Jump to content

Next Match: Aberdeen v Hamilton

Stand Free!

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 270
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We could have done that with existing personnel. Watkins is basically the player Scott Wright should/could be, with Wright having more pace. Exciting player that can drop the shoulder and leave folk f

McCrorie signing today. I'm against transfers both to and from the huns so BOOOOO!

If it's any consolation Manc, the tide seems to have turned against Ryhun Jack and their supposed POTY last season is getting it particularly large from a growing section of the inbred mutants. A

Posted Images

  • 2 months later...

Bit harsh, but I probably agree. He's another of those that isn't required. I don't think the young lad ngwenya was ready when he came on the other month, but likes of Dean Campbell could easily fill in at left back if required, and it would give him more much needed minutes. Again, it's where the club should have been pressuring McInnes into not buying squad fillers. We're in a position where our fourth and fifth choice midfielders are young lads both at an important stage in their careers and only likely to get token minutes between now and the end of the season. Ethan Ross been called back to bolster the time wasting sub options too. We just don't need the filler, especially with a January window. We'll probably start with no youngsters against St Mirren, apart from St Johnstone and Reims youth products.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

Bit harsh, but I probably agree. He's another of those that isn't required. I don't think the young lad ngwenya was ready when he came on the other month, but likes of Dean Campbell could easily fill in at left back if required, and it would give him more much needed minutes. Again, it's where the club should have been pressuring McInnes into not buying squad fillers. We're in a position where our fourth and fifth choice midfielders are young lads both at an important stage in their careers and only likely to get token minutes between now and the end of the season. Ethan Ross been called back to bolster the time wasting sub options too. We just don't need the filler, especially with a January window. We'll probably start with no youngsters against St Mirren, apart from St Johnstone and Reims youth products.

With Hornby allegedly being sick all week it’s is likely to be St Johnstone’s 4th choice striker up front from Saturday unless we go with McGinn. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a little harsh on Leigh, I actually thought he wasn't too bad at left back last year, but with DM going with a back 3 he really hasn't been needed this season.

I don't think it's unfair to say DM has done a really poor job of developing talent in his 8 years here. In my opinion, certain back ups must be youth, Anderson, Campbell, Ngwenya, even adding Ethan Ross here. These guys should get the playing time of Main, Ojo, Leigh etc. I'd even argue McGinn shouldn't really play anymore. It doesn't appear based on playing time that DM think McGinn can't contribute much so I'd rather see Ethan Ross instead.

Why are we signing the likes of Nicky Maynard, Miles Storey, Wes Burns etc? More recently, did the Jon Gallagher signing limit a youth being developed? How about Dom Ball? In the last few years we've signed a bunch of squad fillers that really didn't contribute much. At present we've signed 3 attacking players on loan, why??? Do we have zero youth to back up a couple of main forwards, especially when we usually play one main forward? I know it's hard to tell what signings will work out but DM definitely signs too many for our squad IMHO and pads out, and that restricts youth development. Even more so this year when there's no reserve/u21 league, youth need minutes.

Shouldn't a club like us be fully committed to youth development, players coming through, and selling to bigger clubs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think we should ever sign squad fillers. Any signing should be a player to take the place of the existing player in that position and that player becomes your back up or is moved on. Any other gaps should be from our own youngsters and not players on loan from other premier league clubs. (ETA unless it’s a try before you buy deal like McCrorie.)
 

I thought Leigh was a poor player last season even when at left back. Was disappointed when we resigned him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are very few players that we sign as squad filler though. The problem stems from poor initial recruitment. Likes of Dom Ball was brought in because we absolutely needed him due to poor recruitment. It was actually risk management. If we had been a poorer (financially) team, we'd simply have had no choice but to go with a youngster for 20-30 games per season. It's actually our first choices that fail so badly (Gleeson), resulting in us mitigating with a Ball type and bloating the squad. Ojo was mitigated by McGeouch, bloating the squad. There's a pragmatism to it that makes complete sense (proven, half decent, SPFL player, like Ball and Leigh), and it has taken place because we've had a budget that allows for it. The obvious problem is that we're stuck with the Ojo and the Gleeson, and feel obligated to give them crucial minutes that could go elsewhere. I've said it 100 times before, the problem here isn't McInnes, it's the club. That recruitment strategy has to be controlled by the board. You'll always get an Ojo that doesn't work out, that's nobody's fault and not worth worrying about. It's the fact that when you do fuck up, you can simply dip back into the pot. There has to be stricter limits on the number of players and the ratio of young players to seasoned pros. Also targets on number of minutes that are young players play and when they go out on loan. No manager should be exempt, McInnes or future boss. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

There are very few players that we sign as squad filler though. The problem stems from poor initial recruitment. Likes of Dom Ball was brought in because we absolutely needed him due to poor recruitment. It was actually risk management. If we had been a poorer (financially) team, we'd simply have had no choice but to go with a youngster for 20-30 games per season. It's actually our first choices that fail so badly (Gleeson), resulting in us mitigating with a Ball type and bloating the squad. Ojo was mitigated by McGeouch, bloating the squad. There's a pragmatism to it that makes complete sense (proven, half decent, SPFL player, like Ball and Leigh), and it has taken place because we've had a budget that allows for it. The obvious problem is that we're stuck with the Ojo and the Gleeson, and feel obligated to give them crucial minutes that could go elsewhere. I've said it 100 times before, the problem here isn't McInnes, it's the club. That recruitment strategy has to be controlled by the board. You'll always get an Ojo that doesn't work out, that's nobody's fault and not worth worrying about. It's the fact that when you do fuck up, you can simply dip back into the pot. There has to be stricter limits on the number of players and the ratio of young players to seasoned pros. Also targets on number of minutes that are young players play and when they go out on loan. No manager should be exempt, McInnes or future boss. 

We just signed 3 forwards on loan and recalled Anderson and Ruth, only to send Anderson out again. What's the point in recalling Ruth? But to me, what's the point in signing 3 loan players if none are long term permanent signings. Sign a main one e.g. Hornby, knowing he's short term, but the other should be a permanent option. It's padding out to me, we didn't need 3 loans plus Ruth. Worst case we stick McLennan up top, or McGinn, if injuries/suspensions left us stuck. 

I fully agree, our recruitment is shit, and we allow DM to sign more than he should. It's a coaches job to ensure so many don't flop too, they are his targets we sign after all.......with Hernandez maybe being the exception.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LA-Don said:

We just signed 3 forwards on loan and recalled Anderson and Ruth, only to send Anderson out again. What's the point in recalling Ruth? But to me, what's the point in signing 3 loan players if none are long term permanent signings. Sign a main one e.g. Hornby, knowing he's short term, but the other should be a permanent option. It's padding out to me, we didn't need 3 loans plus Ruth. Worst case we stick McLennan up top, or McGinn, if injuries/suspensions left us stuck. 

I fully agree, our recruitment is shit, and we allow DM to sign more than he should. It's a coaches job to ensure so many don't flop too, they are his targets we sign after all.......with Hernandez maybe being the exception.

Desperation I think. This one a bit too important. He's signed one of every type of striker. Ruth hasn't been on our bench yet, so I'm guessing the loan end was for different reasons. Maybe covid arrangements or something, perhaps they feel he's better at Cormack park doing weights or something. 

I'd take the last window with a large pinch of salt to be honest, I'm not convinced it was supposed to be anything like that and I get the impression zero funds were available and so no permanent moves were ever on the cards. It was a case of trawling the loanees and taking a punt. Hornby stinks of just picking a familiar name, he's clearly not even close to match sharp and there's no way we can afford to get him there. I think Hendry will turn out to be the one that sticks and I actually think he's got something about him. You know what you're getting with him and you know his limitations, so you work with it and around it. Kamberi will be available once the damage is already done, I think we stick with Hendry for better or worse. Send Hornby back, we can't afford to waste time on getting players up to speed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

Desperation I think. This one a bit too important. He's signed one of every type of striker. Ruth hasn't been on our bench yet, so I'm guessing the loan end was for different reasons. Maybe covid arrangements or something, perhaps they feel he's better at Cormack park doing weights or something. 

I'd take the last window with a large pinch of salt to be honest, I'm not convinced it was supposed to be anything like that and I get the impression zero funds were available and so no permanent moves were ever on the cards. It was a case of trawling the loanees and taking a punt. Hornby stinks of just picking a familiar name, he's clearly not even close to match sharp and there's no way we can afford to get him there. I think Hendry will turn out to be the one that sticks and I actually think he's got something about him. You know what you're getting with him and you know his limitations, so you work with it and around it. Kamberi will be available once the damage is already done, I think we stick with Hendry for better or worse. Send Hornby back, we can't afford to waste time on getting players up to speed.

Don’t see it with Hendry. Charges about a lot but think he is a red card waiting to happen. Would rather we stuck with Ruth if running about a lot is all we are looking for. At least we would be giving game time to our own player. Think there is a player in Hornby but not sure where he fits our team. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jute said:

Don’t see it with Hendry. Charges about a lot but think he is a red card waiting to happen. Would rather we stuck with Ruth if running about a lot is all we are looking for. At least we would be giving game time to our own player. Think there is a player in Hornby but not sure where he fits our team. 
 

Aye, I didn't mean he was great, just likely to be the one that we can fit in/around. He's a slightly tidier version of Main. He can occupy defenders and make space for others. Ruth looks like he needs a lot more game time than Hendry to provide a similar role, looks fairly lightweight and definitely not cut out for the sole striker role. He's been playing out wide in the championship, which isn't the preparation needed for playing through the middle in a stronger league. He could probably get some minutes out wide for us if he ever makes our bench. You could be right about Hornby, I just don't think our 6 month spell should be used to find out. It was a stupid signing in my opinion, it was clear in his u21 games that weren't against dross that he'd need a lot of work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...