Missed the Tims game due to travel, but doesn’t look or sound like I missed anything. 

they weren’t flash against hibs, but obviously turned up for the second. 

hopefully be able to catch this game now and would have gotten over the jet lag. Sounds like we may have the cure for any sleeping issues. I see we’ve sold a decent number for the game.

out

probably something christmassy 

home

home

1-1, miovski 

Goodwin absolutely got the tactics wrong in the last 15mins.

he took players off on mass that had given us an outlet to get the ball up the field. Once that was gone, we just invited rangers on to us. They kept coming, we kept giving them the ball back because Goodwin had made the wrong choices with both his subs and his use of them. As a result of that the team couldn’t deal with the pressure and the relentless onslaught of rangers and we got beaten. It’s that simple. Forget the fact it was in the last few minutes. It was a matter of time and could easily have happened in the 85 and 87 minute. 
He chose to put Morris on, not besuijen, a lad that he knew wouldn’t have the footballing intelligence to run the ball into the corner and keep it, instead of giving rangers the ball back. 
The team defended well for 20 mins. But there was no one to carry us up the field. Roos made some good saves, stewart cleared a lot of balls and others harried and chased but, it was all in our final third, and a matter of time before they broke through. Once the second went in, I could see the 3rd coming. 
When a team can’t get the ball up up the park and keep it in the oppositions half for periods to help stem the bleeding, there’s only ever going to be one outcome, and if that’s not the fault of Goodwin for his terrible plan and lack of foresight, then I don’t know what is. The one person he brought on that could have helped us was Hayes as he has an engine, can carry the ball and knows game management but instead Goodwin deployed him sitting deep and just exasperated the situation. 
That loss lies firmly at the door of Goodwin. No one else.

I have never been so dejected, leaving Pittodrie as I was on Tuesday night. 

2 hours ago, wokinginashearerwonderland said:

We were 2-1 up in the 94th minute so on that basis, he got it absolutely spot on, yes. Any team 2-1 down in injury time fighting for the league is going to put you under a bit of pressure in the last couple of minutes but fuck me, I could have stuck 11 traffic cones on the pitch instead of our players and Rangers would have struggled to score TWO goals inside three minutes. Our players bottled it, nothing to do with tactics. Was it bad tactics to cover Roos’ gloves with butter or something?

If we had played well for 90 minutes and just let it slip in time added on, I'd agree with you, but that wasn't the case.

People forget we could, and probably should, have been 2-0 down after 15 minutes.

We've basically sucker punched them with goals either side of half-time. Our only two shots on target the whole game.

We gave them the ball after that and invited them to attack us for the last half an hour, a carbon copy of our tactics v Celtic. Connor Goldson, countless times, was allowed the stroll from his own half into the final third unchallenged.

We had just over 30% possession in a home game, not much more than the 19% against Celtic.

The players aren't blameless, but Goodwin absolutely did not "get his tactics spot on". 

1 hour ago, sheepheid said:

Goodwin absolutely got the tactics wrong in the last 15mins.

he took players off on mass that had given us an outlet to get the ball up the field. Once that was gone, we just invited rangers on to us. They kept coming, we kept giving them the ball back because Goodwin had made the wrong choices with both his subs and his use of them. As a result of that the team couldn’t deal with the pressure and the relentless onslaught of rangers and we got beaten. It’s that simple. Forget the fact it was in the last few minutes. It was a matter of time and could easily have happened in the 85 and 87 minute. 
He chose to put Morris on, not besuijen, a lad that he knew wouldn’t have the footballing intelligence to run the ball into the corner and keep it, instead of giving rangers the ball back. 
The team defended well for 20 mins. But there was no one to carry us up the field. Roos made some good saves, stewart cleared a lot of balls and others harried and chased but, it was all in our final third, and a matter of time before they broke through. Once the second went in, I could see the 3rd coming. 
When a team can’t get the ball up up the park and keep it in the oppositions half for periods to help stem the bleeding, there’s only ever going to be one outcome, and if that’s not the fault of Goodwin for his terrible plan and lack of foresight, then I don’t know what is. The one person he brought on that could have helped us was Hayes as he has an engine, can carry the ball and knows game management but instead Goodwin deployed him sitting deep and just exasperated the situation. 
That loss lies firmly at the door of Goodwin. No one else.

I have never been so dejected, leaving Pittodrie as I was on Tuesday night. 

Perfectly summed up. We moved from a 3-5-2 to a 5-4-1. That's such a difficult transition to make successfully during a game. The setup against the Tims worked for so long because it was for the entire 90 minutes. We needed to make changes, Clarkson was injured and Miovski was a luxury we couldn't afford, and we needed to respond to the four subs they had made and the fact they were throwing players forward - it's too simplistic to say that we should have just kept attacking because that's our best attribute, as if the opposition don't exist or have any say in that. I hate the new subs rules to be honest, a triple sub has gone from being an absolutely ludicrous thing to do, to a manager feeling like they need to make changes because they've got them available. It genuinely looked like Goodwin had seen the quadruple sub they made and thought he'd better do something similar, rather than a thought through process. I had just finished saying to my mate that these triple+ substitutes are a sign of a clueless manager unsure of what to do next when Goodwin decided that what should have been minor tinkering of personnel was going to be a complete overhaul and change of strategy. The changes were extreme. 

We might not have held on for victory had we kept with a similar strategy but with different personnel, but there's a strong chance we wouldn't have lost. He's got a difficult job to do, with serious personnel issues in key areas, I'm not sure why he has to make it so much harder for himself.

1 hour ago, Panda said:

If we had played well for 90 minutes and just let it slip in time added on, I'd agree with you, but that wasn't the case.

People forget we could, and probably should, have been 2-0 down after 15 minutes.

We've basically sucker punched them with goals either side of half-time. Our only two shots on target the whole game.

We gave them the ball after that and invited them to attack us for the last half an hour, a carbon copy of our tactics v Celtic. Connor Goldson, countless times, was allowed the stroll from his own half into the final third unchallenged.

We had just over 30% possession in a home game, not much more than the 19% against Celtic.

The players aren't blameless, but Goodwin absolutely did not "get his tactics spot on". 

I don't agree. We went toe to toe with a good side for large parts of the game. They're a better side than us, with some very good players and you have to ride your luck a little to beat them. After we scored the first, we came out with intent in the second and looked the better team up until they made their changes. There are only a few ways to get results against a better side and it looked like we had found a way to play to our strengths without giving too much away in defence. Miovski and Duk were putting in the work and our midfield was coping from the point we scored. Moreover, there was a bit of confidence about us. It's not like we should be expecting to dominate them, there needs to be a realism that if we win there will be bodies on the line and a degree of holding on. They're not where they were under the Portuguese weirdo and we're not where we were under McInnes at that time. Goodwin got the balance right for the majority of the game and we did the best our (and their) personnel allow for. It'd be interesting to see possession stats up until the subs. I'm guessing it would have been around 60-40, which is not unreasonable.

3 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

Goodwin got the balance right for the majority of the game and we did the best our (and their) personnel allow for.

I also thought we played better than the two shots on target/possession statistics would suggest but I'd say across the last two games Goodwin probably got the balance right for about 45 minutes out of the 180+. The balance was almost absurdly wrong against Celtic and clearly wrong at the end of the Rangers game. You could throw in the 4-1 game at Ibrox before that which was shockingly bad. By the law of averages you're bound to get it right at some point I guess.

I'd also accept the analysis would be completely different if Roos had just held on to a pretty middling shot but I judge Goodwin on his decision-making overall and there are just far too many red flags now for me to think he's actually a good manager. We look very much like a squad with some half decent players and a mediocre to poor manager that's holding everyone back rather than making them better.

I actually think his limitations as a manager are making our squad look worse than it is. We have holes in the squad, which is why we're playing Richardson every week, but players like Miovski, Duk, Ramadani, Barron, McCrorie, Scales, Besuijen, Ramirez, etc. have at least some talent/pedigree that's above what most of the teams around us have. We're not getting the best out of them as a collective, all we're seeing is flashes of it in moments of individual brilliance from Duk or someone else.

This is what happens with genuinely bad managers, they drag everyone down around them and you start thinking the quality of the squad is much lower than it is in reality. Good managers do the opposite and get the best out of what they have. So far Goodwin has shown little ability to do that, even if you put to one side the frankly amateurish looking alpha male stuff/obsession with culling everyone associated with the former manager.

2 hours ago, sancho_panza said:

I also thought we played better than the two shots on target/possession statistics would suggest but I'd say across the last two games Goodwin probably got the balance right for about 45 minutes out of the 180+. The balance was almost absurdly wrong against Celtic and clearly wrong at the end of the Rangers game. You could throw in the 4-1 game at Ibrox before that which was shockingly bad. By the law of averages you're bound to get it right at some point I guess.

I'd also accept the analysis would be completely different if Roos had just held on to a pretty middling shot but I judge Goodwin on his decision-making overall and there are just far too many red flags now for me to think he's actually a good manager. We look very much like a squad with some half decent players and a mediocre to poor manager that's holding everyone back rather than making them better.

I actually think his limitations as a manager are making our squad look worse than it is. We have holes in the squad, which is why we're playing Richardson every week, but players like Miovski, Duk, Ramadani, Barron, McCrorie, Scales, Besuijen, Ramirez, etc. have at least some talent/pedigree that's above what most of the teams around us have. We're not getting the best out of them as a collective, all we're seeing is flashes of it in moments of individual brilliance from Duk or someone else.

This is what happens with genuinely bad managers, they drag everyone down around them and you start thinking the quality of the squad is much lower than it is in reality. Good managers do the opposite and get the best out of what they have. So far Goodwin has shown little ability to do that, even if you put to one side the frankly amateurish looking alpha male stuff/obsession with culling everyone associated with the former manager.

The culling was required. Considine aside - and only because he was a known quantity - I wouldn't have kept any of them. Ramirez is the only one I think is being treated unfairly, and the fact he went home early last season suggests that there's more to it. 

I don't recognise the other parts of your post either, beyond the tactical stuff which I agree with (although the tactics didn't change against the Hun until the subs, just the application). The reality for me is that we have half decent players that are about the level required. Ramadani isn't better than baningime at hearts or baccus at st mirren for example. Each of the names you mentioned has some obvious talent, but some fairly obvious deficiencies which is why they're in our team. McRorie is being held back by his own lack of ability, Ramadani is very one dimensional, the others are decent, but not good enough to drag others like Richardson and Stewart through games against good opponents (they have dragged them through games against poorer opposition). They're playing to the level I'd expect. The problem with not having a carried forward balance of players is that there are no options when we're struggling. The alternative would have been to sign another 3-4 players, but it was always more sensible to wait until January to get a better idea of what the new signings brought. Goodwin is undoubtedly being forced into playing systems he doesn't want to because of personnel. Stewart requires a back three, Richardson too. Barron and Clarkson wanting to do similar roles, Ramadani wanting to sit on the defence too much and the front pairing both being good goalscorers but not great at tracking back. McInnes would have seen out the game against the Hun by bringing on an Anthony O'Connor or Dom Ball type to sit in front and do the agricultural work. We don't even have one of those. We certainly haven't got close to replacing Ferguson.

Anyway, it's the fucking dead queen's fault for dying during the season. Couldn't have waited until England got papped out of the world cup?

6 hours ago, sancho_panza said:

I also thought we played better than the two shots on target/possession statistics would suggest but I'd say across the last two games Goodwin probably got the balance right for about 45 minutes out of the 180+. The balance was almost absurdly wrong against Celtic and clearly wrong at the end of the Rangers game. You could throw in the 4-1 game at Ibrox before that which was shockingly bad. By the law of averages you're bound to get it right at some point I guess.

I'd also accept the analysis would be completely different if Roos had just held on to a pretty middling shot but I judge Goodwin on his decision-making overall and there are just far too many red flags now for me to think he's actually a good manager. We look very much like a squad with some half decent players and a mediocre to poor manager that's holding everyone back rather than making them better.

I actually think his limitations as a manager are making our squad look worse than it is. We have holes in the squad, which is why we're playing Richardson every week, but players like Miovski, Duk, Ramadani, Barron, McCrorie, Scales, Besuijen, Ramirez, etc. have at least some talent/pedigree that's above what most of the teams around us have. We're not getting the best out of them as a collective, all we're seeing is flashes of it in moments of individual brilliance from Duk or someone else.

This is what happens with genuinely bad managers, they drag everyone down around them and you start thinking the quality of the squad is much lower than it is in reality. Good managers do the opposite and get the best out of what they have. So far Goodwin has shown little ability to do that, even if you put to one side the frankly amateurish looking alpha male stuff/obsession with culling everyone associated with the former manager.

I agree with some of what you are saying, but I wouldn’t call Goodwin a bad manager. He’s average from what see so far, did reasonably well at alloa and st mirren given their limitations, but the demands at Aberdeen are obviously higher. I think mcinnes lucked out joining us with a lot of good work done prior to his arrival, mainly having Anderson, flood, Rooney, mcginn, Hayes, Logan and jack to build around. Goodwin is starting from scratch and a number of folks here said law of averages suggests we’ll sign players who hit and a number who miss. I think we have miovski, duk, Barron, ramadani, mccrorie, Hayes, scales, clarkson, and Ramirez. The rest of our squad are young, average, or below average, but we still have a squad that are very capable of third. If we don’t get third it’s a failed season. He really needs 3-4 windows to build a squad, but this past week has certainly turned a lot off Goodwin and I don’t know if he will get that time. Tactically he had a bad week and that certainly creates concern and do you allow him to build a squad…even though I don’t actually know who ultimately signs players. We paid money for Richardson and Morris, decent money at that. Worrying.

For some reason my wife gets notifications on here phone with the Aberdeen scores. When we got beat by Celtic she said to me that we must have played well as they only scored one goal... When she got the Hun game score she said to me it was good that we scored a few goals... Anyway, the divorce papers should be through soon.