RicoS321

I don't get the Lennon love in. He's a whiney little fuck who Deek has got the better of on numerous occasions, most notably the recent tanking. Overrated little wankpiece.

Assume we'll have to. Is the u20s loon nae injured, and th'ither only 16? We should just put Leighton on the bench for old times.

Good stuff. Never massively rated him, but only saw him a few times. Had a couple of good games against us though, so hopefully he'll slot right in on the right hand side. That's our centre backs sorted for next season though. That'll hopefully give us time and room to search for a centre mid or two (or left back) and a striker.

In. I think we'll be a bit deflated and might struggle. Same team but switch in McGinn and Arnason if both are fit. 2-1 the dons. Rooney and McLean.

Surely if it did then it would happen every time? We beat them in the run in last season, and there was no shortage of belief then. Or is it just the case that belief will only win you 1 game in 4 (for example) where you're not the obvious favourite? If that isn't the case, then why do teams perform so poorly against us? Lack of belief? But then get a draw against the hun? Belief restored? If GMS had scored his chance at 0-0, would they have lacked belief? I understand that you can be very much up for a game, but I think circumstance will often overtake that (an early goal or whatever) and that your belief is only useful if the other team reduces their belief. Because if both teams have "belief", then who's belief do we believe? At that point, I think it gets a little absurd. I understand the notion. I just don't fully understand it's measure and the extent to which a poorer team can be expected to beat a better team (at their home ground).

I'd say 90% of the time - at re-starts - we had Rooney right on one defender of a well-stretched back three because he doesn't have the pace to split two and ensure that they are both marked as they just pass it round him. We started high up, but had to quickly pull back as each time (and it happened several times) McLean or Christie pushed up alongside Rooney we were left with a gaping hole. If Killie were watching, it's what they will do. The biggest difference being is that their centre half will take 3 touches to get it under control before hoofing it. They're not as quick and as sharp as their hun counterparts. If we'd had an extra midfielder against the hun, then I think it would have allowed us to mitigate Rooney's lack of pace and retain our structure higher up. However, that would have highlighted the other glaring deficiencies we've shown with a back 3. Rooney's position is the key against the huns and tims (and more so becoming an issue against other top 6 teams). It affects absolutely everything.

We weren't starting deep, we dropped deep because we couldn't attack them when we didn't have the ball. Surely it's possible that the natural flow of the game - due to the personnel - forces us back down the pitch? Rooney simply can't play the role that allows us to stay higher up the pitch. How many times did he take the ball in a position upfield and hold it up for others to join him, or move wide to take the ball, or put real pressure on the defenders and holding midfielder? It all starts there. McInnes tried to fix it with May, but he's been largely pish or injured. It's why it was so important to ditch Maynard and get someone else in. Anyone else really. Even a big cunt that we could hoof it at. We can't attack them because we don't have the personnel that our most attacking formation (4-2-3-1) allows us to do in every other game simply because we're much better than the opponent.

Apologies, it won't happen again (but, for reference, all you do is type at the end to separate out the text). But all of that assumes that we're not actually playing another team that has designs on winning the game. You're saying we change the way we play, but we don't, it's just that the team we are playing against is better. Having Rooney up front against Hibs is not the same as against Rangers. Rooney does not fit in a team that is pushing them back or pressing high, he simply just gets passed around and then we lose shape as our midfield gets dragged out to cover. That is what occurs. That is what would occur against St Mirren or Hibs if they were better. We're not sitting in as a tactic, it's just a natural occurrence when you have a slow forward. Going man for man is the most attacking way of playing them, which is what you're saying we shouldn't do, but then saying we should. We don't have the ball 100% of the time so we can't dictate anything without pressing high. The unpalatable part here is that we actually played better when Ball came on. Partly because they were 2-0 up, but partly because we matched them in midfield and that allowed greater width and prevented Tavernier getting forward. If we'd started with Ball in midfield we'd all (including me) have accused McInnes of bottling it. It would also have caused us huge problems at the back because we don't have a natural back 3 without taking Shinnie out of midfield to wing back. Again, you can't just say, "I would have attacked them", because that totally ignores personnel and the fact that there is an opposition.

We didn't go man for man the entire game, just for that goal though. People were dragged out of position (Considine came central etc) and they took advantage out wide. I have to say, Lewis' punch for the first left a lot to be desired. No they don't, that's nonsense. Pretty much every time the huns have dropped points this season they've completely dominated the opening periods and wasted numerous chances. Teams that have taken points from them (Hamilton, Killie) have sat in, frustrated them and then taken their chances. As I said previously, we played the same system against Hibs (and St Mirren) but the personnel were different. Also, you just stated that we went "man-for-man", which is the opposite of changing our game against them (I don't think we did). I'm not sure what yer point is. What tactic should we have deployed, and how do you think we would have deployed that tactic with the personnel involved? It's easy to criticise, and easy to analyse an individual goal, but in terms of the entire game approach, what would you have done differently with those personnel (or how would you have changed the line up)?

I think it's more of a personnel issue. We had the same setup against the hun as we did against hibs, with the big difference being May. McGinn didn't get a minute's peace because May (who was pretty gash with the ball in that game) kept sticking his toe in coming back the way as well as being able to pressure the defence high up the pitch too and being able to take the ball in wide areas and wait for support. We didn't sit in against the hun the other night, we just couldn't defend from the front because Rooney doesn't offer that. How do you press when you've got a guy that isn't quick enough to press? By sacrificing a midfielder to join him, and one the occasions we did that they ran right through us. So we naturally hold back and let them come at us. You have to defend from the front and we don't do that with Rooney and so better teams, that can move the ball more quickly, play round us (utilising the holding midfielder to great effect usually).

Good stuff. The fact that it's done in this window means we can't be held to ransom by O'Connor. I'd be tempted to let him and Arnason go in the summer now and go for one good midfielder and perhaps a (pacier) centre half cover that can also play right back (someone akin to McNaughton in style but on the right).

I don't think we put 11 men behind the ball against the hun in the last couple of games, but we did exactly that in every game against them and the tims prior to those. I'm not sure which games you were watching. How many of the shots on goal came after we were 2-0 down the other night? Stats are only useful in context.

It could equally highlight that they are both better teams, but have the tendency to be complacent when smaller teams raise their game against them. The bookies tend to have the huns favourites when they've played us recently. They've spent much more. Objectively, we should be taking points off them (the hun), especially at Pittodrie, but they should have the better record, so we are probably one win down on where we should be against the hun. Objectively (based on resources), we should be getting about 1 win per season against the Tim.

I didn't mean we shouldn't ever get points at Iprix, just that the default based on the teams would dictate that they should be beating us. We didn't give ourselves a chance like by playing shite. The problem with pressing is that you have to do it from the very front, and Rooney can't do that. He works hard, but once he's out of position chasing someone then he's not getting back. When he does chase back then he's out of position for the break. It's a huge problem for us. That's why Stockley was always the preferred option in the big games despite being totally horse. We've backed ourselves into a corner by just having Maynard as the option. Stockley was actually more useful despite being pish.

Is this some sort of quote fae a film?

Morelos is a better striker than Rooney, Tavernier is a much better attacking full back than Logan (and he inexplicably defended very well last night), Goss looked decent in midfield, Murphy is a better player than GMS and Candeis better than Stewart. It's not significant, but they're sightly better than us and they were at home. We need to have our best team out to beat them and I think that would have included McGinn, May and Arnason rather than Stewart, Rooney and O'Connor but fitness meant that wasn't possible. We were weak and we played weakly but I don't think we should be expecting to come away from Ibrox with points given the current squads.

Great point. Hertz and Hibs too. Would McLean and Shinnie have joined us rather than the hun? I'm not convinced. Ayrshire, if you take it window upon window, we maybe don't have the option to pool the resources and get a better player. We seem to be getting one per window. This season, we could have replaced both Ball and Maynard with a single better player, but would you have chosen a striker or defender? I'd have gone for striker, but given Ball can cover right back, right centre back and midfield maybe McInnes had a point in getting both. I'd have taken the risk with a good striker and made up any injury shortfall with the others in our squad. It's safe to say that Tansey was signed as a first team player, which was just a very bad signing. I don't think we can count him in the "punts" category like the other two.

For the first time in years, I don't believe this to be true. They do have better players than us, and now they appear to be well organised. Murty isn't some tactical genius, he just puts good players out in a formation they can play in and that's enough. Our weaknesses are obvious, in midfield, centre half and striker. We just don't have the depth in those areas and the first choice is also questionable. Weirdly, Ball came on and shored up our midfield? Fit was that about? If he'd started Ball in midfield he'd have - correctly - been slaughtered. Yet given their set up with Tavernier on the right, having Shinnie wider might have helped us. GMS simply couldn't provide the cover required and Considine kept coming inside because our midfield was overrun constantly. We're a couple of players short. We can beat all the other teams though, which means it will be close this season.

I think we need to accept that there is a hit rate for signings. I think this stands at about 50% for AFC at the moment. I suspect there are few clubs that are significantly better. I don't think it's fair to produce a list of shite AFC signings without a comparative list of other team's signings. That doesn't include Celtic (possibly even the huns) who can afford to make more mistakes and a player that is shite for a £25K per week player can still be good in the SPL. The point is that when we go into a window, we have to sign with the expectation that at least 1 in 4 won't work out and accept that that is the general rule. The success rate becomes more variable when you're bringing in players from other leagues, which the majority on your list are. Our best signings have all been known SPL players that we've been able to afford over other teams. The unacceptable ones are the Tanseys and Storeys of the world who are blatantly not up to it pre-signing. I suspect every manager has a few of those where they think they can get something out of a player that others haven't before them. The question then, is, are these speculative punts worth it to uncover the Logans, Lewises and so on. Given the paucity of those in recent years, it could certainly be questioned. The second question is whether they are harming our youth development? I'm still not sure. Cammy Smith isn't a worse footballer than Maynard for example, but would playing Smith instead of Maynard (we don't have a youngster to use instead of Smith in that position in my example) make Smith good enough for the dons? Not really, and the lack of minutes would mean it affects his career too - he's best served moving on as he did. I thought bringing McLennan back from loan and ditching Maynard would be good initially, but actually the time he's getting at Brechin is probably more valuable than sitting on our bench as Ross can probably attest too. Let's face it, there are very few in your list (non-SPL) that we could have been certain were going to be shite in the SPL before signing them. Ideally we just wouldn't be making these signings at all, but we do have to fill our squad. McInnes is generally good at ditching players who are shite, but he seems intent on keeping Maynard until the summer which is a complete error. We'd be far better off removing him from our options and forcing ourselves to change our setup rather than bring him on (play McGinn up front or whatever). There is no good reason to have him in the squad as at some point you feel obliged to give him game time. Like all of the players in your list, he's basically cover for the cover. They are all back up to the actual signings we want to make and spend time on. Zola, Tansey and Stockley are the exceptions in your list. They were brought in as first team contenders. Given the success rate of teams at our level, the most important thing is retention and we've been surprisingly good on that front. Even for guys like O'Connor and Reynolds, often "better the devil you know" is the best option to take. We need continuity because if we have a strike rate of 50% and need to replace 4 players, then that's 8 signings we'd have to make. Say what we like about O'Connor and Reynolds (maybe), but none of the players on that list of failures is any better. If one of our punts is better then we retain them and ditch one of the two. Otherwise we continue as we are with our serious signings and the speculative punts on top. It's frustrating, but I don't see another way. It has to be strategic and by design, so fit would be your strategy?

Get Maynard to fuck and get a visa for the Nigerian. The time to buy was before tonight's game though.

Pretty disappointing. I'd have picked the same team (assuming Arnason wasn't fit, but he's been fairly average this season anyway). O'Connor was pish though. The number of times a player ran across him and he allowed them to shoot was criminal. Ball actually played okay when he came on, which was weird, and we created a few chances late in the game. Stewart, GMS and Christie were pap, and Rooney offered absolutely nothing to bring them all together - like May did very well against Hibs recently. That, for me, is the most important part of the pitch in these "bigger" games against better teams, and it's costing us. Rooney works hard, but when he's tracking back, then he's miles away from getting back in the box again and too slow to get involved. Against better teams (and the huns are one of the better teams) who pass it around a bit, he gets dragged into these wasteful positions for most of the games and he's not only rendered completely ineffective, but the opposition also get the time and confidence to build from the back. We had to address the striker issue before this game. We know that Rooney's style doesn't work when we don't have the majority of possession. McInnes knows this, hence why even Stockley got so much game time against the top 3-4. We also know that May is struggling for fitness. Most importantly, we also know that looking to the bench and seeing Maynard was fucking depressing. He performs no function whatsoever, so he should have been removed. At least when we had Magennis you know he could be a battering ram. Stockley you could punt the ball at and hope something got knocked down and Storey might force a defender into mistaking him for a footballer and making a mistake. We needed that third option fae the bench to draw the game up the pitch and it wasn't there. It's been obvious from the start of last season and it hasn't been addressed.

From memory - I'll try and look back later if I have time - that the planning was not revoked, simply that the land that had been offered to Cove for free, instead got a price attached to it. It affected the training facilities at Calder Park, which were deemed "integral" and access road, but the council said that there was plenty of room for discussion. The club had planning permission, they didn't follow it through. It was beyond the stage that Kingsford was at, the Scottish government had not called in the planning application. It was up to AFC and solely AFC.

^^^This

So it wasn't at Ibrox, we didn't win and there was probably no glass or Dandies going berserk. Nips, min, yer going to have to think a little harder. Are you sure it wasn't a Killie game at Pittodrie?

Interesting post Barcosente. However, I think it's all to simple to be critical of the cooncillors, it's the easy way out. The problem is that the council get nothing but shite ideas presented to them. I don't think I've seen a single, integrated, forward thinking planning application to the city in years. We have individual project over individual project that offer nothing in the grand scheme and the negatives on all far outweigh the positives. Kingsford is an example of that, as is Marischal square, obviously. You mention Union St, it basically started to go to shite when Union Square was built, but try removing that from the city and watch the backlash (again, lack of integration - it was obvious). Coupled with the fact that the cooncil has absolutely zero teeth/power when it comes to dealing with how private property (which all of union st is) is leased and you have bookies. Not really a cooncillor issue. In terms of Loirston, it was approved. They simply asked that AFC pay for the land. The blame here squarely lies with Cove (mainly, as they dicked about for years) and the club. We fucked about and fucked about (unlike the SMG and Scotia hoosing developments that were piggy backed in on the back of the stadium approval) and in the end we chose to blame the council because it was the easy way out. There's no way that the additional cost of the land would/shold have prevented Loirston going ahead - they've probably spent more on Kingsford subsequently. It's totally disingenuous to blame the cooncil and, I suspect, was more an issue of AFC funding. Now, the cooncil may be unqualified to make these decisions, but then who is? Where are the overriding rules that govern their decisions? Where is the integrated city plan? The fact of the matter is that the right decision for the cooncillors to make on Monday is to refuse the planning application on the grounds that it doesn't integrate with the city. It is the only logical decision to make. It's a hard one for dons fans and the club, but it doesn't integrate with the city and that should be the overriding rule that dictates planning within the city. That's the only objective way of looking at it. Can it be sustained if you extrapolate it over the next 20, 50, 100 years? The answer is no. The only way to pass is this is to come up with a city plan that - by design - then integrates the stadium in the city. It's the most stupid and arse about tit way to do things, but that would work. Although that would take a lot of balls by the unqualified cooncillors. If you can come up with another objective measure that should dictate city planning, I'd be interested to hear it? Because your interesting post lacked a little substance.