RicoS321

It's a decent point actually. I seem to have complete double standards when it comes to managers and players and think that foreign managers should be given a try. I think I'm probably wrong about that. The national team is about showcasing the best Scottish talent, so yer right, it should be a Scottish manager. With that in mind, I'd still rather have seen someone like Clarke or Alex Neil or even Jack Ross. McLeish is a better manager than Strachan and a lot less of a dick though. Succession planning should be possible at international level and hopefully the new CEO will address that as and when they turn up. Lencarl, I think the CEO job may take a while, hence the need to get a new manager in now. They could potentially have a long notice period and also the shortlist of one (Leanne Dempster) has ruled herself out so it might be next year before they have anyone.

Good post min, very interesting. Aye, that was the weird thing about Killie's pitch, the grass one always seemed in decent nick. I don't have too many issues with their plastic one if I'm honest, it seems a lot truer than Hamilton's. I expect we'll keep oors hingin on until we move.

It was both May and Rooney last time round. I think May did a lot of excellent work against the HIV cunts in the last game, completely upsetting their midfield and defence with his harrying. His positional awareness is very good (night and day compared to Nicky obviously) and he gets his body in front of the man. That said, he's looked (and that game included) average at best on the ball and in front of goal so hopefully we'll see that improve. The jury is very much out on him, and definitely him and Rooney as a partnership, which I never see working. I don't think May will start, but hopefully a good run out from the bench is in order, with a goal for his confidence. Out etc. Rooney, May 0-2

I'm surprised that it still makes the UK news. It's no more newsworthy than another bomb going off in Afghanistan. The gun debate is so far removed from anything that the British public can understand that it's not worth bothering. Maybe armed school security is the best way to deal with a country that is saturated in guns? If that's what a country sees as their normal, then good luck to them. Fucking wierdos.

I don't think that's true of international football, just Scotland! Specifically Strachan. I agree with Slim to an extent, but I think we can do both. Where a player is Grant Hanley, for example, you just ditch him and take in a younger player. Where a player is indispensable like Robertson then you keep him in the squad regardless (within reason). With the emphasis on long term over safe choices (picking the guy with most caps). I think we could easily have 7 or 8 places in the team occupied by players who'll be there for a long time without losing anything from or first 11. --------Gordon(can't think of young 'keeper)-------- Tierney------Souttar----------McKenna----Robertson -------------McGinn----Morrison------------------------ --Ritchie------------Armstrong-------------Fraser---- ----------------------Griffiths-------------------------- That holding midfield role that Morrison has could easily see Shinnie for the long term. I was merely using examples of the older players by including Ritchie and Morrison (both of whom have had pretty reliable Scotland careers). Gordon could be replaced by Bain, although I don't think he's up to it - perhaps Gunn Jnr? Nae idea. The point stands though, that team would be as qualified to take us forward as the team that played Slovenia: ----------------Gordon-------------------- Tierney---Berra----Mulgrew---Robertson Bannan---McArthur----Fletcher---Phillips --------Martin--------Griffiths-------------

I fucking hate puppets.

Seriously? McLeish is a far superior manager. Although, it would be fucking hilarious if we employed John Hughes. He's a fucking idiot. He actually said "that's what John Hughes can bring to the job". And then forgot that he signed Stokes for Hibs for £500K. He's like a nicer Jimmy Calderwood.

Couple of points. First, McInnes has been very open - to his credit - about his desire to win a cup and his disappointment at not doing so and his belief that we should be. That is something that previous managers would have shied away from stating publicly. His comments about "getting to a final" are more along the lines of "you've got to be in it to win it" and that the more we get there the greater the chance we have of winning. My taking of his interviews on the subject has always been that his target has always been to win it, but that our previous final appearances - in hindsight - can be used as a positive stepping stone, as the players get more and more used to/experience of the occasion. He seems comfortable that we're getting closer and closer to winning another and that we will. Purely in terms of odds we are increasing our chances by getting to finals. I don't remember him ever stating a target of getting to a final rather than a target of winning a cup however, but I could be wrong. In terms of wages, there's a direct correlation. This boy Szymanski covered it really well in England a few years back before the influx of the really really big money in the latest deals. Basically pointing out that 90% of yer league position's merit can be attributed to wages, with 10% being the manager's additional input. Without doubt rangers wages v our wages are way beyond what we should consider within the boundaries of a manager realistically overturning. It should be unrealistic. http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/business-studies/stefan-szymanski-on-the-business-football Success for me would be winning the cup and league. Relative success would be finishing second or winning the cup. Expectation should be a final and third place (given that the odds of facing a team with a higher budget are significantly low).

I'm pretty certain we laid a grass/artificial hybrid a few years back. I was under the impression that was what we have been using for a while now.

I don't listen to 6 Music.

To be fair, the Sun probably did get it from AFC Chat.

This is exactly what it'll be like at Kingsford. 90 minutes of this.

Possibly a little harsh on the second goal, but I agree with the rest. Shaky at best, and will never make it in England with that level of kicking ability. I wasn't sure about Rogers after the County game where he was culpable for their second and looked quite ropey, but he doesn't seem any worse than Woodman. I understand why McInnes attempted to address the problem though, so I'm not going to blame him. In terms of subs, it was strange. I can only assume he was also aware of how gash our bench was.

The whole draw seemed rigged.

That was my thought too. I suspect Ball is our man for the next couple. Chidi clearly is the new Uchechi before he's getting no game time. The bench a huge worry today, nothing on it worth taking on. Wright injured, or just dropped? Maynard being used as the time-wasting sub is too good for him. We better get May back soon and hope that we stay relatively injury free for the rest of the season. The tims in a couple of weeks is going to be a shite-fest with Shinnie and Christie missing. Anyway, GMS played well today which was good to see. Good warm up for his second hattrick against the HIVs next wik.

Don't tell me what to do.

Like the cooler, less wanky Summer Olympics. Some top class events like that make for great viewing. Watching the Japs v Swedes in the bird's ice hockey at the minute. Great game. Didn't realise for about 5 minutes when I started watching that it was birds playing; very fast paced and some hard tackling and good skill. I like the winters like. BBC usually does some decent coverage too.

I'm offended by the use of CAPS in this title. Can you amend please?

Fit's this?

It's a fitba forum, where we discuss fitba, nobody needs to do anything. I'm not actually Derek McInnes looking for advice. I'm simply intrigued why people think it's a mental thing (against the huns) and not just the fact that on the day this season, they've had the better players. I don't think "it's a mental thing" holds water and isn't backed up by the evidence (we beat them twice last season). I'm wondering how people would have set up in our last game against the huns that would have got us the win, because as far as I good see we played our best team, but were deficient in the striker area and in centre midfield. All people seem to say is "press them high up the park", which is all very good, but we have Adam Rooney doing the pressing which means you just take a few steps to the side and you have 3 seconds advantage, and now your pressing midfielder is way out of position. They simply change to 3 at the back and play Tavernier high up the park doubling up on Considine. Which is what happened, and was always going to happen. If I was a manager of any team from Hearts upward just now and we play the team that we did against the huns (even with McGinn in for Stewart), I'd be confident of getting a win against us. Not because of the "mental" side, but because there are very obvious ways to play against us that - if you have good enough players - you'll get the win. Rocket's formation/style would work a treat, but we don't have the personnel to do it and certainly didn't the last time we played the huns. I agree, I think that with Celtic we'd have to ride our luck a little, hope that they have injuries and that we have our best team out. I wouldn't put them in the same category as the hun, although I think we should be aiming for 4 points off them in a season (one win at home and a draw in the remaining 3 fixtures). Again, our deficiencies in midfield and striker are going to mean we struggle - we played Stockley against them in the cup final last season, which at least allowed us to try and hit the long pass at a target an they kept a couple of guys back because of this. As for other teams, they generally play either a big striker or a quick striker up front, which allows them to be either direct, or to press. Usually they play a midfield 5 and a back 3 which counteracts the width of the hun/tim and if they get brutal enough in midfield they can pick up the point on the day. We've seen how bad our defence are with a back 3 as we don't have the discipline at left wing back (we did with Hayes), and if we take Shinnie out of midfield there is no adequate replacement there either. There are very obvious ways for other teams to play against the hun/tim which gives them a slight chance to win. They still need a hell of a lot of luck, determination and hope that the other team take their eye off it - which I'd say happens more against other teams than us.

That's a 4-2-3-1, which is what we went with. The "fuck knows who else" and "May if he's fit" is what I'm getting at here. I'll say it again, I'm not excluding McInnes from blame here, I'm saying it is his fault for making poor signings; that we're not good enough on the park rather than something more mental (the two wins last season would back that up I'd have thought). However, I've yet to hear someone - including you above - present a system that we could have used against the huns in the last game that would have beaten them. Rooney largely prevents the pressing game that other teams have used successfully and the lack of centre mid means we can't nullify and attack them on the left with Shinnie at fullback. I just think we're over-playing the "not up for it", when the evidence points to us being fairly deficient in key areas of the pitch.

I'm not asking whether you agree/disagree, you've not answered the question. What team and setup do we deploy to beat them? I'm not talking about games in previous seasons. I'm talking this season (we took 6 out of 12 points off them last season so it's largely irrelevant anyway).

I think St Johnstone will be in the playoff with Hamilton straight doon. St J are pap this season. Seriously pap. They have zero players of any recognisable value.

Again, I'm not hearing you/anyone explain what setup and personnel you'd play against the huns that would get the edge over them at Ibrox? We were up for it at Ibrox, we were just beaten by a better side. I accept that the circus surrounding McInnes in the previous couple meant we were very much out of sorts, but I can't believe anyone can't see that the deficiencies in our team are more pronounced against better teams and that has way more impact on results than belief or being up for it. Our weaknesses are way too easy to pinpoint if you have the players that can do it (something the other teams in the league don't). I'm not absolving McInnes of blame here, I'm simply pointing to the fact that its more to do with his signings (lack of signings) in key areas rather than his ability to motivate.

It's like the McInnes situation all over again. Churning out the forming Scotland players. Naismith describing him as the "safe" option. Aye, that's what we need. The absurdity being that McLeish was a better Scotland manager who's clearly also available if you wanted to go down the easy appointment route. Strangely (not really of course), they're not touting Craig Brown who also had a better record than Smith as Scotland manager. Walter Smith looks after Walter Smith, and so he'd definitely take the job. It'll be the easiest qualification for a tournament he's likely to get, and those are the conditions that Smith loves. Huns when they could buy the league (and announced he'd leave when they couldn't), Scotland after Vogts, Huns after Le Guen - Smith is shrewd enough to know when to take a job to serve himself best. I think he'll take us to the Euros like, but I believe anyone from McLeish, Strachan, Clark, McInnes and even Malky would be able to too.