RicoS321

Humphrey's loon?

Is Robson March?

I'm not convinced Robson is behind Barron not featuring. I'm certain that comes from above. It wouldn't make sense for Robson to not play Barron because of a contract situation, as it could directly affect it his own job (by losing a final for example). Imagine he did go to Cormack and say that he wasn't playing Barron until he signed a new contract? At that point, Cormack would still have to either okay it, or say "you're not doing it in our name". Contract talks are done above the manager's level too, that's an internal club thing, so it's not like Robson has any control other than to say he wants to keep or sign a player. Saying that, at no point does Barron really feature in a 3-5-2 with a holding midfielder with Clarkson in the team, so maybe it was just entirely tactical. I guess it could be that. Goodwin did exactly the same with Barron, regularly playing him in front (on the pitch) of Ramadani, which is why Barron went through the same doubting from the fans that Shinnie (and Clarkson) are going through this season. The thing that makes me think it's contractual rather than tactical with Barron is that Duncan barely played any minutes before signing a contract and then went through a spell of playing every week.

Yep. You can see from the first thirty seconds the difference in shape. A speculative punt that they win and Shinnie is running onto the second ball as opposed to it floating over his head. Simple stuff Robson.

I agree about the 4-2-3-1 being out best formation, I'd have that every week, but our defence was generally stretched because of the shite served up in front of them. Our back three has also had some really good games against Frankfurt twice, the Huns twice and others. Those games we performed well in always had two sitting in midfield. If we'd gone 4-1-4-1 today, as I had thought we might be when I saw the team, I think we would have really struggled. The common denominator in our poor performances seems to be playing Clarkson deep and Shinnie further up field. It's certainly worth looking out for, as I have a strong suspicion that if Barron leaves this window, we'll see Robson return to having Clarkson deep (even in a four: 4-1-4-1) and we'll start to fail again. The reason it bothers me so much, and it's nothing to do with anything you've written, is that I've seen (on forums) and heard at pittodrie people questioning our captain and saying "his legs have gone" (the world's most irritating cliché), or "he's done" (often suffixed, ridiculously, with "at this level", as if we're at the pinnacle of the game). It simply isn't the case. His best games this season have all come from playing in a two. Shinnie needs to be facing the play so that he can drive with the ball and nip at folks heels from goal side. Not having a defender clear the ball over his head and have to chase it back, or to play high up the park and receive it to feet just outside their box facing backwards. What we were witnessing was a player doing the work of two players and being run into the ground doing so. The technical side of his game is no worse than it was in his first spell, he's not quick to spot a pass and often makes a poor decision when a more lucrative pass is on. Most fans (certainly around me) don't seem to get the nuance in formation and position, they just see a guy chasing the ball and criticise. That shitey midfield setup has not only wrecked our league season, but also had a huge detrimental effect on the fans views of our captain. Hopefully the next time Robson tries his shite, more folk will side with Shinnie and not the manager, but I don't hold out much hope.

What sort of Hun misses an opportunity to watch the Dandies for a holiday in the Bahamas? Disgusting. Whilst I much prefer the back four today (because it's easier on the fullbacks), it was never really the back three that caused us issues, it was the stupid setup in midfield. He could have easily played with two sitting midfielders and a back three, rather than the holding midfielder and we'd have been fine. I think the 5-4-1 type setup might still be a better option against teams that are better than us, especially away from home, but that rarely came with a holding midfielder, which is why we generally showed up quite well in those fixtures.

Something's gone on at Ibrox. The home supporters have no idea what. An entirely unrecognisable incident.

I think that getting a dog to pish on Morris in training would be excellent motivation.

Night and day from the other day as expected. That's what happens when you play to player's strengths rather than their weaknesses Robson. Just need him to actually stick to it and not revert back at the first opportunity, which we know he will. There was only really Polvara out of position today, but he did fine, and on a narrow pitch perhaps width wasn't necessarily required. Gartenmann on his wrong foot I suppose, but he's comfortable enough on his weak foot. Overall, we played really well, with probably McGrath, Barron and Clarkson standing out, closely followed by Shinnie and MacKenzie. Obviously, the main thing was the setup, and that setup allows us to do so much. That might be Barron's last game for us, but put Polvara in there and Duncan or Morris out wide and we've still got a strong side. Duk can come in for McGrath (although only when chasing the game due to his shoddy covering), McGrath can play where Clarkson played, Clarkson can play where Barron was, Hayes can come in for McGrath, Jensen can cover for MacKenzie or Gartenmann and so on. It'll be a real shame if it wsa Barron's last game for us though.

What a finish from Bojan. Although the defender did him a favour, as did the keeper.

Clarkson. Some lad.

Good goal from McGrath. A scrappy finish but we had plenty in the box. Shinnie miles better facing the play rather than constantly playing high and chasing back. That should have been obvious to anyone watching him play football before of course.

Think a bit of width would make this infinitely better. Not really pushing their fullbacks backwards and McGrath and Polvara generally coming infield and further congesting.

Looks much better already. Shinnie and Barron deep and Clarkson right up with Miovski. Exactly what we need. Edit: a 4-2-3-1 in other words

Shinnie won't be the deepest. It'll be a 4-1-4-1. I don't think you'd ever want Shinnie deepest on his own either, you really don't want him receiving the ball from the keeper looking for the quick pass, we tried that pish with Ramadani last year and that wasn't either of their games. Shinnie sitting in a two with Barron, and Clarkson in front would be great, but it won't be that either. Unless we're playing a 4-2-3-1 with those two known wingers, Polvara and McGrath out wide. It's frustrating, because you can fit Barron and Clarkson - your perfect pairing - into a 4-2-3-1 without them getting in one another's way, but the addition of Polvara and McGrath just completely congests the area, making it even more likely that they'll step on one another's toes. I really feel for Barron who's had two successive managers playing to the weakest parts of his game. It's like they're trying to hang him out to dry (or, more likely, they've got nae idea). Anyway, we've got enough to beat County regardless of the personnel, as all it takes is a bit of magic from Miovski, Clarkson, McGrath etc. It's not really a game where we can fairly judge new systems, but nevermind, at least there is one.

Not sure what the fuck that setup is, but it does seem like a back four. Knowing Robson's inability to give up on a sitting midfielder, it'll likely be a diamond of Barron, behind McGrath, Shinnie and Polvara, with Clarkson ahead and then Miovski. A 4-1-4-1. It's fucking weird. Why not play a 4-2-3-1, with Barron sitting alongside Shinnie and Clarkson in front and then apply some width with a lamppost (or Morris, whichever is closest) and another on the left? There is a possibility that he puts MacKenzie in left centre half and McGrath in left back for a back five of course, but that'd be weird. Either way, it's something different.

Just vote to ban plastic pitches and send Killie down, prevent Raith come up, or whatever. We're the Dons, we don't relegate.

John Pilger. Very much one of the good ones.

Probably correct. Although I'm not sure that we're much different to where he is at present. I don't think the English leagues are crying out for guys with experience in Scotland, and their nets clearly cast wider than the British isles and they'll know all about Knutsen.

I wasn't really giving an opinion, I'm saying that our strategy is one that involves a strong team in the background and a manager who doesn't want his hand in every pie. In order to do that, you need someone that can hold the manager to account, and the evidence shows that we don't have that. If we continue with our strategy (and if we're getting up and coming players and selling them on, then there's no reason why that can't work with managers), then we need to get a stronger director of football. If we go for experienced manager, then we have to accept a complete rebuild every time, and hand him the keys to recruitment etc. To give an opinion, I like our strategy, I just think we should get someone better behind the scenes. I do think the manager should be required to give his reasoning and be held to account for tactical decisions, I think it would really help him take a breath and properly think about it and also provide early intervention rather than wait until the inevitable sacking stage - I also think that should apply to experienced managers, who are clearly not infallible. McInnes was in an almost unsackable position in the final years here, because we had zero succession plan in place (and I don't mean picking an individual, I mean structure). Cormack won't be happy, but if nobody is holding his young manager to account then he can expect nothing less. Having heard him speak, I think he's fairly clueless about football, but enjoys it! I think a good director of football should have a very good understanding of football and tactics and should be able to hold the manager to account in a way that doesn't ostracise or belittle him. A sounding board, or devil's advocate basically. I think all managers should have that.

Johnson scored (twice maybe?) for the Tims the other week, doubt he'll be leaving them anytime soon, he'll probably get a new contract and be available for loan in a year's time when he's been rotting for six months on their bench. Baccus was good yesterday, very efficient and covered a lot of ground. Would be a solid signing. However, Taylor was the absolute standout for them, he was very good and streets ahead of Jensen.

I agree mostly, but Robson's tactics are very clear regardless of how shite they are. Draw them out, and then fast ball in behind for Miovski to score from. If the ball falls short then Shinnie and Ramadan.... McGrath pick up the scraps and move it quickly to Duk or drive into the box or whatever. Clarkson is giving away passes because he has to use the ball very quickly in order for this tactic to work. The stupid thing is, it's got such a low success rate, for very obvious reasons (because you have to play a pinpoint sixty yard pass - that everyone's expecting - between a deep defence and goalkeeper without even glancing over your shoulder first). Yet nobody at the club is pointing this out to Robson. Just as nobody pointed out to Goodwin that Ramadani was shite playing between midfield and defence and playing Barron ahead of him (on the pitch) was playing to his weaknesses and running him into the ground (exactly the same as Shinnie). The two tactics are extremely easy to identify, extremely easy to rectify and - most importantly - extremely difficult to justify. That's why it's clear, to me, that we have nobody at the club capable of asking the manager to justify his decisions, and explain why they aren't working and how, with current personnel, they could possibly work. It's not acceptable that two managers can come in and continually, stubbornly, make the same mistake every week and not be held to account. It'll be pure luck if the next guy doesn't end up doing the same, because we've got no structure of accountability. We're needlessly blaming and then sacking managers because we're not getting the opportunity to tell them to stop, take a breather, and try something different until it's too late and the players have lost every ounce of confidence.

Yep, we're saying the same thing basically. The guys in the background aren't good enough, exacerbating the problem of the manager not being good enough. Our strategy is clearly to take many of the functions "in house", like recruitment, to make things easier on the manager allowing us to hire guys that don't want the control someone like McInnes did. That seems to be the strategy anyway, and it's one that I agree with personally. The point is that the building blocks should transcend the manager, and whenever he leaves we're not throwing everything out and starting again like we had to with every manager from McInnes backwards. If we're insisting on that strategy then the guys in the background have to be doing their jobs to the highest possible standard. They have to be very good. That seemed to be the case in hiring Mowbray, and I'm assuming the Miles lad is also of that ilk (there isn't a recruitment person in the world that isn't hit or miss). The point is that we're in no position to be appointing a new coach until we get that backroom sorted. Glass was hung out to dry by us not having anything in place when he joined, with Robson we've just got a recruitment team, which is only half the job. We could argue that Gunn is there, and he might be great to work for and with, but nobody that's good at their role could sit through the mistakes that Goodwin made and now Robson is making and call themselves fit for purpose. At some point, you have to be calling the manager in and showing him very clearly that he's doing exactly the same thing every week and asking what his strategy is and telling him very clearly that if he continues and it fails then he's out of a job. If Robson can't explain himself to a layperson then he shouldn't be in a job. Goodwin played Ramadani as a holding midfielder every week, Robson plays Clarkson there every week and neither of them are being held accountable by anyone. Without fixing the problem, we'll be sacking the next guy in January 2025 for exactly the same reason. I feel sorry for Robson for the same reasons I did Glass (less so Goodwin, who'd had a few jobs already), as the club has failed them by not having the right pieces in place before hiring managers to their first position. It's completely unacceptable. Whoever is sitting watching this shite unquestioned every fucking week within pittodrie needs canned immediately.

I think you've just answered your own question! There's absolutely no way on earth that Robson is being held to account for his tactics, even in the form of a devil's advocate, by anyone at the club. That's not good enough. I don't know, or care, whether it's Gunn or anybody else's job, but someone has to assist the inexperienced guy during his period of failure. Surely this was the whole strategy, hence Glass, Goodwin and now Robson? We get an inexperienced coach with some good attributes (Robson seems fairly decent at motivating a team), and then give them the support to build on the others. They haven't done that. In order to back a manager, you have to, and you have to have a plan and a strategy and you have to give him more than one window, and especially not just one window with a massive turnover of players and a hit and hope signing policy from across Europe (a bit harsh, I know!). But I'm not saying the above for the benefit of Robson. I'm saying it because I said it for Glass, to a lesser extent Goodwin and now the same problem occurs with Robson, so I'm making this point for the next guy we get in. Robson has to be held to account for his own obvious failings, and I point them out every week. However, the club have to take a huge portion of the blame for the failure and if they don't, it's just going to continue to happen.

Thing is though, we very easily could come good. It's a shite County team next with an absolute weirdo in charge of them, and then the winter break. If we sign a midfielder in the window capable of doing the Ramadani role, then there's reason to suggest that his one tactic could begin to work and we go on a run. We'll still be left with a guy who doesn't seem to understand the basics of football however, and we'll just be delaying the inevitable.