RicoS321

Fuck, that was a cold one. Nae a great game, but a good 15 minute spell did the business. Christie, Stewart, McKenna and Considine top performers. Also O'Connor was okay and as was McLean. GMS struggled in the second, and Wright came on and did okay in places. No need for the Ball introduction, it's supposed to be an entertainment game. Ross should have been on for Stewart. Interesting to hear McInnes interview after the game, clearly focused on points' targets, which is nice to see. We've done well so far this season in that regard, and that could be the difference between finishing above the huns or nae. 45 at the break would be phenomenal, although Hertz will be difficult to play given their propensity for booting shite out of athin. Looking forward to it, hope it's warmer.

You're completely biased towards Maynard though. He shouldn't get 70 minutes because we don't need to risk it. There's no part of his game that has shown he's worth 70 minutes. Cammy Smith is a better player and showed more in the similar game-time he got and he's - deservedly - at St Mirren. You then seem to be mistaking our suggestion of Maynard's unworthiness of lacing Rooney's boots as bias towards Rooney. It's not. Rooney has been poor this season by his own standard. It's just that Maynard is really fucking gash. If you look back to last January's transfer window threads you'll see me and others arguing that striker was the most important position on the park for us to get sorted. I think everyone recognises Rooney's abilities and limitations. None of that is ever an excuse to play someone as turgid as Maynard.

Reynolds did a job against the Tims, he played alright. Several times he came across and cleared up, as he did unfortunately for their second. I'd have McKenna everyday, but Reynolds is reasonable squad backup without being brilliant. He's an intelligent tee-total, hard working professional too, which might just be good for the squad and a decent example to the youngsters, which is possibly why he got the deal. He's easily good enough for 90 minutes against Partick and most other SPL opposition. It's further up the park where we're not winning the games, but I expect that won't be an issue against Partick either.

I'll explain. He deliberately runs where he knows he's not going to get the ball, because when he does get it he panics and gets it caught in his feet. He makes it look like he's putting in effort, while all the time hiding from the ball. He never makes a run which will put him in a good position as he'll get found out (it even happened against hibs at 4-0 up at home when he could have played with a cigar in his mouth). He's a complete charlatan, as I and others have tried to explain. I'd rather we dragged McLennan back fae Brechin and told him to dick about for 20 minutes a game. Maynard has to be shifted in January, it's not fair on either party for him to stay. He needs to go and re-learn his fitba somewhere much lower down that the SPL (I said after his first two games that he'd be playing non-league fitba next, and he's proved that right), anything else would be unfair on himself and whoever signs him based on playing a few games for West Ham once. Whilst it was a joke, I don't actually disagree to an extent. At 1-0 down vs the Tims, we had so few options on the bench it was impossible. Given that Maynard is the answer to nothing (other than: which fitba'r joined the dons in 2017, scoring 0 goals in 600 miinutes before being paid off in January?), we should have been a bit more creative in our thinking. Whilst I wouldn't have played 0 strikers, I would definitely have played either Stewart or McLean in the striker position, allowing Wright or Ross to come on earlier. I'd have done the same in the Apollon game away instead of playing either Stockley or Maynard. There comes a time when you have to understand that playing a player out of position can still be better than playing a shite player in that position, and that's what McInnes has to do with striker. I find it strange that he's happy to play Shinnie in midfield and Considine at left back when neither are their strongest position, but he recognises that they're better than the other options in those areas, but that he won't consider playing a player in the striker role for the same reasons. Playing Maynard just because he happens to have "striker" labelled on his CV won't make him anymore of a striker.

He wasn't pish, he was okay. Just not much use in that type of role where he has to chase the ball around for much of the game. But then I'm certain May would've started had he been fit/sober (I thought he wis tee total?). Bringing Maynard on made us ten times worse, unsurprisingly. At that point, I'd have brought on Wright or Ross and moved McLean or Stewart into the striker role. I think we needed something completely different and Maynard is a known pointless replacement. Not sure what else I'd have done different in the circumstances. We really need a young striker coming through that could come off the bench and hassle folk. We haven't even replaced Magennis in that regard.

Playing four wide players and a left back at right back would have given us a better shape? Hertz played young players in their correct positions, we'd have been shoe-horning them in for the sake of it. Wright has been pish lately, and Ross was given a chance against Dundee and didn't perform. I'm no fan of Ball, but he had a decent game. Jute, we didn't exactly sit back and let them come at us. We were ridiculously unlucky for the first two goals, we set up with a 4-2-3-1 and had plenty of the ball. It was a distinct improvement on recent performances and setup against them. Would you genuinely expect us to go all out attack against them? We pressed them high up the park when they had the ball at the back, which is what we've been crying out for. With the options of Rooney or Maynard, we weren't exactly going to be peppering their goal. I'm interested to here what you'd have done differently in terms of personnel or formation given the injuries? That was night and day from the performance at Pittodrie and Ibrox recently.

Name your team. Did you even watch the game?

Aye, fitiver. Are you going to name the team you'd have picked in the circumstances, or just be a dick?

Sounds like a Romanian guy trying to steal yer money. Dinna trust it. Happy christmas...

Utter bollocks.

Decent half. Pretty unlucky to be 1 down. At least we're pressing them high so they haven't been significantly dicking about at the back and taking the piss.

Interesting. He's a dirty fucker is King. Backed to the hilt by the press when he turned up (again) of course. Await the storm of abuse for those taking up the 20p offer.

I keep the youngsters I work with up to date with the acceptable uses of the word poof. It's important not to let tradition die out. I've used poof and gaylord since before I knew what poofs and gaylords were.

But, we all got you something.

Ahh, two separate products. I should have read yer post properly. That makes sense. I thought the record player had built in bluetooth speakers like in a hi-fi style arrangement. Thought it was one of those technology-shoe-horning moments, like washing machines with wi-fi and the like.

Given the function of vinyl (you have to change the record manually), what purpose does the bluetoothness of the speakers serve? I'm sure I'm missing something.

The one in the middle looks like Jamie Oliver.

Tax doesn't have to be taxing Some cunt on thon advert.

It was the "nearest competition" part that was strange. They're in third place and finished last season in third, with their nearest competitor being St Johnstone in 4th. It is very likely that they will get regular european football, I don't think that is in question. Remains to be seen how far they can get.

"Hope" makes it sound like we're not giving the guy a chance and that he's only a goal away from becoming a decent striker. He's actually a really bad footballer who doesn't deserve the opportunity we're continuing to give him. Hope we should reserve for guys like Wright, Ross, Smith, Shankland, Nuttall and Magennis who've come through our youth and shown potential at times. These types are the guys that have been sidelined for years to give game time to charlatans like Maynard, Parker and so on. We've sent 19 year old Bruce Anderson away out on loan. He simply couldn't have done worse than Maynard - it isn't possible. Connor McLennan on loan to Brechin. 530 minutes of wasted pitch time in return for nothing. And it should have been obvious. I'd rather we wasted that on someone we're already paying for. We need to cut out this dross-employment. There's at least one in every season, and usually 2-3. Last season was Morris (anyone?), Burns and Storey. This season it's Maynard and Ball. They can both fuck off in January, but we need to learn not to replace them again on a whim. I can accept bad signings, but these are not that. They're punts to make up the numbers.

Did you see Maynard against Hibs? He took Josh Parker to whole new levels. Fucking awful player that I think may have just played himself out of even the token last ten sub appearance.

Considine was excellent last season, and again against Hibs. It's no coincidence that when we play to his strengths, it works. His attributes as a left back are obvious. He gets very close to a more slight player and bullies them with his strength and in the air. Leave a gap there by playing a back five or him at the left of a three and we're screwed. Pretty simple really, not sure why McInnes doesn't see it. He dominated Boyle(?) at the weekend and his pace didn't come into the equation as he was never given the space to run at him, ably assisted by a winger for the first time. That's why the 4-2-3-1 is important, as is another good performance from GMS. In response to yer question, May has the pace to press the back 4, and the willingness. He was poor on the ball at the weekend a lot of the time, but the number of times he pressed the back four and - more usefully - stole the ball off the holding midfielder never giving them a minute's peace was excellent. I don't think he does that from behind the striker as well, as they see him coming and he struggles to understand positioning (when to press, when to stay) in that role behind Rooney. So I'd go the same as you, but switch Stewart for Rooney and push May on one. I think McInnes will pick your team with Stewart in for Wright though. I just think we need to maximise the pace at the top end and I don't think that Rooney offers that. Too often a midfielder will press, but Rooney is not there to cut off the easy pass to the other centre back because he's been stretched wide previously and not had the pace to get back. I'd be concerned about Wright, as he's been inconsistent, but I think throwing him in at the deep end might do him some good.

However, we did exactly the opposite for the hibs game and it worked a treat. We allowed them possession in their own half and then picked them off. We maintained our shape and didn't get dragged toward the ball. The problem we have with pressuring the ball high up the park is Rooney. If we're playing that game - and I think we should - then Rooney has no place on the park. His effort is unquestionable, but he clearly is nowhere near quick enough for that game. If we had Christie we might get away with it as he'd do the running for two and cover the gaps, but we don't. I'd play the same team as the weekend but with Stewart in for Rooney. Not a slight on Rooney, just he's not suited to this fixture.

The only outfield player from the weekend not to have scored for us so far this season is Maynard. No real surprise, as he's absolutely pap. Impressive otherwise though.

He's way past his best anyway. Think he'd struggle up here these days. A year ago maybe he'd have been arite, but I expect he'll be retired in a year. Although Miller is still doing the business, so who knows.