RicoS321

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.

Maybe edit that bit oot min.

Aye, SDP were popular in a UKIP style. Lots of votes but no representation. The independent group are riddled with types who wouldn't dream of dismantling FPTP. They just want their parties to return to whatever state they were in in 2000-2010(ish) so that they can re-join them. They are not required to have by elections as we are in a representative democracy. We vote for a representative who will put forward the views of their constituents without being held to party political views. That many peopl might think that they were voting for labour is neither here nor there. They were voting for a candidate who belonged to a party. Otherwise we'd just have parties on the ballot.

It's also a heap of nonsense. Some people don't work hard. That's always been the case. If Ian Robertson had just worked a bit harder he could have been a better left back. If Dennis Law had pushed himself just that little bit further he could have ended up at the dons. In reality, there are very few people of any generation who actually reach their potential in life. There are numerous examples (McKenna, Fraser, Jack, Shinnie etc) of young lads who work very hard and make the grade so the generic "lack of desire to work hard in the younger generation" doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever. Look at the young kids striking over climate change because their parents and parents' parents fucked up everything for them. It's just lazy, ageist stereotyping.

I actually wouldn't mind that. For example, I don't think Ross will be good enough, nor Rogers. I think that we have to be able to write off players - and even get that wrong - quite quickly. To me, there's a responsibility to the youngster too and that can sometimes mean telling them to keep trying elsewhere/go down a level or whatever. We seem to want to have it both ways though, by keeping them on longish contracts and then spend 54 games as an unused sub. I actually think that the way we treat our "failed" youngsters is vital to the success of our succesful youngsters too. If we're getting rid of a young player, we need to do all we can to find them another club and help them in their future career. We don't want to be in the position that we were a few years back where we appeared to just drop players (a lot of players) on a whim. If a player - like Ryan Fraser for example - sees his teammates treated as cash-cows then he's not going to give a shite about signing a new contract to ensure that the club gets some dosh for him. We need to foster an attitude that says that yer kid will be well treated at our club (we've already got an advantage over Celtic in this regard...) regardless of success.

Aye, totally. He seemed to have full confidence in his starting eleven no matter how shite they're playing up until the 65th minute. Although there have been a number of half time subs this season, which shows a nudge in the right direction (or individuals are just playing even shiter). It also takes him at least 5 minutes to get a sub from finishing the warm up onto the pitch. In my opinion, the lack of quick change was partly responsible for the second St Mirren goal at the weekend. Managers seem not to notice that subs can sometimes just break up the game for a little bit and often take a sub on directly after a goal rather than pre-empting it (Wilson on Saturday). We certainly don't. Not a visible one anyway. McKenna is still being held up as the example of youth doing well in our team, but there has been nobody following him and nobody preceding him either (under McInnes). We've narrowed our squad nicely since January too, so there should be the opportunity for more game time. We're still making the squad-pandering subs that keep likes of Ball and Gleeson happy in games where there is no danger in bringing on a youngster.

Yep, that's it. I missed the full 90 minutes he got v Ross County in the season 15/16. So he's had 3 full 90 minutes and two of those were on the final games of the season (both meaningless - notably he didn't start v Celtic in the meaningful last game of last season). It's a good overview min, cheers. What stands out for me is the 54 unused sub spots he's filled in the league (70 odd in all tournaments). That must put you in a certain mindset. It also strikes me as a more systemic issue that I've highlighted before. We should really be putting targets on McInnes to play youngsters in X number of games. Come January, if a youngster is unlikely to fill their quota then McInnes has to either strive to meet that target or send them out on loan. At no point should Wright have been playing 27 minutes of fitba between last January and May. It's easy to criticise McInnes for this, but it has to be a club responsibility. McInnes' job and career depends on winning games, so if he feels he can definitely win games without the "risk" of playing youngsters then he'll take that option. Youth team minutes/games stats and targets from above down would highlight a club strategy/approach that would also give McInnes a bit of leeway(excuse) if those youngsters are not up to it.

It is compared to Corbyn's labour party though isn't it? It's very much wedded to the Blairite position, or the Ed Miliband position at best editorially speaking. Overall though, Rocket is right, there is an economic system designed around globilisation and maintaining a status quo. All of the UK's papers sit comfortably within that framework. That one might think an Isis girl should come home and the other think she should piss off to a brown country is a irrelevant distraction that give the impression of a left and right. What would a "centric voice" do to break up traditional politics? How would it solve our systemic global issues? The problem with centrism (very generally speaking) is that it doesn't solve any actual problems because to solve them you have to go one way or the other. If by breaking up traditional politics you mean dissolving the power of the labour party then you're right, it works. That has almost zero chance of breaking up FPTP and as far as I'm aware that isn't the intention of these well-meaning and principled politicians.

I think it is a subject that Labour probably recognise they aren't going to win either way so they try and say as little as possible. The faux outrage by the "rebel 7" is exactly that though (perhaps bar one or two). Self serving cunts.

As far as I'm aware, he's not completed 90 minutes in the last couple of seasons (if at all).* Aye, fair enough, although we finished second which was a decent achievement. Regardless of whether you or I think that Wright should have been getting games, the manager clearly knew in January that his chances would be limited and it was irresponsible of him not to send him out on loan. He got 20 minutes of football after the January window. It was a ridiculously bad piece of management (from the outside, looking in - he may have been being a complete dick behind the scenes). *Edit: he played 90 minutes in the Hamilton opener at the beginning of last season and the Partick (hat-trick) game the previous season.

Chukka and friends resign to create new new labour. A new type of politics for the 21st century, leaving Labour as the only remaining no-jews-allowed party. A great day for politics. A new beginning.

7.5 times the drink drive limit (the proper one, not the shite Scottish one). You're looking at around 10+ pints I'd have thought. Far more than I could hack these days like. Good luck to ye MBT.

The biggest issue for me is that we've lost a year in his development. This Dundee-type move should have happened last January. He needed game time then, and was very ripe for development. We were chasing second place, and it would have been difficult to justify him getting game time then. He's now a year further into his career and no further forward. The second biggest issue in my opinion is that he gets played inconsistently. McInnes expects his front 3 to chop and change throughout the game. Moving from wing to wing and through the centre. Unfortunately, that doesn't usually work for players trying to find their feet (Mclennan, and I'd include Stewart in that too). Before they left, Hayes and McGinn had that switching to a tee and they were much better players for it. Earlier this season you could see it in GMS and it's safe to say that May loses very little from his game by being switched from left to right and then centre! However, you have to be given time to develop that confidence within games. That means 45-60 minutes in the same position running at the same man using the same foot to cross at pace, developing that role game at a time. Wright, especially, has never had that opportunity as he's constantly switched from centre to left to right. He visibly struggles with it as he'll have a nice few touches in a game before moving to another position - it's like he has to start again each time. In Stewart's case, Clarke keeps things very simple at Killie giving each player a small number of instructions that play to their strengths within games. I think Stewart has been better since returning, but I think he'd benefit from playing a single role (through the centre for me) throughout a game. He played plenty of minutes centrally against St Mirren, but crucially not the whole game, and too often he was too far away from Cosgrove as he didn't have his positioning nailed down. Similarly when asked to play wide he would regularly forget to stretch the game by dropping inside. It seems that McInnes expects a complete game from his players when none of them are ready for it. It was no coincidence that McGinn had his best spell for a good while when played for an entire half out wide with a clear instruction to provide width and balls into the box. It's weird like, we'd never ask a defender (injuries aside) to come in and learn their role in our team by switching from left to right throughout the game. I don't know why we expect it from day one from our wide players.

In real time, he was about 25-30 yards behind the play (it was a quick break, so not a criticism). A good view would have been a side on view like the linesman had, where you can see the extent to which he's straightened his leg. It's not bottling a decision, it's just that you have to be very certain when sending off a 'keeper and giving a pen. If you're not certain, you don't give it. It's a very difficult decision in real time is what I'm saying.

I think it was on the assumption that Logan was injured after being taken off in the QOTS game. I actually think it is essential that the dons have players that can play in a number of different positions. Hoban is just a centre half who is half decent with the ball at his feet, which allows him to play midfield or right back. If we could sign him permanently, he'd be a vast improvement on Ball for example as he's a little bit stronger and even slightly more mobile.

I actually thought Madden had a decent game that day (it was a difficult one), handled it pretty well and most of the time kept up with play. From where I was sitting at the other end, he didn't look like he was in a good position to call the McGregor one (from memory, I think the linesman definitely was in a good position and refused to get involved). I think it's fair to say that you'd have to be very certain to go against a goalkeeper in that situation regardless of whether they're a hun or not. It's definitely the sort of decision VAR (which I dislike) would help with. Any objective viewer watching a replay of it - or who had a good view in real time - would have given a red card and penalty, so it's good that he's been given a ban.