Goldie03 Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Mmm not quite the silky soccer I was led to believe we were playing but well done to the dons for 3 goals and some old fashioned excitement in the last 10 minutes And thanks to the bloke that gave me and my daughters complimentary tickets outside the ground Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrant Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 I thought Magennis did ok for what he isn't (a footballer) and he seemed to enjoy running down the wing and putting the ball in. His pace caused problems at times. However he'd still be second player that I'd get rid of if I could. The first obviously being Jamie Langfield. He made one or two decent saves but none that I wouldn't have expected him to make. And when Motherwell (or any team) hit's a mis-kicked sclaff at goal and it's trundling towards Jamie Langfield I've never got any confidence in him keeping it oot. His kicking yesterday was the worst I've ever seen it. He gave the ball away to Motherwell's front pairing on at least 1 occasion and fucked up many of the rest of the kicks. It's a matter of time before this directly results in a goal being conceded. Decent fight back which I never expected but for FFS we should start like that, not finish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc_don Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 I thought Magennis did ok for what he isn't (a footballer) and he seemed to enjoy running down the wing and putting the ball in. His pace caused problems at times. However he'd still be second player that I'd get rid of if I could. The first obviously being Jamie Langfield. He made one or two decent saves but none that I wouldn't have expected him to make. And when Motherwell (or any team) hit's a mis-kicked sclaff at goal and it's trundling towards Jamie Langfield I've never got any confidence in him keeping it oot. His kicking yesterday was the worst I've ever seen it. He gave the ball away to Motherwell's front pairing on at least 1 occasion and fucked up many of the rest of the kicks. It's a matter of time before this directly results in a goal being conceded. Decent fight back which I never expected but for FFS we should start like that, not finish. Very much this. The last sentance is what frustrates me the most. The only thing brown did right yesterday was bring the subs on at the right time. Why wait until we're down when its clear things aren't working?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glasgow sheep Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 The formation isn't so much the problem as the players in it. Motherwl plated pretty much the same formation but had a striker who was excellent in that role and quick support coming from the midfield to help out which caused us no end of problems. We either need to go 442 and start mcginn or smith up front with Vernon or keep with 451/433/4321 and start with Smith instead of Vernon. Personally I'd hook Vernon and go 442 on wed with Smith and McGinn up top. The biggest concern for me was not the defence which never got to grips with higdon, law or ojamma but our midfield which for the second week in a row was posted missing. We really struggle without Osbourne and Hughes seems to have reverted to type after an excellent start to the season. Oh and a big get it up you to those that left at 3-1. For wed I'd go with Clangers Jack cadger consi Robertson Hayes Rae Osbourne Fraser Mcginn Smith But sadly we'll see Vernon and magennis in there somewhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie03 Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 The formation isn't so much the problem as the players in it. Motherwl plated pretty much the same formation but had a striker who was excellent in that role and quick support coming from the midfield to help out which caused us no end of problems. We either need to go 442 and start mcginn or smith up front with Vernon or keep with 451/433/4321 and start with Smith instead of Vernon. Personally I'd hook Vernon and go 442 on wed with Smith and McGinn up top. The biggest concern for me was not the defence which never got to grips with higdon, law or ojamma but our midfield which for the second week in a row was posted missing. We really struggle without Osbourne and Hughes seems to have reverted to type after an excellent start to the season. Oh and a big get it up you to those that left at 3-1. For wed I'd go with Clangers Jack cadger consi Robertson Hayes Rae Osbourne Fraser Mcginn Smith But sadly we'll see Vernon and magennis in there somewhere Seconded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edinburghdon Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 The formation isn't so much the problem as the players in it. Motherwl plated pretty much the same formation but had a striker who was excellent in that role and quick support coming from the midfield to help out which caused us no end of problems. We either need to go 442 and start mcginn or smith up front with Vernon or keep with 451/433/4321 and start with Smith instead of Vernon. Personally I'd hook Vernon and go 442 on wed with Smith and McGinn up top. The biggest concern for me was not the defence which never got to grips with higdon, law or ojamma but our midfield which for the second week in a row was posted missing. We really struggle without Osbourne and Hughes seems to have reverted to type after an excellent start to the season. Oh and a big get it up you to those that left at 3-1. For wed I'd go with Clangers Jack cadger consi Robertson Hayes Rae Osbourne Fraser Mcginn Smith But sadly we'll see Vernon and magennis in there somewhere As good as he looks, throwing him in as a lone striker at this stage in his career is a huge ask! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_min Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Oh and a big get it up you to those that left at 3-1. Meh. I stand by my decision Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrant Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 The formation isn't so much the problem as the players in it. Motherwl plated pretty much the same formation but had a striker who was excellent in that role and quick support coming from the midfield to help out which caused us no end of problems. We either need to go 442 and start mcginn or smith up front with Vernon or keep with 451/433/4321 and start with Smith instead of Vernon. Personally I'd hook Vernon and go 442 on wed with Smith and McGinn up top. The biggest concern for me was not the defence which never got to grips with higdon, law or ojamma but our midfield which for the second week in a row was posted missing. We really struggle without Osbourne and Hughes seems to have reverted to type after an excellent start to the season. Oh and a big get it up you to those that left at 3-1. For wed I'd go with Clangers Jack cadger consi Robertson Hayes Rae Osbourne Fraser Mcginn Smith But sadly we'll see Vernon and magennis in there somewhere Would you like some sauce for that chip on your shoulder? I have no regrets. I got home in time to see some of the car crash that was Liverpool v Man Utd and if I'd stayed at Pittodrie there's no danger we would've came back. But congrats on seeing the Dons gain a point at home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_min Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I have no regrets. I got home in time to see some of the car crash that was Liverpool v Man Utd and if I'd stayed at Pittodrie there's no danger we would've came back. Aye, there was no queue in the pub either + I got a right decent seat to watch the Football in, so if anything I won by leaving early. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrant Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Aye, there was no queue in the pub either + I got a right decent seat to watch the Football in, so if anything I won by leaving early. The traffic was non existent and I didn't have to wait to get out of the car park. Plus I heard it all unfold on the radio. The benefits of leaving early are never ending! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_min Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 The traffic was non existent and I didn't have to wait to get out of the car park. Plus I heard it all unfold on the radio. The benefits of leaving early are never ending! Radio? Pffft! I was checking the Premiership Scores on Livescore, when I happened to notice it was 3-3. It's definitely a story for the grandkids that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reekie_Red Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 fucksake motherwell's 3rd was a mile offside. cunts Was it? I'm nae so sure. Ryan Fraser was defending on the goalline, and Nicky Law never crossed that line until his celebration: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azteca1903 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Was it? I'm nae so sure. Ryan Fraser was defending on the goalline, and Nicky Law never crossed that line until his celebration: Fraser was the only man goalside of Law = offside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrant Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Was it? I'm nae so sure. Ryan Fraser was defending on the goalline, and Nicky Law never crossed that line until his celebration: FFS sake, Reekie! There needs to be two players closer to the goal line than the attacker, nae 1! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilbobaggins Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Exactly, Law was offside but if the linesman didn't have a clue what chance has Reekie? fae wiki: A player is in an offside position if three conditions are met: first, the player must be on the opposing team's half of the field. Second, the player must be in front of the ball. And third, there must be fewer than two opposing players between him and the opposing goal line, with the goalkeeper counting as an opposing player for these purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewart Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 He was offside at the first touch but it's touched again and Langfield plays him onside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
️ Come on you Reds! 
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.