RicoS321

If your legal framework makes it possible to overthrow a government or effectively steal land and resources, then it makes you no different to the person who does it out with that framework.

I don't think that's the case at all. The current Labour party built their entire case on not being the Tory party, and many, many people would have voted for them to keep the Tories out. I don't generally vote, but have in the past for the SNP to keep Andrew Bowie out (it failed). I didn't believe that they would do good, just that they were less shite than the alternative.

I don't think so. We've just built a squad in which it is difficult to accommodate him. I'd play a 3-1-4-2, with Clarkson behind Shinnie and Aouchiche (if fit), but that leaves Armstrong out. Any midfield that includes Clarkson and Armstrong will be necessarily weak. Ideally Clarkson plays with two ball winners (or players that cover a lot of ground). It's not as simple as just playing him.

I don't think anyone on this forum suggested Trump was a force of good. I know @OrlandoDon voted for him, but lots of people vote for the person they think is the least worst option. Your point about resources is correct (obviously!), and the democrats - had they been in power - would have been heading in the direction of Venezuela and Greenland too. That they would have done it via the upstanding routes of sanctions, covert toppling of Maduro and solicitors (in Greenland) doesn't make it better; Trump has simply said it out loud. The Democrats and their donors will be absolutely delighted that Trump is doing what he's doing.

We don't need another right back. He looked decent though.

Bilalovic with two, Polvara header, Karlsson attempt, Clarkson playing it on his wrong foot. Yep, you'd expect at least a goal from those. It wasn't the worst performance, a lot of good effort. Shinnie ran his arse off, so likely won't manage Sunday! Thought Polvara was really good at right centre half, I've mentioned before that I think that might be his position. Nisbet worked hard but nothing came off for him. Bilalovic also worked hard and hopefully he'll make up for those chances on Sunday (the first I don't think was as easy as it looked as he was running full pelt). Kjartansson probably just needs used judiciously between now and the end of the season, he hasn't got the legs for the SPFL yet. Gyamfi isn't great. I can see us trying similar on Sunday and hoping that one of those chances gets taken. It was interesting to note that they had a set piece coach. Maybe we need to repurpose Ambrose to be one of those.

Clarkson on. Shinnie doing the defending for three?

Aye, that's what it looks like, but I can't for the life of me remember what Thelin was doing. It's safe to say that Leven hasn't had time to address it. Maybe that's all we do until Sunday.

Aye, he should have had one thought on his mind there. It was honking from Bilalovic, obviously, but the pass was also way too early and into his feet so he would have had to take a touch and Souttar would have then got there. Nisbet neither looks for goal or draws the defender right across, it was poor from both players.

Is it something we're doing though? Are we zonal marking rather than man for man, for example? Two very good balls in it has to be said, but the first isn't something you can address on the training ground, and the second seems to be a switch off. Robson seems to think we should have a guy on the edge of the six yard box. I'm not sure.

He scored at parkhead

Clearly someone practices set pieces. Just standard blocking.

Not sure Kjartansson should be on the pitch, he's not there yet.

Aye, interesting one so far. Very open game and we're very direct. Like Polvara at the back, he can belt a pass from there.

That's not how you spell neck

Swap Polvara and Kjartansson hopefully. The latter is never a left sided forward. Polvara wins a lot of balls up there.

I wouldn't have given McInnes the same budget (not directly to him I mean), but I said at the time that he should have been given the full setup of sporting director, proper recruitment team etc (that he now has at Hearts). He was clearly a decent coach, with weaknesses in recruitment and youth development. The separation of those areas would have given him a huge boost in my opinion. I just don't believe that a manager can make good judgement calls on players when they're spending most of their days coaching. It's easyish for the first couple of seasons when you can call on talent that you have seen previously or contacts that you have, but the longer you are at a club then these avenues become a little less useful. A contact might change club or role. A player who was good two years ago might not be quite the same. McInnes obviously had the one off bonanza of being able to pick the best of the rest too, with the other challengers liquidated, administered or Butchered.

I think the philosophy thing is just a framework with room to manoeuvre. The idea is that you adopt a system from youth to first team, and you coach attributes that fit into that. If a particular manager chooses to be a zealot then that usually ends badly. On the other hand, if a manager chooses to play pragmatic, stuffy shite in perpetuity then they also get the boot. It sort of makes sense, it means that you're signing for a system and when you change manager you know the type of manager to look for. Most of what I just said applied to managers without the framework too of course, McInnes had a style very clearly. If it's clearly defined, then at least it can be subject to review within. It's something that is a nice to have though and should be subject to regular review and change. It's easy to say that it's modern fitba pish, but then in the same breath suggest that we shouldn't sign Robinson (for example) because of his style of play. I can't remember the last time we ever just needed 3 or 4 players in a window. It doesn't work like that. If you need 4 players then you sign between 6 and 8. You also need to make sure there's a constant stream going out the way. Contracts don't work to suit one in one out, players get injured long term, players leave for money etc. The biggest problem, though, is the transition between managers. All the knowledge, contacts etc go with them. That should be the property of the club. That's why the change has taken place. As I said previously, McInnes gave us the ceiling in that model. It was clear when he began to struggle that he didn't have any way to recover it. One shite window spiralled into many, and he was signing guys based on their games against us. There are so many examples of atrocious signings where someone in house should have had a veto (Storey, Tansey, Main a quick sample). In reality, a club of our size should have a collaborative model that allows the manager to pick two or three, and the recruitment team to do all the legwork. However, both sides should be open to scrutiny, with the final say going to someone with the authority and responsibility. Hence the sporting director.

Fuck. It's the Dons isn't it? That's the bad news

You can't just invent new formations, that requires a licence. A 4-1-2-3 has never existed.

He could either be away, or maybe just being cautious at Ibrox with a player who probably isn't match sharp

Not quite sure what that is. Lot of central midfielders in there. I'm guessing four at the back. Maybe Shinnie and Kjartansson sitting, Polvara left, Armstrong right in a 4-2-3-1? Or Polvara at the back alongside Milne and Knoester?

Yep, Cormack has been ably assisted by the idiot BBC pundit in this regard, who constantly go on about Thelin "been backed". He hasn't. Backing either comes in the form of giving him the keys and the money, or having a structure in place to allow him to do his job. It doesn't come in the form of £X expenditure. Just shelling out cash isn't backing anymore than giving someone a hundred lottery tickets and telling them to buy a hoose with it is. It's the fourth manager in a row who can leave saying that the club didn't allow them to fulfill their potential. I don't think any of them would have made for the perfect manager, but under no circumstances should Dons fans buy into the nonsense narrative that they were "backed".

Obviously I couldn't give a fuck about the English pish, but agree with this. You can see how well McInnes is doing with the recruitment largely taken away from him. The problem is that if every other club has a team of analysts doing the recruitment then they're likely to see a better return over time - probably. You're also not going to get a good manager who'll want to spend days trawling data too. There's a ceiling to it, and we reached that with McInnes, who was spread far too thin with us. The sporting director is just the guy that pins together the recruitment, the sports science, youth team and the manager. He makes sure that the high level goals are being met and everything is staying in balance. Clearly what happened in the summer should never happen under a competent sporting director. He'd have questioned the recruitment of too many similar players, the lack of athletic midfielder, as well as insisting on space for youth. He holds all departments to account.

I wonder if the Killie board were looking at their pitch thinking "we could probably get another couple of years out of that"?