Sonoftherock

Gleeson was with us for 2 seasons and showed absolutely nothing in his 20-odd performances, or whatever it was. In midfield the game mostly passed him by and he was miles off the pace. He looked extremely pedestrian. He wasn't good enough to impact our first team and as a result he was sat on the bench for most of his time with us. Yes he had injury problems - but when he was on the pitch he was extremely underwhelming. I don't know how much Gleeson was on, but he is an Irish international, who'd just come off 4 seasons in the championship. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that we will have been paying him top dollar to relocate to Scotland. My feeling is that a youth player could have provided everything, and possibly more than Gleeson brought to the table, for a vastly reduced price. You can make all the excuses you want - however my argument, based on the above, is that Gleeson was a poor signing and a massive waste of money. If you think Gleeson was fine, (not withstanding the wages we were paying for him), then we have very different opinions on our hopes and aspirations for Aberdeen Football Club. On that basis, there is not much point in continuing this debate. Have a go with Tansey, Forrester, Bryson, etc... Interested to hear your excuses for the non-return on our significant investment for these players. You can make excuses for anything... but the truth is there is an emerging trend. We have wasted hundred of thousands of pounds in wages and in some cases transfer fees on injured, or mental ill/past their best players. There are a few other culprits... but the aforementioned are certainly the worst examples. After that we move into Stevie May territory. Again, big wages and a big transfer fee. Some will argue he ran about a lot and worked hard. He absolutely did that - the boy ran himself into the ground for Aberdeen and bloody good on him! However, did he represent value for money? Could we have saved 400k (or whatever it was) and payed another player 1/10th of his wages, to provide a similar level level service? I think we could have. There seems to be no accountability for the amount of money we've just thrown away under McInnes... this both angers and worries me. Hopefully this will change under Cormack.

That's what I said when I read that reply. No point even trying to take that point on.

That's the thing. You've pretty much said it yourself. It's not just one game.

Bryson was one of the worst of the lot! Not sure how many times he's played for us, but he's looked miles off the pace every time I've seen him. The games he's played in have just passed him by... He's got a fantastic CV - but that counts for fuck all now. On the basis of what I've seen, he looks like a guy who's won a competition to play for Aberdeen and have a run around wearing the jersey. Dread to think how much we've spunked on him, in terms of wages. Guys like Bryson, Gleeson, Forrester.... all came up from down south, presumably on very good money. What return have we had? Throw the tansey into the mix too for a laugh. It's shameful the amount the money we've wasted. Imagine what clubs like Livi, St. Mirren, Hamilton could do with that sort of money? The wages those lot would have been on, wouldn't have been far short of their entire budget I'd say!

Insipid is exactly the word I’d use to describe many of our performances against the Huns and Celtic in recent times. Unfortunately it’s becoming all too predictable. that was our home game and we never really threatened them - this is a very average Hun team too! A predictably depressing start to the season.

It would be the first time, if I did.

? is this is the real Tup, or a just a poor imitation?

The new forum looks good guys! Well done!

Perhaps "Super Forum" wasn't quite the correct choice of phrase! Reading between the lines, I'm pretty sure most folk understood the point I was trying to make! But I stand by what I said... I've always posted on all three forums, and as such I've always liked the idea of a single combined forum! If there's an discussion I'm interested in, I'll participate. Generally speaking, I've always got on fine with the other guys from the forums... I don't understand where all this sniping comes from and I find it pretty sad to be honest. We're all Dons fans after all.

I don’t have the participation level statistics, however, a quick look at the make-up of the top 100, reveal that it’s a global game. It’s an interesting article and I appreciate the argument but it’s one that I reject. I believe that in Sports like Tennis and Soccer you can just train or “make” a champion. It’s a mixture of mentality, genetics, hard-work and talent (and perhaps in some instances, as discussed earlier in this thread opportunity). When I was a kid I lived for playing sports – It was all I wanted to do in my spare time, when I wasn’t at school. I used play soccer, tennis, golf and I was a pretty useful distance runner. A number of experiences or encounters during my youth helped me to appreciate that there is such thing as inherent, or “god-given,” talent. Playing football for example, you encounter some lads who are naturally gifted – you could fire a football at them from any angle, under pressure and they’d trap it in an instant. For other lads, no matter how much they train or practise, they’ll never have the same ability to do that consistently. This is obviously a very simplistic, fundamental example, however, as move through the sporting grades, and whittle things down, continuing to separate the wheat from the chaff, these differences become more subtle, however conversely, gifted natural talent becomes more obvious. As I said, growing up I played sports at a reasonable level all the time, but it was few change encounters with truly talented individuals which helped me understand – the way they moved, thought and things they could do – no amount of coaching or practise would get me to that level. Now, I certainly wouldn’t label myself a “loser,” I played sports and practised all the time because I loved them – however, that’s not to say if I’d had the talent, I’d have loved to of made it in sports. However, as I mentioned above I’m not disputing the importance of endeavour, I just think that an inherent “gift” or “talent” is as important. I can’t really comment on the Paul Lawrie example, as I know very little about golf, however, I do know that he reached the pinnacle of sport by winning a major and that prior to this and subsequently, he had consistently failed to reach level. As I said, I know nothing about him, whether he had injuries, whether he lacks dedication, or whether he just got extremely lucky on one particular weekend. One thing I do know, is that you need a certain degree of talent to win a major in golf – not just anyone could win one of these, through purely hardwork and dedication. Also, John McEnroe often talks about how much he had to give up and how hard he had to train to make it to the very top. Again, no idea about Seve, but I’d be surprised to hear if he didn’t work at his game all the time – from what little I know about him, he sounded extremely passionate and dedicated.

The table tennis analogy is interesting, but how many of these guys from Berkshire were able to compete on the world stage? If you remove the Chinese from the equation, there are also far more people playing tennis competitively in comparison with ping-pong! Tennis is a sport played across the world and to become one of the top players in world requires more than just effort alone - although effort and complete dedication is also essential. I was reading an article the other day, about the junior US Open... Of the four quarter finalists this year, 3 of them were British. This was held up a reason to be hopefull about the future, however, statistically speaking, we'd be lucky if only one of these guys ever makes the senior top 50! In an individual sport, that's as widely played as Tennis, to reach the level that Andy Murray has, consistently within the top 4 for the past few years, requires an incredible talent. You might not like Andy, or his family, but to deny that he is an incredibly gifted sportsman would be doing him a disservice. I saw him play live for this first time in Melbourne this year and, as a tennis fan, I feel I can appreciate a class act when I see one. I saw the final set of his win over Nadal in Tokoyo at the weekend and I would urge anyone who doubts this to watch that as an example. It was flawless tennis - Nadal will be remembered as one of the greatest players ever to pick up a tennis racquet and Murray just took him apart 6-0. Undoubtably though he was lucky, that this god-given talent was married by the sacrifices made by his mother.

Because he's from Scotland. That's the only reason I want him to win. I'm a fan of sports, and tennis in particular, so it's nice to have a world class sportsman to cheer on, that's capable of winning tournaments and mixing it with the best in world. I'm enjoying it while I can, as once Murray retires I'll have to start getting my kicks from the likes of snooker and darts! I couldn't really give a rats ass how defective his personality is. My support of his career is purely on a selfish basis.

I'm heading back over east again next January to give him my support.... more in hope, rather than expectancy! Everyone has their own thoughts on Andy Murray. As much as I'm a fan, I don't buy into these 'mentally weak' theories. I watch a lot of tennis and the bottom line is that Murray just isn't good enough. He's nowhere near the level of the top three. It's tough to accept but unfortunately not everyone can be good enough... there are far too many holes within his game.

I would have him back... he looked lost a first (probably understandable as he was playing his first senior matches), but I've never seen a player improve as dramatically as he did over the period of just 5 or 6 games! Looked a cut above our usual standard of cloggers!

As I suspected, I'm afraid you are wrong. Last year Nadal (2) was drawn with Murray (4), while Djokovic (3) was drawn with federer (1). in 2009 Nadal (1) was drawn with Murray (3), while Djokovic (4) was drawn with federer (2) in 2008 Nadal (2) was drawn with davydenko (4), while Federer (1) was drawn with Djokovic (3) I didn't think there was anyway that Wimbdledon would have been allowed to fix the draw like that

That makes Wimbledon different to every other tournment (other grandslams, master 1000, 500 and 250) on tour. But I guess since we're talking about Wimbledon that isn't beyond the realms of possiblity - as I know that a wimbledon they like to have a greater control on things and follow tradition rather than tour rules. The tour are usually quite receptive to this sort of thing too - At the French Open they allowed them to start a day earlier this year and that was quite controversial. I will look this up regarding Wimbledon as I'm still not sure they would allow the organisers to fix the draw as you say.

May be different at Wimbledon, but I know at the Australian Open (This year Nadal (1st seed) was drawn with Soderling (4th seed) and all the other masters events that I know about, the 3rd seed is not automatically drawn with the 1st seed. There is also some talk that Federer will be seeded 2nd by the organisers. If that doesn't happen potentially Nadal and Federer could be drawn on the same side. To be honest, all things considered, I'd want Murray drawn with Nadal. Murray has beaten him twice before in Grand Slam semi-finals. He's got a bad record against Federer in the Slams, while Djokovic is probably someone you'd want to avoid right now. The quarter final and last 16 draws will be interesting though..... in the last 16 you want to avoid JM Del Potro if possible - Tsonga and Wawrinka would also be tough. In the quarter final I'd take anyone other than Soderling. Fingers crossed.

In addition, and some folk may laugh at me for saying this, I would have loved to have seen Murray matching up Sampras during his long domination of the US Open and Wimbledon. Agassi was in and out of the sport during this period and Sampras didn't have a great deal of competition. Murrays game would match up well with Sampras, who was the king of serve/volley. Murray would certainly have made him play more balls than the likes of Stich, Chang, Ivanisevic and Rafter. As Sampras and Rafter began to decline, we saw a decline of the serve/volley era and other players, as mentioned above, began to win titles. Then Federer and Nadal, who were/are supreme all court players, capable of winning on any surface, brought tennis to a whole new level. The likes of Roddick, Safin and Lleyton Hewitt, who were winning majors, were shown up for exactly what they were. Limited players, who were perhaps lucky to have been around during a lull in the mens game. They couldn't live with the new breed and they began to slip down the rankings. The same goes for the likes of Moya, Kuerten, Ferrero etc, etc (who'd enjoyed zero challenge from the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Sampras, Rafter and the other serve volliers who couldn't play for shit on clay)... they started to flounder because Federer and Nadal could beat them on clay too, and beat them with ease.

For me, that's a lot of nonsense. Federer is the greatest player in the modern era, while Nadal may go on to eclipse even his achievements if his knees hold up. In my opinion, Murray would have won a major had he been playing around the 1997-2003 period. The likes of Pat Rafter, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin and Yevgeny Kafelinkov were multiple GS winners, while players like Goran Ivanisevic and Andy Roddick, Thomas Johansson and Petr Korda all won majors on the hard courts/Wimbledon (I'm not counting the French Open champions during this period because I'm not sure Murray could have won there - however, he certainly would have given the likes of Moya, Costa and Ferrero a good run for their money). I reckon Murray is better than all those players. Not since the Borg/MacEnroe era have we seen 3 players completely dominate Tennis in the fashion that Nadal and Federer have done in recent years. I don't subscribe to the "bottle merchant" argument as he's never been a favourite, because Nadal, Federer and Djokovic have all been better than him. I don't really follow Golf, but the comparison will always be with Colin Montgomerie and his failure to collect a major... but hasn't Montgomerie been world number 1? Also I believe Monty should have won one of the american majors, but was pipped by Ernie Els (is this correct?). Murray, on the other hand, has made GS finals, but has never actually come close/had a chance to win the big prize, as he's always met far better players, who were playing far better tennis. He's just not good enough. If he's going to win a major during the current era he'll have to improve his game, ala Djokovic. We'll find out over the coming years if he can find that next level... I have my doubts, but I hope I'm wrong.

What was the transfer free suggested? It sound to me like Foster has agree somesort of contract with Rangers and all that remains now is a transfer fee to be negociated... unless it already has?

There is definitely a difference of opinion between generations as far as I can tell. The older supporters, who remember the glory days when Aberdeen were a force not just in Scotland, but also in Europe, many are in disarray at the current state of the club.... the rest have already just given up. However, the younger generation, who are have known nothing other than failure, are definitely more forgiving. For those of us who aren't old enough to remember, Aberdeen are just another St. Johnstone or Motherwell. The only "glory days" we remember were the top 6 finishes achieved under Jimmy Calderwood. I think this sums up why his dismissal divided the fans so much.... half our support considered the top 6 an achievement, while the other half expect it as a bare minimum. I think the attitude of the Aberdeen support has slowly changed over the years, and we've now begun to accept our current position in the hierarchy of Scottish football. During the Milne years, we've had the life slowly, but surely, sucked out of us. I'm not really old enough to remember the Coca-Cola cup win, but I do vaguely remember watching some of it on TV... however, I do believe that Aberdeen can aspire to better. I think we should be aiming to be the third club in Scotland, while winning the occassional Scottish cup. I don't feel that is unrealistic. Although, as a realist, until ownership of the club changes hands, I know that will never happen... we'll continue to chase our own tails, perhaps with the occassional spell of top 6 finishes every so often.

Dunno, I hadn't thought about it. It's a nice picture, so I might keep it!

Maybe there is a doubles match on before or something?

Well someone has got it wrong! From what they were saying on Oz TV I reckon its the BBC that are in the wrong.

According to the Aussie Open website, it kicks off at 4.30pm: http://premier.ticketek.com.au/Shows/Show.aspx?sh=AOPENRLA11&view=ao Todays match was 7.30pm. It was only 29C today and melbourne and Jim Courier is going on about how cold its been at night, and how it'll be different on finals day. I was there last week and it was round about the same temperature and I was wearing a sweater during the night session on Rod Laver. It was 38C today in Perth and I'm sitting at home with the Air Con blasting. It will be a lot hotter for the final - as I know to my cost. The sun doesn't set till about half 8 in Melbourne either.