Would have thought Manc would have had this started by now but must be to busy practicing the huddle. No idea how we line up for this but would be tempted to go with forwards who will play in quarter final so as they get game time together. Can always bring Cosgrove off the bench if we have to. Hate going to this shithole and find their fans just as vile a bunch of bigots as the blue arse cheeks. According to club the away allocation has sold out for this which is good going for a tie we usually lose.

 

In

Train then pub in centre of town

Away end

Train back to the Capital

2-0 no Dons scorer

 

One shot on target in 90 minutes.

 

Dom Ball & Lewis Ferguson = two

Same number as the JJ's had Jute

Dom Ball & Lewis Ferguson = two

Same number as the JJ's had Jute

 

Must have missed second one. Only remember one that keeper saved down to his left. Even 2 shots in 90 minutes is pretty poor.

Waiting for my loon to get home from paradise :laughing:in his windowless bus According to him 1st half pretty dire but much better 2nd half, could have won it at end, with May chance.  His top red was Ball & Dean Campbell very good when he came on.

Decent point

Must have missed second one. Only remember one that keeper saved down to his left. Even 2 shots in 90 minutes is pretty poor.

 

Second one was Ferguson's free kick which was in the first minute of injury time and indirectly led to the missed May header. Of which  there now could be mitigating circumstances. I haven't seen a replay but there are others who are suggesting as he went to header he got a hefty dunt in the back. I'll reserve judgement till I see it again but at the time thought it was a dreadful effort

Must have missed second one. Only remember one that keeper saved down to his left. Even 2 shots in 90 minutes is pretty poor.

 

No meaning to be pernickity Jute but the same number as them o'er the ninety minutes

It was a stalemate but I thought we played really well.  Our structure was excellent and as for the slating of Mclennan I very much disagree.  He made a few mistakes and lost the ball but overall I thought his attitude and drive was spot on and their rb didn't have a moments peace. Everyone's was though 2bh.  Considine was an absolute rock today. 

I was half watching first half as rugby was on.

Wilson was all over the shop.

Campbell when he came on changed the way we were playing.

I’d play him instead of Ferguson on Wednesday.

Today helped McLennan, got caught once (that I saw) not at 100%, but made up for that.

He could do with a goal or two to give him a boost. Happy to run at players and can beat them. Needs to smash a couple in as he doesn’t get the space I’m sure he had in the younger age groups.

 

Direct quote from McKenna 

 

" We’ve had two draws against the Rangers and Celtic in the last couple of games "

Direct quote from McKenna 

 

" We’ve had two draws against the Rangers and Celtic in the last couple of games "

 

He'll be hard pushed to TRUMP that one

He could always describe them as sevco and as a new club.

 

The authorities would have apoplexy but if they dared try to sanction him then we go to the courts to let them sort it out. The truth would soon(ish) out...

It was a stalemate but I thought we played really well.  Our structure was excellent and as for the slating of Mclennan I very much disagree.  He made a few mistakes and lost the ball but overall I thought his attitude and drive was spot on and their rb didn't have a moments peace. Everyone's was though 2bh.  Considine was an absolute rock today.

 

Considine has been a rock for 3 or 4 seasons to be fair

Both Considine and Ball were very unfairly tarred as everyone's whipping boys.

 

When everyone is fit I agree they are squad players....but this season we have had a horrendous run of injuries/suspensions and so both have been used fairly extensively. And both have done just fine . Indeed I'd say Ball has been our best player over the past 3 or 4 matches.

 

I hope both get rewarded with at least 2 year contracts in the summer

Can remember when going to either of the arse cheeks and playing for a draw was frowned upon clearly that has changed. One shot on target in 90 minutes. Better than cup final I suppose.

 

Interesting take on a solid performance. The way I see it is that you have two options. The first is to go for it, pushing high up the park against them and beat them by being aggressive, clinical and quick in defence against their break. The second is to maintain shape, frustrate, be clinical on the break and sharp in your own half. They're both just sets of tactics designed to win in a different manner. Nobody actually plays for a draw in league football. Based on our lack of pace on the right side of our defence (Lowe and Considine), the first tactic would have been a dangerous one, as their pace in behind and over the top would have led to significant opportunities. We'd have been relying on luck not to lose a goal as much as our ability to score at the other end; we'd be relying on scoring more than them as they'd definitely have scored. The second option relied on our proven strength of discipline, shape and aggressive play in our own half, leaving the weaker part of our game in holding the ball up and taking on a man higher up the pitch to chance and fortune. In other words, we played to our strengths to give us the best chance of winning the game. On it's day, our defence is significantly better than our attack, so it's a no brainer to me that we'd rely heavily on it in a game away from home against a team that is better than us. It's just tactics. If we have GMS available tomorrow (and he removes his head from his airse), then I'd expect a bit more adventure, but still retaining that discipline and shape. Difference being is that I think we are far more likely to score against the hun with this approach.

Or, as Graeme Souness said yesterday, there's too much emphasis placed on tactics and formations these days because it's all about the quality of the players.

 

Wolves kept their shape and discipline superbly yesterday and were unlucky not to win. They have excellent technical footballers who make few mistakes and they are capable of doing the simple things well, passing and controlling the ball.

 

Mourinho and Benitez have built careers, and indeed not an inconsiderable amount of success on a rigid style of play which demands keeping shape and discipline, limiting the opposition to a minimum number of attacking options but they have/had highly-paid footballers who are technically capable of passing and holding.

 

The problem with this over-emphasis on shape and tactics is that it stifles individual creativity and expression. We all know about the split between Pogba and Mourinho but what's been coming out in the aftermath from Man U diehards is that the football under Jose was just rank rotten to watch, despite them winning the Europa League and getting into the Champions League, where they've been fortunate enough last week to still be in it. Man U and Celtic are clubs who consider themselves to have an attacking flair style of play and the backlash against Rodgers also includes criticism from some long-standing Celtic fans (who unlike the majority of them are intelligent observers of the game) that despite the continuous stream of trophies (a perfect 7/7 and the SPFL being almost certain in May), the football under Rodgers wasn't great to watch week in week out.

 

This doesn't apply to AFC of course as we don't have highly paid footballers who are technically capable of doing the basics consistently well. When 7/1 underdogs going to the champions as we were on Saturday, of course the manager needs to insist on sitting in, maintaining shape and discipline in defence and hope to grab something on the break. The fact that the home team had two thirds of the possession on Saturday was unfortunately highly predictable because they have superior footballers than us and therefore the "tactics" deployed by McInnes were forced upon him. He has never once in his career gone to that stadium and tried a high-pressing attacking game and given the disparity, who can blame him?

 

The problem is the disparity in player quality and player mentality. Where jute rightly refers to the past, famously illustrated in that example from SAF's first days at AFC when Dom Sullivan and others felt like doing cartwheels on gaining a draw in Glasgow, the winning mindset manager ALWAYS wants to win and wants his players to want to win. I would go further and say that our fans should want to win every game too but as we all know, we have aspirations-disparity within our ranks too.

 

We defended brilliantly on Saturday and that's all. Much of that was down to a poor day at the office by the home team, who were surprisingly inept in unpicking our locks but let's not start doing cartwheels here. We are 16 points behind with a further 27 up for grabs. It's not working.

 

The problem is the disparity in player quality and player mentality. Where jute rightly refers to the past, famously illustrated in that example from SAF's first days at AFC when Dom Sullivan and others felt like doing cartwheels on gaining a draw in Glasgow, the winning mindset manager ALWAYS wants to win and wants his players to want to win. I would go further and say that our fans should want to win every game too but as we all know, we have aspirations-disparity within our ranks too.

 

We defended brilliantly on Saturday and that's all. Much of that was down to a poor day at the office by the home team, who were surprisingly inept in unpicking our locks but let's not start doing cartwheels here. We are 16 points behind with a further 27 up for grabs. It's not working.

 

Your winning mindset thing is great in theory Rocket but surely over the course of a season resources are a much greater consideration.  McInnes is up against two teams in the league who spend millions on transfer fees and wages every season and with the disparity in finances he does pretty well to compete. 

 

All across Europe the teams with the most money are the ones competing for the league titles, you can see that by the Champions League where it is the same teams year after year that are in it.  It doesn't mean the rest of the teams don't want to win their respective leagues but a bit of realism has to kick in somewhere.  We are not competing in the 1980s any longer.  The disparity between the top clubs and the rest is massive.

 

A winning mindset can sometimes only take you so far.  Eventually you might just end up coming up against someone who is better than you. 

 

Does Andy Murray not have a winning mindset because he lost eight grand slam finals and if not, how do you explain the three that he won?  Was that just because his opponents had an off day?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly, using 30-40 year old data as a comparison for today, when there's a whole rake of more pertinent data - worldwide - from the last 20 years is pointless. Saying "I can remember when going to either of the arse cheeks and playing for a draw was frowned upon" surely doesn't refer to anything in the 21st century (and at least back as far as 1995)? So why say it? Why are we judging McInnes against a different era? You could argue that it's Milne's fault, and I think there is a lot in that, but you can't then take McInnes out of the Milne era and hold him to a standard based on a previous generation and owner.

It is absolutely no surprise to me that the two biggest apologists on this forum for McInnes take exception to my words. You don't want to believe that McInnes is a shite manager. It would make you question why you spend so much time, money and energy supporting AFC. You don't even understand what Jute and I are saying.

 

It's actually a very good example you raised about Murray. He did well because he DOES HAVE the right mentality to succeed in sport. He got the max out of himself where he was clearly fourth best in his generation in terms of actual talent. That however is an individual sport and an endurance sport, a totally different kettle of fish to football.

 

Most people lose. Only a few win. I don't expect the majority to understand but the simple truth is that McInnes is NOT a winner, he has never been a winner and he will never become a winner. Unlike Andy Murray or Sir Alex Ferguson or even amateur and Highland league footballers I played with (who you've never heard of and who never made money at the game), McInnes isn't made of the right stuff. His ONLY priority is to get a wage and build a career. He can't inspire winners because he's not one himself. This is why we have numerous examples over the years of players performances going backwards at AFC under him. He tolerates mediocrity because loyalty and not upsetting the apple cart - his apple cart, the one where he doesn't get exposed - is his sole aim.

1. Your winning mindset thing is great in theory...

 

2. A winning mindset can sometimes only take you so far...

 

1. It isn't a "theory". There are commonalities between EVERY successful individual or organisation, plus many variances too of course.

 

2. Yes, like Andy Murray and his obvious limitations but without a winning mentality, it's NEVER gong to happen.

Exactly, using 30-40 year old data as a comparison for today, when there's a whole rake of more pertinent data - worldwide - from the last 20 years is pointless. Saying "I can remember when going to either of the arse cheeks and playing for a draw was frowned upon" surely doesn't refer to anything in the 21st century (and at least back as far as 1995)? So why say it? Why are we judging McInnes against a different era? You could argue that it's Milne's fault, and I think there is a lot in that, but you can't then take McInnes out of the Milne era and hold him to a standard based on a previous generation and owner.

 

I was not commenting on McInnes as a manager just the way we played and how 0-0 was cheered like a victory by some of our support. I dislike going to games where the team I support is playing to keep the score down. I cannot see the point in not trying to go at them on the front foot.

 

Worst part about Saturday is that Celtic were not even that good and if we had pressed them higher up the field I think we would have had a better chance of winning the game.

 

Kirakov I would say Rocket is right when he says Murray has won what he has because he has a winners mentality not because he took a safety first approach.

Kirakov I would say Rocket is right when he says Murray has won what he has because he has a winners mentality not because he took a safety first approach.

 

There is a great book called Overachievment (or Overachieving) by "Doc" Eliot, grandson of T S Eliot. Doc was sports psychology or something at Rice University Texas at the start of this century and his book is a brilliant synopsis of the mind in sport, based on heavy and detailed research as it was.

 

It takes imagination (and a winner mindset) to recognise his subject matter and therefore the vast majority won't understand. His is one of thousands of texts written on the subject of course, mostly invisible to most.

 

It is absolutely no surprise to me that the two biggest apologists on this forum for McInnes take exception to my words. You don't want to believe that McInnes is a shite manager. It would make you question why you spend so much time, money and energy supporting AFC. You don't even understand what Jute and I are saying.

 

I understand entirely what you're saying, I just don't believe that you have the evidence or knowledge of McInnes to back it up - or you certainly haven't produced any. Instead, I concentrate on the things that we can know based on watching the team on the pitch when I regularly criticise McInnes. I regularly criticise his record in the transfer market, I regularly criticise his failure to provide a clear path for our youth players to their detriment and I regularly criticise his ability to change games through timely substitutions. All of which I can quantify based on what I see on the park. I can speculate on whether he's a loser or a winner, but it would be just that (throughout his career he's been identified as a winner - possibly by losers, I don't know - and he clearly believes himself that he is a winner). I also don't believe that being a winner would be enough to overcome the existing gap in ability between our players and the tims' players - I think it would need more than that.

Kirakov I would say Rocket is right when he says Murray has won what he has because he has a winners mentality not because he took a safety first approach.

 

Murray is a good example. For years he played safe by getting his first serves in, rather than getting them in and making them winners. He generally played to his strengths of returning the ball over playing winners. That quantifiable change (playing for winners and stronger first serves), as well as his overall fitness, made a big difference in the year he became world number one. Having Lendl (a winner) as his coach relentlessly pursuing these changes with him took him over the edge to top spot. The difference for me was that he was very close to the other 3 in terms of ability. I don't think Aberdeen, this season, are anywhere near it (the Tims) - I think we're significantly weaker than we were two seasons ago.

 

I cannot see the point in not trying to go at them on the front foot.

 

Worst part about Saturday is that Celtic were not even that good

 

As I mentioned earlier, we had a weakness in the right side of our defence which meant that a quick ball over the top of a high line would be very simple to exploit. Tactics don't exist in a vacuum, they're deployed against an opposition who also have a huge desire to win, who will spot those weaknesses very quickly. In a straight head-to-head of who can score most goals I think they'd win every day of the week. Basically, I think that by playing on the front foot (a high press or whatever) we'd increase our likelihood of losing a goal(s) by more than we would increase our likelihood of scoring a goal. I also think that Celtic were not that good because we weakened them by playing to our strengths. Had we pushed them high up and lost a goal in the process, I think we'd have seen a more relaxed and ruthless Tim. I accept that you have more insight into the game though as I wasn't there so you'll know much better in that regard. All I'm saying is that I can see the point in the tactical choice, and that it is just a tactical choice.

 

how 0-0 was cheered like a victory by some of our support

 

Aye, that's wanky as fuck like. I wasn't aware of that.

I understand entirely what you're saying, I just don't believe that you have the evidence or knowledge of McInnes to back it up - or you certainly haven't produced any.

 

No you do not understand what I'm saying, let alone "understand entirely".

 

If you did, you wouldn't ask for "evidence" because you would know that aspects of personality doesn't belong in a science or an empirical data set where "proof" can be delivered in the same way.

 

Either you recognise what the man is, his agenda, his aspirations, his honesty, his potential or you don't.

 

Either you have experience of managing men successfully, or managing them unsuccessfully and then learning from that and managing successfully thereafter, or you haven't.

 

Either you have studied aspects of the mind in high performance in management and/or sport, or you haven't. 

 

We can however look at the results, the effects of the personality, as indeed we should. In EVERY year of his tenure, I see the same bullshitting small man failing to get anywhere close to winning the league and bottle collapsing every big game. You don't want to believe that I may be right and between you and kitns, you make excuses that don't stack up.

No you do not understand what I'm saying, let alone "understand entirely".

 

If you did, you wouldn't ask for "evidence" because you would know that aspects of personality doesn't belong in a science or an empirical data set where "proof" can be delivered in the same way.

 

Either you recognise what the man is, his agenda, his aspirations, his honesty, his potential or you don't.

 

Either you have experience of managing men successfully, or managing them unsuccessfully and then learning from that and managing successfully thereafter, or you haven't.

 

Either you have studied aspects of the mind in high performance in management and/or sport, or you haven't. 

 

We can however look at the results, the effects of the personality, as indeed we should. In EVERY year of his tenure, I see the same bullshitting small man failing to get anywhere close to winning the league and bottle collapsing every big game. You don't want to believe that I may be right and between you and kitns, you make excuses that don't stack up.

 

I understand entirely what you're saying. I also know that you need more than placating interviews on the TV to judge a man's personality. I'm also not arguing that McInnes is a winner, I'm arguing that you or I are not best placed to know (or that you haven't evidenced your additional knowledge that allows you to make the decision). Anyone suggesting they have a real insight into a man's character based on his interviews is a snake oil salesman. I appreciate that you probably have more information than that, but you haven't been forthcoming with it.

 

I've provided you with reasons for us not winning the league - far more plausible than just being a winner - you just choose to ignore them. I've been very critical of McInnes on this forum because of them. Where you see bottle collapsing, I see a significantly better and more clinical side beating us because we didn't do everything 100% correctly on the day (most of the time I blame McInnes) to ensure that we win. I also recognise that we've won a shite load of big games under McInnes where we've gone in thinking that we'd lose; they just don't happen to have been against the Tims (because a big game isn't just playing the Tims, there have been plenty of unexpected league and cup victories). Finally, I do recognise that McInnes' tactical approach against the Tims has been too negative and have mentioned, and criticised him for, it on hunners of occasions. I only comment on his tactical side because I don't have any visibility of what he's like behind the scenes. Anecdotally, I've heard that he may actually be quite good in instilling belief in his players at times, but I wouldn't take what a person says to the press as evidence of what happens behind the scenes at a fitba club.

If Derek McInnes got the Celtic managers job this summer, he’d win the league next season. Absolutely guaranteed.

 

That’s got fuck all to do with winners mentality, and everything to do with resources.