RicoS321

A 20 second video, where only the first 6 seconds are devoted to the goal; the rest some celebration and ads. Disgusting. Also, there are two sounds when he kicks the ball, which suggests to me that it bounced off his shin and then his foot, making it a fluke. Send him back, he's pish. Did Maynard not score an ace goal in some youtube clip once?

I did wonder when they let Tansey go, how long it wid be before we signed someone. It's very unlike Deek not to have a player sorted before letting one go. I'm assuming it's the only reason Maynard is still hanging around.

Yasssssss. Do you reckon they've edited his passport to say "Greg Tansey" to save on flight costs?

Apologies, I didn't mean name an individual player, I meant name a team that had successfully adopted a strategy of taking foreigners into the SPL. I can't think of anyone. The point about scouts is that you have to pay them, so they have to reside in the one country (generally speaking) so you have to decide on that country. We simply can't afford to have a reem of scouts in every country in the world so we have to be specific. You could be right about training facilities, but you have to remember that we're not comparing AFC v Everton or some such, we're comparing AFC/SPL v Tranmere or Spanish/Dutch/German second or third tier so the additional gains in terms of facilities probably aren't there at the level we're shopping in. Perhaps Scandinavia might offer us something in that regard, but the level of player over there doesn't seem to eclipse what we have either. Finally, you think Maynard is good, so I'm not sure you can be trusted to scout for the dons!

The scouts are located in particular countries. Sacking a scout for not spotting talent in a country he doesn't work in seems a little harsh! We search in our own country, because that's where the best return happens. Shinnie, Flood, Robson, Rooney, Hayes, McGinn, McLean, Christie, Stewart, GMS etc were all proven SPL players and that's where you get the most success. Logan and Lewis are two of many more brought in fae down South with no SPL experience that have generally either been terrible or gone home after a decent loan spell. We pay much more than our rivals in the SPL, which means we can cream off some of the best players (less so now with der hun, hibs and edinburgh hun taking a share too) and that is by far the best way to get proven value for money and far less risky. We're struggling to find any stand outs at the moment, hence the Tansey/Storey errors. There are very few foreigners coming directly from abroad into the SPL these days, and certainly none that are a good example of why it would be a good idea for us. Can you name one in recent seasons that's come into the SPL from abroad that the dons have perhaps missed out on? Long gone are the days where we pay miles more than the other (good) leagues in Europe. A few years ago we were picking up amateurs fae the Dutch third division. The English lower leagues have so many players, it makes total sense to scout down there just in terms of sheer numbers of games that can be taken in within close proximity and available talent. A scout can only be in one place, so where would you suggest as a country? How would you compare that league's style and ability to our own (that actually seems a problem between Scotland and England, where players are good in the SPL but shite down South and vice versa - which suggests a lack of compatibility)?

To be honest, I wouldn't even want to rely on Shinnie and McLean as the number one option for the remainder of the season. There are games where it will be very beneficial to have Shinnie at left back.

I think it would be crazy to let him go in this window. I'm not convinced his performances have been much better, perhaps slightly. I thought he started the season quite well then tailed off a bit and has just blown hot and cold. One thing about him is that his work rate is very good, he covers a lot of ground and makes himself available for the ball a lot. He needs to put his neck on the line a lot more if he wants a move to a better club than the dons though, he too often plays within himself and falls back into the easier parts of the pitch to play in and goes for the long cross ball that looks good but is easy, rather than the defence-splitting pass that might not come off. He's capable, he just needs to do it. After his St Mirren form, he should be a much better player than he is by now.

He's pish. Hopefully we'll offload in the summer. Good that we're freeing up space in the squad and I expect we'll see a centre mid coming in during this window now. The problem with keeping guys like Tansey and Maynard in the squad is that you're inevitably forced to play them at some point. They don't change games and win things, you're just playing them because yer struggling in a game and trying anything is better than nothing. O'Connor should be our guy that provides the last resort cover in that area, or Christie playing slightly deeper or even Ball (as he did in the last 10 via Partick). We've no real need to have a guy that isn't an improvement on either of those options taking a salary. Good luck to him. McInnes needs to cut out the Storey/Tansey/Quinn/Morris type signings though. We shouldn't be making such obvious mistakes on players in our own league that we see on a regular basis. These guys were clearly not of the standard required, and that should have been obvious. Fine to make mistakes on players down South who are playing against a different (type of) opposition, but we should be able to see the ability of players in our own league and the areas where there isn't room for improvement in those players (Tansey's pace, marking and coverage the prime let down of his game).

I'm assuming they suspended betting a couple of years ago but we can hope.

I never understood the Tansey signing at all. He came in when we got rid of Jack, but didn't possess any of the attributes. Most importantly, every time I saw him for Inverness it was clear he didn't do the coverage of Jack or even McLean during a game. Capable of spotting a quick pass and a decent touch and free kick, but not nearly dynamic or hard-working enough for a McInnes dons' side. I'd put him in the Paul Sheerin bracket, of Pele days. The worst bit about it is that McInnes never spotted it.

Straight swap for Maddison....

Mods, modddddddddddddddddddsss The January transfer windae thread in the Dons page has turned into a discussion about a hun signing, with this one being turned into a dons' signing discussion. It's a disgrace. We look like amateurs. In terms of forum discussions. I despair.

Yep, he's a cracking player. Unfortunately - for us - they still have a big hold on players in this country through supporting them as a youngster. Obviously they'll be paying him a wedge as well, but the move is helped along by his childhood allegiances. It'd be interesting to see the stats on young kids coming (have come) through the ranks over the last decade and who they supported. I reckon you'd be 30+% hun.

Can't believe we've nae bought 3 centre mids and a striker yet. Fuck sake. Maynard, Ball and Storie out for me (I'd give Tansey until the summer just in case he's not pish). That would do nicely. If we can't find a striker, then get McLennan back fae Brechin and give him Maynard's minutes to make it worthwhile (560+ minutes, or 6 games). I think that there is a risk that May will be injured enough that a third striker is definitely required. Centre mid has to be the priority if we can get one though. I think we'll struggle in January to get someone of the right calibre, but perhaps a loan or something will come up. I can't think of anyone in the SPL that's good enough. I don't rate Dylan McGeouch at all, that's like replacing Jack with Tansey for me. He's nowhere near as good as McLean as was shown recently when McLean and Shinnie dominated McGinn and McGeouch. On McLean, we shouldn't be letting him anywhere near the door until we have a very good replacement in, and I doubt we'll do that in January. It would be extremely risky to let him go given our record in the transfer market lately. We need to be signing 3 midfielders to perhaps get two good ones if we're lucky. If we get one in this window, that'll give us the option to move Shinnie to left back, then we aim for a McLean replacement in the summer. We have to be realistic, and realistically we'd be a far worse squad without McLean than with. Priority should be ensuring that we don't have to play O'Connor in midfield too often, and Shinnie at left back most often.

What exactly is your point? Nobody on here has suggested Rooney is having a great year, or is the answer to all our striking problems. You've got some bizarre thought in yer head that because everyone is saying that Maynard is absolutely shite and shouldn't be getting a game ever, that that means we're suggesting Rooney is the messiah. Nobody is looking for excuses for Rooney, we're all looking at it understanding that he's our only option right now, so we have to play to his strengths. There were no options other than play Rooney through the middle today. None.

Clearly a little retarded. Shouldn't be in charge of her ain social media account.

They haven't proven it, because it will only increase car use as it's designed entirely for car use. However, I think it'll go through at the first hurdle (then get appealed). I hope it doesn't, obviously. The location would actually be fine if it was part of a plan to expand and re-design the city. If it was part of something. That's the issue for me, this isn't a decision for AFC and it never should have been. The cooncil should be creating a design for the city and allocate the dons the space for a stadium and another for training. We shouldn't be a law onto our own, and we need to integrate with the city. I suspect the cooncil have done something which the club have ruled out. I also think that - post stadium approval - we'll see significant new development of mair shite hooses in a non-joined-up fashion appearing around the area. It'll be like in and aroon Rugby park.

Aye, 3.5 years is a long time for a 30 year old. But it's fine, it gives him the security he needs at that time in his career. We're nae obliged to keep him if he starts to play badly in a couple of years time, and ye'd hope he'd need a limited pay-off to go elsewhere if that were the case. Be interesting to see if he's fit for Saturday. I'd be inclined to leave him out until after the break to ensure he's a hunner percent - based on nothing. It puts Wright further down the pecking order again, which is a shame, but he's not taken his opportunity to the extent I think he could have.

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?