RicoS321

He's clearly not average though, he's very much above average. Calderwood was average, Levein is average. Two seasons running he has finished above his budgeted position - that's quite rare. It relies on sevco making a slight cunt of it, but even they didn't finish far off the tims. The league strengthened enough to make the tim fare 30 points worse, but we only finished 3 points worse. Most of that was down to McInnes' tactics. His tactics are what ground out results, that no other team could, against the bottom 8 teams: Tims 3/12 Huns 1/12 Hibs 7/12 Killie 10/12 Hertz 5/12 Well 6/9 Saints 9/9 Dundee 9/9 Hamltn 7/9 Partick 7/9 RossCty 9/9 Those are very strong stats. His current weaknesses are recruitment, recruitment and recruitment. Probably subs as well, in that they take too fucking long and rarely change a game (although, as the stats show, we rarely need to). No plan B wasn't a choice by McInnes, he just made poor signings which meant we couldn't adapt to anything else. That changed, and so did our form, with the introduction of Cosgrove. That shows he at least recognised the issue. It's important to mention that our budget is a huge limiting factor in our recruitment success too. The Tims made some poor signings that made no impact too (Massonda, Roberts, the defender they signed in January and probably others), but they had a squad of 20 others to fill the gap. A 50% success rate on signings is probably about right. Last summer that didn't happen, we need to get back to that.

It's an interview about the difficulty of picking world cup squads on the day of the world cup squads being announced. With strikers of Durie, Gallacher, Donnelly Jackson and Booth, on paper his statement looks reasonable; McCoist had a far better scoring record than any of those. However, delve a little deeper and you see that he only played in 3 of the qualifying games, with only 1 start (he was subbed after 75 minutes) in the first game in august 1996, and only two further sub appearances. In the entire two years leading up to the campaign he had cause to call on McCoist on only three occasions with him scoring zero goals. It sounds like the deluded ramblings of a man trying to make his thoughts relevant. He's making something up 20 years after the event which doesn't align with the facts (the football managering equivalent of the UKIP voter pining for the way things used to be, based on a starry-eyed view of the past) . Pandering to a guy that doesn't deserve it and in doing so, attempting to turn his playing career into some mythical "talisman" type role (which it possibly was for the hun and in his mid Scotland career). He's over-playing something that didn't need to be over-played. If he'd left him out of Euro 96 then he'd definitely have had a point, but on this one he's conjuring a story out of nowhere. At 34, and having played his last game for der hun (albeit scoring in a cup final defeat to Hertz) he was very much a guy on the downward spiral. If Brown had any thoughts about putting him in the squad then he should have strongly considered his position, because he wouldn't have been there on merit, but nostalgia. Everything McCoist did prior and since, at Killie, backs up his decision to not have him in the squad. That said, this whole thread would have fitted nicely into the crap quotes thread. I'm not one to complain about the unnecessary beginning of new threads, but I think this could be one for the more astute moderator to take a view on.

They're correct, legally, of course. You'd think that they'd show some sort of moral responsibility. In their haste to protect themselves financially from any litigation they've completely forgotten about their season ticket holder involved in the actual case. It could have been handled so much better, by inviting the guy in and offering him support and compensation; you're talking a five figure sum at best I'd expect in what appears to be an isolated incident. Instead, in their permanent defiance of everything, they've allowed what should have been an easy-to-handle situation turn into a full scale cunt-fest as always. Once again, excellent journalism from Mark Daly, who appears to be the only BBC representative that isn't frightened to tell the truth with regard to the old, liquidated, club.

Well done TW. I couldn't think of a more worthy way to lose my crown.

Can we not just give them Tansey anyway?

I'd agree, but if we get two good centre midfielders in then we have the option of Shinnie at left back. Like you, I suspect Naismith is just taking advantage of the opportunity to sign him rather than a targeted signing. I think he'd also manage a shift in right midfield too, and possibly midfield as he's decent on the ball, and a good defender who - at 6ft2 - could happily at centre half. He's the exact type of utility that we need, and a significant upgrade on Ball. On left back, it was so obvious at the weekend the strengths of playing Considine there. He absolutely dominated Forrest by playing hard up his arse for 90 minutes. He was afforded this by the excellent shift of GMS and the support of Shinnie in midfield when required. It was actually far more effective than playing a quicker player against Forrest, who he'd manage to cope physically against. Our problem this season was playing to Considine's weaknesses by setting up with him having Forrest, or Candeias or Tavernier or Boyle or however else running at him by either playing him left of a back 5 or left of a back 3. It was noticeable that in both Hun and Tims games recently, Candeias and Forrest barely touched the ball in an advanced area as Considine was aggressively on top of them the entire games like he did all last season when Hayes was backing him up. I think we need a left back, because Considine clearly isn't an option there in all but one or two systems, but I'd put it down the list below two midfielders and a striker. It's very noticeable that our defence was significantly better than our attack this season, and one of our top scorers has just left.

I totally agree, however I'm saying that it wasn't unfeasible to assume that those two could perform all, or a good part of, the function of the two that left. We weren't going to exactly replace Hayes for example, we sold him for £1.3M, so GMS was easily seen as "best fit". Since the split, he's provided Hayes-like cover too as well as the attacking outlet. Similarly Stewart. Based on his dundee days, it was clear he provided similar attacking qualities to McGinn, but lazy back the way. Again, it still should have fitted into our system as Logan's pace could/should have helped nullify Stewart's lack of it. McGinn was never lightening either. I would have thought that what McInnes assumed he was getting was a budget version of Hayes and McGinn that would have allowed us to retain a system that fed a main striker. He'd have also have thought that in May, he had someone that would have made up for any shortfall in the wide players. He was utterly wrong, obviously, as we were 20 goals worse off. The biggest problem is that he made those assumptions whilst failing to sign a plan B alternative. I'd argue - as I did in January when we signed him - that if we hadn't got Cosgrove, we'd have finished fourth. He allowed us to change system successfully.

Aye, I watched him on Alba in their recent game against some pish. Looked good like. Strong and a good runner. Constantly getting up and doon the right.

I actually think that was the intention last summer. It's certainly not ridiculous to suggest that. GMS was brought in to replace the attacking of Hayes, with the pace to get back when required. Stewart to replace McGinn on the wing, but drifting into the centre at will. May to be the predator but with a slight injection of pace over Rooney. Tansey to fill the hole left by Jack and Christie to play behind the striker in place of Christie. I'd say all the players fitted our system quite well on paper. It just turned out that they were pish(er) at it. It was only when that became apparent that the shoe-horning plan B came into play. When he started to mix Rooney and May together, when he realised that GMS wasn't consistent enough to be relied on, and finally realised that Tansey had always been gash. It was the too-late realisation that 4-2-3-1 could easily be countered by playing a wide 3 at the back and the dicking about with our own back 3 to try and counteract that - foiled by playing Rooney and May again, and with no reliable left wing back. It took us until we finally realised that playing the big striker in Cosgrove would help us retain the ball higher up the pitch and get possession in decent areas whilst also cutting out the passing around by the opposition defence. I think McInnes will/should have learnt a lot about both his preferred line up and his preferred system. These things go in cycles, and I'd expect to see us flit between a back 3/5 and a 4 next season quite regularly and with a bit better organisation. Key will be a couple of decent midfielders in either system and a new striker with more pace (or power ala Moult if he decides to play two big guys up front like the brutally effective O'Neill tims of the early nineties). We need a minimum of 3 first eleven signings in the summer. It's a big one again.

You must be feeling down min, you should be focusing your recovery on the following May's Europa league final and Adam Rooney's subsequent hat-trick! If we get there, I'll buy you a ticket...

One striker, Two midfielders and one wide player. Get those positions sorted first. Then, if time and budget allows, look at getting another midfielder and a right back. We need to focus on our key positions and really go all out to make zero mistakes in those signings. That'll still leave us light in areas, but our first 11 needs to be better than this season and that'll take some doing given McLean's departure and the Christie of early season form. Casting the net wide and picking up a large quantity of pish like we did last summer isn't acceptable. If we can keep Ball to save us a bit of additional effort in the window, then fine. He can certainly be called upon when needed in midfield. We really need a couple of youngsters making the step up too, hopefully Campbell can do that and maybe Ross will return an improved player. Wright could probably leave or go on loan with our best wishes.

He was getting up the racists big still. Great to see. He had a fantastic game, and a great end to the season - much more like the Logan we know. Loves the dons too. Great game, and good to see my favourite Dandy, Considine, get a deserved goal after excellent play from McLean. 73 points is a brilliant total considering the changes from last season and the poor signings. Only 3 points worse off is quite an achievement. We've deservedly finished second with the post split performances. Fuck the hun.

Aye, the whole "I'll consider my position" thing is about wanky too - especially when the season isn't over. Reeks of a guy trying to pass the buck after a shite performance.

Leave the huns alone.

8 out of 12 post-split points isn't a bad return. It was the pre-split points that were the issue. Given the changes last summer, and the very poor replacements, 70 points so far is a pretty decent return. 73 (unlikely, I ken) after the weekend would only make us a win short of last season, so really not too bad. I think our squad is a lot worse than those figures, but thankfully we'll decimate it again this summer, relieving us of a lot of the dross. I think there should be an open bus party at the end of the season celebrating Maynard leaving.

Good article for ye min, if yiv not already read it: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/10/the-invisible-power-of-big-glasses-eyewear-industry-essilor-luxottica

If McInnes had said that after losing, fans would be slating him. If he know what type of studs the players should have been wearing then surely a "level of professionalism" would involve checking that they were wearing them? He's clearly unaware of the goal difference between his team and the hun too - their nae getting third in anyone's dreams.

I dinna think you get an extra point for scoring more goals min, it's nae rugby. We're 4 ahead of hibees.

Yep, I agree, I'm just giving some possible reasoning. Tavernier is very quick, quicker than Christie. I'd have taken Wright on for Christie and Stewart on for Ball and played Stewart as you suggest. I think McInnes like the idea of Christie and Stewart being able to switch from wing to centre throughout the game (or half), much as he does with McGinn and Christie. I think it has a detrimental effect on all 3!

I think that he didn't trust Christie to track Tavernier. He's very dangerous on the break and - other than a couple of lapses - he didn't do that for most of the night as GMS kept him reasonably deep. We should be able to reasonably expect Christie to take Halliday to the cleaners on each attack though, but he looked scared and way off the pace. I'd have taken on Wright after 50 minutes to really go at Halliday, but he's biffed McInnes' sister or something I assume. Stewart plays into their hands a little as - despite reasonable trickery - Halliday is comfortable at that level of pace. Anyway, an entertaining game all said, and worth the entrance money. Not said that too often this season.

Aye, it was fucking weird. Were they singing it at us? I felt a bit of pity for them at that point. A bunch of people who clearly don't understand what or why they are singing something, in protest against nothing. It didn't even seem to rile our fans, just a weird sort of: Eh? Simpletons.

It's what every single manager in world football does. It's about taking pressure off your own side and putting it on the other. I don't believe it has any affect on anything at all, but managers will never say that they expect to win a game or that they are favourites or whatever. It's a modern thing, and it's all very boring. No point in listening to anything any manager or player says in an interview these days, their so rehearsed and scripted it's boring. Unless it was thon Billy Brown cunt - he was amazing. Probably deid now.

Nah, I think it does. I think the capacity won't be 20K anyway - I've said as much from the start - but if it's reduced to accommodate safe standing then I've nae issue. There seems to be a "red line" for some supporters that anything below 20K is a slight on our collective manhood. Attendance-bonerism is a common problem it seems. I think it'll come in around 19K when finished.

Dunty, was it not contingent on reducing the headline capacity slightly too, which they didn't want to do? Something like 1.5 seats per standing space? That rings a bell, but it could have been based on Bayern's ground, I canna mine

I would think that GG's 55/45 would be reasonably accurate - the club will have those details given tickets are only available via the database these days. Although it wouldn't surprise me if they tinkered with that figure slightly to fit their agenda. More interesting would be the number of those on their database in Aberdeenshire who don't attend games regularly. That will be their new target market. To add: Dunty, have you seen the statements regarding safe standing at Westhill? Very non-committal for something that could easily have been defined in the planning phase (although perhaps they were vague as that might have given the WANKS more ammunition - because standers = criminals or some such). I'll be sitting doon in the poshest seats, so it winna bother me.