RicoS321

Agree, but perversely it wouldn't have been overturned by VAR either, and I'd go further and say that televised fitba has taken us to a point where we accept non fouls as fouls because of "contact" in a contact sport. I sort of agree with haardon that Bates was at fault - he definitely was. However, the tug on the jersey was separate to the player falling over. The player has dived after contact. In many ways it's similar to the one that Adams was given against Austria, where the jersey was pulled, the player doesn't reach the ball so then throws himself to the ground. Neither decision warrants a foul, but we've diluted the criteria of what warrants a foul so much, you can justify any decision. It's why var will never work, there are so rarely any clear and obvious errors. Most fouls given by VAR in the Euros I could have put together a good case for saying otherwise. Brophy's pen last night is also one that wouldn't have been overturned by VAR, but I'd say it's a classic case of the sky TV generation of fitba pundit siding with the modern concept of what makes a foul (Kerr and McFadden both highlighting a "trailing leg", despite that leg having no impact on the player). I don't know where it ends.

He's a dandy, hates the Huns. If you genuinely believe that the people running var won't be subject to the exact same bias as the ref, you're deluded. Even the sportscene panel couldn't say that it was incredibly soft, and I think they even edited out the freekick for the first goal. As soon as the first controversial decision is made, the wee cheeky, laughable, japester Coisty will be out with the "who are these people?" and the death threats duly follow resulting in everyone being too scared to override a decision against them. The notion that var would be immune to that is ridiculous. We couldn't even hear from our manager last night because the BBC has unquestioningly accepted a ban on being in the ground.

I agree. It's exceptionally soft, wouldn't be given at the other end, but the focus has to be on the defending. He just doesn't look match sharp. Looks like a guy that might be quite good, but he's just switching off and being caught a yard short regularly. Reminds of two other Scotland defenders in Hendry and Hanley, where they went through a spell of regularly fucking up when they weren't match sharp.

Wow, I thought Ferguson was excellent, especially first half. Got stuck in and won everything. Some stray passes in the second but generally moved the ball well. Agree that he shouldn't be anywhere near freekicks, but I'm assuming that nobody else is stepping up due to not being very good at them. I'd like to have seen Campbell on the one he fired into the wall.

Unlucky not to get three points. We had them. Ojo always a risk in that area, as he has a mistake or two in him in every game. Fuck knows what Bates was doing though, really badly positioned. Would like to see an angle that shows the line as it seemed like he was a yard or so off. We seemed to tire a bit towards the end. Hayes with some fantastic fitness on show into the 90th minute. Overall a great performance, with a lot of stand outs. Bates the only one that didn't quite cut it.

Also, Campbell been good. I think he's better than McKenzie in there, he's just very good on the ball. Needs to be more physical, but I think he could still be a very good player. That reverse pass for the first was class.

Not really. They've had the bulk of possession, but we had a good chance through Ferguson that was as good as anything they've had. Great first half, two excellent goals. We look well organised and up for it. Some solid performances so far. Hayes, hedges and Ramirez pressuring well, causing them mistakes. Brown and McRorie been solid. McGeouch been okay but looks like a guy not playing every week. Ojo struggling, with Bates poor. Ferguson showing that he's totally capable of matching these cunts, he's been very good, fuck knows why that isn't the case every week. Need another couple of goals for good measure.

I think we should probably consider postponing this one, as I'm certain that Gallagher, Ramsay and McKenzie would like to have celebrated the life of such a footballing great.

Rangers have values? Interesting.

Yes, it happens in business all the time. It just gets framed differently. Cormack will have spent a lot of time convincing himself that it was the right call, with a massive bias at every turn. I've seen guys at the business end of huge deals make fucking terrible decisions because they'd made their mind up already and couldn't be convinced otherwise. Every pro amplified, every con written off as a minor issue. All packaged in hubris and self belief (of the decision maker). Whether it comes back to bite is down to luck usually. We all do it of course, but for some of us it might be purchasing a sofa or a car or investing shares or whatever. For Cormack, it's employing a fitba manager. They're all fairly trivial things to the people involved. To be honest, the biggest difference in managerial performance is money and signings, so Glass will likely be fine as long as he's not ridiculously incompetent.

I agree that it's not just recruitment, I was simply adding to that particular point to show that recruitment hadn't been any worse than under McInnes with the caveat that Glass was largely left to sort it himself this window. The persistence with a setup that didn't suit 60% of the players has been the biggest factor. It's also a setup that doesn't play well against our opponents' setups either, whilst at the same time being relatively easy to counteract. That is all on Glass, especially the persistence part. He's effectively decided that entertaining = his weird 4-3-3, and that without that formation we're doomed to punting it to a big guy or something. He'd probably say something about footballing identity or some bollocks. I wouldn't be surprised to see him revert to it in a few games time. This is where he needs to be more intelligent and pragmatic and not dogmatic. The players seem to like him and his staff too, and with the recruitment guy in we've got most things in place. Our biggest issue is the push to play entertaining football. In terms of our squad, it's too big and poorly assembled with too many right sided defenders and central midfielders. There is a big danger that we begin to get a lot of unsettled senior players if we don't work quickly to offload in January. I'd say minimum of Longstaff (or McGeouch), Kennedy, Devlin and McLennan (or Samuels) need to go. I'd probably add Jenks to that too. That should occur before getting anyone else in. I'd play hardball with Ferguson again, for his own benefit. He should be taking this league by the scruff and really going to the next level. He should be forced to stay until he does so!

That's a pity, I reckon we could take some of the teams in that draw.

You're missing the point that Glass had no recruitment support for almost the entire window and that we can never expect 100% success in the transfer market. I think Gallagher will come good, and Bates will hopefully be fine in a three but jury out. Ramirez a success, Watkins hopefully too. Longstaff isn't better than McGeouch or Campbell and shouldn't be there (same with Jenks) and I don't see much in Samuels to indicate he'll be better than McLennan, or even Kennedy. Jet is exactly the type of signing I think we'd avoid with a stronger recruitment team who would have been able to put forward a case against signing him (like many on here did). Jack Gurr clearly had been to the strippers with Glass and Cormack, with video evidence. Gurr - fail Samuels - fail Longstaff - fail Jenks - fail Brown - success Ramirez - success Watkins - success Bates - jury Gallagher - jury Jet - fail So probably a 40-50% success rate, which isn't too bad, as good as McInnes (which was a low bar). We should be looking at 60% as the benchmark, with over half our signings improving our first eleven or giving us something different from the bench in the forward areas. I'd like to think our new recruitment guy would simply cut out some of the errors and reduce the speculative loans. Also, I'd expect him to be far better at moving players on. All in, I think we could have spent our budget better this window. With the support now there, hopefully January will be significantly different.

That's a fair result for darvel like. Assumed they were some non entity pish that would be on the end of a tanking.

I'm not sure that McKenzie is an automatic choice in a back five. If anything, I think he fits better in the left centre half role than wing back. Ojo actually did alright there today and Hayes has the ability to get up and down that McKenzie struggles with. I like him, but think he's a very conventional left back. Otherwise, I agree. Will be interesting to see who's back in time for the scum. Ramsay very much a victim of our poor performances and having to play 90 minutes every week at a young age. It would be typical if we had to be without him for the Huns. Although I think Jack Gurr could slot in fairly seamlessly..... nah, I can't.

Aye, Hibs were basically us against st Johnstone, county etc. Easy to play against, just allow them to play in front of us. Although I'd definitely stick with the back three against weaker teams too, as I think it brings the best out of our midfield.

I can't think of a game where we've played better and lost. Maybe Celtic? I think we've been poor in pretty much every game we've lost otherwise. Today was the first time in a while we looked like a team with actual positions and a game plan.

Great win, a good performance. Kept them quiet for 90 minutes, with a very organised setup. Given our previous games it's completely understandable that we misplaced a few passes, but our workrate was top drawer and we closed down everything. Great goal and a good performance from Watkins, with McRorie and Ramirez close behind. Thought Gallagher was looking good before injury too, hopefully not serious. Good to see the Hun getting sent off at the end too.

Decent half, good goal and overall looking significantly more solid with the extra man at the back (fucking obviously, Glass!). Watkins playing really well. Ferguson not been great on the ball but his movement and positioning has been very good, both him and Brown look more like a pairing in this setup. The injuries are a nightmare, but very interesting - and I think correct - that we've not changed formation. Brown will be missed in the centre, but I think that changing the formation would have been the more risky. I think I'd have chosen McGeouch ahead of Longstaff, but no real complaints.

Doesn't look like it. A prime opportunity to go three at the back, but this looks very much like the weird 4-3-3 thing again, just with McRorie at left back. He usually plays well against Hibs, and he's quite aggressive, which Boyle won't like, however he doesn't really look strong on his left and I think he might be susceptible to getting run on his outside. That should be okay if Gallagher can deal with the crosses. Could be an interesting one. Isolating, so miss out.

I would say that trusting the manager on recruitment has largely failed us. Every manager this century I'd say. It stands to reason that they'll never have the time to scout players and will likely always be swayed by performances against us over proper scouting. I think it's fairly obvious where a player is shite and where coaching of a team isn't working. There are some fairly fundamental indicators: team performing badly = manager, <40% of signings making first team = poor recruitment. It should be easy to fit that into a pre-agreed setup. Recruitment has to transcend the management team, and we need a recruitment team that are capable of presenting a case for or against a player, and have the authority and autonomy to challenge the manager. I could have put together a comprehensive argument for not signing Greg Tansey, and I'd like to think I could have also put forward an alternative player. He simply didn't fit McInnes' style of play. McInnes appeared to be completely blinded by previous games against us and a belief that his worrying dip in form wouldn't be an issue (see Gallagher). That lack of challenge at the club caused us problems and if you're willing to be overruled by the manager on such obvious poor decisions then you're probably always going to take the safe option on other targets. A good chairman would always be able to make a call based on the best of two presentations to him. I would add that a manager would also be able to veto on grounds of personality clash after interview or whatever. I'd like to think that over time the manager would trust in his recruitment team and they'd get a balance that works. It has to be said that the Hernandez signing was an absolute disaster. An example of a disorganised recruitment system and having zero process. Exactly the opposite of what you want a recruitment team to do.

Ach, the whole point of fitba is for the gossip and scandal. It's just a game. It would be shite for us to be run perfectly and winning every week. We're overdue a period of being on the end of the joke. It's part of a healthy ecosystem.

I actually agree with him on the complete control on signings thing. That was an absolute disaster under McInnes and it had to change. It was the one thing that was interesting about the interview, that the interviewers failed to follow up on. Everything in a football club is collaborative of course, but the manager shouldn't be given cart blanche to sign Greg fucking Tansey. The club needed to have that inside knowledge and specialist experience to look at Tansey, or Main, or Storey, or Morris, or Quinn, and so on with a head of recruitment with the authority to put a strong case to the board and override the manager. That should have been in place before making the error in signing Jet. Longstaff was another error that shouldn't have been allowed to happen.

Christ, was that what that was? Hadn't even thought of that. He's fucking weird. Managed to ignore everything that was said and just say random things that McIntyre and the others had to translate into actual points for him.

I think someone needs to forward it to the dons supporters trust guy, who used the phrase: "statistics are like mini skirts, they can go up our down". Aye, I don't think that's right mate. Fair play to Cormack for going on the show live like. But, he was fairly awful. Getting stuck in to McIntyre after two minutes for firing questions at him, despite having asked only one question was jumping the gun a little. Worryingly, he genuinely sounded like a guy who doesn't see how pish we've been.