RicoS321

Also, they mentioned on Red TV that the penalty was for high feet. Not that Taylor's foot was higher than Draper's anyway, but high given that it wasn't dangerous as both players were going for the ball, it should have only been an indirect free kick. I hope there's a complaint made by the club, as there's no other ref in the world would have given that decision. He looks for things that aren't there. Actually thought Ash was unlucky for the first. Storie and Mclean let the runner go and Taylor did well to read it, but he seemed to run past the ball. Perhaps the ball held up slightly, although it looked like he just forgot to take the ball with him. I thought Reynolds was pap too tonight.

That's some pretty awful refereeing. Bordering on cheating. Although Collum does it pretty much constantly. He shouldn't be reffing a game of football. There must be some corruption going on at the SFA - this was a ref that was sent down a division for being wank, who's now seen as the best in the country. That said, we were awful. My point regarding McInnes's subs in another thread highlighted perfectly tonight. Church should have been off ten minutes before he was binned, yet we wait until we're two down before making the sub. An earlier switch may just have upset the balance of the game and prevented the third. Shoe on the other foot and Smith would have been off around half time. Thought Pawlett was poor, would be interested to see distance covered stats as don't think he did nearly enough. McGinn was just playing pish. Shinnie and Logan decent.

It made me smile. Wish I was in Toulouse to witness it. Although I suspect, given the lack of preparation, it might just be rocket on his own. Hopefully someone videos it, as it'll be class.

Of those 65 non-starts, it'd be interesting to see how many were less than 15 minutes. I suspect the vast majority. And of those 20 starts, it'd be interesting to see how many of those he finished. My point was that if Smith started a game and was playing badly, he'd get taken off early. As opposed to McGinn (just an example, I really like McGinn) having a bad game - he'd be given >75 minutes to try and turn it around. I think that must put additional pressure on Smith (and Pawlett) as he knows he's not the preferred choice. There's been plenty of games where we've not looked like doing anything, yet poorly performing (by their own high standards) players have been given a lot of time to turn it around, often to no avail. McInnes makes very late subs regularly to the extent that it's difficult to describe many of the appearances as opportunities.

I was being facetious. I agree. I never thought Shankland was good enough and don't think he'll make the grade (although he could come good in his later years as a target man). I'd like to have seen Smith given more game time and perhaps a run of games though, but we've just never been shite enough or good enough to allow it. One thing I found interesting about the weekend game though was how quickly Smith and Pawlett were subbed. McGinn and Storie were given a full 30 minutes. It's rare that we see that opportunity afforded to Smith or Pawlett. McInnes clearly has his preferred team. What I mean is, I've watched McGinn and McLean (as an example) have poor games and not be involved in the play at all, yet they've generally been given 75+ minutes as standard before a sub is made. It seems like they have to do a lot more wrong in order to be subbed. I would think that both Smith and Pawlett are aware of the pressure on them to grasp any chance given, and I suspect both will move on in the summer.

Ahh, but then we were the bogey team (I'm sure we beat somebody more than once in that era, although I can't think who), because we were pish.

You can only have one bogey team. Those are the rules.

He's fuckin ace. I'd have asked him about his inability to make subs early in a game and trust in youth like....

I thought St Johnstone were our bogey team?

Looks a decent player like, would have him at the dons.

He's a distraction; he won't win anything. Rubio's the one to watch out for. He's this election's Obama. Relatively clean, not much said about him, but with lots and lots of money behind him. I can see him quietly winning the republican race and then the election. Think Sanders will challenge Hillary all the way, to the extent that a lot of his disappointed supporters will not bother voting for Hillary when the actual vote comes around resulting in the Republicans winning. In the interests of keeping the republicans out (if that's a valid interest anymore), I'd rather Trump won the Republican election. The democrats would turn out in force to vote against his election, and the big Republican money (and brains) would stay well clear of Trump meaning he wouldn't benefit from the list purges and general rigging that'd go on if Rubio or Cruz won. I have no problem with Trump to be honest. It's more interesting to watch what he doesn't say than what he does.

Rangers get drawn at home. Then the re-draw draws Rangers at home. That's 8 from their last 8 Scottish cup ties at home (including the mis-draw). Aye, but prior to that they played Utd away they'll say. A real tough draw. That game, of course, was played at a neutral ground. Of course, with Hampden being re-developed, there was only one possible neutral venue for that game. Ibrox. Rangers have been drawn 9 times out of their last 9 to play at Ibrox. At a time when they're struggling for cash and need the most number of home games possible.

Big game like, the fermers have a great record against us. Be interesting to see what team McInnes goes for. For all our success on Wednesday night, I'm not sure the Church, Rooney set-up worked. If he played a 4-4-2 then that'd be fine, but Rooney wide right just nullifies his game. He didn't really get into it until after Church went off and he moved central. So it's a decision of whether we play Rooney or Church for me, or a 4-4-2 with both of them. Whilst I thought Church worked hard against the Tims, I wasn't 100% convinced. I'd go for Rooney up front tomorrow (Church coming on earlier than our normal subs if possible), with Hayes left, McGinn right and Pawlett in behind. I expect him to go unchanged though.

Just in. Fuckin craking performance tonight. McInnes got it spot on. Wasn't sure if Storie would be up to it, but was very glad to see him getting the opportunity and he didn't disappoint. Shinnie MOTM for me, was immense.

Does it? I think there are several unknowns in regard to team selection tonight. Stick with Storie? Play the new guy? Considine, Reynolds or both? I'm quite intrigued to see our starting 11.

I'm with Manc, I think Souttar has the potential to be a good player. Still 19ish, so plenty of time. Don't think he'll be a world-beater, but a good signing at a good time.

Agreed, perhaps my diagram wasn't great, but Consi was left of a back three, with Shinne at Left wing back. Sort of like how McInnes set-up in Europe at times. If it was me, I'd go with your suggestion and have Pawlett running at Brown all day long. Lost count of the number of times Brown has had to foul Pawlett over the games they've played against each other - he really struggles against him. I'm just not convinced McInnes will see it that way and will take the cautious approach - especially if Storie is in there. An alternative - that McInnes might go for - is a back three with Hayes wing back and Shinnie in midfield alongside McLean and Pawlett close to Rooney. That would maybe alleviate any concerns over Storie and also retain pace on the left and cover at the back. If I remember, we set up in similar fashion in the 2-1 game with a back three of Taylor, Quinn and Considine at the back and Shinnie alongside Jack (think McLean played further forward instead of Pawlett), with McGinn hanging around looking for Jay in the crowd.

McInnes's team for tomorrow night then? I don't believe McInnes will stick with Storie against der Tim, unless as part of a 5-4-1. I don't think he'll trust him. I think he'll go with: ---------------Broon------------------ ---------------------------------------- ---Taylor---Reynolds---Considine--- Logan-------------------------Shinnie ---------------------------------------- --McGinn--McLean--Storie--Hayes-- ---------------------------------------- --------------Rooney----------------- Not sure what I'd go with. I'd have signed a f'n central midfielder.

Really? If he was our top target, with a release clause, then he'd have been signed immediately after Flood and Jack got injured or even before the cup game. I'd say McInnes was given a budget to spend (possibly more than 200K), he identified 4 or 5 players and Tansey was 4th or 5th on that list. I suppose you could still call him a "main" target, just not the main target. Punt was probably a bit harsh - in fact completely the wrong word - as he's very much a known quantity, it's just that I think that he'd have had to play to the very best of his ability in order to improve on Jack or Flood when they return. I think the 200K would have been worth it just to replace Storie in tomorrow night's team to be honest (I don't think Storie is quite there yet). I think we took a risk on trying to get our other targets (who couldn't be tackled until the ended of the window) assuming we had the fall back of Tansey's release clause, and in the end we failed because his clause wasn't water-tight.

Seems to me like we've been a victim of the system a little. I suspect our first targets were missed previously, and we were left with further scouting to do. From that we identified another few targets and failed on them. I reckon Tansey was a punt, and pretty low down the list. The 200K bid suggests that cash was there for the right person, but by the time we got to Tansey ICT weren't ready to replace him so Hughes kicked up a fuss (threatened to leave apparently!) and we were left with nothing. Agents and players normally hold all the cards in these situations - that's why all deals are usually late in the window(s) - so it's unusual for a transfer like this not to go through. I think a centre midfielder was the key to us pushing the Tims all the way, and I think we'll regret not getting someone in. I don't think Storie is good enough to play there against the vermin. Hopefully Considine turns out to have been a midfielder all along and we can play him there.

Goodwillie is proven pish, at least Church is someone that isn't Goodwillie. Welcome aboard loon.

Aye, maybe he is more solid than I'm giving him credit for. As I say I've only seen him against us, when he looked the more creative play-maker type, but it could be that I wasn't paying huge attention, but it was always Draper who I saw making the challenges (I think Tansey is a better player than Draper, who I wouldn't want). That said, he's significantly better than Irvine at County in my opinion, and he certainly isn't shite. I just hoped for a stronger player, like Biton at the Tims (but cheaper).

From what I've seen against us over the years, he's more Kenny McLean than Stuart Bannigan. Good fitba'r, but not particularly strong in the challenge. I'm a bit underwhelmed, especially at £200K, he seems a bit "4th target of 5" on our list if you ken fit I mean, but I suspect we're getting desperate to bring a centre mid of any quality in and at least he'll settle in quite quickly having played in the SPL for a number of years. Also, he has scored several times against us. I'm hoping it's all a front, and we sign the Dutch/Australian/born in Stoke guy from Roda, just for that exciting unknown element. I'd still expect us to get one more in too, on loan at worst, a striker. With McKenna coming back, he's clearly risking the defence of Taylor, Considine and Reynolds to last the season which I think is the right thing to do.

Didn't think much of Irvine for County today (or in previous games), hope he isn't a target. Thought Woods look good like. Edit, to add: he also swapped shirts with a Tim (Lustig?) at the end. We don't want that sort of jakery in our team. That's for when a 2nd division team plays the dons or some shite.

I'm not convinced by that wifie if I'm honest Rocket. She publicly spoke out against her employer on the Spiers affair and then got fired for that. If I went online and said anything against any of the companies I worked for (regardless of how right it was - in her case I totally agree with her), I'd expect to be dismissed. It distracts from the real Spiers issue, where his paper hasn't backed him. As I say, she's right in her assessment, but I think she could have played it better and let it go as she's got too much previous with der hun. It's a shame that no other journalists were willing to say anything.