RicoS321

It defies the logic a little. Let's be honest, most players can perform the physical motion of scoring a penalty the key is coping with the pressure and nerves. By taking players on (especially in the manner it happened where the sub was withdrawn twice in order to let the clock run as close to the 120 as possible) purely for penalties, you're heaping the pressure on them more than in an ordinary penalty situation that they'd be used to. Is Henderson, for example, that shit at pens that he is worse than Rashford with 1 minute of match time and an additional 20% of pressure? Also, if you're putting these guys on as specialists then get them up first to add to the psychology of the situation, showing them that they're the best. We're taking you on solely because you're brilliant at pens, but not as good as these other guys, so wait your turn and dwell on it for a further five minutes. It's a fairly perverse logic. Wouldn't have phased Kenny McLean mind you.

I really feel for Gareth and the boys tonight.

Agree that we won't be favourites, but of the 22 who played today only 4 were new signings so not exactly a complete rebuild underway. I'm neither optimistic, nor pessimistic, I simply haven't a clue how we'll do. It was always fairly predictable under McInnes.

I'd actually be happy enough with that pairing, but I'm guessing Gallagher will be in for the next friendlies. I'm guessing Devlin spontaneously combusted pre-match too

The fucking BBC have re-hashed an article about Griffiths' playing ability and fitness to discuss whether his Celtic career has finished. You'd think that in the 21st century they'd fucking learn. He's a 30 year old man, alleged to have groomed an under age girl FFS. In what fucking planet should that be discussed as a function of his goal return? How good does a player have to be to allow grooming? How far can the grooming go before it results in a player losing their job? Does he have to actually meet up and have sex with the fifteen year old, or does this sports writer believe that he would have definitely stopped at the online grooming process? Seriously, if the sports writer guys aren't equipped to discuss these subjects then either train them or insist that they write only the minimum. Same goes with doddsy and co on sportsound who will inevitably make the same crass analysis. It's never fucking acceptable for a thirty year old man to groom a fifteen year old (the BBC states under-age). This fucking attitude will allow a club (us, perhaps) to think it's acceptable to hover over the corpse of Griffiths' Celtic career hoping to pick up a "good player" on the cheap. If the allegations are true, and there are no mitigating circumstances, then hopefully it'll be the end of his career.

Disappointing. Better team won. A perfect example of why var is not required and adds nothing to the game. Imagine that incident occurred in Scotland with one of the scum? Who would define clear and obvious error? In my opinion that wasn't a penalty, but nor was it a clear and obvious error by the referee. But who defines that? If it can't be used tonight (correctly, in my opinion), then when can it be used, and why? What does it add to the sport? There's not been a single decision made in this tournament that has been contentious enough to warrant the stoppages, the ruining of the spontaneity and flow of the game caused by the abomination that is var. Why? Because the refereeing has been of a good standard. As it should be in every league in the world that can afford to implement var. I hope we never see it in Scotland, and I hope the TV watching anti-fitba fucks that arranged it admit they were wrong.

There is no affiliation between Leigh Griffiths the paedophile and Leigh Griffiths the Celtic player. They are different entities.

Cracking game. Nobody held back.

One look at county shows why though. It's a nightmare of a time to be playing a game. We're just at the point where the general public - possibly even including the players - are beginning to say fuck it, to the distancing measures as we move into "normal" times. The number of infections is increasing very quickly and we'll be extremely lucky not to have a player pick it up (my money's on Gallagher, for no real reason). The risk is fairly big, and I think the club are reluctantly doing the right thing. I'm wondering if the testing will actually go out the window early next season with an agreement that if players have been vaccinated they're fine.

There's likely a massive trade off between playing friendlies and the increased covid risk just now. A really difficult balancing act unfortunately.

We were supposed to be playing cove but it was cancelled as they all caught covaids. Think we're playing Reading and some other folks

As long as you don't leave the line, it's completely fine.

Not sure I'd say justice, it was a dodgy red that allowed them to bus the remaining game. They were fairly average before that. I reckon Ukraine could give them a good run. Fantastic game just now, Italy look great and the winner of this should win the tournament.

Aye, that's the mind control element seeping in. On August 29th, you'll become part of the machine.

Aye, I'm not sure the best option on trying to sell a player, we've done fairly well of late with that either way. I'd happily keep Ferguson another year, you could see he was beginning to get his finger out and I think he could have a fantastic year if he stayed. I wouldn't take less than £4M for him now, and gamble on getting more in January.

I think jenks might be a no 10, LA. Can't see Ferguson moving quickly in the window, one of those where the buyer will try and string us along with derisory offers to unsettle the player and lots of paper talk.

I'm just in the benefit of the doubt stage, no reason to think otherwise. Other than Ramirez and Gurr, these are very much McInnes style signings. I literally see no difference, and no reason to get excited (or the opposite). Had McInnes signed Ramirez, we'd be excited because of the "out of the box" thinking - as we were (apart from me, because I'm a miserable dick) with Hernandez - however Hernandez soured that and made us question the Atlanta/US link which is unfair on Ramirez. I think that when you sack a successful manager, the expectation is raised that something systemic will change too and I think that the evidence for that hasn't materialised yet. Nor is the stated tactical goal represented by the signings, which is so often the case. I'd like to see us add a left back, a wide player and a fast striker if that helps!

Was that not brown? I reckon Cormack and Glass will think so. Nae for me like. Ramirez would have been an exciting signing if the Hernandez thing hadn't happened previously. I'm slightly struggling to see how a front two of Ramirez and Jet fits the fast flowing fitba promised.

I'm not one for telling tales, but it appears someone has broken forum rules and basic etiquette here by not searching for an existing Andy Murray thread and utilising, rather than starting a fresh one. I mean, I'm not a moderator or anything - I couldn't be trusted with the power - but it's safe to say that if I were, it's this type of offence that I'd be cracking down on. I don't know what the forum moderator equivalent of a water cannon is, but I'd be taking a leaf out of Johnson's book and buying up a few before this sort of thing gets out of hand.

Didn't realise that Langfield was in goals for Spain these days?

Probably isn't one. I think that we maybe just have to accept that it's an area where we struggle, which is often the case at international level. In my mind, Clarke is as good as anyone at working out players' limitations and getting the best out of them based on simple instructions, and I think that if he saw a better option than Dykes (he did in Adams) then he'd have no issue playing them. We're just unfortunate that at this point in time we don't have a striker, but to be honest I'm struggling to remember the last international class striker we had in the Dykes mould (Ferguson and Durie probably). Guys as good as McFadden would really have struggled at tournament level up front on their own, so it's not a small undertaking to find a striker good enough (so I can see why Clarke would play two).

What does vamos mean, and why couldn't we use the English equivalent?

Judging by the England game, and our WC qualification games, that's not a tactic though. We don't play long balls as instructed, we end up doing it out of necessity because the opposition pressures us into doing it. That's all I'm saying. We would have done exactly the same had the only change been Nisbet (I don't think he's nearly at the level required yet) for Dykes. I get the impression that Fraser wasn't fully fit, Clarke seems to like him and I think he'd have featured more. Overall, I just think that we needed a better version of Dykes to be honest. I understood why Clarke picked him though as he was the best of a bad bunch.

The article says: "subject to securing a visa". Maybe it's easier to get a visa as a footballer with a fixed contract? No idea. They're obviously either fairly confident it'll be fine, or they're using it as a bit of good news to sell season tickets. Either way, should be an interesting one, welcome aboard CR9.

You seemed to have missed the nod to the Hernandez deal in Slim's post.