RicoS321

What do you mean by this? There are women (I assume) that think, say, Dons' fans should actively support both men and women?

Peter's brother?

Probably. Although it's difficult for us to say that they might have also had some decent players. It'd have been nice if he'd just slipped in "fuck the Huns" when we scored. Typical BBC bias.

That was my thoughts too. Their Burke and Bell halftime combination was basically like they'd just borrowed from rangers TV.

If it's good enough for queens park.... Again, it should go back to what the players themselves want. If it's been their dream to play the national stadium, then it does seem a little shite to piss on that because of image, or whatever the justification would be for moving it. However I think, more generally, the women's game has missed an opportunity in this country by aligning itself with the clubs in the men's game. They've actually looked at the game in this country (and the wider men's game) and thought that was a model worth emulating. In that sense, you're correct, they could have toured their game across the country and not centred on Glasgow. They could have produced a model based on fairness and sporting integrity and marketed themselves as the antithesis of the men's game. Now that it is effectively amalgamated with the men's game, the question then turns to one of why don't we (the women) have what they (the men) have, rather than: this a women's game designed by women along our principles and for that reason it is different (and in our opinion, better). Questions about Hampden shouldn't even be on their radar.

Maybe just ask the players what they want? I was at pittodrie last night for the women v Montrose and it was a great game and atmosphere despite only the main stand being filled. Having been to several of their other games at Balmoral, last night's crowd was bigger because of the change in venue, with a decent away support too. I'm guessing that despite the venue being too big, the crowds are still always larger than they otherwise would have been.

Tom Ritchie? It's been a while since we've had a keeper through the youth (Esson the last to play more than a handful?).

Any chance of getting Mitov from St Johnstone? A year left on his contract. The keeper situation worries me, and I'd like for us to have a known quantity, and he's been very good any time I've seen him. Kicking maybe not brilliant, but not terrible either.

Yep, that's basically all it is. Very much like Shinnie, his footballing ability was limited, but his workrate and pressing were fantastic. It makes it even more unbelievable that Goodwin saw fit to play him as a holding midfielder in front of the defence when his main attribute was his coverage. The equivalent of playing Willow Flood there. You wonder how this isn't coached into more limited players more often. I'd like to think that most adult males would be capable of running long distance regularly. Imagine Polvara added fitness and mileage to his game for example? I'd love to see some stats around Miovski, this season versus last, as it's very clear he's added a mile to his game, with his workrate being a simple, yet massive, improvement. Edit: shoddy work from Ferguson too, always knew he was 12 yards short of being the real deal

Buckie fucked by the establishment?

Agreed. It's the usual pish, people get it in their heads that "his legs have gone" or some other shite, and then apply conformation bias to their view, ignoring all other evidence to the contrary. Polvara did okay in the first half against the Tims, but his overall coverage isn't great, neither his stamina. That second half passed him by, and it was then that we needed Shinnie's presence to do the hard work. He's easily got another season in him before any chat about legs going and the tired, clichéd pish needs to get rolled out. Also, we've seen plenty of instances where Shinnie and Barron have played well together, so there's no issue with the balance of the midfield. It really just does depend on those two turning up and playing well. More importantly, not throwing away ridiculous goals at the back.

You really wouldn't. You'd never get me off. Think of Michael Stewart, but more argumentative.

That's probably the weirdest take on BBC bias I've ever heard.

The assistant would have been slightly behind Miovski, horizontal to him, I doubt he'd have had any real view of the ball hitting hand. Similar to the real time view on camera. Penalties for those types of incidents are a nonsense anyway, they're entirely distorted when viewed back and slowed down. The suggestion was that it would have been a pen if it was inside though.

No you wouldn't