RicoS321

Pressley off to a flyer.

I expect you're right. He's a player who likes to take the ball out from defence and he takes an extra touch on his wrong side, so he'd have to learn to simplify his game a lot and work on his angles on the left side. You've really got to play like you're a left footer on that side, and he didn't do that. Nilsen really struggled with it too, in the games he played, whereas Polvara didn't. I think he'd need a lot of work, although he'll be helped by having got used to the game and grown as you say. I guess I don't actually care too much who plays on the left if the need arises, I do care if we're signing an additional senior player (I'm classing Dorrington as senior as he's already established as a first team player) on that basis (in an area we're already covered). Aye, it's definitely a thing, but I'd say that centre half is different. A partnership is key, and it's not the type of position that requires a lot of miles (comparatively). Centre halves should easily be managing forty games, and I think that will happen. Thelin didn't really chop and change his back two, with Molloy and Rubi playing almost exclusively until Rubi imploded and then it was Tobers briefly, before settling on Knoester and Dorrington. Milne was second and then third choice centre half last season and barely played any minutes there. The central point is that one of those guys is now going to be starting perhaps 10-15 games at most, and probably less than a handful before the January window (which we could have waited until, and assessed then), and I don't think that is a good thing. Out of interest, would you be happy with one of them getting that little time, and if so, which one of the three and why (putting you on the spot here!)?

Ha ha! Oops. Now I see what you're getting at. I meant to write "definitely isn't a centre midfielder", in response to the suggestion he could play there.

I'm not writing Tobers off, I'm saying that if he's going to be sitting on our bench then he should be moved on. That's my entire point, all three of those players would rightfully expect to be playing 30 games this season, and we likely won't be able to provide that for one of them now. Dorrington was poor at left centre back, and was immediately better when he moved right during a game. It's the shape of his body, the extra touch etc, it was like watching David Bates. It was nothing to do with confidence, form, or anything else. Just like it was clear that Devlin would be better at left back than Jensen, which he showed in the cup final. I think we'd likely play Milne left ahead of Dorrington, and certainly Polvara has played better than Dorrington on that side before. Again, that was the other half of the point, that we've got utility players that can provide cover in the event of losing two players in one position, and I think that's the best approach. One of those individuals is going to have a stall on their career next season, and I don't think either of the three deserve that.

But it's nonsense though, he was terrible on his wrong side. Just as Jensen isn't a left back and Tobers definitely isn't a centre half. More importantly though, it suggests that we've brought him in as a versatile cover. I'm stating it as fact, but it's - of course - my opinion. I think it would be incredibly strange business to bring a young lad who was first choice at the end of last season to then sit on our bench. It would be a terrible move for him too, as he's good enough to be playing every week, and I think we'd be doing him a huge disservice bringing him back. If he's not first choice then it makes it worse.

Whilst that sounds reasonable, the issue isn't necessarily numbers, rather it is seniority of those numbers. I think we need to separate left and right centre back. Left is not an issue, with two players covering one role, and Molloy's lack of experience made up for by the fact he'll play less games. Right centre back, you've got the youngest player Dorrington, being the one who will be first choice, so his age is irrelevant. Behind that you've got a senior player, and another who would now expect to be treated as such (Milne). The Milne of last season should have been the backup to the other backups, but not this season too. We should also factor in the January window. This is the type of signing that could have waited until then if it became apparent we were having to shoehorn in likes of Devlin or Polvara because of injuries etc. As I said previously, it would be interesting to see/hear the type of pushback we get within the club, or if the manager is just allowed to sign whatever position he likes.

He's not a midfielder in a million years. Unless it is a very deep lying one. About the same depth as the other central defender.

Which one would that be? It's definitely not Dorrington. I think Milne could maybe be trusted to keep it simple perhaps. To me, a fifth should be a utility player, or the next young player. Not a guy that we should be giving plenty of game time at this stage in his career, nor a guy who is already a Latvian international.

I like Dorrington, I think he's going to be a fantastic player, but I can't help but think we're making this signing for fear of missing out. We have absolutely zero requirement for a right sided centre half. He's a loanee, with zero option to buy as far as I can tell. He's ahead of Tobers and Milne in the pecking order, who are our players. We could change to a back three, of course, but I think that takes away from what was tried last season. There are probably a handful of games where a back three would be beneficial from a defensive perspective. I'd be unconvinced of it when trying to break teams down at home (or away). It just reeks of poor squad building to be honest. Again, I'd go back to that employee in the building who puts pressure on the manager to make sense of these calls (the technical director we were expecting five years ago). In terms of squad harmony, player development (Milne), it doesn't make sense. It's not an area of the pitch that traditionally needs a huge number of players. Knoester will likely play 40+ games, and so will Dorrington now I'd expect. We have Polvara and Devlin who can both cover for the half dozen games that we struggle with suspensions etc, I don't think we need Tobers and Milne to provide cover for that one position. In fact, as a general rule, we should be looking at two players for every position, with utility players for third cover (other than striker, perhaps, where different types of striker can adapt to different strategies). In light of this signing, I'd look to move on Rubezic (regardless of the signing) and Tobers.

It's an absolute abomination of a competition. Actually, it's not a competition at all anymore, I think it's lost the right to be called that. I hope the Dons B get fucking tanked for agreeing to this pish, or the lower league sides and their fans do the decent thing and boycott it.

The US public voted for him when he was a known rapist. Why would a predilection for children be different? It's another distraction.

Thankfully that would never happen in this country.

The only thing more ridiculous than putting that idiot in charge of football strategy would be to put Jack Ross in charge of players' wardrobe.

New signing. To Beconfirmed.

Woke pish. We used to play in 40 degrees, with a fag at half time to quench the thirst.

What I make of that is that people doing the stadium tour might use those shirts during visits to the bathroom and so the staff have removed them in advance. Out of interest, what was the tour like? If I'm struggling for things to do in the summer holidays, I might go wild. I've also got relatives up from England, and they would jump at the chance at seeing a stadium like Pittodrie given the poor offerings they have down there.

I think you could be right, I just think it'd be a big mistake. Gueye and Adil aren't midfielders, as such. They'd play number 10 for us, in front of the midfield. Polvara doesn't do the running required of a number 8. Really, Shinnie is the only one with real work rate in there, and we generally suffered against better teams when he was at left back. Palaversa might step up, maybe, but it's a risk. He didn't manage to play past the hour mark in the latter part of the season (magnificent effort in the final aside), and would regularly start the second half of game already done. Whilst we appear to be overloaded in midfield, we're still missing a function. I guess we could give it until January. It's the pain in the arse that is Europe that makes it such an issue - one that is gone by January.

Lost their battle?

I have to say, all this chat about cups is far more exciting than discussing the abomination of a strip, or the uneventful window. Perhaps we should consider starting a cups thread.

I have some cups fae M&S or John Lewis or some of those places that have certainly lasted much longer than the Dons' one without fading, I expect it's something to do with the glaze and the finishing layers (I have a couple of M&S - we got vouchers - ones that have faded too). My folks have still got cups they use nearly daily that have their favourite child's (me) name on them that have been in use over many decades, so I suspect it's just the more general enshittification that modernity continues to serve. Back in my day, our lead cups would last for centuries. A bit of asbestos for a lid, kept everything nice and warm.

We got a left back didn't we? We definitely need a box to box midfielder. The games where Shinnie did the most work were the games we were most successful in I'd say. Clarkson looks to be more and more likely to put in a shift and cover some serious yards, but we need the legs of Shinnie two years ago, or Ramadani, to give us that extra lift in the middle of the park. A striker is imperative. Once again, though, we need to see some faces out the door too. Vinnie, Ambrose, Rubi, Jensen R, maybe even Duncan. Make space for some of the new duds that come from a summer of signings!

I'm drinking my cup of tea from a five year old Dons' cup this morning as it happens and going by that I reckon the writing on that one you've linked will fade more quickly than your memory of the day. Edit: I should add that my Dons' mug is a solid workhorse of the cup world, good to drink from, and gets used daily. In terms of cupness, I'd give it a strong 8/10. Hope this helps.

Yep, that seems fair. McInnes had hit a huge dilemma as our manager. He'd mastered a formation and style that could beat anyone in the league outside the scum (one, at the time), but we couldn't lay a glove on the Tims or a particular level of European opponent. In Rooney, we had a prolific striker who was worse than useless against either. We didn't have the budget or scouting network (Milne controlled the former, McInnes the latter) to get a striker that could unlock that next level, at least in part. McInnes' answer was a big lad, which failed in Stockley, but Cosgrove was a success. He used his body well, and held the ball up well, and got into great positions as a poacher. He allowed us to play further up the park against the likes of the Tims and gave us something different (and possibly even better) than Rooney. Of course, because we never managed to get another goalscorer to compliment Cosgrove we ended up going long too often, and in games we didn't need to, but I also think that that was vastly overstated by some fans, who exclusively link big lad with big punt even though we still played some nice stuff. If we'd been able to mix up our style a bit, I think Cosgrove would have been an asset for a bit longer. He then had a barren spell, got injured, and in that time - coinciding with Cormack having greater influence - McInnes moved to the "entertaining" 3-4-3, with Hedges, Watkins and Wright. Cosgrove was unable to fit into that and became a bit of a figure of scorn (maybe even hate) among fans, that I don't think I've seen before for a striker that was so prolific.

I'm not surprised by either of these to be honest. McInnes isn't an idiot. Cormack came in with grand plans, but with absolutely no idea how to implement them. McInnes will have known the way clubs were going in terms of control over signings and managerial succession planning, and I think he'd have always been amenable to it. What he wouldn't have been amenable to is the half arsed approach that Cormack was taking towards it. He had the example of Hernandez, and he'll have likely thought that Cormack was full of shite. Ultimately, McInnes was going to be responsible for Cormack's mistakes (and was, given the final January window), and he'd have been reticent to give up control on that basis. He was proven entirely correct too. Three managers have been expended on Cormack's experiments. They've had the ridiculous task of playing entertaining football, with signings made via a system still a massive work in progress, with no proper backroom team to do the recruitment work. Had we not won the cup, then it might have taken a fourth manager too.

I thought he was a striker?