RicoS321

I disagree like. I'm not convinced Neil will think he'll be able to get enough out of May to get him to perform in that league. Certain players just don't gel in specific leagues, and I reckon May is one of them.

I agree. And if I could choose either as a squad player it'd be McNaughton, who can play across the entire back line. ETA: Also, only a few months older than Maloney in - arguably - a less physically demanding role.

Very loose use of the word exactly....

Good stuff. Good luck to him. Good to see young loons travelling the world a bit. The championship or similar was never going to be a good place for a player like McGinn.

Aids?

There was a "behind the goal" linesman about two inches from it who should have spotted it. I think the blatant Lafferty types aren't worth the technology being implemented, they are few and far between and end in decent suspensions for the players (in theory). The problems with the technology were obvious from the few games that have been shown. The ref not using the video when they perhaps could/should have. The refs getting harassed at every slightly contentious moment to use the technology, the dicking about under pressure from managers. The inability to accept a decision from another source/ref, so the existing ref must be the one to check the video. The mistaking of "contact" with foul - usually an issue only for idiot commentators, but occasionally not fully understood by refs (i.e. just because there is contact - in a contact sport - doesn't mean there is a foul). There was plenty others as well as it just being a shite process overall. We're trying to do things arse about tit in fitba with this nonsense. We simply don't have the respect for the referee, the consistency (and ease) of decision making, the transparency and the respect of the sport and players of referees (i.e. ref arrogance) and the overwhelming abundance of cheating on the pitch during games. Once/if those things come about, then we'd be able to take a rugby view of the game. Otherwise, it'll just be an increased sham of the existing sham.

Despite his goal in the cup final, I thought Christie was largely anonymous. Certainly compared to McLean who was constantly available for the ball. Obviously, his deeper role allowed him that to an extent, but even when McLean plays higher up the park he gets more involved. In fact, I'd go to say that Christie has been anonymous in many of his games for us and - despite some excellent finishes - clearly not the finished article yet. I think he could be influential next season, but only if he improves or maintains a consistency of the form shown in his last couple of league games. Otherwise, completely agree about his form. Also to try and get McLean on a longer deal and maximise the return. I just don't think we need the cash desperately enough to take it in this window.

He does score though, just not as many as he should. But the signs are there that he's more than capable of adding to his goal tally for us. Even just looking at his time at St Mirren. Whilst his direct assists aren't great, the number of times he set us on a quick break by moving the ball quickly upfield and bringing others into play is noticeable. We'd have been a significantly worse team when we went on our unbeaten run around christmas if McLean wasn't in it. In fact, it was his re-introduction ahead of Maddison that set that run on its way. Anyway, my point was not that he was some world beater, but that our recruitment isn't strong enough to take the chance on replacing him. There's not a ready made replacement in the SPL and under McInnes we haven't been able to recruit more than two good players in a single window. I don't see that changing. We still haven't replaced Hayes and - as you say - Tansey isn't really a replacement for Jack, and we haven't even managed to replace Taylor. It's not a criticism of the players still there (we're exceptionally light squad-wise though), it's an understanding that we haven't replaced those that have left. As for Tansey. Having seen him play on many occasions, I don't think he's half the player that McLean is. Stronger perhaps, but nowhere near the same ability. I think he's a pretty underwhelming signing if honest, that might struggle to make the first team. Hopefully I'll be proved wrong.

I'd argue that we need to learn when not to sell players. McLean is better than most we'll get for the money we'll get for him. Not irreplaceable, of course, but we'd be taking a risk trying to replace him, Hayes, Jack and McGinn and expecting to get in similar or better. Given McInnes' signing sucess in recent years I'd say it's unlikely we'd manage it. We're not a club in debt anymore, and we got our transfer quota from the Hayes sale, there should be no need to sell more first team players. We're nae the arabs. In saying that, the one additional season ticket sale we'd get might make it worthwhile.

Hope not. McLean is a very good player with the potential to get better. We'd be seriously weak (not physically) without him. If he stays, he'll play every game next season. I don't think McInnes will let him go either.

Excellent. A perfect replacement for McGinn then.

Super Kev on the bench for the dons today!

The Sellout by Paul Beatty. Awesome.

The first (penalty) was an atrocious attempt at a tackle, and the second was just embarrassing goalkeeping. Difficult to tell from the short clip, but anyone who has giant numbers and no names on their strips must be shite. 4-0 dons, Maloney hat-trick.

Saw that, I've sent the ticket office an email to check. Haven't heard back yet...

For clarification - as you love to answer an argument that wasn't put to you - I wasn't comparing Mulgrew as a player with Maloney, simply their free-kicks.

I think that's overstating it slightly. I watched him a lot for Scotland, and I wouldn't have said his free-kick taking was as good as Mulgrew's to be honest. Possibly splitting hairs as, whatever you think of Muglrew, his free-kick taking was pretty exceptional. I found Maloney struggled with anything over 25 yards, didn't really have the power to beat a good 'keeper. Basically, if he didn't get it right in the top corner/in at the post the goalie usually got to it. That said, he did usually put in a cracking dead ball cross, but for years in a Scotland top he never matched that with his in-play delivery. In fact his final ball was atrocious for Scotland for near on a decade until he moved into the central position. That was largely down to the fact - it seemed - that he never quite had the pace or trickery (that he certainly had in his early Tim days) to make the space for the cross in the first place. His last couple of years for Scotland were excellent though (especially his work rate), and showed the technique you talk of. As you say, he can play where he wants on the front line, however I'm concerned that played with Christie - for example - both will want to come inside where they're more comfortable leaving us a bit light on the wings. In short, I think Maloney is good, but I don't think he's as good as Hayes so we shouldn't expect that level of performance from him. Basically, I hope we dinna go treating the guy as some sort of Nicholas-like legend that we expect far too much from. Also, I hope we recruit wisely in the wide areas (or play Wright more often), as I think we've lost a lot of the counter attacking pace that served us very well in the last few seasons.

Haven't seen him play in a couple of years, but he vastly improved for Scotland in his later career, so hopefully his form hasn't dropped since then. The only concern for me is where to play him? I don't think Maloney has been a winger since his early Tim days, and was poor for Scotland until they played him behind the striker. Unfortunately we have Christie and McLean who both play that role, and a dearth of wing talent (is Wright our only winger?). At 34, I don't see Maloney offering us the wing play required, although he could do as McGinn did for much of the latter part of the season where he drifted in from the wing for large parts of games, almost providing an additional centre forward. Certainly a good signing on paper nevertheless. Didn't set the heather alight last time he was up here, so I'm not expecting huge things, but a good work rate and good passer, so should fit in nicely. Welcome aboard loon.

Drugs are what make sport cool.

I'm pretty certain I've seen Considine do that plenty of times. A nothing challenge really, where the commentator suggested a red before watching the replay and didn't really back down when it was obviously a yellow at most. Actually thought the ageing hun looked pretty decent unfortunately.

Looks like it's more cryptic than intended.

Does it even count when it's that blatant?

Utter nonsense Little hun fucks should never be allowed in the ground.

Agree with most of this. Said in January that our priority then should have been a striker (I think it was, but we couldn't get the targeted option - May). I think O'Connor and Reynolds is no worse than Taylor and Reynolds and will do us for the vast majority of games. However, the need for backup is a definite. Again, we look to the youth and see little coming through in that regard. I don't believe McKenna will make the grade. I think thon Stranraer youngster we've supposedly signed and also Harvie can play full back if I'm nae mistaken? This gives us options for cover if we can't find any good backup in this window. Considine is confident enough to play either side of the back two, so can cover for either and then bring in one of the two youngsters into fullback as first cover. McKenna could see out his contract as secondary cover if we have two centre halves missing at the same time. I just think we'll struggle to find a good central defender that won't mind being benched for a lot of the season (but that could be O'Connor I suppose like it was last season).

Leave him alone.