RicoS321

I've not seen anything of McGarry so far to suggest he's better than Jack Gurr, but I hope you're right!

Just back, not a bad game. First half performance was very good. It was a 3-4-2-1, which worked really well. Sokler and Miovski worked perfectly together, with McGrath excellent in behind. They couldn't deal with the ball over the top at all. Second half we dropped McGrath and Sokler back before the subs into a flat four. McGrath struggled a bit wide left. McGarry looked like an amateur player when he came on, hopefully just lack of match time. Duncan wasn't great of course but at least held position. As Panda says, we played narrow at the back and allowed the crosses in and also allowed them to wander about our box. That said, Sokler's early chance was easily as good as anything we produced. The last five minutes of the ninety we began to hold our shape and looked like seeing it out comfortably. Then VAR intervened. Once again, nobody in the crowd or on the pitch spotted anything, and the Huns got their opportunity and missed it. The ref saw exactly what happened, and - in context - decided it was a nothing incident that didn't merit a penalty, with the play continuing until their miss. Three minutes later, and with all context stripped out, a penalty is given. Every pundit then reviews the incident without context and agrees that there is a tug so it must be a pen, completely oblivious to context as always. Richard Gordon mentions on the radio that he's surprised that Walsh didn't give the pen in real time as he was looking right at it, completely missing the point that Walsh did clearly see the incident and chose not to give a penalty because it wasn't one. Again, VAR not fit for purpose. Anti football bollocks that needs to be fired into the sun. I wish Robson was a little more articulate in moments like these. I'd like to see someone from the club take all footage from the game and produce a montage of tugs on shirts in the box throughout the ninety minutes. For both sides, no partisan shite, simply to show how ridiculous the decision was. Anyway, great to see Sokler adding something and another option in setup. We're very light on options from the bench to see out games like this one. Like Duncan, Polvara held a position well, but offered little else. McKenzie will be a miss for the final in this setup.

I'd guess at a 3-4-2-1? With Sokler and McGrath getting close to Miovski. Duncan left wing back.

Wild. Duncan and Sokler.

Even with the break, I can't really be arsed with this one. With European games, I think there's just too much football. It's completely saturated. Can't wait for the winter break! I'm going of course. I think we'll lose.

Aye, it's interesting. I'm hoping that the club realises that, after two failed attempts, that employing a younger manager requires a lot more support and a lot more patience. Robson is exactly the type of guy (local, former player) that the club could publicly state that they're being patient with, with a view to him learning in the role. Not via an unhelpful burst on sportsound of course! The turnover of players has a huge impact on the manager and it's still too high at the moment. It means you're constantly clearing out the shite, and the inevitable shite that you accumulate each window is exacerbating the problem. I'd stick with him as long as we can to give him every opportunity to continue building. I'd really like to see another face behind and above to hold that build to account though.

McGarry isn't fit yet, only just returned to training.

Off after 75 minutes ahead of the more important weekend fixture. The English couldn't handle him anyway. Edit: although what sort of team doesn't put Miovski on pens?

That's fucking bollocks. It makes a European night having away fans there.

I meant that he's a known quantity in terms of his style and what you get from him. He's a goalscorer, akin to someone like Kris Boyd. He's not going to suddenly develop another string to his bow, and he's playing at the highest level he's ever reached and ever will reach (he wasn't there with utd and obviously coming off the bench for us was the pinnacle), which is only now good enough for the international squad. That level is low end international level, good enough to be a backup striker, which is what he is - deservedly. I think that Clarke will be comfortable explaining to Shankland what his role is in the squad and when he's likely to be used. He might walk away, but it's not nonsense. Jacob Brown plays in the premiership and barely gets a look in and could also walk away. That's what happens with fringe players that aren't at the level of the rest. However Shankland is 28 and might get the opportunity to go to a European championships, so I doubt we'll see him pulling out.

It is, but he's also probably a fairly decent manager. Twice at Morecambe and now three times at County, I think we know where his next gig will be.

Wow, that last statement wouldn't look out of place in the daily mail comments! Anyway, I can see why Shankland didn't start. He's decent, but only in the last couple of years has he got anywhere near the physical presence for international level and maintained it. He's not a target man like Dykes and nor will he do the running like Adams, taking it in the channels and so on. I suspect that this was Brown's opportunity to show what he can do, and he failed for the most part. Clarke will be concerned that if Adams doesn't make it (gets injured I mean) then we don't have someone to do the shift against better opposition, and probably hoped that Brown would at least manage that (he sort of did for a spell at the beginning of the second half). Shankland is very much a known quantity, Clarke will have felt that he probably doesn't have much to prove. His role will only be coming on as a sub when we're chasing games or to play against poorer opponents in qualifying, where we can afford the luxury of a goalscorer. Ten minutes to get a goal is exactly what Shankland can and should expect, and it's a fairly vital role. Clarke is loyal to the guys in his squad, but I think he'll do the right thing and leave Brown at home, leaving the door open for Shankland (assuming Nisbet isn't doing the business down the road). It'll be interesting to see how loyal he remains though, as I think there's a few players in that squad who've been brilliant servants, but could easily be left at home without little noticeable effect. We're going to need guys that can provide a spark and offer something different when we're struggling against the big teams, and I'm not sure that Shankland will manage that, as well as some of the others on display last night: McLean, Armstrong, Brown, Jack. I'd like to see us take a gamble on Doak like we did with Gilmour at least, and maybe one other young player that might take us beyond next qualifying. I see Clarke as being more in the Craig Brown mould in that regard, and I expect he'll remain loyal to the guys who qualified (although injuries will obviously allow him some movement).

Good to see shankland getting his massive coupon on the equaliser. Really upped his game with the diets over the last couple of seasons and deserves to be in the squad. They were a fucking disgrace though, as was the ref. That wasn't football they were playing.

You're right, I apologise. That is the view of the sports department from the outside. Of course, that's not particular to all of the sports department, or probably even the majority. The work done on the Hun case was from a news reporter, and the overwhelming take on it by the outward facing radio staff was that we need to move on and the world needs a strong rangers (apart from Jim traynor originally). The overwhelming majority of coverage on the radio goes to two teams. Two teams dominate the premiership and Scottish football web pages (unless someone has been sacked). At present, there isn't an article discussing the cup final allocation from the angle of fairness on the BBC website (with Off the Ball being the main dissenting voice). I've never seen an article challenging fairness and meritocracy in the Scottish game on the website. By that, I mean one that isn't "embedded" in the conclusion before it even starts (it's just the way it is, nothing can be done). Outwardly, the BBC's position is one of status quo. I have no doubt it looks, and is, different on the inside. I've worked for oil companies for twenty five years, completely aware of the effects of climate change, I know what it's like to be carried along by systemic forces.

He would just release a statement, at which point they keep going with it. Utilise the less craven BBC departments (remember the ones who actually did the outing of the Hun, quickly swept under the carpet and hung out to dry by the sports department?) to go properly after it. Remind him who televises the championship, who pays for the radio coverage. Of course they have clout over Doncaster, they just choose not to use it. The reason they choose not to use it is because nobody at the BBC sports department (nobody important anyway!) actually believes that things like the ticket allocation is unjust. They believe that the SPFL is a meritocracy. They believe that there is nothing wrong with the status quo in Scottish football. Which is also why they take their Tim banning just like they took their Hun one. In return, giving them 7,080% more airtime than any other clubs combined, further exacerbating the unfairness. Becoming more obsequious rather than less. Which is a shame.

I'm pretty certain the BBC (and it has to be the BBC, as it's the only impartial provider*) has enough clout to force Doncaster to do interviews. They could do a proper in-depth piece on the unfairness of it and force his hand. Mention that he refuses interviews regularly on sportsound and basically out the fucker at every opportunity. There is no real need for the BBC to be as toothless as it is. *Because fairness isn't something they need to be impartial on. There doesn't need to be someone from the Huns involved as it's not a direct criticism of them.

With four tickets available for each person on the database, it wouldn't actually surprise me if they were able to get tickets. All it takes is one Hun to have been signed up for previous games and they can take a few.

That's a good response. It's a shame nobody in our media will ask for an interview with Doncaster about the allocation and really press him on it, and the overall fairness in our game, lack of sporting integrity and the message this gives. If this type of thing affected the scum, we'd be hearing about it for weeks.

Sounds like a real shite way to do it. A danger of Huns being in our end?

Just to let you guys know that you can go online and order your tickets now that I've got mine.

Very true. The inconsistency only occurs when you don't mention upper kirkgate or marischal college. So we've ruled out littlejohns then as it was right hand side going uphill from Dode st in the other direction. Are we talking pre bon accord centre? On the right hand side going uphill from back wynd you have St Nicholas Kirk, then st Nicholas centre then the car park and the toilets. There wasn't much else prior to the new buildings from memory. St Nicholas was 1985, I don't remember what was there before either. Unless you were eating in Dixon's?

Yep, that's right. Thank god for your missionary work, the world is a much safer place these days. On the left if you're going from art gallery to marischal college. I assumed "going uphill form George Street" meant that direction. Given that the end of George Street is the bon accord centre, it's kind of in a dip, so uphill could refer to marischal college direction or art gallery direction. We'll let @Madbadteacher off for his inconcise description, given his last memories were of radars, which closed about thirty years ago.

No, it isn't a hypothetical argument, we see the players every single week and know their abilities and their best positions (yes, plural, it doesn't undermine the argument in any way whatsoever), and we have multiple instances of them playing together. Polvara did offer something different against Hibs, it was almost immediate. He maintained position higher up the park, which meant that we didn't have "three players all dropping deep" and basically followed his man without drifting after we went down to ten. I would suggest looking at a heat map of the two, but the sending off makes it a little unfair. You could see the static line of four against PAOK too, it was extraordinarily disciplined. A 5-2-2-1 isn't really a recognisable formation as we've seen, it has to be a 3-4-2-1, with emphasis on the fullbacks being a little bit higher. It's the catch 22 with playing against a better side. You aim to play a 5-2-2-1 or 3-4-2-1, but one or both of the forward players gets dragged backwards to mark their attacking player and it permanently becomes a four. Tiredness also plays a part there (see Hibs). If the fullbacks drop deeper into a 5-2-2-1 then you're left with massive gaps that a good team exploits. In Polvara, and Duncan to a lesser extent, you've got someone who will maintain the discipline and patience in either role, Clarkson only really advantages you in the forward position and is a liability backwards for the reasons you state. It's basically a tiring and thankless job, donkey work suited to a poorer player. That's the name of the game against the Tims away unfortunately. I absolutely think we should try the 3-4-2-1 against poorer opposition (I said it after Frankfurt away), with Devlin and McKenzie able to close the gaps, but that will put an end to Duk and Miovski as a two and leave nothing for Sokler and Gueye (which I'm comfortable with). Against the Tims, and especially with our fixture list, having Barron or Clarkson (it'll be the former today I expect) is a far greater asset than having them in a stultifying role out wide.

No, my argument is that it's been tried and hasn't worked. Because it has been on numerous occasions as I keep saying. Clarkson excelled in the number six role last season, that was his best position. He also played very well under Goodwin in number ten (ahead of Barron a couple of times, as I've said, it'll work well in a 4-2-3-1 at the expense of McGrath). He's also played well in a sitting pair alongside Shinnie (see Hibs latterly). I don't know what his best position of the three is, but I know he's very good in all of those so it makes no odds. I also don't need to specifically see him play in every role to know that he's not suited to it, based on the style of player (most arguments are over where Clarkson can't play, rather than can). It's fairly simple stuff really, I'm not being obtuse. You select a style that you want to play and pick players to play in that style. For a 5-4-1 against good opposition, you want a right sided midfielder that holds his position, is disciplined and will get forward when the attack requires. That's not Clarkson, he's not that disciplined and nor do you want to turn him into that type of cautious player. I've suggested two setups that I think could accommodate Clarkson and Barron, with reasons (and reasons why wouldn't test that against the Tims). You've suggested the right midfield role that Duncan played against PAOK, with no real explanation as to what Clarkson offers in that role. Nor can you explain why it so spectacularly failed against Hibs (until Barron got canned), where you yourself suggested that Clarkson was coming to deep for the ball, which is what I've pointed out numerous times. The 5-4-1, right midfield position nullifies all Clarkson's best attributes and amplifies his worst ones.

There was no overlapping fullback apart from the goal! It was a very disciplined four. That's why I said that the 3-4-2-1 against poorer sides would be a good chance to play all of them together (poorer than the Tims and not at Hampden, and also sacrificing any remaining hope of Duk and Miovski as a two). Duncan was almost always receiving the ball high up the park with nobody in front of him, he was basically taking a touch and playing it backwards. By that point, against Hibs, Clarkson had already dropped deep, further congesting the midfield, as that's what he does. McRorie is in no way similar to Barron or Clarkson. Both clearly excel in one or more areas of the pitch. It's completely disingenuous to say that we don't know their best positions, we do (I do, and so does Robson and I expect most Dons fans). Barron is a central midfielder that moves the ball on quickly and has good vision. He can play sitting in a two or a one. He's a bit lost further up the pitch and struggles when asked to press high in a two with one behind. Clarkson is also a central midfielder that moves the ball on quickly and has great vision. He can play sitting in a two or a one (better than Barron in a one, where he excels, but requires two chasers in front). Going forward, he can also play in front of two sitting midfielders in either a one or two, but can't play the Shinnie/Ramadani role of chasing it high up the pitch with one in behind. He is better suited to being the one, whether deep or high up the pitch as his side to side movement is excellent and he thrives in the space. When playing as a two he tends to drift vertically, especially if starting further forward. He always wants to be on the ball rather than create the space for others to be on it (as does Barron, and we're better for it). These two guys aren't utility players like McRorie, and we shouldn't be trying to make them be either. They're far more talented than McRorie and should be cultivated in their best positions. Guys like Duncan and Polvara just need minutes on the football pitch at this level to develop their confidence and strength. That shouldn't be sacrificed either to accommodate a player out of position. The evidence for the above is seeing them play every week. There's a reason that they don't play together often (Goodwin tried it several times). We can see the way they play around other players being asked to play similar roles, it's ridiculous to suggest that they need to be played several times together to prove that their styles don't compliment. It's just an unnecessary experiment. Neither brings anything to the other's game. The 3-4-2-1 is certainly worth a try against poorer opposition or when chasing a game though.