RicoS321

I disagree to an extent. LA-Don says that our best central midfielder last night was our left back, but that blatantly isn't the case. Shinnie has clearly signed an extension as a centre mid, and in the same way as Jack isn't a right back, Shinnie isn't going to be a left back. That is clear. Given that information, do we still need a holding midfielder? The argument I had against the Draperites (far is he noo?) who were advocating getting a hard tackling midfielder is that we won't need a Draper or a Davidson, we need somebody better. Football has moved on, and just as Arneson wasn't good enough to play in midfield, neither is O'Connor or Draper and Davidson hasn't developed in the way St Johnstone probably hoped. Shinnie is a far more complete midfielder than any of those, in that he'll get up and down the pitch all day as well as being a strong runner with the ball. He's a similar build to Brown and strong in the challenge and has a fair streak of dirtiness when required. The second point I'd make is that the problems we had in previous seasons are now no longer an issue. In previous seasons we struggled with numbers and fitness toward the end of the season. We also struggled with players who could adapt to the shitey pitches and winter conditions where direct hoofball was the only option. However, both those issues are removed because of the winter break. Our first 11 will easily see out the season without an issue unless injured or suspended. Last year it would have been acceptable to fill our squad with Stockleys, Storeys, Burnsss etc. and they could be relied upon to provide cover. We're just not in that market this season. With Shinnie moving to midfield permanently and signing a new deal then we don't need another midfielder. Shinnie and Jack will be that partnership with McLean, Pawlett and Hayes providing adequate suspension cover. Christie is direct competition in the forward roll to replace Maddison, which will allow McLean to drop deeper at the expense of Considine, Shinnie or Jack to give a more attacking balance. Christie could be regarded as a game-changer, similar to Maddison. Assuming the above is correct (otherwise my point is shite...), then I think our January requirements changed hugely as it got closer, and I think our post-window games and late-window games strengthened this point. It became apparent that we were balancing too large a squad and dropping points trying to involve players that didn't need involved. The easy step was cutting back the numbers to ensure we have less pissed off players. Getting rid of Burns, Morris, Storie was the right call. We then needed to look to the window not to bring in more numbers, but to bring in players that are game-changers. We weren't looking for first team starters or solid squad fillers like previously, but guys that can come on and make an impact immediately and shake the opposition. Players in the mould of Josh Magennis (but actual footballers), or a very tricky winger. That type of player is difficult to come by in January as everyone is looking for one. Sounds like we went for May but didn't get a deal, which would have given us another game-changer perhaps. I would say that our requirements changed this season (unplanned for) and that has made our January a lot harder. It wouldn't have been acceptable to get another Burns, and we aren't looking for depth in numbers. Nor were we necessarily looking for a starter in any position in the first team (I'm sure if one became available that would have happened). Last season, someone like Tansey would have been fine to provide cover for midfield, Stockley for the winter months and so on, but we don't need that now. We can comfortably beat any team outside Celtic on our day and we'll be fit and strong enough to finish the season with the current first team. If anything, we could have afforded to lose a couple more in Pawlett and one of Stockley/Storey as they're not what we need.

Aye, proper tanking for the hun scum. Finally somebody actually plays fitba against them. Take note dons, they're nae very good (especially at the back).

Considine header? More like a pass back like.

Not the worst performance. At least we played the same team. Our first 11 is good, but a look to the bench shows a dearth of talent. Storey looks pretty clueless, but could have been on 10 minutes earlier as Rooney wasn't in the game. Hayes poor tonight. Thought Considine, Reynolds, Jack, Shinnie and McLean were decent. Taylor should be told just to kick it whatever way he's facing. We weren't good enough to win tonight, they're just a much better team who didn't look uncomfortable. I'd actually say Reynolds is somewhere close to being a good centre half again. Reading the game very well like he used to and playing to his strengths by not trying to play fitba.

Games are regularly ruined by sending offs, with the team losing a player going backs to the wall. I think it would ruin the flow of the game. 1 out of the 4 fouls that Shinnie committed toward his booking at the weekend was actually a foul, the rest were just poor decisions. Scott Brown would end up getting 90 warnings instead of a yellow.

...in England

Nah, his job is to represent the residents. That means those that come to him to object - in this case against the dons proposal. He'll have had a fair number of folk objecting, so he picks a side (based on political prudence) and fights that side. So he's representing them in the best way he possibly can by making hysterical comments not based on fact (he may or may not believe his hysterical pish). His job is definitely not to go through "due diligence" with the club, as he's not interested in their opinion before the planning decision, he's there to obstruct them. That's how politics works. If enough folk had hassled him, sent him email and turned up at his constituency office to speak to him about the benefits he'd be representing them. Because that is his job. A planning officer will weigh up whether his objections are pish or not, and quickly conclude that they are. Anyway, I'm just glad you didn't read the daily record.

I just cyber-bummed you. Right in the hoop. Because your gay.

Club just released this. http://www.afc.co.uk/stadium.php Some good stuff, I doubt the locals have a leg to stand on. The 12,500 has been reduced to 12,000....

My main objection to the system is that it isn't applied to specific statements. So now Donsdaft disnae ken why folks think he's a dick. Surely that's the point of them, otherwise it's just bullying.

What the fuck does that even mean?

Surely his job is to represent his constituents and this is just political prudence? It's a rock and a hard place for him really, isn't it? The residents don't want anything build, no compromises, so there's nothing for him to discuss with AFC. It'll go through regardless of his opinion, so why ingratiate himself to the club rather than the people who vote for him? It's not laziness, just that there is nothing for him to discuss. If the club get permission, then it would make sense for him to have a meeting to discuss parking and so forth. He's probably a dick like, but that's neither here nor there. Or you could just not read the Daily Record, that would help.

Interesting. Storie was a wee bit short in my opinion last season in certain areas and nae quite ready for the first team, however with some hard work on his part I think he could have made it. I automatically assume that the manager's caution is what holds these youngsters back, but we don't see what goes on behind the scenes I suppose. Whilst I still think there is too much caution shown by McInnes in blooding youngsters, perhaps I'm doing him a disservice if the youngsters are letting him down. However, that has to be two way, and Storie not putting in the work is an indictment of McInnes as much as the guy himself. Anyway, in centre midfield, I think we now have to put the whole Shinnie in left back thing to bed and accept that he sees himself as a central midfielder. He's played very well there on numerous occasions and him and Jack are definitely our best pairing. I think we should set him the challenge by getting another strong midfielder in there to compete for position, but I'm not convinced that this is the window to do that in, unless on a 6 month loan or something (I don't believe we'll have the available options in Jan). Our cover against injury is Hayes, Pawlett and if desperate O'Connor. We have limited time to do business, the midfield will just have to be a risk we take (I think a Shinnie suspension will be more likely than injury, so perhaps he can engineer a suspension against a pish team at home). I'd like to see a striker in with Storey (and perhaps Stockley) getting shipped. A full back to compete with Considine and perhaps another wide player on loan too to replace Burns.

Yep, that is correct. Nobody has seen him since he played for Oldham.

Based on what? The board are tight, but there nae stupid. They'll know Hayes is likely the difference between finishing second and third, and they'll know the value in finishing second over third, versus the drop in price if Hayes leaves in the summer. It's not like we're cashing in on a guy with six months left. Hayes is very consistent and he won't lose significant value between now and summer, especially if the player suggests he might look for a move. We're debt free, and the call to sell is no longer there in the way it was previously. Duncan Fraser managed to get £600K for Lee Miller (or was it Strachan doing his mate a favour?), so he kens how to drive a deal.

Nit, Livi. You're thinking of the other Argentinian guy who used to play for Killie then us: Gary MacDonald.

Taylor had one fantastic clearing header in the first half, which showed why he's in the team (cause it's nae for his ability to kick the fitba), and he's been quite solid in our winning run.

McKenna getting a tanking from Shankland. Have to admit, I wasn't massively convinced by McKenna or Shankland when I saw either of them play for the dons. Neither have looked particularly good today.

Jack mentioned his celebration in his interview on youtube. Apparently you had to be in Dubai to understand it. Luckily he doesn't have to use it often. The big point regarding this thread - 5 in a row - is whether or not we'll play the same team against the Tim. Surely Deek must realise his errors against the cheeks the last time out and play to our strengths. Why change a winning team, etc. I can see him bottling it (and it is bottling it) and shoe-horning O'Connor in there somehow. Hopefully he'll take note of Dundee's performance yesterday, which showed how difficult it is to change your mindset half way through a game and attack when yer already chasing it. One plus point is that Christie will be unavailable so we won't have to dick about trying to get him in the team (not suggesting he's pish, just that Deek does like a fuck about from time to time).

But surely that risk is being massively overstated by Deek? There are plenty of games where we've been comfortable but the youngsters haven't featured. Comfortable in the sense that if we took on one young player for one player that is perhaps tiring or just not having a great game that our airses wouldn't collapse and we end up losing the game. We have raised our standard to the extent that we're good enough to carry a young loon if required.

12,500. 20,000 if we play it in Westhill.

You could be right like, Hector would back up yer point, but McKenna would go against it. I don't think it's anything particular to England is what I'm saying, more to do with a player's general physical growth and the time they come through into the team. Given they're playing in a league where the players are significantly more athletic than those up here, it is to be expected that those who have managed to break into the team are of requisite strength, it's all relative. In other words, if yer average youngster is 30% less muscular than a senior player up here, it's probably a similar ratio down there. I'm not an avid Match of the day watcher, but I've seen it enough to have heard them talk of young players just needing to improve the physical side of their game to make them the next big thing. The main point being though, that it's something that's easy to work on once the player has fully developed, as opposed to skills and that a lot of it has to do with confidence. Having played a few times at a shite level myself you often tend to be hunner mile an hour and unsure of tackling until you settle in and get yer first few boots up in the air. Each level is a new learning experience too, so it may take players a good few hundred minutes (15-20 decent length sub appearances) of game time to get used to the pace and physical side of a game in the first team. We should be looking to provide that experience before judging, and I can think of about 10 games this season where that would have been possible.

Really? Maddison? I just don't buy this. Nor do I buy that there's an issue with toughness and mental strength that can't be overcome quickly and easily with more game time. Players gain confidence and strength the more they play. Storie didn't exactly lack mental and physical strength when he played against the tims at Pittodrie, he slotted straight in, but it was clear he needed much more opportunity to play in order to develop. As it stands, he's regressed through lack of opportuntity, and we've probably set him back another couple of years and I doubt he'll make it with us. I'm not suggesting we start youngsters, but regularly giving them 20 minutes isn't beyond a club of our standing. We have a good first 11 that could easily guide a youngster through 20 minutes here and there.

It would make a fucking ace wall. Much better than Trump's shite.

He said that? Jesus, that's worrying. I understand his position, but there is another side to that. Guys like Wright, Ross, McKenna, Storie etc definitely have a lot of positives to their game, if we can develop those by giving them game time then that will surely take them to the next level? Also, it is worrying that we can't give Wright a chance in the last twenty minutes in games for fear that we might capitulate. Surely it can't be worse than being a man down, or even just a McGinn/McLean/Shinnie not firing? I'm singling out Wright, because he plays in a position where it is generally easier to give a player a shot as it is not as critical defensively. As an aside, I think Ross looks like he might be a player. Looks like he's got all the attributes bar the physical strength, which can be built on.