RicoS321

That's a shame, it was one hell of a strike. One thing about last night was that sublime pass from Stewart to McGinn in the first half that led to Shinnie's chance (from McLennan's pass). Too often we do the easy pass and make the easy run and that move was a perfect illustration of that. McGinn had the entire wing to run into, but he did his very best to position himself for the square ball from Stewart. It was like he was frightened to take responsibility. By playing the difficult pass, Stewart forced McGinn to get on his bike. That's been the pattern of our home games this year. Nobody risking the difficult pass, everyone coming short to take the easy ball off the defender, nobody taking the step forward (Shinnie, perhaps, aside) to take the ball in a difficult position. It's the sort of thing we saw from likes of Chris Clark for years at the dons, but we've got actual fitba'rs (in that they can all control a ball and shield it) these days and these guys should be doing much more. We saw it from McLean previously and Jack before him. The lazy comment that McGinn's "legs have gone" is just nonsense. He's never been that quick, he's always made space through skill. He needs to get his arse back to dropping his shoulder, beating his man and playing the difficult ball. We all know he can shift the ball and play the safe loopy cross into the penalty area after taking too long to get the ball in (from where he can effectively say "I've done my job, the striker has to win it now"), but he's still capable of much more. He needs a rocket up his hoop. Sit him down and make him watch his own highlights reel. Make him watch that game against Hearts and that sublime skinning of the EPL's finest, Calum Paterson, multiple times. He's good enough to not do the safe pish every time and as a team we need to stop doing it.

Aye, fair point. This'll make up for it: http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-war-on-venezuela-is-built-on-lies

Good report like. Hasn't made it to any of the UK news outlets. It should be a pretty big story I'd have thought.

That was fucking dire. I said earlier in the thread that I hoped we'd go with a back four with Ball at right back because we're pish with a back three and we did. Unfortunately, as soon as Lowe went off it was time to try out the back 3 again. The only good that can come of tonight is that we were so bad at the back that we couldn't possibly attempt the back 3 again. All 3 centre backs were terrible tonight, it was like a competition to see who was shittest. Every player on the pitch was pish tonight. Pish and disorganised. Lowe missing (I assume he will be) is a major issue. We simply cannot play a back 3. It has to be the brutal 3 centre halfs and the defensive midfielder back line unless the new boy is ready, which I doubt - he can't be close to being match fit. A look to that bench tonight and there was just nothing. If we go a goal behind on Sunday, there's basically nothing we can do to change it. Not sure where GMS and Wilson were tonight, but this wasn't a game we should have been relying on subs for anyway. Fair play to Hamilton like, they worked their arses off, with the two guys up front putting in a phenomenal shift. They rode their luck and deliberately slowed the game down at every opportunity, but they were the better team and the deserved winners. Night and day from the last team Canning put out against us.

And the trial was in December but wasn't allowed to be reported on - not in the public interest apparently. Are there a lot of catholic kirk contributors in the NE? I didn't realise it was a big thing, but I suppose it must be. It does seem a little preverse that people don't see the conflict between their beliefs and the absolute wealth of religious institutions (because it's nae specific to Catholicism obviously). I suppose that there's nothing specific in yer religious texts that condemns their exhorbitant wealth and resultant power, but it could surely be morally extrapolated from the other shite in yer bibles and the like.

I think there might be other reasons as to why he couldn't be a future Aberdeen manager...

Totally agree. In fact, I think he's an excellent example of how we should be handling our youth. I thought he was a little bit headless chicken at times when he came on for us but with a good eye for goal. I think it would have been a huge mistake to keep him here if we couldn't guarantee him 60-90 minutes every week. He has the confidence to become a very good player for us and sending him somewhere where he can prolong that for several months will do him the world of good. There are a lot of decent teams in that league too, with County, Utd, ICT and Ayr easily as good as some of the teams in the lower SPFL. I think we could have easily given him a run of games as he was playing better than the players around him, however - judging by the games I saw him in - I don't think he was quite good enough to be scoring every week and I think we'd have been inclined to chop and change the striker because of this, which I think would have had a negative effect on his overall development. Given Cosgrove's form in December too, it was an absolute no brainer as there is no chance we'd have been dropping the on-form Cosgrove for him. I think that sometimes we have to think of the player's development first over the team needs and I think the long term benefits of his development will outweigh the short term benefits we might have gained with a couple of goals here and there in our first team.

McInnes had a very good playing career though. Not as good as Lennon or Robertson, but better than a hell of a lot of others. Captain of West Brom (to promotion from the championship and into the EPL), Arabs, Millwall* and St Johnstone. He was clearly a decent player and a leader on the pitch. *With Nigel Spackman saying: "Every Millwall player on that pitch should be a Derek McInnes." when he signed him at age 34.

I think you might be right. Although I don't think we'll necessarily change tactics for tonight and against the bottom 6 teams in general. Post split last season, we succesfully switched to a 4-5-1 type format with Ball as an additional midfielder. I expect he'll want to do similar this season post-split but with a 3 as you suggest. I actually think we'd be better retaining the back 4. Considine's worst performances at left back were when we dicked about with a back 3 or 5, leaving his pace exposed (usually to a Tim winger). When he was left of a back 4 and able to sit right on top of his man he was significantly better and often very good. Given we have Lowe at left back, who is very forward thinking, in my mind we can just simply invert our lopsided one attacking full back, one defensive full back method to suit. I suppose it's pragmatism really. Even with this new guy, I suspect we don't have an actual right back, so we need to pick the least worst option. A back five would be fine up until we're due to fill the right wing back place. McGinn would be the only one, for me, that could be trusted to track back as well as get forward, but I think we'd struggle to accomodate that formation with our other personnel and we'll get congested - especially at Pittodrie which is quite narrow. Either way, we've nae got the perfect solution.

You're changing the subject, I clearly replied to - and quoted - the bit where you said he lacked commitment. You're grasping at the fact that McInnes hasn't moved here as a sign of his lack of commitment is what I was saying (that particular point, not your other stuff). That's not harsh, cheeky or anything else. If you're not grasping, then you're not putting your argument forward correctly because it appears - to me, anyway - that you're grasping at it. The reason I'm suggesting is because you've got no evidence. I've suggested that he might not want to move his family for other genuine reasons (again, I've no idea and don't care), and you've not put forward any evidence to suggest otherwise. The reason I suggest your grasping is that you irrationally use McNeill as an example of commitment because he moved his family to Aberdeen. Yet he left after 11 months to join Celtic, because it was too big a job to turn down (stepping stone in other words). McInnes has been here for 4-5 years already, and there's a good chance he could last as long as Ferguson (8 years?). In this regard, you're either grasping, completely wrong, or are right but just haven't backed it up with any remotely useful evidence. I wasn't being harsh, provoking or anything else, I'd be interested in you proving me wrong. The problem is, that by putting forward your argument about commitment so unconvincingly, then I question your argument about the supposed qualities that Lennon has that McInnes doesn't because you put forward zero evidence for those too. That Lennon is somehow a winner that just happened to get sacked by Bolton and Hibs and regularly loses to McInnes' AFC, but McInnes is a loser. I just don't buy it. Most importantly, I don't buy the extent to which it makes a difference, which is the most important bit for me*. Lennon might believe he can win the league, he might hate losing, he might even be a winner but the extent to which he can pass that to players who are not as good as those above them (like AFC) will always be limited, and the extent to which he can maintain that winning spirit with regularity in order to win a cup or league is massively in question. *To me, your "winner" mentality is just another attribute in a series of attributes managers will/won't have. It's not nearly enough on its own. Where McInnes lacks a winning mentality (let's say), Lennon lacks in getting players to play for him and in self control (see the Hibs bust up). McInnes lacks in youth development and use of subs where Lennon lacks in concentration and organisation that sees him lose games he shouldn't. McGhee was undoubtedly a winner, but he had zero other attributes. I agree that AFC probably won't win the league without McInnes improving in those areas that he's deficient in. But I also think we're at least 6-7 good players short too (we need a squad to win the league). The extent to which a winners mentality has an effect is - in my opinion - negligible in terms of AFCs ability to win the league and, to me, is far too simplistic.

It's nae 1970. No man should force his family to live somewhere they don't want to. I don't know if that's the case (that they don't want to move), nor do I care, but you don't either. But I still don't get it. You suggest the McInnes is a loser. You also suggest that he's using AFC as a stepping stone. In other words, he backs himself. He might be a loser, but he certainly doesn't believe that. He clearly has belief in himself, misplaced or otherwise. Yet still, he turned down two decent opportunities in order to stay with the dons, despite both equally as easy to get to from Glasgow (is that where is family is?), which suggests commitment. But even if he wasn't committed, so what? Was Ferguson committed to a career at AFC or was it a stepping stone? Lennon at Hibs? McInnes has shown a commitment when he's been here, he's changed the entire structure of the club and pushed hard for training facilities and even that wanky new stadium. That's more than Lennon even attempted to start at Hibs before getting himself the boot. There are plenty of valid arguments for criticising McInnes, you just seem to be grasping at stuff that has little evidence. I'm not criticising, just find it interesting. It's like you hate McInnes that much you've become irrational!

I might be in the minority, but I'd either play a back 3 or drop Devlin. His distribution has been awful all season. I thought he was excellent, defensively, before injury but from day one he reminded me of Reynolds who's passing has always been suspect too. I think it would be very harsh to drop Considine and Devlin would be a significantly worse right back than Ball due to the fact that he's not great on the ball. I think we'll go for a back three of Devlin, Considine and McKenna with Lowe and McGinn playing high on the flanks. However, that is only because I think we'll be doing that against the hun, and so it'd be good to get some practice in. I'd prefer to play McKenna and Considine with a traffic cone at right back (Ball deserves his place after the St Johnstone game).

Maybe he just considered his family? Enough of a man to take into account their well-being before his own if they were happiest where they were? Enough of a man to not need his family around him whilst doing his job (I don't think that's a good trait as such)? I've no idea of course, but I doubt you do either, and it's a strange thing to focus on. I don't know if he has kids at school or whatever. I don't know if there is any evidence that his family being in location would improve his performance or if it has had a negative one and, again, I doubt you do. I don't know if Neil Lennon moved his family to Edinburgh, or to Bolton either and nor do I think you do - without subsequently looking it up. I understand your dislike of McInnes, I just don't understand how it spills over into various points that seem to have no bearing on that and how it relates to Lennon's qualification as a manager. In other words, can we nae just look objectively at their records, rather than non-quantifiable/malleable bullshit like "how much of a man" someone is? I could easily argue that Lennon is a weak as piss whiney fuck who does his talking in the press and fucks off at the first moment things become difficult for him using every excuse under the sun apart from looking at his own failings. I have no idea if that is the case though, but it's a turn of phrase that could easily be made to fit. I've never seen either manager with their players, nor what they say to them behind the scenes.

Still out fae last night perhaps? I think that over the past few seasons the dons fans have been quite positive. Our home form over the last few seasons - if it has anything to do with support provided (which is what is being suggested) - would back that up. Weird time to be complaining about it.

He just got thrown out of Hibs for being a dick. In other words, it's not just AFC fans, it's professionals employed by what seems to be a well-run club. If Lennon is employed by Celtic, it will likely be as caretaker because he's out of a job. He was paid off/let go the last time he was at the club, and was clearly never trusted with a budget (players bought in for him etc), so he's clearly not deemed good enough. He's a decent manager, about the same level as McInnes. Good at motivating players for the big games, without any real success (2 wins in 11 vs the Tims), whilst unable to get a level of consistency against the other 7-8 teams that make up the league. I find it bizzare that you/anyone holds him in such ridiculously high regard. Like McInnes would, he'll easily return the league (and probably cup) to the Tims if he goes there, but the differences between the two are minimal - just a matter of style.

Strictly speaking, he hasn't left, just going for talks (as McInnes did with Sunderland). Anyway, Lennon in charge for their cup tie v Hibs? Tasty.

I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. High expectations and all that. I think I should have re-watched some of the old stuff to get me in the mood. It was decent like, it'll be interesting to see how it comes together as a series. It's more KMKY than yer travellodge Partridge which I think was the best stuff. I didn't think the guy at the touch screen was a great actor, which almost ruined a good scene. The co-presenter was good though.

I like Chris Crighton's column. One of the view worthwhile reads in the P&J. Perhaps he just had a bad day at the office.

Thank fuck we didn't play Shinnie at right back. He's our best midfielder by a long way. Good to see him getting a couple of goals. Only saw the last half hour. Ball looked decent at right back, defensively speaking. Wouldn't be convinced if he had to play there the rest of the season, but if he maintains that level of aggression in the challenge and gets in the face of the winger he might just manage it.

Intent is irrelevant. That isn't the rule. From Morelos' sending off: As Rocket suggests, he was making room for himself/jostling for position. There was no violent conduct. Regardless of what we think, or what happens on the tele in the premiership, or what happened last season or in previous seasons, the rules make it clear that there has to be excessive force or violent conduct, neither of which occurred in this case. By their own guidelines it is a yellow card. I am astonished that referees in Scotland - after the media coverage the Morelos case given and the clear misunderstanding everyone seemed to have over the rules (myself included) - do not have this down to a tee. It was an easy decision. I think Brophy went down like a sack of tatties in his attempt to win a penalty too. Nobody falls over when getting a hand on their stomach. I actually think that it was that which made the ref not give it. If he'd just gone down normally or stumbled then he wouldn't have looked like he was trying to con the ref.

I think yiv got yer black players mixed up? Or are you talking about another incident. It was Kamara last night.

I don't think McLean was ever "lazy" in the traditional sense in his time at AFC. I am 100% certain that his stats (ground covered, touches etc) would back that up. I'm also 100% centre that if the stats didn't back that up he wouldn't have been playing - it's very obviously something that McInnes puts a lot of faith in. He was off-form for a good portion of two of his seasons. He was often a fanny* in the tackle. His passing was shite, and he wasn't making the telling passes that he was completely capable of, choosing to make the easy pass instead (I think that would be classed as lazy). He never stopped showing for the ball. The positions in which he showed for the ball were often the easy positions to show for the ball (see Gleeson and a good period of Jack's career). I totally agree that it stemmed from not being dropped, and I believe/think/guess that was because McInnes put faith in the statistics that he was seeing from McLean. Perhaps, pragmatism kicks in for a manager, and if there were no alternatives in our squad then you maybe accept that a guy putting in a shift is sometimes enough. McLean played within himself as a result. He had a lot of very good games which he didn't get credit for too, because fans too a disliking to him (because he never got dropped). He was excellent when he came back in and for Maddison for the remainder of that season, but that didn't get the credit it deserved. In his last season, he was also good for a large portion of the beginning of the season before his announcement regarding the Norwich move. *I'm not sure if fanny is the right term, as he was perfectly capable of tackling. He would often go in with the wrong body shape and the wrong foot making him weak as fuck. McGinn is a good example of a fanny in the tackle and McLean was nowhere near that level.

Not on the hun game though? In charge of our game at Pittodrie v Stenny?

It's a staggeringly bad decision. Really bad. It's difficult to accuse anyone of corruption as there are numerous bad decisions on a weekly basis involving all teams, but this one just seems beyond shite. I'm not going to suggest full scale deliberate, but it's almost like the officials have been asked to be lenient toward Sevco here - it's almost like they're trying to even up the McGregor decision (which has had no discernable effect on them anyway) in some way. You genuinely feel that they operate on a tit-for-tat level when dealing with the hun over the course of the season. Like there's a genuine fear over the repurcussions of each decision involving them. Finally we have a decision that we can call on the Morelos decision from the first game of the season, which was extremely well covered and should be at the forefront of every referee's mind when looking at these types of incident due to its "new" (and correct) interpretation of the rules. They should know this inside out, and no ref should be making the same mistake that the ref did in our game (whether we like it or not, the rules are now clear and the red card was overturned). There is only one reason that the goalie could have been red carded last night, and that is that the linesman (it wasn't the ref I don't think) has witnessed* the incident and seen the 'keeper hit the player. He's seen contact inotherwords. At that point, we then refer to the Morelos incident to reference what constitues a red card. There has to be intent to harm. If the assistant has seen the incident properly* then he absolutely must come to the inclusion that there is no intent to harm there. It is quite simply a brush off (and even that's being severely harsh) at worst. If the referee/assistant has seen the incident in full* then the correct decision for that foul would be a yellow card. That is the precedent set by the Morelos incident and any referee who doesn't know that given the profile of that incident shouldn't be refereeing in this country. *What I think has happened is that neither linesman or referee have witnessed the incident properly and have made their decision based on the reaction of the player. It's the 21st century. No ref should ever be basing their decisions on the reaction of a player. Players (including even AFC) are taught to go down as part of their training. If you don't see the incident, you can't give the red card. It's exactly why the post-match panels exist - a ref can't be expected to see everything and it's a completely acceptable thing for a ref to say that he didn't see it. Would VAR have solved this issue? I don't believe it would. The ref would have got a hundred slow-motion replays of an incident and would have based his decision on "contact". They genuinely don't seem to understand the rules. I'd say that it's the worst decision I've seen this season. It's really bad. For the sake of balance, I didn't think Brophy's incident was a certain penalty and his reaction to the touch from the hun makes it understandable as to why the ref would not give it (I wouldn't have).

Understood. Nae up on my chocolate biscuits.