RicoS321

Agreed. Although it was very clear that under Thelin we were trying to create "high quality chances"*. In theory, by the time we got the ball to the forwards, they wouldn't have been able to miss. In reality, we took so long that we lost possession or had lost all confidence in the ability to shoot, or decide whether shooting was worthwhile at all. Nisbet's chance against the Hun was a serious case of trying to do too much, and ending up doing nothing. However, it was noticeable the other night that Leven probably isn't interested in high quality chances, and was keen to go direct and see what falls. *Mair modern pish.

Correct. There's plenty that can be done to prevent people voting, and the Republicans have got it down to a tee in places like Georgia, and other places that matter. Things like voter cross-check (purging the voter rolls), and then eliminating provisional ballots*. They've been doing it since Bush "won" in 2000. The Democrats were, as always, a lot slower on the uptake and - like the Labour party in the UK - expend most of their energy and tactics on stopping the left of their own party getting votes (see Sanders v Clinton for example). Things like mail in ballots are a red herring, there is very little fraud in those areas as anyone in the UK would know. However, an accusation of fraud is often as good as actual fraud when you want a vote challenged thrown out, which is why Trump mentions it continuously. The reason for targetting mail in ballots is because they generally come from three cohorts. Those professional middle class types that are well organised and work in cities, plus lower class ethnic minorities that are very time poor and whose employers simply wouldn't allow them time to vote in person. The older generation still prefer the tradition of in-person voting unless they are disabled, and of course those with a disability also utilise them. Traditionally, all of the above would be a Democrat majority. That is not to say that everyone who is a Democrat uses mail in, and vice versa, just that there's a very obvious majority, so targetting the whole is fruitful. Trump's biggest issue with a mid-term will be voter turnout. More people will turn out with a grievance than with lukewarm support. That's the same for any president, but will probably be a large factor this time, as he's lost a large part of his popularity (again, not unusual). There is nothing he can do to prevent states from holding their vote, but there is plenty he can do afterwards to challenge and indeed fix the result. It will start with full scale accusations of fraud when he loses, and then Republican states not declaring and so on. Votes get thrown out until the correct result is returned. However, I think it will beyond his control, as the turnover required will be too great. *the volume of votes not counted in certain Republican states is staggering.

Probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

I think he would have done better too (not because we made the wrong call, but because we did it so badly), but it'd have been a complete rebuild when he left, rather than a seamless transition. As it turns out, because we half arsed everything since he left, each manager has had to rip things up and start again anyway. We made a cunt of it.

If your legal framework makes it possible to overthrow a government or effectively steal land and resources, then it makes you no different to the person who does it out with that framework.

I don't think that's the case at all. The current Labour party built their entire case on not being the Tory party, and many, many people would have voted for them to keep the Tories out. I don't generally vote, but have in the past for the SNP to keep Andrew Bowie out (it failed). I didn't believe that they would do good, just that they were less shite than the alternative.

I don't think so. We've just built a squad in which it is difficult to accommodate him. I'd play a 3-1-4-2, with Clarkson behind Shinnie and Aouchiche (if fit), but that leaves Armstrong out. Any midfield that includes Clarkson and Armstrong will be necessarily weak. Ideally Clarkson plays with two ball winners (or players that cover a lot of ground). It's not as simple as just playing him.

I don't think anyone on this forum suggested Trump was a force of good. I know @OrlandoDon voted for him, but lots of people vote for the person they think is the least worst option. Your point about resources is correct (obviously!), and the democrats - had they been in power - would have been heading in the direction of Venezuela and Greenland too. That they would have done it via the upstanding routes of sanctions, covert toppling of Maduro and solicitors (in Greenland) doesn't make it better; Trump has simply said it out loud. The Democrats and their donors will be absolutely delighted that Trump is doing what he's doing.

We don't need another right back. He looked decent though.

Bilalovic with two, Polvara header, Karlsson attempt, Clarkson playing it on his wrong foot. Yep, you'd expect at least a goal from those. It wasn't the worst performance, a lot of good effort. Shinnie ran his arse off, so likely won't manage Sunday! Thought Polvara was really good at right centre half, I've mentioned before that I think that might be his position. Nisbet worked hard but nothing came off for him. Bilalovic also worked hard and hopefully he'll make up for those chances on Sunday (the first I don't think was as easy as it looked as he was running full pelt). Kjartansson probably just needs used judiciously between now and the end of the season, he hasn't got the legs for the SPFL yet. Gyamfi isn't great. I can see us trying similar on Sunday and hoping that one of those chances gets taken. It was interesting to note that they had a set piece coach. Maybe we need to repurpose Ambrose to be one of those.

Clarkson on. Shinnie doing the defending for three?

Aye, that's what it looks like, but I can't for the life of me remember what Thelin was doing. It's safe to say that Leven hasn't had time to address it. Maybe that's all we do until Sunday.

Aye, he should have had one thought on his mind there. It was honking from Bilalovic, obviously, but the pass was also way too early and into his feet so he would have had to take a touch and Souttar would have then got there. Nisbet neither looks for goal or draws the defender right across, it was poor from both players.

Is it something we're doing though? Are we zonal marking rather than man for man, for example? Two very good balls in it has to be said, but the first isn't something you can address on the training ground, and the second seems to be a switch off. Robson seems to think we should have a guy on the edge of the six yard box. I'm not sure.

He scored at parkhead

Clearly someone practices set pieces. Just standard blocking.

Not sure Kjartansson should be on the pitch, he's not there yet.

Aye, interesting one so far. Very open game and we're very direct. Like Polvara at the back, he can belt a pass from there.

That's not how you spell neck

Swap Polvara and Kjartansson hopefully. The latter is never a left sided forward. Polvara wins a lot of balls up there.

I wouldn't have given McInnes the same budget (not directly to him I mean), but I said at the time that he should have been given the full setup of sporting director, proper recruitment team etc (that he now has at Hearts). He was clearly a decent coach, with weaknesses in recruitment and youth development. The separation of those areas would have given him a huge boost in my opinion. I just don't believe that a manager can make good judgement calls on players when they're spending most of their days coaching. It's easyish for the first couple of seasons when you can call on talent that you have seen previously or contacts that you have, but the longer you are at a club then these avenues become a little less useful. A contact might change club or role. A player who was good two years ago might not be quite the same. McInnes obviously had the one off bonanza of being able to pick the best of the rest too, with the other challengers liquidated, administered or Butchered.

I think the philosophy thing is just a framework with room to manoeuvre. The idea is that you adopt a system from youth to first team, and you coach attributes that fit into that. If a particular manager chooses to be a zealot then that usually ends badly. On the other hand, if a manager chooses to play pragmatic, stuffy shite in perpetuity then they also get the boot. It sort of makes sense, it means that you're signing for a system and when you change manager you know the type of manager to look for. Most of what I just said applied to managers without the framework too of course, McInnes had a style very clearly. If it's clearly defined, then at least it can be subject to review within. It's something that is a nice to have though and should be subject to regular review and change. It's easy to say that it's modern fitba pish, but then in the same breath suggest that we shouldn't sign Robinson (for example) because of his style of play. I can't remember the last time we ever just needed 3 or 4 players in a window. It doesn't work like that. If you need 4 players then you sign between 6 and 8. You also need to make sure there's a constant stream going out the way. Contracts don't work to suit one in one out, players get injured long term, players leave for money etc. The biggest problem, though, is the transition between managers. All the knowledge, contacts etc go with them. That should be the property of the club. That's why the change has taken place. As I said previously, McInnes gave us the ceiling in that model. It was clear when he began to struggle that he didn't have any way to recover it. One shite window spiralled into many, and he was signing guys based on their games against us. There are so many examples of atrocious signings where someone in house should have had a veto (Storey, Tansey, Main a quick sample). In reality, a club of our size should have a collaborative model that allows the manager to pick two or three, and the recruitment team to do all the legwork. However, both sides should be open to scrutiny, with the final say going to someone with the authority and responsibility. Hence the sporting director.

Fuck. It's the Dons isn't it? That's the bad news

You can't just invent new formations, that requires a licence. A 4-1-2-3 has never existed.

He could either be away, or maybe just being cautious at Ibrox with a player who probably isn't match sharp