RicoS321

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.

Agree with your first statement, but what do you mean by the second? He's financially invested in the club, he can't just walk away, there is literally no option for him. We took a large loan (correctly) fae the Scottish government, and took in a shite load of cash in player sales to plug the hole.

The Merkland thing was put on a plate for him by the fans. Fuck knows why Milne didn't do that sooner. But a good move, as you say. There's a certain level of job that you expect complete competence in, and Cormack is at that level. If your only attribute is being able to put money in that you earned in another field, then it's good to raise questions as fans. Unfortunately, "Cormack oot" is not how it works (nor "Milne oot!"). However, Cormack has so far shown complete footballing naivety and that he's not fit for purpose in the role as chairman and thus may be better taking a non-exec role or simply watering down the Chairman's involvement, as happens in most other companies (football being the exception). The Atlanta linkup has so far been an absolute failure. There appears to be little similarity between the teams, and literally an ocean between them. The signing of Hernandez was a disaster, not just because he was a terrible footballer, but the fact that we blew our budget out of the North Sea and I'm guessing that would have raised resentment. His handling of the McInnes departure was awful. We could all see McInnes' flaws, and Cormack did nothing to attempt to address them. The January transfer window was an absolutely disgraceful way to treat a manager and left us a window behind where we should have been. He made no attempt to get a recruitment specialist in until McInnes left, when both club and manager desperately needed one. He took the budget approach to Director of Football, which is fine, but don't do it after McInnes left and don't do it after you've appointed your pre-ordained manager. The appointment of Glass was indeed pre-ordained, and an absolute shambles. The fact that he tried to lie about it was just embarrassing. The appointment of Brown was pathetic, with the club doing nothing to address the racism element and force an apology - it was weak as fuck, and we're left in a weak as fuck position now that our manager is failing. He should never been offered a position on the coaching staff, that should have been a future role based on merit within the club. Jack fucking Gurr. That's just fucking wrong. He's made many errors, and I think it's good that, as fans, we continue to highlight them. It's like watching Milne going through the learning process all over again. He's paid his money, bought his toy. Well done to him.

I'm waiting for the price to come down after relegation

Agree about McGinn. However, I'm far more concerned about Brown than Ferguson. He's been good in a few games this season, but overall been average. Last night he was honking and being outplayed by Adam who he was directly up against (unlike Ferguson). I said it when we signed Brown, his best attribute was getting in people's faces, winning the ball and being fit. He hasn't been the guy advancing forward with the ball, making amazing passes, moving the ball quickly and taking the odd shot. He's not the ageing pirlo or modric. He's just ageing. He's not even Barry Robson. I think he's beginning to see it too, as are his teammates and most certainly the opposition. Look at what Adam offered his team and his fellow midfielders last night, it was night and day from Brown. He brought others into the game, quickly moved the ball on, used his attributes to their limits. Brown doesn't have any attributes to offer us anymore and that should have been obvious when he was playing for the Tims last season. He's nowhere near the level Shinnie was when he left us a few seasons back and that's the standard we should be aiming for at Aberdeen, or have a player that's capable of working towards that. For the money, we should have got someone far better, with far more of a future ahead of them. Brown is by no means poor, but he's not good enough to do what we're expecting of him (and he's suffering from our failed setup as much as everyone else). It's difficult to estimate how poor a signing it was to be honest. It reeked of inexperience and insecurity. Compare it to the signing of Robson by McInnes. McInnes kept it professional, signing a guy with fantastic qualities and making him a part of a team that McInnes was firmly in control of. He didn't make him captain, he didn't bow to his demands at being an assistant or a coach without evidence (I can guarantee that it was discussed and McInnes will have said it was a possibility if he proved himself, which he subsequently has). That allowed us to drop and recall Robson as and when required and use him as an example for guys like Jack to learn from and he bossed around by. He was used as a transitional pawn to take us from the Brown era to something better, with an improved Jack, Shinnie, McLean and even Ferguson following on from. That's what managers do, they don't build some guy up into some sort of superstar who's going to blow everyone else out of the water (see McGhee with Hartley). It shows the absolute naivety of the manager and the chairman. Where does Cormack go from here? Sack Glass, but keep Brown? Insist that Brown retains his place in any future management team? Demote Brown to player only? Sack Brown alongside Glass, leaving the rest of the team bitter and a bit rudderless? We've played ourselves into such an obvious hole, it's embarrassing. That's what "the process" has done for us. Ferguson's a young lad, struggling in a formation that doesn't suit him in a place he doesn't want to be. He's a sideshow.

I believe that if we all vote for first, then it'll happen. Which, incidentally, is Glass' strategy too.

The whole link up with Atlanta was his doing and so far it's been atrocious. Although we can't really get rid of him now that he's named the training ground after himself.

He wouldn't even change formation, do I doubt he'd quit.

Aye, it's been average to say the least. Gallagher been an improvement on McRorie and Bates, that's about it. Still looks like we're playing the 4-3-3, but it does look like we're allowing Ferguson to play a lot higher and he hasn't done particularly well despite a few shots. I think he struggles in that formation and, actually, alongside Brown who generally hogs that area that Ferguson prefers to play in.

Good signing for them. Think it's one we'll regret eventually. Although it did seem a very strange situation, so wouldn't blame the club.

The good thing about Moldova is that it's the first of the two fixtures. The double header does seem to throw up a few difficulties for us. A big first fixture and we struggle to match that in the second, as if we've already done the hard work. A poor first fixture and we are a bit shaky in the second. It must be a difficult psychology for the manager, it's not really like anything else in football. A European game is two legs against the same team, which gives it the air of a single game. It's almost like we have to treat each game in a double header as a single fixture, where it only counts if you meet your objectives in both.

That's the thing, if you don't screw up one of those then the Italy game doesn't matter (wasn't our goal offside too?). The only time I can think of a decision that was ridiculously contentious was the Henry handball against Ireland that sent them out in a playoff. But those clear cut bad decisions - rather than subjective calls - are really not that common. It's best just to let them go and deal with any missed red cards etc afterwards like we do currently. Even the lauded goal line technology gets used about once a season. It's just not required.

I can't think of a single bad decision we've had over the years that's made a difference. It pales into insignificance when you count the number of times we've played terribly, put out a poor team, chose the wrong tactics etc. That we expect absolute perfection from refs is bizarre. It's entirely designed by TV viewers for TV, with supporters who actually attend games kept in the dark. Perfect for the greatest league in the world.

Nope. The ref awarded the goal last night, var decided to dick about for five minutes checking 800 replays for a "clear and obvious" error. After spending three minutes looking at an offside call also given. Unless you mean the Austria game? That was a classic example of var not really working. Adams penalty was such a 50-50 call, you just didn't need a twat in a room overturning that decision. Similarly against Israel, if the ref is too shite to think Dykes' challenge was a foul then he shouldn't be reffing (I actually think that he gave the foul safe in the knowledge he could use var to check). Either way, slim has it correct. Although I'd say that you can never have subjective technical accuracy. It simply doesn't exist, and - ironically - if people had taken two minutes to think about it before implementing, that would have been clear and obvious.

Aye, that was atrocious. What fucking game was Clarke watching, and how often is he going to make the mistake of not making changes? Every fucking time. A complete fluke that we got away with it. Christie, Fraser, McTominay all gash and Dykes not much better until he scored. Dreadful performance. That striker role is going to be the doing of us, we're just not good enough in there and with Dykes out for Moldova because of that fucking awful ref, we're going to struggle. Special mention for the abomination that is var again tonight. Time to accept you got it wrong uefa, it's fucking awful. Ruins the game.

So you've taken Nisbet's stats from last season to compare to this season's stats for Christie (whilst deducting a goal from Christie just for good measure)? Seems reasonable.

Interesting tactic of adding the number of appearances to the number of goals to get a total number of goals for Nisbet. I don't think that's how it works.