RicoS321

No, the bike was a birthday present, so I don't think I was conned, but I'm guessing there was some sort of subliminal messaging going on whereby I was actually conned but am too stupid to realise it. It'll be interesting like, I'm maybe being a bit optimistic. I'm going for 4-2 the dons. McKenna, Kennedy, Ferguson (pen) and Watkins.

Holy fuck, are you genuinely 56? That's fucking hilarious.

I expect us to ditch defending and go for a free flowing, attack at all cost, approach. I'm inclined to disagree with jute, I think McInnes might stick to three at the back. Usually when McInnes has a game plan, you see ten minutes or so of it in the previous game if we're winning. He didn't revert to a back four (I could have missed it to be fair!), and he retained a front two. He didn't even see it out at 2-0, which was sinister. Almost like he was listening to Andy Considine fae the Livi game. I'm think he'll keep the 3-5-2 with Hayes and Kennedy, with Watkins and Main ahead of Hedges, Ferguson and McGeouch. I'd like to see Main dropped and Hedges up front and Wright in and hopefully lack of fitness (Main) will see to that, but probably not. I think Wright could draw gogic into a few bookable spots. He's slow, so I think he'd struggle being given the run around by Wright. I'll be taking my daughter out on her new bike and then watching the game.

Nah, it's more like praising a man with five convictions for armed robbery for walking past an open vault full of money. As someone likely never said.

Yep, really well done. Right decision.

But if you include those predictions, which are really just an extrapolation of existing policy direction, you have to include his mental ones regarding lizards and prior alien visits. Nutjobs are often right about some/many things (George Galloway for instance), but when they take a scattergun approach like Ike, they deserved to be ridiculed. Ike isn't censored either, he's largely ignored for being a little bit fucking mental. In my opinion, he detracts from useful discussion of the very valid subjects you mention. If I were in charge, I'd class Ike as a great person to have out there as he allows those who want to have serious discussion about - say - the monetary system or cashless society to be thrown into the Ike bucket of "conspiracy theorist mental cases". He needs a filter. He doesn't seem to have one, or profits from pretending he doesn't. He's a charlatan.

Just to let you know your entire extended family has been kidnapped. Let me know if you need anything, I'm off now until October, and won't be checking my email. Have a great weekend.

I'd have thought a three or four match ban would be about right. They'd have missed 3 games if the government hadn't cancelled the fixtures, so that would seem reasonable. Four if they're trying to standardise the punishment, as that would be the maximum number of games in a two week period. I think the point about suspension, is that it should be suspended until Monday, as it would be ludicrous to hand out a punishment this close to a game.

Two minutes before the Hibs game kicks off I'm guessing. Surely punishment will begin next week? Announcing on a Friday would seem bizarre, and could totally fuck up preparations for Sunday. I'm assuming they wouldn't do that?

I wouldn't read a whole lot into that, given the opposition last night. The Livingston game was an improvement, but not what I'd call fluid. What is interesting is that we've now got a potential back three, which McInnes has been attempting on and off for a few seasons now, unsuccessfully. The game is quite cyclical in regard to formations, and other teams seem to be adopting three at the back more regularly against us, giving us the opportunity to do similar. McRorie, and Hoban both fit comfortably within that. With Hayes being Hayes, the left wing back is sorted, with the jury still out on Kennedy. It does allow us the two forward players though, which is far more suited to our available players than a lone striker. I don't see Main as mobile enough to be a part of that as a first choice (in order to get the best of that formation), so I'd like to see hedges alongside Watkins to give us that real pace and movement when we get the ball. If McGeouch can sit deep alongside Ferguson, then Wright can fit in nicely ahead of them and given time to gel with the front two. The large squad is worrying to me, as LA don mentioned, I don't think McInnes is great at rotation. He ends up just tinkering and nobody gets time to establish themselves.

If they cancel the tournament now, then I think we win it on goal difference.

A good wee quiz on the BBC. I got 38/41, missing out two players: Euro-dons

Nah, he was just a dick! He looked like a dick too, which I think doesn't help his cause. He sounded like a dick ina. It's probably just basic anti-English xenophobia from me. I used to think similarly about Justin Rose, just with the look on his face, but then I heard a few interviews with him and he seemed like a humble gent. I'm guessing Rocket will know better about him in particular, but it shows that my impressions of people are often entirely arbitrary. The difference is Ronnie isnae really a dick. He's had a lot of off-table issues and isn't afraid to speak his mind, but he really seems to be a nice sort. I expect that he'd let you persuade him why he was talking shite about something if you thought he was too, and likely the type that'd apologise for it too, so not really an arrogant sort (arrogant on the table perhaps, but that adds to the game). Like many of us, I think he lacks intelligence rather than humility, which is why it's so important to challenge people when they say something you disagree with. I expect Ronnie has rarely had that in the snookering world. I also have a huge amount of respect for his ability to be able to walk away from it. Here's an interview from the Guardian a few days back: Guardian - ROS

I've heard that the injured Bruce, Sam, Craig, and the others are heading out for another 8 man sesh to watch the game on red tv international using a VPN on their phones. Expect mass covid-poisonings the morn.

I have to admit, I wouldn't like to see us do this. Not because I don't think it would be good, but that it would be pointless. Unless it's building towards doing it regularly in the league, it just doesn't seem beneficial. McInnes did play Main and Anderson a couple of times in games last season, but it probably wouldn't have been described as a front 2 in any way and it wasn't regular enough to form any sort of understanding. I'd probably just find it more frustrating if we opted for two in this match and then never saw it again, except in the early rounds of the Scottish Cup or whatever. Like Al, I think we'll win this one no bother. Unlike previous seasons, it's not our first competitive match and we showed signs of improvement against Livi. McInnes has very few (none?) glaring fuck ups (like an East Fife, or QOTS or whatever) on his dons CV, and I don't expect this to be one. I think he'll drop Wright, and play Main just ahead of Watkins. Considine back in and Hayes and Hedges/Kennedy (hopefully Hedges, as Kennedy has been pap so far this season) on the wings. Logan to continue ahead of Hernandez and probably Hobban back in for McKenna.

Don't think there was a conspiracy, just the Tims looking out for the Tims and the league looking the other way as usual. It's just deemed an acceptable thing, just like it was acceptable to fix the date of their first game against the team for which they would receive the biggest gate receipt.

Aye, mental like. He probably wasn't meant to get them up this season, they likely canna afford it without crowds!

You've signed up to a forum with the sole purpose of baiting someone. Irony isn't lost on you, is it?

Nobody on here gives a fuck. I appreciate there might be some vein of humour for those posting on another site for whatever reason, but given it's lost on 99% of posters on here, why bother? It's a fairly contrived effort mate, whatever it is you think your doing. It's nae working. Just give it up. It's like witnessing a teenager irritating a bouncer in an effort to get banned from a night club so that they can tell their mates that they've been banned from a night club. I hope you don't get banned, as it might make you think you've won the game that you're playing against nobody.

Just looked it up, think it's a hotel (or a caravan park), nae an actual place, hence the confusion. Looks like a good place to be. Probably nicer than oor windy whoor in the north east the nicht.

There might have been more competition for titles (I disagree, nobody came close to Hendry), but the standard has demonstrably improved. The number of centuries, long potting etc is far superior these days, and there's probably 20 players that could bang in centuries for fun. Robertson, Selby, Trump, Ding etc are all miles better than yer John Parrotts etc who would be on the fringes during Hendry's reign. He'd be the first to say so. O'Sullivan, Higgins and Williams were significantly better than anyone else when they first came on the go. They are at the peak of their sport. That sport doesn't require much fitness, so can be played for much longer. They don't win everything these days, far from it, but they're still at the top because they set such a high standard and retained that standard. If Steve Davis had retained his standard, or Jimmy White, they wouldn't be winning anything these days (they'd likely have improved of course). I really don't think there's any need for homophobia.

Tarskavaig maybe? Hemmin, rocket, far's Tarvaig?

Good stuff, very interesting. I bet I've got about 7 shot types in my locker that wouldn't be in your 7. You'd probably greet if you saw me hitting a ball. I wouldn't describe it as golf, but I'm quick about it and never make a mess of the course! The part about cycling that I was referring to was the pushing of cyclists to the point where they're looking at their chemical balances as a human and trying to enhance every inch of their body and performance to an extreme degree, to a point where the lines are blurred between drug taking and dietary management (see tennis, also). The point at which a person is consenting and coerced also begins to be blurred, and that won't be obvious to a competitor without stepping back from it. I suppose I'm trying to work out if there's a point at which you'd stop and question the "win at all costs" mentality and recognise that these people are just humans doing a job. Remembering, too, that sports people don't really choose their sport, it's mainly chosen for them by parents. It's all becoming a little controlled these days, and after your intial point about the golfer stepping back from a tournament, I wondered if more athletes would question if they're sport (or business as you point out) is really worth it, or really a source of privilege.

I don't remember that. Interesting, will have to check that one out. It seems like it'd be a bit more of an Airdrie thing to do rather than a Morton thing. Although I've always hated Aridrie.

I don't think that the standard in snooker is on the decline, and of course that's what all the commentators all talked about. I don't think that was his point. I read it as that there were too many professionals. Beyond the top 50, you're looking at amateurs. I suppose it's supply and demand and the point at which you can cut off the flow of players and still maintain a good top level. The secondary point about him, John Higgins and Mark Williams still winning at their age would suggest that the sport hasn't improved, but the question is whether an improvement beyond their level is something that can happen (in the sport as a whole) or is desirable and should be aspired to. I'd say that snooker has maintained a fairly high level whilst still bringing in fans and money at a level of a much greater sport (in theory, based on the fact that they're just hitting ba's around with a stick). Golf is perhaps slightly different in terms of technological improvements to clubs and balls and the like, but when yer talking snooker there is no valid reason for a player today to be better than a player twenty years ago and no real reason for the sport as a whole to be better than when Higgins, O'Sullivan and Williams began playing. Why should that be the case? If Usain Bolt's 100M record isn't broken for 20 years, will the sport be in decline? I don't know. Going back to the original example of the golfer choosing not to play, at what point do we think we should stop pushing sports people to perform better (for us)? I expect cycling could answer that. Does your level of analysis, that I expect wasn't close to being available 20 years ago, take things too far in golf? Does playing 14 hours a day? Where's the limit and when do we think that it's just a game?