RicoS321

That's just as shite as VAR itself and solves nothing. Clear and obvious isn't defined by a time limit (because it cannot be defined by boundary). The first time the VAR cunts missed an incident that one of the scum was adamant was clear and obvious, but they couldn't get the camera angles in time, they'd change your arbitrary 20 seconds to 30 seconds, and so on. They'd rush to make a decision like last night's handball and just say it was handball because it hit the player's hand, and it's much, much quicker to spot handball, or "contact" rather than attempt to determine whether a foul has actually been committed. To be honest, it's one of the most cringey versions of VAR anyone could possibly think of. Imagine us all, sitting on the edge of our seats after every goal, perhaps counting down the 20 seconds with big grins on our faces, awaiting the result of our newly manufactured excitement. The players might do a huddle, Sky will give us a quick word from the VAR sponsors. As for most VAR calls, last night I sat in my seat with any excitement draining by the second. I genuinely couldn't have given a fuck what the outcome of any of the calls was by the time they were made. I don't need, or want, a manufactured "second cheer" after hearing the decision. I instantly assumed Lazetic was offside - as did the player - and didn't celebrate his first. None of this is removed by the 20 second rule. VAR is shite. It will always be shite. It is shite by definition. It cannot operate on subjective calls, and there aren't enough offsides in the world that could make it worthwhile for that either. I wish people would stop suggesting "ways to make VAR better". It's a completely flawed concept, which everyone knew in advance.

It takes three minutes to read the rules and work out what the fuck they actually mean. Clear and obvious has no defining boundaries and can't ever be quantified, which is the single most important reason why VAR can never, and could never, work. There is no such thing as clear and obvious as a state. It doesn't exist. Unless you change the rules so that all contact= foul, all contact with hand = handball, all players offside are offside (regardless of whether interfering with play etc). The handball rule has been changed to fit the technology. There is no reason why the rest can't be changed too by the powers that be.

Agreed. The second goal, Devlin has offered the guy the whole goal to aim for, whilst at the same time being close enough to the player that Mitov can't come off his line to narrow the angle like he normally would. The player angles to put it in the far corner, and just wraps his foot round it a bit to fool the keeper. It's an easy save with only the near post to aim for. The second is just a case of throwing your body towards the ball and 9 out of 10 times it hits you. It was a very good header, right into the ground. It was his all round play that wasn't at it last night. He was struggling to hold onto it on the first attempt. I noticed their keeper was the same, but the conditions weren't particularly bad. I don't think it's a coincidence that we lose goals the way we attacked last night. Nisbet and Lazetic both gave the ball away trying to do too much around our box late on, and Karlsson generally isn't a reliable defender. I think it's a combination of the attacking setup and the tiredness of our players. Quite a few looked spent around 80 minutes, and that leads to raggedness. The sort of thing you might get away with if you'd chosen a stuffy, narrow approach to the game.

I mentioned earlier in the thread about how Karlsson would be on earlier than JT would normally make subs. It's unusual for us to make a sub before the hour mark. He almost always makes a double change at >=65 minutes (around the time he took on Lazetic). I said to my mate when Karlsson came on that it needed a double sub, because we were crying out for it. I hadn't considered the implications of the injury of course, but hopefully it's a lesson learned. The mistake was taking on Karlsson before Lazetic, and after half time. He has probably got to decide to do one or the other next time. The other subs were probably necessary. I'm not totally convinced we needed a double sub at the end, but it wouldn't have mattered with the three sub "windows".

That's what VAR does, and always has, done. It removes context via still shots and slow motion replay and asks the referee "can you see a foul here?". The reason that the ref is given a still shot is because the VAR lads will have deemed (correctly) that there was no foul on Knoester, and so the decision left to be made is whether or not it strikes his hand. Which is obviously ridiculous. The context of why his hand is in that position in the first place being completely omitted is unsurprising. It's fairly simple. The player wasn't being unsporting, wasn't trying to gain an advantage, had no reason to handle the ball, and didn't attempt to handle it. All of this can easily be determined in real time by the referee, and could easily be determined by the VAR lads too, but with context removed it becomes a "does ball hit hand" call, with a frantic discussion over how to interpret the rules that are only there in the first place because of VAR. The worst thing to happen to football, ever. Including Mark Hateley.

It's the wind! Agreed, we do get caught under the ball a lot. Rubi was really bad for it in the early Thelin period, but Milne has more than his fair share. It is his job to be the aggressive one, so I suppose he is going to make more errors in the air (because he headers it more). I don't think it's down to tactics or anything, just consistent individual errors. Knoester usually lets it bounce, Milne misses it, and Devlin doesn't get distance on them. It's why we need three defenders and not two.

Aye, I think he lost his bearings having not expected Milne to make a cunt of it. Should have been right across and forced the guy wide. Not like him. I also think Mitov wasn't as bad at the third as suggested. It's a really good header down at his feet, as he's running across goal. One of those ones that if he had saved it they'd have said "he didn't know much about it" as they generally just hit you. He was honking for the disallowed goal of course.

It's all these foreigner throw-ins these days, where they bend forward and throw it downwards to the player's feet. Perfectly legal, but it looks suspicious. Their throw leading up to the disallowed goal was ridiculous.

Forgot to mention, Karlsson's bit of skill to pass to Nisbet was world class. He played well when he came on, should be a sub more often.

I think that's been cancelled in modern fitba. They're supposed to be able to take it down, pirouette and play a sixty yard pass to feet. I was a distance from it, but I didn't think he had the chance to deal with it before the bounce, but would need to see it again.

Aye, just home, good game. Very entertaining. A few costly mistakes from all over the park, and off it with the subs. Some really good performances, with Aouchiche probably the only one really off it tonight. Our legs had thoroughly gone by the end, and it showed. Polvara looked knackered, as did the three defenders. I can understand the five subs because of that, but I think Keskinen could have managed to see the game out, with Armstrong looking a little knackered so understandably taken off. A bit unlucky for Thelin I guess, you probably don't expect your sub to go off. VAR does nothing for football. It's making calls that don't matter, and taking fucking ages to do so. It needs to be binned. It's not the operators, as has been seen in Europe, it's anti-sport shite in every single country.

I wonder if we'll see Karlsson on much quicker than our subs have been being made of late? I'm surprised (and pleased) he's not starting, but wouldn't be surprised to see him on at halftime, despite other players not being afforded that in recent games.

Shelter from the Storm is a tune.

I guess it's how this system might evolve then. How does it move from cagey, luck-riding, low chance creating, 1-0 wins, to something exciting? Or more exciting, at least. McInnes played a 3-4-3 for a bit, with Watkins, Hedges and some other cunt leading the line, and it was the most entertaining he had been for a few years. It's often a setup that trades excitement for pragmatism though, which isn't the club's strategy, so one way or another Thelin will have to change. Personally, I'm happy enough with short term pragmatism until the personnel are in place, however I'm not sure that we'll ever really get the personnel to perform a 3-4-3 consistently well in our league. I think you could get that with a 3-5-2, or derivative of that setup.

I guess what I'm saying is that he doesn't have the pace. We play inverted wingers because that's what we've signed unfortunately. I think Keskinen would be the only one that could hit the line, as he has the burst of pace required (although he's not that quick). Milanovic doesn't have that first five yard burst that gets you away from the fullback, which is why he's always inverted. Neither does Karlsson. They've got to rely on the shoulder drop or other skills to make the space. That usually means it takes a touch longer to get to the line and the defence is shaped for the cross. I'm guessing that's what Thelin sees too, and what the recruitment team were asked to look for. Like you, I don't particularly like the inverted wingers. What I really don't like is the fact that we didn't get a replacement for Morris when it was very, very clear that having the option to "uninvert" was crucial to our success last season. Edit: to add, I think both Karlsson and Milanovic would benefit from getting the ball deeper and when they're driving at pace. That would involve counter attacking quickly, generally, which is why we rarely get the opportunity to do it.

Nah. Milanovic is nowhere near the pace of Morris. Certainly not over the first ten yards. He'd be capable of producing driving runs and powering through, but I think he'll always be an inverted winger.

I honestly think that there's not enough hate on this forum at times. I was expecting a bit more from some of the new posters.

I wouldn't. Neither are good enough, but it's clear Vinny has reached peak Vinny. He was never going to be good enough, other than the occasional cameo. Milanovic will probably not be good enough. However, he has got some good physical attributes. He is playing the game in his head at the moment, rushing everything and making awful decisions. Ryan Hedges was similar in his first season. Once he got to grips with the league and did a huge amount of work on his fitness, Hedges was excellent, and there's no reason why Milanovic couldn't get there. I don't think he will, but I wouldn't completely write him off yet. A loan in this country would do him good I think, to get him lots of game time. He really needs another preseason. He should ask Nisbet what he did to work on his fitness mid-season for us last year, because that worked.

This is the worst sentence ever to be written.

New Zealand didn't exist in 1993?

"Aberdeen and Kusini Yengi are expected to mutually part ways in January, Vicente Besuijen could follow and fellow forward Peter Ambrose could go on loan, while midfielders Sivert Heltne Nilsen and Leighton Clarkson, plus on-loan centre-half Alfie Dorrington, face uncertain futures." From the BBC. Bit late for Ambrose to go on loan, should have happened a year ago. I'd add Palaversa to the list, with Molloy to follow in the summer or now if we get a left sided defender/fullback in. Give Milanovic until summer if we don't get a winger in (although I think with a good preseason he could still make it)

Loans are fine if we've got nobody coming through, or we're unsure whether a youngster is quite ready and we need to delay. Clarkson was a weird one in that he took the role of Barron, but I can only assume that Robson knew a rat when he saw one. Dorrington taking the role of Milne last season wasn't a particularly good decision I don't think, even though Milne was injured when he signed. Aouchiche coming in to take the role of Clarkson is weird (even though we have the option to buy). Nisbet was a good loan as we didn't have a striker, and it was clear that Ambrose was worse than horse shite (it didn't look likely we'd get him permanently). I'd say that most of the young loanees we get from down south aren't ready for first team action, so unless there's a chance of getting them permanently, it's not a great move. We end up giving them minutes that we wouldn't offer our own young players even though we know there are limitations. I have my doubts about how good it is for these young lads too. I think Dorrington could be playing every week elsewhere, for example, but I guess he's still getting well paid, which he might as well enjoy while he can.

Between his first and second seasons with us, he clearly worked his arse off to get to the level he got to, gaining an additional yard of sustained pace (see the way he scored against Hibs at Hampden for example, where he just kept going at full tilt and still had plenty energy to produce a composed finish). I assumed that he'd be able to step up again, as he had the right attitude. His positioning and game intelligence were exceptional. The only doubt I had on whether he would make it or not was whether he was at his peak athleticism, or if he had a bit more to squeeze out of him when moving into the bigger leagues. Instead, he appears to have lost a yard of pace and reverted back to the player that began with us. I didn't think it would be the case, but he might go the way of someone like Kevin Van Veen, where those 18 months of peak physical fitness produced a one-off patch. Although it wouldn't surprise me if he got a good summer preseason and return to the level he was at with us. Hopefully the former. Cunt (for the avoidance of doubt).

Watched on the telly internet, but just catching up with the thread. A good defensive display. I felt we struggled with the pitch a lot, despite it looking absolutely fine. There were a number of times when players ran beyond balls and struggled to turn quickly, and a few touches that struck me as unusual, even for some of our lads currently. Couldn't tell if it was too sticky, or just that they were tired. Tiredness is certainly a big issue for us this season, we really aren't coping with the two fixtures per week well at all. Every game following Europe we've looked sluggish. The same could be said for every team in that situation of course, it's quite common. In that regard, to come away with three points is not to be sniffed at. If we can limp over the line until January, picking up wins like today then that's fine. I think it's the way it has to be. It is ironic that since Livi have started playing football, their now more likely to go down. Martindale is going to have to bring back the shitefest soon. Hopefully we can let him borrow ours.

It's an understandable error, the young lad has a fair engine on him. He'd be getting up an down that flank all day.