RicoS321

I think we need to be stubborn as fuck and give him the whole season, regardless. If it's a three year project, then see it through. I don't agree with the phrase "we've backed the manager" otherwise. You can't just throw money around in a transfer window and say that you've done your bit, there's so much room for error in the market, and it takes time. @OrlandoDon points out the huge turnover, but it's more than that. That turnover has happened every single year since McInnes left, which shows the failure of our approach. We've either had players who have been great and left for money or guys that were gash and just left. Probably the issue with not going for Scottish players more regularly (Devlin and Shinnie have made their homes here), or players 27+. @Panda mentions that both Goodwin and Robson (and Glass) had reached a point where they couldn't turn it around, but I actually think that they were fall guys (and Glass) for mistakes above them. Had they been given the public backing of 3 year project, we'd have perhaps seen a better situation. There is little to suggest that Thelin is any more capable of playing entertaining football successfully in this league, and indeed we have started to see a little of the direct ball and get the knock downs that Robson was fond of (which is fine by me). European football this season was always going to be a step too far for us, but it came with a cup, so we just live with it. Our teams are far too transient to belong to any one of the managers we've had since McInnes. They need at least one window to clear out the shite that were bought under their own watch. Managers are usually still clearing out the backlog of the previous manager when they get fired. Normally I'd say three windows, but with our turnover it'd be four. However, the age profile of our team suggests we're not going to get it right anytime soon.

It's a really good analogy. While we discuss the minutiae of the Dons' tactical issues, we simultaneously suspend the topic of the systemic makeup of our game. While the folk in charge deliberately allow the game to go to shite, the talking heads distract with chat about coefficient and just needing to believe. Your opinions about Aberdeen on the pitch are not as valid (in your example), but your wide boundary view of the Scottish game doesn't require you to be on the ground, and would be equally as valid. But, to be honest, if you're not willing to dive that deep, than that's probably why you think that the left is more violent than the right, when it demonstrably isn't. You don't even seem to accept that both the Republicans and Democrats are both right wing. It's like describing Bill Gates against mark Zuckerberg as left versus right. There hasn't been a left of any sort representing the US in fifty years. Democrats Vs Republicans is professional managerial class Vs ownership class, the sole aim being power, with the populace being tricked into picking a side. The people engaging in the arguments that you see (and I see in the UK, because it's largely the same) are exactly the same as one another. Why on earth would you (for example, not literally you) pick a fight (debate) with an unemployed person, an immigrant or someone who has been evicted from their home, at the behest of some cunt like Trump or Musk? Or why would a feminist start an argument with a working class man, at the behest of Hilary Clinton or Kamala Harris? Why are so many people doing the bidding of these powerful people? Who benefits? Your portfolio story is telling. Did anyone seriously think the banking sector would lose out when Trump came to power? Only stupid people (the experts you mention, I'm assuming, were economics experts. In other words, fraudsters, educated in a sudo-religious game). Trump is the same. He might change the way the game is played, slightly, but he'll never ever question the game itself.

Absolutely. As I say, most violence is of the state. I'd argue that everyone is not against political violence, including you! It's just that we've created this artificial barrier that says that because the violence is of/by the state or country, that it's in some way legitimate. I'm sure there's a police shooting out there that you've (perhaps correctly) thought was justified. You might agree with Israel's right to defend itself, or a corporation's right to refuse someone health care. All of these things are political violence (similarly homelessness), based on a made-up, right wing, economic system. Most people see this violence as acceptable as they are told that it is acceptable, because it conforms to some arbitrary man-made laws. The US has exported political violence worldwide, toppling whichever governments didn't conform to its right wing economic agenda, backed by the IMF. At home, they arbitrarily decide that you can't consume particular drugs, whilst allowing the biggest pharmaceutical companies to murder people via fentanyl or other addictive drug of choice (those pharmaceutical companies exist, and lobby, because the right wing economic system allows it - and the right wing state deregulates it). What really is the difference between an IDF soldier killing a Gazan child, and some right wing/left wing/incel/trans (delete as appropriate) person who decided that they didn't like his politics? Meanwhile, the same people that brought you forty years of right wing, inhumane, unnatural, ecologically disastrous, anti-physics economic growth ideology, happen to also own the news networks that spend 24/7 telling you that the left/right is your enemy, stoking hate and division in order that nobody stops to question why their violence is somehow worse than the biggest source of political violence. Those people are your enemy. Fox news is your enemy, CNN, MSNBC are your enemy. Not your foreign neighbour, or the BLM/Proud boys lad from down the road.

"World's most unnecessary stat" thread for this shite

You don't need to live there to know that the majority of political violence is, factually speaking, right wing. The majority of political violence occurs on behalf the state. The current state is run by Republican Trump, the previous, Democrat Biden. Both right wing, just as Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan before them were. Beyond that, there may be some individual left wing people causing violence, and a couple of marginalised groups, offset against the invariably right wing school shooters and other assorted weirdos. I'm not particularly against political violence as it happens, I think it's inevitable in a corrupt system such as the one we've designed, and sometimes essential. I wouldn't class myself as left wing either. I wouldn't really give much of a shite if right wing violence did outweigh left, I was attempting to be objective, and objectively speaking it isn't even close. Unless Fox news are burying a large cache of left wing organised violence that nobody in the world is hearing about, or seeing.

You'd have to be fairly mental to believe that. There hasn't been a left wing government in the US in at least fifty years, and given that the overwhelming majority of political violence comes from the state, there is zero chance of the left ever surpassing right wing violence.

Ricky Hatton, 46. Shame. Met him once, don't remember much about it, but seemed nice.

I think we should start by sacking everyone, and then play the previously sacked u19s.

We do know that your President and many republican representatives did immediately blame the "far left" (basically nonexistent in the US), in an attempt to make political capital, without waiting for any confirmation. Anyway, rather disturbingly, the childish US culture war has been successfully exported worldwide, and the pub I was in today, in fucking Aberdeen, was showing English grifter news channel GB News, with live coverage of a march organised by assistant chief grifter Tommy Robinson (funded by US backers). Hilariously pathetic.

That seemed to be what he attempted to a degree when Clarkson came on. Palaversa was quite central, with Armstrong and Clarkson ahead. Whether that was deliberate or not is debatable.

Aye, that was gash. That was a Livi team that didn't come just to sit in too. They, justifiably, felt they could match us. We were dogshite. First half we were fine, working our way into it, but Aouchiche was gash. Keskinen winning the ball well then proceeding to make the wrong decision every fucking time is a bit tedious, as is Jensen being Jensen. Nilsen and Shinnie were fine, Gyamfi fine. The subs were of a manager who doesn't know what the fuck he's doing. Just a fucking mess. Complete disarray from the first inexplicable sub onward. Just throwing players on for the sake of it. Palaversa was exceptional in his shiteness. Lazetic very ropey. Nothing good about this team at present, and nothing to suggest otherwise from the new signings. Disagree about Karlsson, thought he looked distinctly average. Could come good, but looked like a guy who could be easily marked out the game in our league. Gyamfi is a unit, unexpectedly. Armstrong coming on in midfield (as opposed to the McGrath role) is a massive worry.

Can't get the team to post, but it's like mine, but Aouchiche in for Lazetic and Dorrington for Milne. Decent lineup.

Too soon

You were doing so well until you transformed into Dave Cameron

I think he might go: With Lazetic where the empty space is, as he wasn't in the database

Aye, obviously not including football forums of course.

I can understand it. If I had known who the lad was, I'm sure I'd make jokes and have a dark sense of humour about it. There is certainly a large element of schadenfreude about a Christian who claimed that the right to have a gun was a God given one, was then indirectly a victim of that attitude. It made me smirk when I read about it. Although I guess that that is a long way away from cheering. I saw a couple of clips of his "debates", where he came across as an insincere nasty (troll) shite, lacking in empathy and love, so I can see why some might have cheered (of course, those would have been curated for sharing to show him in a bad light). Putting it down to "disagreeing with him politically", seems a bit simple. I might disagree with Nicola Sturgeon or Ruth Davidson politically, but wouldn't cheer their deaths. A sneering populist prick like Farage, I might, not because of political disagreement, but because of his insincerity and deliberate rabble rousing. I don't doubt that there was another side to this character that I'm not witness to, of course, so I'm only speaking hypothetically as far as this lad is concerned. The method of his death, too, is of little concern to most because of the disconnect of not being personally involved or intimate with the situation. I think empathy is quite difficult to maintain across internets and oceans, or states. I think there is a definite tit-for-tat element when it comes to empathy these days - you didn't show empathy for thousands of dead Palestinians, why should we show empathy for this guy - but there's probably also a ceiling to how much empathy people can hold onto too. I have little zero empathy or otherwise for the lad, his death just doesn't register - much like any other non-entity celebrity. An equivalent would be princess Diana - obviously a tragic death, but I don't feel that I need to muster feelings about it. I think it's healthy to be immune to such incidents. It has made me feel good about not being on social media though, and glad not to have ever heard of the lad. I'm obviously doing something right.

Yep, and Ferguson wasn't a box to box midfielder at that point either. It was really only in his final season and then his move to Bologna that he started covering the whole pitch. Him and Ramadani were the top two in terms of yards covered in the Italian league a wee while back, so it's not an easy role to replace!

We've got a long history of it. From James Wilson, to Nicky Maynard, I'm finding it harder to think of one who wasn't an instant success and fans' favourite.

I don't think we'll see a 19 year old going box to box, which is what we need. I'd like to see him though, but I suspect he'll get <10 games this season.

Agreed, but Palaversa hasn't remotely shown himself to be a heavy lifter at all. I'd love to see stats on coverage for the two, as I suspect Clarkson puts in a lot more yards. Bar a couple of games, Palaversa has generally just been a player that should be a box to box midfielder, rather than actually being one. He's a frustrating lad. He certainly hasn't earned his place.

Should get decent odds on Yengi or Shinnie to score.

The problem with that is Cooper Masson is nowhere near ready for our first team, hence why he's at Kelty. He's among the best in that age group (involved with Scotland setup). If the English teams are coming in at 16-17, then we've got little hope. Boyd looked like a fantastic prospect, but this season is the first where he's looked physically strong enough to get in our first team, and it was obviously known to the club that he wasn't willing to stay by that point. You're really looking at 19 before most players will be strong enough these days, with only a handful of exceptions. Wilson at hearts is an example. Lauded everywhere, but in reality was nowhere near good enough to be playing every week and physically weak. He's now warming the bench. Bowie at Hibs has bulked up and is now showing the talent matched with the athleticism. I don't think that can be rushed through. I'd like to see more young players, but I think that the club will have to publicly set a quota so that both manager and player get a bit of breathing space to implement. I've said it before, but these young lads don't owe the club anything. We are fairly quick to ditch players we don't want, so we have no right to expect loyalty on the other side. If we can announce that we will be taking a minimum of two academy players into the squad to be playing twenty games (including subs), then players might begin to take note. We've currently got Duncan (not good enough), and Lobban (needs game time now) filling a quota for European football in what appears to be detrimental to their development.

Not picking Gunn enough?

Decent performance and a comfortable win. Thought Adams was very good, also McGinn, Gilmour and Doak. Subs again were a bit poor. Clarke is playing this campaign ultra safe, and I can see why, but we could have pushed it tonight again. Adams was very good as I said, but that absolute sitter he missed was because he had been running himself into the ground. Bowie deserved 15-20 minutes to show what he could do, and I suspect he'd have buried that. Wouldn't have minded seeing Doak switching wings for a spell too, and obviously Miller on instead of McLean. Clarke made little attempt in the last campaign to transition to the future, and he's doing it again. If Dykes isn't playing much before the next game then we might want to give Bowie a chance, so why not give him a taster? I don't think Dykes as a sub is going to grab a goal against tiring defenders. Again, taking the chances when they arise is vital, and goal difference is also vital. Clarke is really putting his faith on taking everything at Hampden. It's high risk.