Bloomsbury Bud

What Alex Rae said last was he wants to play good football but his immediate priority was getting the squad into being more competitive, then take it from there. The players he has signed are a blend of good players with good physicality. The example he used was that the midfield of McMullen, Agnew and Mallan didn't have sufficient physicality. As for the U20s his point was they are in the development business, but Rae is in the winning 3 points business. He wants to give the younger players the opportunity to play first team football but he isn't convinced the U20 league is the best preparation to breaking into the first team. With the exception of Mallan and McGin his point on u20s seemed pretty well thought through, in my opinion.

True, but something the previous management team failed to do. Fair to say there's an improvement

Mallan certainly isn't the problem, he's a superb prospect. The observation that he drifts in games is valid of the entire side. Returning to the original post, I don't think our defence is too bad, we just do too much of it and often in deep positions. Agnew hasn't worked out and both parties should acknowledge this and find an amicable way to part, Gow must be moved on; if he's not bad for team morale he's terrible for fan morale even if we lose some modest money shifting him is the right decision. Where we'll find combative midfielders right now (other than return of Goody) I don't know but there must be one or two around.

The walk off was a tragic scene. I can though recall it being worse for other Saints managers, notably Alex Miller who took some hidings of the support and found it so traumatising that he returned 30 years later

Murray for Alloa, surely

and the pools panel never thought we'd win

I considered Ian Murray to be a good appointment. I think we've failed to hold onto winning positions in 5 home league fixtures this season. I also think we've lost goals in the 90min point on 4 league fixtures this season. The goals we've scored have often had good fortune, and not resulted from well worked football, last night, second against Falkirk, Alloa and Dumbarton. At one point yesterday I watched Kelly get to the byline and then I realised how rare its been to see Saints get into that sort of position. While the decline does predate Ian Murray he is out his depth with the job. Regrettably, I was (along with dozens of others) wrong about Murray's ability; to avoid relegation play off Murray needs to be replaced.

Yeah, the quarter final against Aberdeen was also a strong performance.

Indeed, we are a soft touch these days.

I had to work the day of the Killie match, and I'm open minded to the notion that Saints played well. However, I'm less generous to accept it mattered as we were already relegated (or as good as resigned to it). The Hibs match from the season before is the last time I can recall needing a result at home and getting it.

Yup, for what its worth I didn't read between the lines, I was pleased with the appointment in May. The evidence is now plain as day that he's out his depth and while St Mirren's decline pre dates the appointment; Murray has failed to manage it. I'm now, no longer selective about who gets the job next, it just needs to be someone who can salvage the damage in this season and bring a competitive spirit to the performances.

I'm struggling to recall it, was it Hibs at home when McLean and McGowan scored, a mere 19 months ago?

Agreed. Any success from this point is Miller's and continued failure will be 'credited' to Murray. My hunch, is Murray will resign (leaving on the cheap) maybe at the end of the season but its difficult to believe he's going to be around for any sort of sustained period.

I'm in favour one way or another, but I think Miller's appointment is to force Murray to make his own decision, and avoid another managerial pay off.

And that's more positives than negatives?