s hardly irreplaceable. 

He's gone. And to make matters worse, MacPherson is back in training. 

I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if there was another five or six signings. There are areas that need immediate addressing (legs in midfield arguably now being number one) but if they are serious about learning from past mistakes (and surely appointing a Head of Recruitment is a big part of that) then they need to prepare for likely departure of Rooney and McCart. 
Obviously retaining league status is the priority but you can't afford to stand still, especially when we've already done it for three windows under this manager. 
Goalkeeping issue will need addressed but there is absolutely no way they can let Clark go in January so we don't actually NEED a keeper until the summer. 
After stating the above, there will then need to be players out as well clearly. 

27 games. Started in April 1979 and ran into 1979/80 season. 
Scored at least 3 goals in three consecutive league games in October 2005, 3-1 against both Brechin and QoS, then 5-1 against Accies. Game in which Goran Stanic scored his only goal for the club. 
Did the same in April 1997: 4-0 vs Partick, 3-2 vs East Fife (day we won league) and 4-1 vs Falkirk. 
We bettered that in January/February 1996, doing it in four consecutive league fixtures: 3-1 vs Clydebank, same score against United, 3-2 against Dundee and then 3-1 against St Mirren. 
In that period under Sturrock, we scored three or more goals in 22 out of 52 league games! What a time to be a Saints fan. 
Also managed a run of four in the spring of 1990, a set of fixtures everyone remembers: 5-2 vs Albion Rovers, 6-0 vs Alloa, 3-2 vs Hamilton, 3-1 vs Airdrie.
In 1982, we opened our title winning season by scoring at least three goals in five of the first six fixtures.
Some other runs of three and four but in 1950, there was a run of five late in the year: 6-1 vs Arbroath, 7-2 vs Dunfermline, 3-0 vs Forfar, 4-4 vs Albion Rovers and 6-1 vs Queen's Park. 
That run has never been bettered. 

Took decision not to apply for this. Will be first home game I've missed (fans allowed) in 7 years I reckon. It was fine back in the summer when we thought it was a route back to something but sitting on your own (no guarantee that family/friends get an allocation) in the cold, potentially in the front bottom corner? Just really don't see the appeal when you can watch it with whoever you like on Sky Sports/Saints TV. 
Everyone I've spoken to feels the same and it's compounded by being told there is no science behind the 500 limit (McDiarmid could easily accommodate all ST holders) but that they are doing this to send out a message that we need to reduce social interaction. That despite triple boosters and LFTs. 
Good luck to those in the hat. 

Took decision not to apply for this. Will be first home game I've missed (fans allowed) in 7 years I reckon. It was fine back in the summer when we thought it was a route back to something but sitting on your own (no guarantee that family/friends get an allocation) in the cold, potentially in the front bottom corner? Just really don't see the appeal when you can watch it with whoever you like on Sky Sports/Saints TV. 
Everyone I've spoken to feels the same and it's compounded by being told there is no science behind the 500 limit (McDiarmid could easily accommodate all ST holders) but that they are doing this to send out a message that we need to reduce social interaction. That despite triple boosters and LFTs. 
Good luck to those in the hat. 

27 games. Started in April 1979 and ran into 1979/80 season. 
Scored at least 3 goals in three consecutive league games in October 2005, 3-1 against both Brechin and QoS, then 5-1 against Accies. Game in which Goran Stanic scored his only goal for the club. 
Did the same in April 1997: 4-0 vs Partick, 3-2 vs East Fife (day we won league) and 4-1 vs Falkirk. 
We bettered that in January/February 1996, doing it in four consecutive league fixtures: 3-1 vs Clydebank, same score against United, 3-2 against Dundee and then 3-1 against St Mirren. 
In that period under Sturrock, we scored three or more goals in 22 out of 52 league games! What a time to be a Saints fan. 
Also managed a run of four in the spring of 1990, a set of fixtures everyone remembers: 5-2 vs Albion Rovers, 6-0 vs Alloa, 3-2 vs Hamilton, 3-1 vs Airdrie.
In 1982, we opened our title winning season by scoring at least three goals in five of the first six fixtures.
Some other runs of three and four but in 1950, there was a run of five late in the year: 6-1 vs Arbroath, 7-2 vs Dunfermline, 3-0 vs Forfar, 4-4 vs Albion Rovers and 6-1 vs Queen's Park. 
That run has never been bettered. 

27 games. Started in April 1979 and ran into 1979/80 season. 
Scored at least 3 goals in three consecutive league games in October 2005, 3-1 against both Brechin and QoS, then 5-1 against Accies. Game in which Goran Stanic scored his only goal for the club. 
Did the same in April 1997: 4-0 vs Partick, 3-2 vs East Fife (day we won league) and 4-1 vs Falkirk. 
We bettered that in January/February 1996, doing it in four consecutive league fixtures: 3-1 vs Clydebank, same score against United, 3-2 against Dundee and then 3-1 against St Mirren. 
In that period under Sturrock, we scored three or more goals in 22 out of 52 league games! What a time to be a Saints fan. 
Also managed a run of four in the spring of 1990, a set of fixtures everyone remembers: 5-2 vs Albion Rovers, 6-0 vs Alloa, 3-2 vs Hamilton, 3-1 vs Airdrie.
In 1982, we opened our title winning season by scoring at least three goals in five of the first six fixtures.
Some other runs of three and four but in 1950, there was a run of five late in the year: 6-1 vs Arbroath, 7-2 vs Dunfermline, 3-0 vs Forfar, 4-4 vs Albion Rovers and 6-1 vs Queen's Park. 
That run has never been bettered. 

I think Coyle had turned it round before he left, because he made big signings at a key time. 
His summer business (Stewart, Daal, McCluskey and, to a lesser extent, Weatherston) had been poor but he went out and got Gary Irvine late in the window and Quinn and Deuchar on loan, putting them straight into an underperforming team. 
We'd fallen off the pace early on (more draws than defeats admittedly) but he was one loss in 13 when he left. 

I think Coyle had turned it round before he left, because he made big signings at a key time. 
His summer business (Stewart, Daal, McCluskey and, to a lesser extent, Weatherston) had been poor but he went out and got Gary Irvine late in the window and Quinn and Deuchar on loan, putting them straight into an underperforming team. 
We'd fallen off the pace early on (more draws than defeats admittedly) but he was one loss in 13 when he left. 

I think Coyle had turned it round before he left, because he made big signings at a key time. 
His summer business (Stewart, Daal, McCluskey and, to a lesser extent, Weatherston) had been poor but he went out and got Gary Irvine late in the window and Quinn and Deuchar on loan, putting them straight into an underperforming team. 
We'd fallen off the pace early on (more draws than defeats admittedly) but he was one loss in 13 when he left. 

Overall success has managed to mask some pretty glaring deficiencies during Davidson's time in charge.
Just 15 goals in 26 home league games under him. Last season we had the lowest goals scored per home game of any team in the entire history of the Scottish football league across all the divisions and over a century. 
We are now 1 win in 12 home games against full-time opposition. 
Vertainen and Solomon-Otabor might be a disaster today, they might not even, God forbid, press and track back but really, we have nothing to lose. The home form can't continue as it is, it must be sucking the soul out of the support. 
Get them both on from the start and hopefully something sticks, as that was one the major problems against St Mirren.
The play-it-safe option today, which is presumably something like Crawford in behind a lone O'Halloran would suggest a manager that will never deliver a team set out to entertain. 
That would hurt far more than a(nother) defeat.