A huge game now. Never mind Hearts, we are five points behind a now on-form Hibs, four behind St Mirren, and currently three behind sixth-placed Livingston who have a game in hand (against bottom of the table Dundee United). Losing to them is simply not an option.

I would go four at the back. People talking about Scales as if he was a miss v Celtic but not sure he was. 

McCrorie at right-back, Mackenzie at left-back. 

If we are sticking with three at the back, then I'd actually keep Mackenzie in there and play Coulson and McCrorie ahead of Hayes and Kennedy.

Robson has been trying to play Clarkson deep with Shinnie and Ramadani doing the dog work. Problem is, Ramadani needs dropped but there's a lack of similar players to replace him if you want to stick with that tactic. Barron isn't that type of player (possibly injured anyway on account he wasn't in yesterday's squad). 

Myslovic, are we playing him or is he another Polvara? He's an inverted winger. You could try him with Coulson on the other side in a midfield role. There's also Roberts and Markanday. 

This game will tell us more than the Celtic game if Robson has it in him to be Dons boss. It might also be his last if it doesn't go well.

I’d argue some of our problems come from going 3 at the back. We’re a poor side, keep it simple with what our players are most familiar and that’s a back 4. Assuming mccrorie is back, he’s right back. I’d play scales at left back. 

I have no clue what to do with duk. He scores goals but I still think him and miovski together is square peg round hole. With a back 4 I’d try duk right wing, coulson left wing. I don’t see clarkson as a holding deep mid, that’s ramadani. Clarkson just behind miovski. Shinnie being shinnie.

2-1 us, in hope. Joe Lewisx2.

1 hour ago, OrlandoDon said:

I’d argue some of our problems come from going 3 at the back. We’re a poor side, keep it simple with what our players are most familiar and that’s a back 4. Assuming mccrorie is back, he’s right back. I’d play scales at left back. 

I have no clue what to do with duk. He scores goals but I still think him and miovski together is square peg round hole. With a back 4 I’d try duk right wing, coulson left wing. I don’t see clarkson as a holding deep mid, that’s ramadani. Clarkson just behind miovski. Shinnie being shinnie.

2-1 us, in hope. Joe Lewisx2.

I can't see us signing Markanday, Myslovic and hailing the return of Roberts - all right sided players - and then playing Duk right wing.

Also can't see Robson telling the media he sees Clarkson as a no.6 then playing him off the striker.

Wouldn't be against trying Scales at left-back though with Coulson ahead of him. 

4 hours ago, OrlandoDon said:

I’d argue some of our problems come from going 3 at the back. We’re a poor side, keep it simple with what our players are most familiar and that’s a back 4. Assuming mccrorie is back, he’s right back. I’d play scales at left back. 

I have no clue what to do with duk. He scores goals but I still think him and miovski together is square peg round hole. With a back 4 I’d try duk right wing, coulson left wing. I don’t see clarkson as a holding deep mid, that’s ramadani. Clarkson just behind miovski. Shinnie being shinnie.

2-1 us, in hope. Joe Lewisx2.

Are most of our players more familiar with a back four? Shinnie is, the rest I've no idea about. I could cope with Scales left back if so. I don't imagine Pollock or MacDonald will be dropped (although I didn't see the Tims game), and that doesn't leave many options if he wants to fit Scales back in. 

Since theres currently the absence of an obvious managerial candidate,Robson meantime sounds like he genuinely understands what the current squad problems are going by his interviews.Its the giving him room to solve them,and make the odd mistake,while calling games 'must win'. All of Goodwins last games were labelled must win,doesnt seem to help

  Dont like Jonny at left back,too clumsy for me,still think he has a use further forward at times.If its a 3,happy with Scales left,and Coulsion ahead.

In - Mainer

Pre/Post - Driving

Prediction - Both sides a bit unpredictable. 2 - 2 Duk,Clarkson

Think we have to go back to 4 with Scales at left back and McCrorie at right back. I would play Coulson on left side ahead of Hayes. The more I see Ramandani the more I am convinced he is not good enough for our level. I would be tempted to go with Shinnie Barron and Clarkson in the middle. Kennedy on the right and Miovski up front. This is a must win game as we need to start closing the gap on clubs above us and get into top six. 
 

In

train then pub

Y

pub then train back to capital

2-1 Miovski and Clarkson

19 hours ago, Panda said:

This game will tell us more than the Celtic game if Robson has it in him to be Dons boss. It might also be his last if it doesn't go well.

Hopefully it doesn't end his time at Aberdeen. He's not ready to be our manager full time. But get him back in charge of the development team where he belongs 

15 hours ago, Reekie_Red said:

Hopefully it doesn't end his time at Aberdeen. He's not ready to be our manager full time. But get him back in charge of the development team where he belongs 

I tend to think if Robson doesn't get the job, then he'll at least be part of the management team.

The last two managers have inflicted Lee Sharp and Alan Russell on us. These managers can't be trusted to pick their own number two. Let Dave C do it.

8 hours ago, Panda said:

I tend to think if Robson doesn't get the job, then he'll at least be part of the management team.

The last two managers have inflicted Lee Sharp and Alan Russell on us. These managers can't be trusted to pick their own number two. Let Dave C do it.

Probably had just as many managers who've come in and worked well with their number 2.

Could potentially put off a great candidate if he can't bring in his own team, but equally I guess if we go foreign this time then Robson somewhere in the setup will be as good as anyone in terms of having a decent knowledge of the requirements of the Scottish game and so on.

Can’t see this being a good one, but as others have said, interesting to see what Robson is made of. Certainly be a good test. Not his players (granted) but they very rarely are until after a few seasons. all he needs to do is steady the ship and it’d be nice for him to be manager of us one day. Presume we won’t be playing 3-5-2 again?

Gorter

Richardson Pollock Scales MacKenzie

Clarkson

McCrorie Shinnie

Roberts Miovski Duk

Although, is McCrorie still suspended?

48 minutes ago, baggy89 said:

Gorter

Richardson Pollock Scales MacKenzie

Clarkson

McCrorie Shinnie

Roberts Miovski Duk

Although, is McCrorie still suspended?

No McCrorie's second game was against the Victims.

Very much doubt we'll drop Ramadani, even though there is a very strong argument to say that it is time.

Roberts shown enough to merit a start ?

1 hour ago, baggy89 said:

Although, is McCrorie still suspended?

No, but is Scales?

2 hours ago, manc_don said:

Presume we won’t be playing 3-5-2 again?

I didn't see the Celtic game, but what would be the reasoning behind changing from that? Worked reasonably well at home in the last game, and got round the issue of having no good fullbacks. Switching Coulson in for Hayes would be beneficial, and that leaves Kennedy as the weak link, who could be swapped with a lamppost or McRorie (if McKenzie was okay at left centre back). Three at the back wouldn't be my preference all things considered, but our personnel limitations, the insistence on playing two strikers and Robson's preference for Clarkson as a number six would suggest it's our best setup. I think anything that results in Duk out wide is a disaster.

23 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

No, but is Scales?

Missed the game against Helen but played against Motherwell so assume he was banned for one game and therefore available for Saturday's match.

 

10 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

I didn't see the Celtic game, but what would be the reasoning behind changing from that? Worked reasonably well at home in the last game, and got round the issue of having no good fullbacks.

By playing wing backs you then don't use your wingers (or you do and have very little in the centre of midfield), and we should really be thinking about trying to get one of Roberts and Markanday into the starting XI. Also Myslovic has barely featured either.

 

In fairness to Robson he's not been able to play the same defence twice in a row once since he came in. As such given Mcrorie and scales are available it is quite difficult to predict how we will set up.  

 

Tough game against a tough opponent but at least we are at home 

Scales still suspended I think according to Robson's interpretation of the rules?

  Looking forward to the game,as much out of curiosity re improvement and post humping response wise

Edited February 23, 20233 yr by Elgindon

1 hour ago, Panda said:

By playing wing backs you then don't use your wingers (or you do and have very little in the centre of midfield), and we should really be thinking about trying to get one of Roberts and Markanday into the starting XI. Also Myslovic has barely featured either.

Sorry, I shouldn't have asked what the reasoning would be, I do know the advantages and disadvantages! I meant was there anything in particular that happened during the Tim game that made the three, which worked against Motherwell, redundant? In relation to us, specifically. Of the three you mention, none would feature in moving to a four. Duk would almost certainly be given a wide spot in a 4-2-3-1, and a 4-4-2 would likely see us overrun in midfield. Personally, I'd like to see us drop one of the forwards and play a 4-2-3-1, but I think that leads nowhere if Duk is shoehorned in out wide.

4 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

Sorry, I shouldn't have asked what the reasoning would be, I do know the advantages and disadvantages! I meant was there anything in particular that happened during the Tim game that made the three, which worked against Motherwell, redundant? In relation to us, specifically. Of the three you mention, none would feature in moving to a four. Duk would almost certainly be given a wide spot in a 4-2-3-1, and a 4-4-2 would likely see us overrun in midfield. Personally, I'd like to see us drop one of the forwards and play a 4-2-3-1, but I think that leads nowhere if Duk is shoehorned in out wide.

Guess with scales out, do we have the players for it? Just worried, yes, it worked against a truly shite Motherwell side, but livi are by far, better than them. Was also raising the question to start some more chat on the thread 😂

Could have a back 4 of McCrorie, McDonald, Pollock and McKenzie. If we played Duncan or Coulson in front McKenzie it would hopefully mitigate McKenzie not being the best at going forward while him being a reasonably competent defender would make up for defensive weakness of Coulson’s game especially. 

2 hours ago, Jute said:

Could have a back 4 of McCrorie, McDonald, Pollock and McKenzie. If we played Duncan or Coulson in front McKenzie it would hopefully mitigate McKenzie not being the best at going forward while him being a reasonably competent defender would make up for defensive weakness of Coulson’s game especially. 

It's not really the defence that's the issue though, it's what you do ahead of them. Who do we play and in what formation?

34 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

It's not really the defence that's the issue though, it's what you do ahead of them. Who do we play and in what formation?

Was meaning we could play that 4 at the back to allow us a 4-2-3-1 that you were talking about and not be as exposed defensively as we would be with Coulson or Hayes at left back. 

Clarkson slightly further forward than that, but aye that team would spank Livi.

Hope this Rodríguez fella is getting a stream of it. 

7 hours ago, Panda said:

Clarkson slightly further forward than that, but aye that team would spank Livi.

Hope this Rodríguez fella is getting a stream of it. 

Red pitch??

Have 'powerleague' taken over groundsman duties?

7 hours ago, Panda said:

Clarkson slightly further forward than that, but aye that team would spank Livi.

Hope this Rodríguez fella is getting a stream of it. 

That's not even a formation. It's bad enough that 4-4-2 is no longer the only formation, you don't have to go bringing in 4-1-2-2-1s (why didn't you play it safe with a 4-1-4-1?). For me, I'd just play Clarkson ahead of the two (I know Robson won't) and keep it simple in a 4-2-3-1. However, I guess the point was that it seemed on this thread that we were all fairly confident in a switch to a four occurring. Much as I like the idea, I just don't see him dropping one of Duk or Miovski (at home, specifically) to accommodate it. I was hoping someone would come up with a setup that included both, had a back four, and didn't include a compromise worse than Coulson at wing back! I just don't see a setup that is better than a 3-5-2 if we're playing the two guys up front. That's why I think Robson will stick with the three at the back.