RicoS321

Come on, that's pushing it. Brown wasn't going to get a game under Goodwin, correctly, as he'd been honking for months. He had become a liability, because he was assistant manager and Glass didn't have the ability to drop him. Ferguson and McCrorie were also played out of position. McCrorie especially. Brown's performances had no bearing on theirs McRorie was moved from midfield to make way for Brown. Ferguson was played in midfield. But you're right, Brown's performances generally had no bearing on theirs because he was no longer the leader he previously was. A few years before that, and he'd have been brilliant for Ferguson's game (not that it has suffered by any stretch!), but Ferguson didn't need Brown by that point, which is why he had so little impact beyond a handful of games that you mention. Well, no, the debate was that you thought that it was harsh on Scott Brown to say that there wasn't a real leader since Bisconti, and I argued that neither were really much of a leader outside a handful of games for the Dons, and that Shinnie, Severin, Heikkinen were all on a different level. Even Robson was more of a sustained leader for us. But yes, you're right, there is nothing so far that Nilsen has done that Brown hadn't. If he keeps playing well beyond October, then he'll likely have breached that high-water mark. I assume the initial suggestion was based on that assumption.

I think you're going to have to accept that it didn't really work out for brown with us, he had flashes of his former self, once or twice, but he was generally off it, hence why he retired straight after. Being 36 was absolutely the problem, for the same reason we won't be describing 36 year old Shinnie or Nilsen as leaders, we'd be describing them as liabilities, despite their previous excellence. Part of being a good leader is leading by example, and Brown wasn't up to that for the most part. Weird that you mention Ojo, who played wide left, and don't mention Lewis Ferguson, Ross McRorie etc, whose games were not benefitted from an ageing midfielder not keeping up with the pace. I think it's fair to say that they didn't get a Scott Brown that they could learn from, in the same way that likes of MacGregor did at the Tims. They could have probably gleaned something from the first couple of months he was here, but beyond that I expect it was tipping towards resentment. That's not a criticism of Brown, it's very difficult for a player to know when to retire (Hartley was in exactly the same position previously). The ridiculous situation of him being assistant and playing every week was Glass' doing. He wasn't terrible for us, just nowhere near the likes of Shinnie etc.

Actually, I'd put Scott Brown in exactly the category of Bisconti. And Paul Hartley, and Arnason. Guys that came here and did a job for a few games before becoming a liability. Severin, Heikkinen and Shinnie were all better leaders than the former, either through leadership or setting an example.

It's a 17:30 kick off.

That'll be the Rastafarian in him that Willie Miller spotted.

Yep, he was very much the type of manager you'd expect from the old board.

You're probably right, I think it's about keeping confidence up as much as sharpness. I'm very glad we didn't do more business in the window for this very reason, and would have been happy to see at least another out. Even with the smallish squad, very few are missing out. I don't like five subs, I think it gives games the air of a friendly. It is allowing Thelin to give more guys minutes in games, although I'd argue it's been to the detriment of performance, with things descending into confusion and a lack of shape. The difficulty for Palaversa, MacDonald and Milne is that they're in positions that I think Thelin will regard as vital. Areas where you build partnerships between a pair, like central midfield and defence. The idea being that the more you play as a pair, the stronger that unit becomes. It's less of a thing up front, and especially our up front where the players tend to link with several others individually rather than as a pair. That's just the way we play of course, when I was a lad there was always a front two (big lad and fast lad), with the midfield of secondary importance. There appears to be more link between Gueye and McGrath, than Sokler or Nisbet, which is fine.

I think that if we're four or five up in the ninetieth minute, we should take on Ambrose. The rest of the team should huddle over by the tunnel and when the whistle goes, sprint down the tunnel and out of the ground, leaving Ambrose to go home with Spartans.

The Jackson 3 doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

I think it's just a quality issue. His touch isn't brilliant, and his decision making and use of the ball when he gets possession isn't always good. He isn't great with his back to goal, he likes facing the defence. I'd put him in the level of someone like Bruce Anderson, a decent backup. I wouldn't be surprised to see him having a season or two of a purple patch in his career (because of his good movement and pace), and he's definitely capable of the occasional brilliant finish, which might make you think he's better than he really is. As it's a quality issue though, I don't think he's ever going to develop into a good number nine for us unfortunately. The best thing you can do with guys like Sokler, is to keep the instruction very simple, and get him to keep doing the same things (we can this in Thelin's improvements in Morris). For me, that'd be playing on the shoulder of the last man, making space by running into the channels and pressing high. Concentrate on those things and try not to worry too much about what anyone else is doing. One of the things that is noticeable is the difficulty he's had forming any sort of relationship with Gueye. Gueye is very unpredictable in his movement, and focuses his play on McGrath and linking back the way, as opposed to Miovski who was very quick to turn and play in his partner (a caveat to that would be the flick-ons that Gueye regularly wins, but they don't seem to go anywhere). Sokler's game is far more suited to Clarkson in behind him. Nisbet didn't really seem to form an understanding with Gueye either, but was noticeably better with his back to goal than Sokler.

This For a country full of gun nuts, they're fairly shite at the aiming part.

We had fifteen points at Christmas last year. Fully expect us to be on thirty by the end of October. Anything less would be hugely disappointing.

Another great win that we made hard work of in the end. We're going to need to be a bit more careful with the subs if we're going to continue on our run. Sokler and Ambrose both dogshit when they came on, and they weren't subs we needed to be making. Similarly, Clarkson for Palaversa was a poor sub. With Clarkson just returning to fitness, don't take him on as one of the holding players, that's not his strength. We'll lose points attempting that in future, one of the three subs would have been fine. Anyway, we dominated completely, with everyone playing a part. Palaversa was good, eased his way through it without being spectacular (probably should have been booked). Keskinen okay, but his lack of pace is going to hold him back, it's his one issue. A really intelligent player, but can't beat his man in a foot race. Unlike Morris, who came on with one instruction and executed it perfectly. Nisbet wasn't up to much, movement wasn't especially good. I think we should send all our shite players to Norway, as Gueye was excellent today. His all round play and movement was top notch. He'd have been my MOTM, if it wasn't for Nilsen. His best game for the Dons (among some good ones), he completely bossed midfield put in some lovely passes, whilst not putting a foot wrong. He also did some of the work Shinnie usually does, as Palaversa was quite reserved in terms of movement. We're definitely winning the league.

Nord VPN is what the pornography connoisseurs swear by, I believe.

If you take a day trip to Paris, then you will be able to pick up a stream from there. Or just use a VPN, whichever is cheapest.

Kids these days and their filters.

Ralston is only 25! He's a placeholder for Hickey I guess, and probably about the level of Stephen O'Donnell before him. I assume that Barhun might be the replacement for McLean, but Clarke obviously felt that he wasn't ready currently. In my opinion, Ferguson should be used further forward (slowly replacing McGinn), but I have a feeling that Clarke might shoehorn him into McLean's role when fit. Porteous should be ahead of Hanley in my view, but I don't think there's much difference, with Porteous being slightly better on the ball. I don't think that there's another good replacement for that area. Otherwise, it's good to finally see players like Conway being given opportunities, although it's probably not enough. It was noticeable how much poorer we were in both games after Dykes went off. He's a good focal point, and offers respite against those better teams in Group A. Overall though, we've been okay and playing to our level. The hope is that this experience works in our favour when the next qualifying campaign comes round. It'd be nice to get some points on the board, perhaps against Poland away or one of the home games. I'd say that in the Poland game we were unlucky, whereas against Portugal we rode our luck. I'm not sure that the multitude of subs we have these days helps managers like Clarke. He never seems to get the balance right between making the right changes and making the correct number of changes. It's almost like we feel obliged to be making double and sometimes triple subs every game these days, and it often affects the balance of the side. He's always had players that he doesn't want to take off during games, and doesn't seem to analyse whether moving players to a different role is better than taking on a sub. For example, Barron should have come on to replace McGinn against Poland. Barron is not a better player than McGinn, but he's better at holding midfield than a McGinn who's just played 80 minutes. Clarke's success at Killie was down to him having players playing simple roles, and just swapping them out for guys who were similar when the original player tired. That's not to say that you can't change tactic during games, just that there is often no need to.

Difficult to describe it as unlucky, got what we deserved. We don't have the depth of squad required to play that like for ninety. The subs made things worse, as they often do under Clarke. It's easy to point to the individual errors, but when you're on the ropes all game, it is difficult not to make them. Not the worst performance though, again, we're just not at the level of Portugal.

Poor half. Should be tanking this pish. In all seriousness though, we're not keeping this up for ninety minutes and getting a clean sheet. I'd take McGinn off, he's not been great. Christie on a yellow is an accident waiting to happen too. Some good solid defending though, McKenna having a great game.

He did hard work, but all on his own terms. Never as part of the team. He'd go tanking back to put in a dodgy sliding tackle, then the next three times he'd let his man go. He doesn't fit into Thelin's system unless he changes that, because fuck having a winger with his approach. It's why Robson played a 3-5-2.

Pretty certain JG Ross has a Cape Verde branch.

"He has owned the situation, returned and convinced us all that he not only recognises those things, but he is hungry...." Seems unlikely

It's probably somewhere in the middle. Time is on his side, so he'll probably give it a few months to make sure we're not going to become an overnight disaster before thinking about signing. Above that, it'll be down to family decisions and what he wants to do in life. If his family are settled here, then that'll probably take priority. If he's a player that wants to see a bit of the world, then there'll be plenty options there too. In terms of ability, we are as good as any other places to be for his level. I don't see him making a big step up from here. He'll be difficult to replace like for like if he does go, but you could slot a speedy winger into his position for something different.

It's interesting, but reeks of someone coming to a conclusion and then trying to back it up, rather than disprove it - bad science, in other words. All his clips are from the first ten minutes, when a guy who hasn't been playing much has likely been told to feel his way into the game, get time on the ball and don't do anything silly. When we were chasing the game, Hanley did step forward more and more and was more progressive with his passing. If he'd not done his brainfart in the final minute, we'd have been describing a solid performance from the back two. The clip he shows of their goal doesn't highlight any issues with Hanley at all. In fact, it does the exact opposite, because had McLean completed his very simple pass in front of Gilmour, our depth had drawn 4-5 of their players too far up and we'd have had a good break on our hands. That may highlight a tactical reason for Hanley not progressing with the ball, but there's not enough evidence to go on because things will have changed as soon as they scored. For me the issue is, and always has been, a not match fit Hanley versus a match fit one. In the prior European campaign and part of qualifying for the most recent, Hanley was playing regularly and performing well for Scotland. He was confident on the ball (despite being limited, of course) and moved it on well. When not playing every week, he's always struggled with concentration and confidence as you'd expect. I'd have Porteous in every week to be honest. He's always confident (sometimes negligently!) and is fine going forward with the ball. Hanley has carved out a very decent international career for a limited player, through hard work and giving his all on the pitch, but it's time for him to step aside.

I thought McGinn was alright up until the point Clarke dropped him back. It's an error he continually makes, because he doesn't want to sub one of his better players who scores goals. The problem is that you significantly reduce the likelihood of him scoring by dropping him deep, and the way he plays the game means he regularly loses possession of the ball (either trying to win a freekick, or play a difficult cross ball). Fine, when you're high up the park, but not in front of your own defence. We just don't need to risk McGinn in that role, the negatives vastly outweigh the positives, and it's criminal that Clarke doesn't see it. If we wanted to retain McGinn, then we should have put him out left and taken the dirty Judas on to play the holding role. I know we were chasing the game, but Morgan was largely ineffective, and doesn't look to have the pace of a good winger.