RicoS321

I think your name is too long. It's uncomfortable on my screen. Apart fae that, I agree with your assessment. We scored a record number of goals last season, with a record points total and played some excellent stuff fairly regularly at home and away. I've not seen anything of Steve Clark to suggest he'd be a better manager. It'd certainly be a hell of a risk.

No Barry Bannan or Steven Fletcher? Disgusting....

You've ignored what I said. Breaking up play isn't about making challenges, it's about being in the correct position. Fletcher, Ferguson and Jack rarely make challenges because their positional play makes up for it - they don't have to lunge into tackles because a simple block will do. More often though, the pass doesn't come to the preferred player because Ferguson would have been there to cut out the pass, thus the attacker would have to turn and slow the play down through lack of options. Jack wasn't revered by McInnes because he was a tough tackling midfielder, he was conscientious and read the game well; his game just hasn't developed to the standard of Ferguson which it should have done given his abilities as a youngster. How many Scotland games have you attended with Fletcher or Ferguson playing? If the answer is close to zero, then it invalidates your view for that type of player. Ferguson/Fletcher was/are always the sideways passer to those watching on the telly, as they can't see the movement they make off the ball and their positional play as the TV cameras don't pick this up. It's impossible to appreciate that type of player without seeing them in the flesh on more than one occasion (Ferguson and Fletcher have had some poor games for Scotland undoubtedly, but they've had a lot of very good ones too). You don't see the passes an opposition player doesn't make on TV, which is a massive part of the holding midfielder's role. I've been to plenty of Scotland games where both were playing and it's easy to see what they brought to the game. Similarly I've watched many on TV where it looked like they were doing fuck all.

He wasn't there to do anything in an attacking sense, much as Jack wouldn't be and Scott Brown isn't. Breaking up play, slowing the game down when needed, and slowing the opposition down. His positioning was always excellent (Jack's biggest attribute) which meant that whoever was at full back went charging way out of position, he would simply move across and prevent the quick counter attack. Always being available for the ball from a defender or back from an attacker and being able to hold onto it for a long time too. Fletcher is another example of this, it's amazing to see how many opposition attacks break down simply because he stands in the right place and jockey's the correct player until support arrives. It doesn't suit the "get in tae him" mentality of certain parts of the support, but it's far better to have a player who reads the game well than someone who just tanks in to every challenge leaving huge gaps in behind (Flood is a good example of the latter). Brown is better than Fletcher at doing both, however he picks up far more bookings.

Ferguson had some very good games for Scotland. He was clearly a decent player. Anyone who attended Scotland games at the time could see it, those who watched on TV not so much. That's not a criticism of you, just that much of his work/movement was off camera. Jack is missing a huge part of Ferguson's game but should have aspired to play at the level and should have got to that level by applying himself. Jack's there as basic hun-appeasement. Every Scotland manager - as Strachan (Wallace) and Levein (Ian Black anyone?) did before him - has to do this because of the way the game is designed in our country. It's disgusting, but that's the way it is.

Sheerin is thick as shite, and I suspect Robson would be an absolute liability as manager. He'd be a good assistant/coach, but he doesn't have the brains to do the behind-the-scenes part that McInnes does so successfully. Succession planning isn't simply having one person ready to take over, it's ensuring that the club can run continuously with constant improvement regardless of the person in charge of the first team. We've shown over the years that we're nowhere near to having that in place as each time a manager comes in we rip up the foundations and start again. McInnes shipped out our entire youth team, overhauled our fitness and physio side of things, brought in some scouts and changed our data team. Every new manager we've had in since Aitken has "been surprised" by how unfit our players are and immediately brought in a new regime. These things should be set in stone, with managers simply providing additional benefits from their experience. We should have the analytics and data reporting in place that a new manager simply has to look at the data and interpret that to identify where he can make improvements and then deal with the tactical/strategic management of the first team. That is what constant improvement looks like. Our performance needs to be measurable in terms of more than results and it needs to be continuously set to the highest standard regardless of manager. Personally, I'd have a day to day club manager maintaining a lot of the stuff McInnes has set-up and ensuring the performance of the various areas is top notch, keeping them well away from first team management and accountable directly to the board. That way, we don't have a huge overhaul the next time a manager comes in, and we have the professionalism instilled at the club so that the next Calderwood or Brown can't come along and have us running on sand dunes or polishing boots.

Seconded for Blue Planet 2, was excellent. It'll be great for my daughter to look back on when she's older and see what a whale was. Been meaning to WWII in colour for a while now BB, heard it's a fantastic series. Shout out for Stranger Things 2 also, probably better than the first one. Keep missing Electric Dreams too. Pain in the ass.

Simon Fucking Church? Come on now. You added that in as a joke, didn't you? Anyway, I agree there is a huge chance that we'll take a step backward and the attribute you mention - ability to attract players - is clearly one of the biggest problems we'll face. The problem in my view is that we've given McInnes absolute control of the club. He has shaped everything, from youth fitba, to stats and game analysis, the physio team etc etc. He's done a fantastic job of turning those areas around and putting them on a modern footing. As with previous managers, it appears we have absolutely no succession planning. The comparative success of clubs such as St Johnstone, Hamilton, County etc over the years is because of the excellent behind the scenes setup and continuity in that regard. Managers to them are replaceable commodities. Every time we replace a manager, there's a giant overhaul. We don't need a giant overhaul, we just need a few tweaks in the right places to make us more competitive in certain areas of the park and slightly better tactically. Deek's off the park setup needs to be maintained and improved upon, which is something he would definitely do if still here. That's why I think the huns will benefit immensely from DM, and why I think he'll join them. They need a complete re-build and they'll let him do it, they'll give him the freedom (not necessarily the funds) to set these things up just as he has at Pittodrie, because they're in a fucking state off the park. He's good at it, and he appears to enjoy it too. It's a blank slate too, and I think that'll appeal, he'll be happy enough to leave Aberdeen to it with the new training facility and stadium (aka. the fantasy) and start again with the hun. Moreover, he's a hun and will be given time and trust to do what he needs to. Pedro was the perfect fall guy to have before you - like Smith knew Le Guen was - tempering the hun support just enough to allow talk of seasons' long re-building plans off and on the pitch. McInnes is an intelligent guy who will sell it to them well and they'll trust him. I don't think McInnes is an amazing manager, I think he has obvious tactical flaws, but him staying is the difference between us finishing second or not. The knock on effect of not finishing second is massive.

Classic.

Ach, it's a new (temporary) manager. There's nothing to gauge it against. And it's a friendly.

Decent win in the end. Although I think we are capable of much more. Players from both sides struggled with the wind at times. Much better shape and pressed the game quite well. McLean and Shinnie both very good. Stewart nae bad, and Maynard a'rite when he came on too. O'Connor isn't required in a game like that in midfield, would far rather see Tansey. The pish at the end, dicking about trying to time waste is beneath us, we're good enough to win those games by playing better than the opposition and attacking them. We attract uncertainty unnecessarily, although to be fair to McInnes he has a very good record at winning in this fashion.

How much would you usually pay for yer wind?

Heap of shite. There's clearly been no contact with Rangers, they are (and were not three days go) very obviously not in a position to be signing or approaching players. McLean might be stupid enough to think that, but there's not an agent on earth that would let him think in that manner when a signing on fee is involved.

Not to make things worse for Nips, but there was no way on earth Lewis was at fault for the first. He blocked the entire goal bar a ball shaped space in off the bar, which Tierney absolutely roasted it into. It was a cracking effort. And Maynard is the worst player ever. Although some gimp in front of me was suggesting that May was the next Goodwillie? Outrageous like. Maynard is Goodwillie, and once again showed his effort-free gash lastnight. He did that thing where he makes it look like he's making a good run, when he's obviously running away from the ball rather than take it easily into feet and be forced to play fitba, something he's forgotten how to. The Hayes booing and clapping was weird. I just ignored him. He's a Tim player with a very good dons history. Don't wish him any ill, but doesn't deserve our applause.

I agree entirely about Rooney, but what was the alternative to Considine bearing in mind Tansey clearly wasn't fit to start? If you're replacing Rooney with Wright let's say, that leaves Stewart, Ross or Ball to play in midfield instead of Shinnie. Whilst we may have been more secure at left back, we'd have been destroyed in midfield with either of those three (harsh on Ross of course, I think he'll be a great player soon). I've seen several criticisms of playing Considine and moving Shinnie to midfield, but in Christie and Tansey's absence I haven't yet heard a better alternative, can you say what that would have been? To add, I think Considine would have greatly benefited from the 5 man midfield as Forrest/Rogic wouldn't have had 10 yards to run at him prior to taking him on. That'd be the same for Logan on the opposite side, although he at least got some support from GMS in the first half. The midfield 5 might have meant that O'Connor didn't spend the entire game slowly chasing shadows too.

We're entirely equipped for our domestic league as results show. We're just not equipped to challenge Celtic, who are not equipped for our domestic league.

^^^^This (although there were only wing backs for them, which was one of our problems). It's one of the biggest reasons I wanted Moult and not May at the beginning of the season. I think Rooney and May will be fine against a lot of teams this season, they're not a partnership that will play off each other. They're not a genuine front 2 as neither are target men. It should have been very obvious that Rooney's pace wasn't going to be the answer last night and he should have made way for Wright. That said, I can see Wright's limitations in a game like that one too. Our problems were glaringly obvious when looking at the bench at half time last night. There was nothing that was going to change that team for the better. Forgot to mention, highlight of last night was McKenna hoofing thon cunt up front for them. Miles out of position like and a little worrying that he thought that he should have been anywhere near where he was, but he dealt with it in the best possible way.

That was never a pen, dirty cheating hun cunts.

Aye, agreed Rocket, it wasn't the worst idea. When you look at that bench, there simply wasn't another option for that midfield slot. Even Shinnie got bullied a lot of the night. As I said at the beginning of the thread, we didn't have the room for Rooney and May. As soon as you see those two on the teamsheet, you do as Rogers did and play 3 at the back and the extra man in midfield. At that point, the dons are left with Rooney chasing from left to right and back again, something he was never going to maintain, because we simply didn't have the option of changing without a sub. For the second goal, Rooney was left to chase Brown the full width of the pitch to attempt to stop him getting the easy throw. He was too slow (obviously) and the attack was on its way. We had to play the extra midfielder/winger in there today. At least with that approach you have the option of sending one of them (McLean) further forward if needed. Anyway, Celtic were very good tonight, especially in midfield. Tierney is some player. None of the bookings received by dons players were close to as blatant as the one that should have been given to Dembele for the cynical dive in the box. We obviously just ignore those now. The ref was a total dick. No good performances in a dons top tonight unfortunately. I don't think I'd single out any as worse than others.

Did he have a tidy ex?

I agree. He got absolutely no credit for the amount of tracking back he did in all games, which was phenomenal. He was classed as lazy and disinterested when he was struggling - as all wingers do - to beat his man (we see Wright missing for large spells of games and will continue to, as it comes with the role). He never shirked his responsibility when tracking his man, which has been far more visible since Stewart, Wright, GMS and Christie have joined. I don't want him back because the fans don't particularly like him, and I can't be airsed with the general abuse and pre-conceived performance criticism he gets because he looks like a sulky Tim fuck. Same reason I hope McLean leaves for looking like a sulky hun fuck.

I'd argue that Considine has been our most consistently high-performing player in the last 5 seasons (mainly cause he's been there for that duration!). He's been consistently above average in our team and consistently deserving of his place in the starting eleven. I just think his level is just short of being good enough to play well against the Tims. I don't think that's a bad thing, and the same could have been said for McGinn previously and many others (hun-Jack a good example). That's not to say he hasn't ever had a good game against the Tims, he's had a few, it's just that when he plays against players at that level he struggles at left back. But, as you say Rocket, we shouldn't be judging Considine versus Shinnie at left back, as Shinnie is clearly the better player there. What we should be judging is the Considine - Shinnie v Stewart or Ball - Christie Let's say Shinnie is a 10 at left back and Christie 10 behind the striker as our preferred options I'd say Considine is a solid 7.5 at left back and Stewart and Ball are, so far, a generous 5.5 in midfield In conclusion: Shinnie - Considine (-2.5) > Stewart or Ball - Christie (-4.5) A stupid anology, I ken, but it really isn't as simple as saying Considine is worse than Shinnie, it's whether we lose more by shoe-horning a useless cunt into midfield rather than Shinnie with Christie and Tansey out. Considine is definitely not a useless cunt at left back - he'd get into the starting 11 of every team outside the Tims and Huns - he's just not as good as Shinnie. I certainly don't think we could be too critical of McInnes for playing Considine at left back and putting Shinnie into midfield. He has to make a change of some sort because of Christie's absence. We could definitely be critical of McInnes if he drops McKenna or plays Reynolds as part of a back 3. Those are changes that aren't required and are negative.

Aye, if that was us in the tennents sixes, they'd make up a rule to disallow it. Cunts.

"rather than convening, with great solemnity, distinguished panels to adjudicate on matters the players themselves quickly shrug off as handbags" I actually agree with that part to an extent. Alves kicked out in frustration, and had the ref booked him it would have been the end of the matter. By the letter of the law it's a red card and suspension, but only cause cunts like Alves (because he's foreign, mainly) have spent their entire careers rolling around like they've been shot after incidents like these. It was fuck all of nothing and the sort of thing that 20 years ago we'd be brushing off and getting on with it. It's a shame the way the game has changed in this regard, but it has so the huns haven't a leg to stand on. Of course, it's another propaganda statement printed by the BBC despite the fact they are not given access to raise questions - of which there are many - in regard to the statement. It's the equivalent of the BBC not allowing someone right of reply (in reverse), and they just shouldn't print such bollocks.

Surely these two statements conflict? McInnes, in his interview, portrays McLean as an honest professional. There's no real reason to doubt this. If so, then a professional manager - which McInnes is - could easily have talked the player into keeping it quiet for a couple of days without difficulty. If McLean didn't respect the club or manager enough to wait if requested, then he can't be trusted to play for the team either - that's simple logic. I don't think that's the case though, there'd be no obvious reason for McLean to cut his nose off to spite his face and it appears that McInnes is going to continue playing him (I have no issue with that either). So it seems like we're left with the situation where McInnes has just been uncharacteristically forthcoming on a behind-the-scenes issue. Unnecessarily so, and unsettling too, in my opinion. I just don't get it. Bad for both parties.