Challenge Cup 2025-26

[Ferguson]

My worry is that we’ve not even thrown out a group of schoolboys there. We only had 3 teenagers start last night, one of which starts most weeks anyway, and finished the game with Murdoch being our only teenager on the pitch. It’s a disgrace that the 15 players we put out couldn’t find a way past Stirling Albion. 

I’m not bothered that we’re out, if we’d played a squad of the young boys that had given a good account and learned a lesson then fine but that’s a squad that we’re a few away injuries from starting in the Championship.

Be more than glad to see Corr and Shaw banished to a Dumbarton or an East Kilbride for the remainder of the season.

Edited December 10, 2025 by Ferguson

[dunning1874]

3 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

We were not playing Championship opposition. If you want to run our starters into the ground and risk having to play Corr for weeks against real opposition, to fulfil:

"our only realistic chance of a trophy (Citation needed - GMFC haven't even reached the final for over 30 years)"

then you are delusional and wrong. 

Still no explanation forthcoming as to the 'disastrous' nature of, err... not making the last 16 of the Challenge Cup though. 

I didn't say we were. Your justification for playing Corr and Hart was that finding out they weren't good enough to even cope with Stirling is good to know before January; we already knew they should both be leaving in January on account of obviously not being good enough for the Championship. They could have strolled through the game in a comfortable win last night and it wouldn't change that reality, so we've learned nothing by picking them.

If playing one midweek game would constitute running Longridge and Moore into the ground then we're going to have big problems later in the season.

[vikingTON]

9 hours ago, TRVMP said:

I think when there's money on the table and the conditions are so poor, it's best to stick with a stronger lineup, particularly at the back. I don't see any particular need to 'blood' some regen who'll be back at Swindon soon. For our own goalkeeper there's a stronger case to make for rotation but given Storer's form I see no reason to rotate him out either. 

There is always 'money on the table', so can we never rotate and rest key players mid season? The bizarre assumption being made on here though is that we would waltz our way to the grand prize, despite not being the strongest team in the cup and having no prior record of doing so. 

The decision to swap out players really should not be patched based on a bit of wind and rain either. 

People are taking their quite rightful disgust at the outcome, and blaming the selection process. But the team selected has to take full responsibility as professional first team players - and also had a full second half to score a single goal to overcome whatever cock-ups took place in the first. And previous managers would have done the same thing in these circumstances. 

Edited December 10, 2025 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

50 minutes ago, dunning1874 said:

I didn't say we were. Your justification for playing Corr and Hart was that finding out they weren't good enough to even cope with Stirling is good to know before January; we already knew they should both be leaving in January on account of obviously not being good enough for the Championship. They could have strolled through the game in a comfortable win last night and it wouldn't change that reality, so we've learned nothing by picking them.

If playing one midweek game would constitute running Longridge and Moore into the ground then we're going to have big problems later in the season.

Erm we don't play another scheduked midweek gane between now and the end of the season champ, so last night was literally the only game to rotate, rather than have Moore or another key player crocked for no good reason whatsoever. That is the key reason why fringe players should have started. And had Moore or similar been injured last night, then no doubt the decision to start them in a tinpot diddy cup tie against the worst team in the SPFL would have been slated by others on here too. 

Your first point is - once again - ridiculous because we can not and should not be paying for 4 Championship-ready, Rolls Royce centre backs each week, just so that two can sit their holes indefinitely on the bench. There is always going to be a drop-off between starters and fringe players - what needs to be tested is how large that drop-off is.

A player like Corr was signed with much fanfare by our previous manager and/or the board - we need to know if he is capable of stepping up in the real cup against Stenny if required, or if the alarming drop in form is more serious than that. Last night's performance helpfully cuts away the case for many fringe players to be retained as dependable cover, just before we can actually do something about that issue. This is the secondary reason why they should have been played. 

And had a more than strong enough team done anything at all in the second 45 minutes, there simply wouldn't be howls of outrage and derision at the selection. It is a response based purely on a result, which was very much in the selected team's capacity to resolve. 

Edited December 10, 2025 by vikingTON

[dunning1874]

33 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

 Your first point is - once again - ridiculous because we can not and should not be paying for 4 Championship-ready, Rolls Royce centre backs each week, just so that two can sit their holes indefinitely on the bench. There is always going to be a drop-off between starters and fringe players - what needs to be tested is how large that drop-off is.

A player like Corr was signed with much fanfare by our previous manager and/or the board - we need to know if he is capable of stepping up in the real cup against Stenny if required, or if the alarming drop in form is more serious than that. Last night's performance helpfully cuts away the case for many fringe players to be retained as dependable cover, just before we can actually do something about that issue. This is the secondary reason why they should have been played. 

For the millionth time, that's what we already knew. No one is expecting us to have a further two centre backs of equal standard to the starting two sitting on the bench every week, but we already knew that there was a massive drop off to Corr that means he is not dependable cover and should be moved on for an alternative in January. We didn't need last night to come to that conclusion.

[TopCat]

I'm caught between my own ambivalence towards this competition (season, squad) and disdain for Billy Davies and the current regime. 

If we're not in any sort of financial position to be promoted without severe consequences, as claimed by Davies, why are we treating the Challenge Cup as a bounce game? Surely this competition is the pinnacle of what our Caretaker views as achievable?

If Hart and Murdoch aren't capable of featuring at Championship level at all before mid-December, why are they being given a start now?  

[Mr.Blue]

It's been said before but Kerr Robertson conducts himself really well when being interviewed and is very mature when speaking about football. Hopefully he can find the consistency to be an important player for us.

[Greacen2000]

1 hour ago, vikingTON said:

Erm we don't play another scheduked midweek gane between now and the end of the season champ, so last night was literally the only game to rotate, rather than have Moore or another key player crocked for no good reason whatsoever. That is the key reason why fringe players should have started. And had Moore or similar been injured last night, then no doubt the decision to start them in a tinpot diddy cup tie against the worst team in the SPFL would have been slated by others on here too. 

Your first point is - once again - ridiculous because we can not and should not be paying for 4 Championship-ready, Rolls Royce centre backs each week, just so that two can sit their holes indefinitely on the bench. There is always going to be a drop-off between starters and fringe players - what needs to be tested is how large that drop-off is.

A player like Corr was signed with much fanfare by our previous manager and/or the board - we need to know if he is capable of stepping up in the real cup against Stenny if required, or if the alarming drop in form is more serious than that. Last night's performance helpfully cuts away the case for many fringe players to be retained as dependable cover, just before we can actually do something about that issue. This is the secondary reason why they should have been played. 

And had a more than strong enough team done anything at all in the second 45 minutes, there simply wouldn't be howls of outrage and derision at the selection. It is a response based purely on a result, which was very much in the selected team's capacity to resolve. 

I don’t really think that throwing in 2 inexperienced CBs & an inexperienced keeper at the same time is a reasonable measure of how capable any of them are of stepping up when needed.  

It would have been much more sensible (and realistic!) to maybe start 1 of the 3, then give the others some game time by using substitutions.

The drop off in quality we saw last night wouldn’t have been as severe if it was just 1 out of Hart, Corr & Murdoch being brought in with a more experienced defence around them, and would also have been a lot closer to the likely real-world circumstances that we would be in if we needed to play one of them in the championship due to injury/suspension etc

Edited December 10, 2025 by Greacen2000

[DumfriesTon]

FWIW, I thought Hart was fine last night. Don’t think he disgraced himself, perhaps a tendency to go back to the keeper too much but he was fine. Corr on the other hand is an absolute bombscare and should be nowhere near senior football.

The reason we lost was two goals that were completely avoidable. Wilson really poor for the 1st and I’ve no idea what Murdoch is doing so far off his line, albeit if it was Storer he’d have probably just caught the ball mid air . I think realistically Murdoch is probably just too small to be a keeper at this level. I’ve already mentioned the 2nd but my god. However, the final ball last night was terrible, Shaw and Garrity being the main culprits.
 

We’ve limped over the line against Peterhead, last minute winner against a shite QP team and a loss to Stirling. Airdrie seem to have got their shit together over the last few weeks so I’m not confident for Saturday. The new manager has got a lot of work to do but I think it’s clear that this team are generally just not good enough. 

[Chicken_Soup]

1 hour ago, vikingTON said:

Erm we don't play another scheduked midweek gane between now and the end of the season champ, so last night was literally the only game to rotate, rather than have Moore or another key player crocked for no good reason whatsoever. That is the key reason why fringe players should have started. And had Moore or similar been injured last night, then no doubt the decision to start them in a tinpot diddy cup tie against the worst team in the SPFL would have been slated by others on here too. 

Your first point is - once again - ridiculous because we can not and should not be paying for 4 Championship-ready, Rolls Royce centre backs each week, just so that two can sit their holes indefinitely on the bench. There is always going to be a drop-off between starters and fringe players - what needs to be tested is how large that drop-off is.

A player like Corr was signed with much fanfare by our previous manager and/or the board - we need to know if he is capable of stepping up in the real cup against Stenny if required, or if the alarming drop in form is more serious than that. Last night's performance helpfully cuts away the case for many fringe players to be retained as dependable cover, just before we can actually do something about that issue. This is the secondary reason why they should have been played. 

And had a more than strong enough team done anything at all in the second 45 minutes, there simply wouldn't be howls of outrage and derision at the selection. It is a response based purely on a result, which was very much in the selected team's capacity to resolve. 

Sounding scarily similar to Davies’ post match here. He chose to prioritise some bizarre fact finding mission, learn a bit more about our fringe players, making young players feel good by getting some minutes… and then “hope” (Davies’ choice of word) that we can win the game. 

The priority IS to win the game. All that other nonsense is secondary, so pick a team to expect victory. As you pointed out, there are no other scheduled midweek games, so why rotate so much?

It’s complacent. This was called out before the game, including before and after the team lineup was announced. No hindsight required.

[Ferguson]

45 minutes ago, Chicken_Soup said:

Sounding scarily similar to Davies’ post match here. He chose to prioritise some bizarre fact finding mission, learn a bit more about our fringe players, making young players feel good by getting some minutes… and then “hope” (Davies’ choice of word) that we can win the game. 

Yeah, I didn’t like his interview. Seemed to imply that it wasn’t his responsibility to win the match, as though he’s still the 2nd in command. The use of the word “hope” in that context is bizarre and unacceptable.

FWIW I don’t think the volume of rotation was wrong, but if you’re throwing in a teenage centre half and a teenage keeper, both with no appearances all season, you absolutely have to give them an experienced head to help them through it otherwise the “experience” you’re handing them is of no benefit, and is liable to turn out exactly as it did.

[RossMcC1874]

Corr really is a bombscare i think he likes the idea of being a footballer but in reality he isn't anywhere near the level. Hart being signed is another odd one not played at all other than tonight and probably back down to Swindon. 

But that squad should still have been good enough to get the job done and they weren't.

The only positive was Kerr Robertson im actually surprise how well he has done considering his age and the amount of games he has played lets hope for more of the same from him could be an important player if he keeps improving the way he has been. 

Adeloye not taking a penalty is also a weird one considering he is someone you would bank on taking one wonder what the reasons were for that. 

[James]

2 hours ago, TopCat said:

I'm caught between my own ambivalence towards this competition (season, squad) and disdain for Billy Davies and the current regime. 

If we're not in any sort of financial position to be promoted without severe consequences, as claimed by Davies, why are we treating the Challenge Cup as a bounce game? Surely this competition is the pinnacle of what our Caretaker views as achievable?

If Hart and Murdoch aren't capable of featuring at Championship level at all before mid-December, why are they being given a start now?  

Spot on.
 

As others have said, going out of this Cup isn’t a disaster in and of itself, the approach from Davies is incoherent and ill-informed and demonstrates the complete void in leadership and accountability at the club at the moment.

[ConTon74]

Just watched the highlights, Jesus wept they 2 goals we conceded are embarrassing, Sunday league level

[SpoonTon]

Murdoch came in at the end of last season and equipped himself very well (in a difficult and embarrassing situation for the club), but I'm struggling for the words to put to his two performances this season without feeling like I'm being really mean to an 18 year old trying his best. If Storer was in goals last night then we wouldn't have lost.

This shouldn't deflect from another poor performance in the final third, or from the performances of other players (like Corr, who is relatively young as well), but we should know which players are and aren't ready to be thrown in. 

[Deego]

2 hours ago, SpoonTon said:

Murdoch came in at the end of last season and equipped himself very well (in a difficult and embarrassing situation for the club), but I'm struggling for the words to put to his two performances this season without feeling like I'm being really mean to an 18 year old trying his best. If Storer was in goals last night then we wouldn't have lost.

This shouldn't deflect from another poor performance in the final third, or from the performances of other players (like Corr, who is relatively young as well), but we should know which players are and aren't ready to be thrown in. 

I’d like to take this opportunity to point out some people wanted him to be first choice keeper this season. Just worth a moment of reflection…

Anyway I hope he gets support from his teammates and goalie coach this week.

[Tubes]

Defensively a total horror show on those highlights. Shocked at how bad Murdoch has looked in the two games this season, especially considering how well he done last year. Corr also looks way off it which has been frustrating as it seemed like there was big potential there when we signed him on the 2 year deal. 

Offensively we should’ve stuck a few of those chances away, unsurprisingly Gaston still doing the business against us too. That finish from Robertson was a beauty though  

[Rossco]

4 hours ago, SpoonTon said:

Murdoch came in at the end of last season and equipped himself very well (in a difficult and embarrassing situation for the club), but I'm struggling for the words to put to his two performances this season without feeling like I'm being really mean to an 18 year old trying his best. If Storer was in goals last night then we wouldn't have lost.

This shouldn't deflect from another poor performance in the final third, or from the performances of other players (like Corr, who is relatively young as well), but we should know which players are and aren't ready to be thrown in. 

He had baird and boyes in front of him those 2 did well to protect him by being better players than current cb

[TONofmemories]

Was it really fair/good idea to fire the wee guy in goal in such a rancid night?

[vikingTON]

9 hours ago, TONofmemories said:

Was it really fair/good idea to fire the wee guy in goal in such a rancid night?

Yes it was, because:

i) bottom of League 2 dross is an entirely reasonable test for a backup. As are Scottish conditions - it's not as if Parklea was consistently tranquil last season, and

ii) Storer was linked just last week with a change of club/loan in the January transfer window. So we need to know whether we could play our current no.2 for a game, possibly two, at Championship level - if we are required to find the best available replacement for Storer.

The alternative is that we need to act first to secure a goalkeeper - even a pretty mediocre Championship level option - as insurance in case Storer leaves. There are costs to that decision, but there are also costs to shipping goals in key games in January. 

Only by playing Murdoch again do we get the hard evidence to show that he's still* not ready yet and so we need to be the first mover in the transfer market for a keeper - again if there is any substance to a potential move for Storer. 

 

 

* i.e. Any progression on the training ground, working with the defence since the summer is not enough to rely on. 

Edited December 11, 2025 by vikingTON