While Mcinnes has made decent signings we appear more and more to be wasteful , particularly in terms of loan deals but also it appears to be a strategy which reeks of short termism, worth recounting the dross that has been signed and made little or no impact, loan or otherwise

 

Zola

Tait

Daniels

Goodwillie

Daniels

Shankland

Church

Burns

Morris

Storey

Wylde

Driver

Monakana

Quinn

Mclaughlin

Parker

Stockely

Tansey

Maynard

 

Nearly 20 players recruited who failed or appear not up to it... this requires further scrutiny we appear happy to fill the squad with footballing detritus rather than quality specific targeted recruitment

 

 

 

 

 

Another issue on top of that, is his signing of players "just because".  The likes of Greg Stewart for example... I really like Stewart's ability on the ball, he has a lovely touch and nice vision (played a lovely throughball for McLean last night)... but he doesn't fit into our tactical set-up (last night showed that). 

 

Greg Stewart is not a player who wants to be chasing back and then charging up and down the wing. It's not his game, never has been.  His game has always been in the forward position or playing slightly off the forward position. He is never going to play there for us and that was clear in the summer. 

 

So we signed him simply because we could.  No foresight from the manager on how he was actually going to fit in.

 

Tansey is probably another example of this. 

 

Stevie May is another.  A striker whose best period was playing with a partner allowing him to run the channels looking for the quick throughball from midfield. We don't play that system and therefore Stevie May has struggled.

 

We're a patchwork team due to lack of cohesive thinking from the manager.

I think we need to accept that there is a hit rate for signings. I think this stands at about 50% for AFC at the moment. I suspect there are few clubs that are significantly better. I don't think it's fair to produce a list of shite AFC signings without a comparative list of other team's signings. That doesn't include Celtic (possibly even the huns) who can afford to make more mistakes and a player that is shite for a £25K per week player can still be good in the SPL.

 

The point is that when we go into a window, we have to sign with the expectation that at least 1 in 4 won't work out and accept that that is the general rule. The success rate becomes more variable when you're bringing in players from other leagues, which the majority on your list are. Our best signings have all been known SPL players that we've been able to afford over other teams. The unacceptable ones are the Tanseys and Storeys of the world who are blatantly not up to it pre-signing. I suspect every manager has a few of those where they think they can get something out of a player that others haven't before them.

 

The question then, is, are these speculative punts worth it to uncover the Logans, Lewises and so on. Given the paucity of those in recent years, it could certainly be questioned.

 

The second question is whether they are harming our youth development? I'm still not sure. Cammy Smith isn't a worse footballer than Maynard for example, but would playing Smith instead of Maynard (we don't have a youngster to use instead of Smith in that position in my example) make Smith good enough for the dons? Not really, and the lack of minutes would mean it affects his career too - he's best served moving on as he did. I thought bringing McLennan back from loan and ditching Maynard would be good initially, but actually the time he's getting at Brechin is probably more valuable than sitting on our bench as Ross can probably attest too.

 

Let's face it, there are very few in your list (non-SPL) that we could have been certain were going to be shite in the SPL before signing them. Ideally we just wouldn't be making these signings at all, but we do have to fill our squad. McInnes is generally good at ditching players who are shite, but he seems intent on keeping Maynard until the summer which is a complete error. We'd be far better off removing him from our options and forcing ourselves to change our setup rather than bring him on (play McGinn up front or whatever). There is no good reason to have him in the squad as at some point you feel obliged to give him game time. Like all of the players in your list, he's basically cover for the cover. They are all back up to the actual signings we want to make and spend time on. Zola, Tansey and Stockley are the exceptions in your list. They were brought in as first team contenders.

 

Given the success rate of teams at our level, the most important thing is retention and we've been surprisingly good on that front. Even for guys like O'Connor and Reynolds, often "better the devil you know" is the best option to take. We need continuity because if we have a strike rate of 50% and need to replace 4 players, then that's 8 signings we'd have to make. Say what we like about O'Connor and Reynolds (maybe), but none of the players on that list of failures is any better. If one of our punts is better then we retain them and ditch one of the two. Otherwise we continue as we are with our serious signings and the speculative punts on top. It's frustrating, but I don't see another way. It has to be strategic and by design, so fit would be your strategy?

 

 

Fair points both, I would err on the quality over quantity out that 20 say instead we had maybe only signed 10 but most of them were higher quality or able to make an impact .... also the type if player its interesting that nowhere on that list is there a lb nor a proper CM , I am with the biscuit in that a lot of these signings appear to have little thought behind them... its almost because we can

Sometimes signings don't work out for various reasons (daft to try to use a young hopeful like Shankland, and Quinn who didn't settle, against the manager) - a 50% strike rate is about right, but I'm glad he'll tend to get rid rather than flog a dead horse, albeit I agree that Maynard seems to be an exception to the rule.

 

Ward and Lewis were particularly inspired signings, and it was especially ballsy to establish the former as a number one, based on a handful of games in the yoofs at Liverpool.

 

My main concern is that the Huns now look to be shopping in the same circles as us, good players from weaker Premiership clubs and players who've gone done south and fallen out of favour.

 

 

 

they are not shopping in same circles as are able to offer bigger transfer fees and wages to players that would be championship bound, that is not our market, they spent 5m-10m in the summer and have players on 20-40k per week , they will finish second after significantly strengthening thats the harsh truth, we are still fannying about with work permits

 

My main concern is that the Huns now look to be shopping in the same circles as us, good players from weaker Premiership clubs and players who've gone done south and fallen out of favour.

 

Great point. Hertz and Hibs too. Would McLean and Shinnie have joined us rather than the hun? I'm not convinced.

 

Ayrshire, if you take it window upon window, we maybe don't have the option to pool the resources and get a better player. We seem to be getting one per window. This season, we could have replaced both Ball and Maynard with a single better player, but would you have chosen a striker or defender? I'd have gone for striker, but given Ball can cover right back, right centre back and midfield maybe McInnes had a point in getting both. I'd have taken the risk with a good striker and made up any injury shortfall with the others in our squad. It's safe to say that Tansey was signed as a first team player, which was just a very bad signing. I don't think we can count him in the "punts" category like the other two.

I think other clubs may not be as wasteful... and probably rely more on bringing through youth players

I would agree with BB on this.

 

We never really take in players for the betterment of the team, it’s always more for the betterment of the squad – which in my eyes goes hand in hand; better players in, the old ‘lesser’ players become squad players ,no? Long term only Shinnie, Rooney, Lewis and May have been better than what McInnes inherited - but even May had big question marks due to his long-term injury and I think he’ll need this season to kick on before we get the best out of him.

 

We have been crying out for a left back which we never sign or even seem to look into. We have been crying out for a solid CB pair, a box to box CM and defensive CM, both of which we haven’t signed – I don’t really know where Tansey falls in there but he was well short of what was required. We needed width this season and signed GMS, which makes sense and despite last night’s display he has been getting better.

 

But then who else has taken us forward? We seem to keep being linked with or signing lower half of the league players, hoping they’ll take us to the next level. Unsurprisingly they do not – Tansey, Quinn et al.

 

Really we should be going after Hibs/Hearts et al players who are out of contract, no? We’re linked with McGeouch at hibs, who is one of their best players. That makes sense. Cadden at Motherwell is young and has promise. When we signed Seve a few years ago that was a coup. Now we just seem to take faces in for the squad. I’d rather we bought 1 player of worth rather the 3 for the squad which we tend to do or pointless loanees like Ball – although we have done alright with younger loanees like Maddison, Christie, Hector etc.

 

Caley a few years ago went through several re-builds of good players from the lower leagues in England and it is a good place to look; but again we haven’t exactly signed stars – ala AoC and Taylor. Whether that is luck or scouting I don’t know. 

 

Overall better use of resources is needed. We have a decent budget in comparison to the rest of the league and outside of last summer with the necessary re-build, we never really sufficiently added to the initial lot McInnes inherited when he came in. Even older guys who still have ‘it’ like Robson would be handy. Deek did this a few times at St Johnstone but never really has here.

 

I think other clubs may not be as wasteful... and probably rely more on bringing through youth players

 

Not sure I agree with that at all - which other clubs are you using as a comparison? Excluding Celtic (and yiur argument surely isn't we're less wasteful than Sevco?), any "other club" aren't doing as well as us, which negates the point.

 

McInnes produces consistently against the other 9 clubs in the league with the team/squad he's assembled. I'm also yet to see any youth product we've not given game time to come back to prove us wrong, with the possible exception of Joe at St Johnstone.

hearts had a 16,17 and 19 yr old in midfield last night, where are our players  ?

hearts had a 16,17 and 19 yr old in midfield last night, where are our players  ?

 

But then what is the point in playing a youngster for the sake of it. If they’re good enough they’d be in the squad and playing.

 

Even Wright is struggling to hold down a first team spot and he seems the most likely out the ones knocking on the door. McKenna and Fraser both came in and made themselves integral to the team. Just playing youth for the sake of it is no use.

 

Hearts have only re-started their youth sides again recently post CVA. They might be benefitting from throwing everything they have at it early doors. They’re also not sitting 3rd in the league and fighting to for best of the rest.

 

If their good enough they’ll be in the team. Also agree with Bamper. Bain and big Joe are the only 2 to leave and look like it may of been a mistake; but even Bain has regressed since his early promise at Alloa and Dundee.

 

running fraser out of club was mistake but that was due to craig brown, why the fck he is till at aberdeen is beyond me

Reading this thread makes me even more worried about  the lack of youth coming through our system. This surely has to be the way forward for our club, but don't think DM puts enough focus on this.

 

McKenna has been the one upside this season and probably surprised most of us with his breakthrough, but we need a better success rate than we currently have. 

 

I also like the comment about Stewart and his fitting our system, pretty much nail on the head for me.

 

 

Of the 22 players listed as "1st team" on the club website, six came through the youth system. Surely 25% of your squad being home grown is a decent return, especially since all six have actually contributed this season and aren't just filling jerseys (Harvie excepted maybe)?

But then what is the point in playing a youngster for the sake of it. If they’re good enough they’d be in the squad and playing.

 

Even Wright is struggling to hold down a first team spot and he seems the most likely out the ones knocking on the door. McKenna and Fraser both came in and made themselves integral to the team. Just playing youth for the sake of it is no use.

 

McKenna's breakthrough, how much of it was him forcing his way into the starting line up on the back of good showings in the U21's and in training and how much of it was an aimless punt by McInnes after a 3 game winless run culminating by an absolute roasting by Motherwell?

 

All credit to McKenna for taking his chance, but I'm not sure him getting the chance in the first place was completely down to a natural progression of his talent rather than the manager running out of ideas. If we weren't ripped to shreds by Louis Moult in that one game, I'm not sure McKenna would have even stepped on the pitch for us this season.

 

There's an argument for giving young players a run in the first team, occasionally you'll get one who looked ordinary in the second string becoming a standout in the first team.

 

Certainly more to gain from trying that than bringing in fringe players from lower league English teams then being obliged to give them game time.

Another issue on top of that, is his signing of players "just because".  The likes of Greg Stewart for example... I really like Stewart's ability on the ball, he has a lovely touch and nice vision (played a lovely throughball for McLean last night)... but he doesn't fit into our tactical set-up (last night showed that). 

 

Greg Stewart is not a player who wants to be chasing back and then charging up and down the wing. It's not his game, never has been.  His game has always been in the forward position or playing slightly off the forward position. He is never going to play there for us and that was clear in the summer. 

 

So we signed him simply because we could.  No foresight from the manager on how he was actually going to fit in.

 

Tansey is probably another example of this. 

 

Stevie May is another.  A striker whose best period was playing with a partner allowing him to run the channels looking for the quick throughball from midfield. We don't play that system and therefore Stevie May has struggled.

 

We're a patchwork team due to lack of cohesive thinking from the manager.

 

100% and made that point before. Stewart and May are the perfect examples of players who don't fit our system. Good managers sign players who can play their system or adjusts tactics to suit players.

McKenna's breakthrough, how much of it was him forcing his way into the starting line up on the back of good showings in the U21's and in training and how much of it was an aimless punt by McInnes after a 3 game winless run culminating by an absolute roasting by Motherwell?

 

All credit to McKenna for taking his chance, but I'm not sure him getting the chance in the first place was completely down to a natural progression of his talent rather than the manager running out of ideas. If we weren't ripped to shreds by Louis Moult in that one game, I'm not sure McKenna would have even stepped on the pitch for us this season.

 

There's an argument for giving young players a run in the first team, occasionally you'll get one who looked ordinary in the second string becoming a standout in the first team.

 

Certainly more to gain from trying that than bringing in fringe players from lower league English teams then being obliged to give them game time.

 

I agree to an extent with you. I’ve never really understood why we haven’t given a LB from the youth team a chance when we were clearly short at LB. Surely there are more at the club than just Harvie.

 

If Considine is the best option we have available for that position, surely the youth coaches would need to be called into question. Arguably our youth team shape and formation should be the same as the first team, so that when they are called upon they play the same way and know what will be asked of them and expected – akin to Ajax. Wishful thinking probably, but it’s not difficult if you prioritise and sit down and map it out.

 

I agree with your point about McKenna, he was taken in to plug a gap through necessity, more so than his performances for the youth set up warranting a start. I’m sure that day we played 3 CBs or Arnason couldn’t start 2 games in one week; but credit where it is due he’s taken it with both hands. Sometimes a sole opportunity is all a young guy needs.

 

Not to beat a dead horse, but by all accounts Fraser wasn’t a stand out for the youth team and he ripped up the SPL from being thrown in at the deep end. Sometimes the arrogance of youth is exactly what you need. Although, this won’t always work for every young player.

 

Outside of McKenna no one has really impressed when they had their chance. Ross was not bad as an impact sub, willing to get forward and have a shot, but he wasn't massively influential in his Dundee start. Hopefully his loan builds him up though.