RicoS321

It's fucking shite. If McInnes thinks it would have made any difference to the decisions so far this season, he's deluded. It just adds to that fuckiMng pish statement that the club put out the other day about the Devlin case. VAR has fuck all to do with it, and is just as unaccountable as a panel of refs. I suspect McInnes is just having the question thrown at him so he's answering it, but he should have at least listened to what the cunt Doncaster had to say. He didn't say that cost was a barrier at all. He said that it wasn't the number one reason why VAR wouldn't be introduced, the number one reason was that it was shite (see the world cup final) and that it would have made fuck all difference to most of the conentious decisions so far this season. He said, basically, that if it turned out not to be shite after various trials elsewhere in the world then they'd look into the full cost and work from there - basically cost was not the main consideration. As for McInnes' pish about Scottish football being "left behind", that's just idiocy. It just won't have VAR, it's neither behind or in front, just different. If VAR was only being introduced in Glasgow and Edinburgh then AFC would be being left behind, but the notion that the use of VAR in a league that is no way tied to our own has any detrimental effect is just stupid. I could understand him saying that if everyone else was using better fitbas, or better pitch surfaces or enchanced injury treatments or something directly related to performance or player attracting, but VAR is just VAR. Fuckwit.

He's not as shite as May.

Yep that's exactly what I was suggesting but not "especially" the Scottish Cup semi; you chose that one as it was the easiest to make your point with, but the other two first and foremost. We were ahead in the tie against Apollon and went to Cyprus completely unable to hold onto the ball up the park. We were fucking about waiting for May to speak to the new PNE manager. We were literally one decent player away from getting into the group stages, it was the key position and we were easily good enough across the rest of the park. If it had been Moult, we'd also have not lost to Motherwell in the league cup. I firmly believe that we'd have built on that in January (we'd certainly have had some cash to) and not made the unacceptably shite purchase of Nwakali on loan for the massively important first team spot in centre mid (another example of where we've got it wrong for an important position by signing a fuckwit). Nor would we have been fucking about with Rooney on the wing as the other striker would have perhaps proven himself in the same way May has proven himself to be not that good. Thus the semi.

You missed the point. They drag the team down because they were scouted and brought in as first team players and so - by virtue of the fact they were pish - by not filling that required spot the team was adversely affected and others had to pull more of the weight. It doesn't matter whether we got rid of them after a year or not is irrelevant. Take May as a simple example. Can you imagine the success we could have had if we'd brought it in an actual striker? We'd have got into the Europa, not got knocked out of the league cup and probably not lost the semi. We didn't do those things because we had May and not - let's say - Moult. The signings that we spent the most time and effort researching have too often been average or shite. Nobody is expecting a perfect strike rate. we are/I am expecting better than the last two seasons. Especially as our outlay is increasing (£400K for May, £250K for GMS?).

Do we still feel obliged to mention Tansey (not you, the club)? Anyway, I'd go 3-4-1-2. Ditch Forrester, he was pish. --------------Lewis--------------- ---Devlin---Consi---McKenna--- Logan---Ball---Shinnie----Lowe --------------McGinn------------ --------Cosgrove---Anderson---

I don't think it's that tricky. Most of us know roughly speaking who is a success and who isn't and that would be backed up by length of contract versus minutes played. An unsuccesful signing doesn't negate a good one it is just - as suggested - making for a poorer average. That average becomes more of an issue as the number of first team spaces that require to be filled increases as it has in the past couple of years. The filler pish that you mention are just signings that don't need to be made and prevent youth minutes on the park. Even if you removed those, you still return a high proportion of known duds. Tansey, Storey, Stockley, Zola, Forrester*, Gleeson* and so on, who aren't punts but well-scouted targets purchased for the first team. They have an impact on the good siginings' ability to win us games by dragging us down. Arguably, that poor return results in an increased number of punts on Maynards (Maynard was only signed because both Storey and Stockley were shite for example), so it has a doubled negative effect. *I'm assuming they're not up to standard for the purposes of the debate

That point was 2-3 seasons ago though. A manager should be looking at about 50% return on their signings. By that I mean 50% who improve the squad. A lot of people have unrealistic expectations of all our signings being great. We didn't get close to 50% last season, and maybe scraped it the year before. It's a little too early to judge this season's signings as a closed case, but let's give it a try anyway! Success Hoban* Lowe Ferguson Not a success Gleeson* Forrester Wilson *I've included Hoban in the success category as he was okay early doors. Gleeson in the not a success because he's been underwhelming. That could change, with Gleeson looking slightly better and Hoban dead or something. A lot this season hinges on Wilson's performances once fit. At the moment it's not looking good, but he could just tip the balance in McInnes' favour in terms of his signings. Given his position he could also be the difference between us having a relatively poor season and a good season. I've not included Devlin because he was signed last season, and all he did was go some way towards mitigating that season's terrible outing(s) in the transfer market. I'd agree that I wouldn't call this season appalling either, but the last two season's windows were and so it isn't unrealistic for fans wanting to have a greater stike rate this season to make up for the last two.

Except it is in the qualifying rounds of europe, which occur before the season even starts in many cases. I haven't read the article, but I cna guarantee it was written from the point of view of the bigger teams in the later rounds. Away goals help reduce the number of extra times, and that is a big thing in these early rounds.

Possibly. Probably just a poor man's Max Lowe.

Thing is, the genocidal stories are also much more fun to learn too. They also provide a lot of room for interesting debate. The Aborigine population in oz decreased by 80%ish after the Brits turned up, but a lot of it was because of aids or some such (not really, it was small pox and things like that). It leaves the argument open that it wasn't genocide, but just natural population replacement/displacement. Obviously nonsense, but interesting nevertheless. In 1900s Tasmania, they hunted for aborigines like posh people do these days with grouse or lions. It's a massive subject like, well worth a part in the education system. Closest we got to learning about Aboriginals was Walkabout the film, where a bird got her tits out - I don't remember the plot line.

Tansey's going to need a longer contract if we're waiting on him to be good.

Glad I'm not the only one who forgets he exists. Perhaps Hamilton have taken him back.

Was listening to the interview on the radio last night. The interviewer just let him away with his shite, not noticing that this shite is exactly the problem with the game in this country. Completely lacking in integrity and the fact that this was his "one regret" as SFA executive is pathetic. "I wanted to help Rangers" were the words he used. Fucking despicable. Fucking lickspittle interviewer should have gone to town on the cunt. The biggest problem we have is not that this SFA cunt doesn't see it as a problem (we all know what they are), it's the fact that the interviewer - the fucking journalist - doesn't automatically see this as a problem. The huns had a squad of about 30 financially-doped professionals. That they couldn't have used this squad to alleviate the congestion issue is just plain bad management (they were never going to win anyway). This Peat cunt was in charge during the EBT years. That wasn't his biggest regret? That he allowed a team to cheat on a massive scale over a long period? What a cunt.

Probably something to do with big teams or some such. The good thing about away goals is that it lessens the need for extra time on an away trip. Our recent trip to Burnley aside, there is a significantly reduced chance of a team playing until 22:30 on a Thurdsay night in Kazakhstan or somewhere, so it is definitely beneficial in the earlier rounds. They should just change it in the post-group-stage rounds, because I assume those teams are who actually want the rule changed.

I'm beginning to enjoy this thread. Good work Seabass. Fit's everyone's thoughts on centre half? Got to be yer white europeans for me. Africans in holding midfield. Asians could be yer number 10s of the future, but they've got a bit to go, a good hard working classy eastern european for me.

Don't worry Seabass, if you didn't mean offense then none will hopefully be taken. I don't think we've ever had such non-white symmetry in our team though, just to clarify.

Season two excellent too. Really good watch like.

Aye, it's an interesting point of view like, but it doesn't really stack up with his first appearance at Pittodrie (and a few after that). On that day, he got his body in front of everything making sure the player had to come through him to get the ball. He'd run into the channels and take the outball from the fullback in similar style. He backed it up with a confident strike to win us the game. Now he's not making the runs into the channel, not linking up play and not getting in front of the defender. Perhaps his injury against the hun was a factor? It just looks more like a confidence and belief issue to me, as well as a player that probably wasn't that amazing in the first place outside a single good season at St Johnstone, rather than an injury as he definitely had something when he first joined. The rebound from GMS' shot at the weekend was it for me. Even I've played enough fitba to know that GMS was about to shoot there and I'd have been starting my run at the keeper. He was totally on his heels and looked like a player going through the motions, confidence gone. I think there is a player in May, but even in his St Johnstone days he looked like a player that was the best he was going to be. In order to be a player, we're going to need him to be at his very best. There's zero margin with May, because at 90% he's not good enough. At 70%, Rooney was still likely to bang in a goal. I think he was a bizarre signing, I've never really thought he was good enough (although I did think I'd been proven wrong after his first game for us). I think we're in agreement about May overall, just you think it's injury based pishness whereas I didn't think he was that good in the first place!

One knee and both ankles. I haven't ruled out playing for the dons yet though.

Sorry, I meant to say career threatening injuries that don't just end a players career. Most injuries can be recovered from these days unless age is a factor. Not sure quite what you mean here? Aye, heaps of them. You could probably call me injury prone! When I first broke my ankle (or maybe it was the second time) and ruptured a ligament the doctor said I probably shouldn't be playing fitba. Unless his reasoning was based on my footballing ability then he was talking utter shite (I played badly for 20 years after before another leg break). These days, there's no way a good physio will let a player put strain on their other joints in compensation for an injury (within reason). They properly build back up the affected bone or joint to the point where the player feels comfortable. There is obviously a short-term physcological issue, but that fades reasonably quickly in most players as confidence builds. I thought he'd given the hand ball, apologies. I think it might have been clearer from your side than the refs then. What I saw was one that looked slightly contentious, but in general it was just a case of a few strong players going for the ball and pretty consistent with how he reffed the rest of the game which he allowed to flow quite well (as much as it could with our inept first half).

I didn't think either were penalties and thought Considine's was definitely a foul because he punched the ball clearly and obviously and in front of the ref. Even the ultra-partisan Red TV guys agreed with Collum there.

Are there career threatening injuries these days? May's injury didn't hold him back, it was the fact that he'd reached the peak of his abilities when playing for St Johnstone and couldn't cope with the step up. It was obvious that he had no further avenues for progress, even his manager at the time said that he'd put in a phenomenal amount of work to get to the point he had. Look at his game. He lacks the pace required to make him a top class attacker, so you're either going to get an off-form May or an on-form May. We've currently got an off-form one and we don't have the time or ability to make him into that on-form one again, which would require him to be at his absolute peak. There are as many examples of players that return from serious injury that haven't returned. Considine had a serious leg break and returned, Devlin doesn't look troubled by his, Anderson previously had similar. Hoban's injury is different to the one he had before and seemed to come as a result of a collision or stretch or something. Being "injury-prone" isn't really a thing, you either get injured or you don't. You may have a particular injury that is re-occurring, but having once had a broken leg or knee injury doesn't make you more susceptible to a dislocated shoulder. Very few players make it through their careers without at least one bad injury, that's just the way it goes. It would be a strange signing policy that avoided players who'd once had an injury of some sort. None of Gleeson, Forrester, Hoban, Lowe, Ferguson, Ball have had careers riddled with injury of the same sort so really we're just looking at Wilson. If he was signed with an injury then that seems a little short-sighted, but given all our alternative striking options were being snapped up I can see the reasoning. Our alternative would have been to go into this season with no striking option other than May for the whole campaign and we can see from the beginning how bad an idea that would have been. I more concerned about the quality of our signings rather than the injury status.

I actually thought Collum had a decent match at the weekend. I also thought is view of the pen - and it was definitely a pen - was obscured by one of their players moving in front of him when the incident occurred. In the end I think he had to guess, and the ref should always go with the defender in that instance (i.e. you have to actually see the pen to give it). I think Collum has vastly improved over the last couple of seasons if I'm honest. Seems to keep up with the play a lot more and takes his time over decisions where previously he would tank in flashing cairds. Anyway, the dons are in a bit of a rut at the minute. They can't seem to put a consistent 11 together, and I'm not sure McInnes has decided his best 11 yet (same last season). I think that's to be expected with the new signings being not quite as hoped. Gleeson had a half decent 45 minutes, but it is very worrying that he couldn't complete the 90. It did look like he was covering more ground side to side and covering for the fullbacks too, so perhaps his tiredness is a function of him doing more work and he'll get better every week. Forrester looked like a slower, shiter, less dynamic Ferguson. A Rob Milsom type (possibly like Gleeson) who looks tidy on the ball but invariably does fuck all because he's too slow of mind to have the cutting edge. Shinnie had a poor first half but we're expecting a lot of him at the moment and I don't think we can be too quick to judge. May is currently benefiting from Wilson's injury status. He was utter pap at the weekend again. I completely understand McInnes giving him every chance to prove he can do it this season, but he's not taking that opportunity. Anderson looks a little bit 100mph when he came on and probably isn't quite there yet but he's definitely providing more than May. I think enough is enough with May now though he needs dropped for his own good. The things that he was doing well when he first arrived - getting in front of his man to take the ball from our midfield and running into the channels have now gone. He was beaten to the ball so often at the weekend it was like we were watching Maynard. He was hiding. I don't think Anderson is ready, but he'd be in the team on merit. It's a real worry that we'll have to rely on him this season. Bobby, you asked why I thought we should shoe-horn Wright in even if injured and I think the game answered that one perfectly. Wright against St Mirren (I know, they were pish) was the only player who got us close enough to playing like a proper fitba team. He joined things together in that attacking midfield role between May and the rest of the team that no-one else seems capable of this season. It was slightly tongue in cheek as he's been poor more often than not, but it's increasingly looking like one of the few avenues we have left at the moment.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. I just can't seem to remember him when trying to name our first 11. Ditch Gleeson, get Ferguson in. Force Wright to play through whatever injury he has.

I have licence to exaggerate (what I really meant is if it was done in any other field it would be bordering on criminal). It's corruption or, at best, censorship. I have a feeling they're just trying to back up their refs, but it's a fucked up system of doing that.