RicoS321

I didn't say a cheap striker, I said a relatively small investment. For 750K we'd have got Moult, and the rest of our team was good enough to see us through that fixture. That would have been an extra £350k over what we paid for May a week later (even May might have made a difference). The draw for the next round was already made and we could see there was just a crap Danish team between us and the group stages. It would have been a risk, still, but a known risk (we'd have likely got to Hampden in the league cup if we'd taken the risk too, mitigating even further). So, no, we're not even in the same stratosphere when we're talking about investment. I'm talking about one single game, a cup final, you're talking about the investment required to turn Aberdeen into a team that could go on a fifteen game unbeaten run to finish above the tims. You're talking minimum three players, and a better striker than Moult at the time (the Tims had an on form Griffiths). Anything less than a couple of million in that January window and you'd have been as well pishing it up against a fence. That's the thing, you can't just do the half measure either, as that way you're guaranteeing you lose everything. You'd need to go all in and get the 3-5 players to make it happen, and you'd need to hope they settled in very fast. As I say, not impossible at all, but at least recognise the magnitude of the risk and stop treating it as some simple task against a weak side (that nobody else in the league could beat, Motherwell apart).

So what you're asking for, basically, is the club to spend out with its means. Celtic only lost to Motherwell in Ronnie's year. They finished eleven points higher than any other team has ever done outside of the scum. In my opinion we were three good players short that season (it wasn't even mcinnes' best dons team). That would have taken extremely accurate recruitment, or required signing five or six players to return three good ones. It would have changed our entire wage structure and club strategy in a single January window. Even with that, it would have still had a good chance of failure. I've no issue with that very high risk approach, it's the flippant nature of fans who suggest that it was some sort of open goal, mired in the suggestion that belief would get us there. I think it's fairly facile reasoning. Without this new fake European league pish next season, there was very little option for a club strategy to bridge the gap to the scum. Certainly not an overnight one. For me, there has only been one open goal in mcinnes' time, and that was the apollon game. A relatively small investment in a striker would have returned big.

It's a fairly reductive argument though, isn't it? We're not talking about McInnes here when you make this point, we're talking about every single manager in the last 36 years of Scottish football, at every club. The notion that all you have to do is "believe" that you can win the league and it'll happen is just stupid. But you're argument isn't even that, it's that not only do you need to believe, you also have to make the public/fans aware of that belief in order for it to work. It's not enough for McInnes to say to his players at the start of the season that they're going to win every game, that wouldn't work. The Leicester example is an anomaly in European football since the advent of the champions league. The financial gap between them and the rest of their league still wasn't anything like that in Scotland, and you have to assume that there is diminishing returns when you're "only" spending £25M on players as opposed to £100M. Even including that, ranieri's public statements were all the opposite of belief, as he consistently stated that his team would not win the league with the clichéd one game at a time mantra. I think European group stages would help reduce the gap between us and the scum. At present, McInnes has as good a chance as anyone of getting us there this season.

I think so. I also think it's important for McLennan to get a run in what has been his best position this season.

Anderson talking to the press. He'll be hoping McInnes gets binned and he can come up with ten goals to his name and the chance to lead the line for his heroes. It must be incredibly frustrating for him, though, to see the dons try out a big guy, little guy, 3-5-2 the minute he leaves the club!

Our lack of decisions has coincided with the lack of time we're spending in the opposition box. I don't know if it was McInnes, or Hornby himself that gave him a boot up the arse at half time against the Tim, but he had a good second half and hopefully he'll pick that up again against killie. Think McLennan has to come in for Kennedy, and stick with the 3-5-2.

To add to above, when I said he needed a rocket, it wasn't because he was playing poorly, it was because he needs the encouragement to make that run he did in the first half (and the one where Kamberi didn't square to him) far more often. That should have been used as the catalyst for him to stamp himself on games, to show him that he can do it against strong opponents. Really big him up and give the freedom and confidence to show what he can do. Again, I'm not sure he'll get that in our system.

It wasn't a criticism of him, it was blatantly obvious what he was asked to do, that's the point. We knew Christie was playing because his movement is excellent. When you man mark him, he just shifts out of the game, leaving huge space for others. Take the goal, McRorie was miles up the park, Ferguson is two on one in midfield. In any other game, Campbell would have stepped in slightly (his positioning is very good, he reads the game incredibly well) and been there to close Turnbull, leaving Christie with the option to either pull back, thus buying us time, or move towards Considine, leaving a difficult pass for McGregor. Under instruction, Campbell stays wide. I simply don't think we can afford the man out of midfield in that way, I think it was a poor call. He did the job he was asked very well. Overall, I think he's had a decent last few games and I'd like to think he'll keep his place in the team. He's as good as Ryan Jack was at his age and I think he has the potential to go further. With a three man midfield, I hope we see him let off the leash a little (as should have happened last night in my opinion), as I do believe McInnes restricts that type of midfielder to safe passing and covering rather than pushing forward. I think he's a better passer than Ferguson, but I don't know if we'll get to see that in our system.

He's a fucking dandy, nae like that cunt Wright. He'll do anything to play for the reds. McInnes is right though, the player's best interest was to be playing first team football and he wasn't going to get that here. Regardless of whether he's here next season or not, it was right that he was loaned. It's a shame that he couldn't have had this particular move in August or last season.

Agreed, Hornby worked his arse off today and did well, and Kamberi is just the type of player we need on the pitch. Defence was strong, Taylor and Considine going through everything. Ref was fucking terrible. They were weak and at serious risk of letting us back in it. McRorie is breathing out his airse in every game toward the end since Scotland gave him covid, he looked fucked at the end. Kennedy got that right wing back slot sorted, and I thought the 3-5-2 looked workable when Campbell started playing as a midfielder rather than a man marker. Should tank killie now. One nil, ninetieth minute pen.

Never a pen either. Comes off the players leg onto his hand by the looks of it.

Terrible start, all over the shop. Much better in the final fifteen and unlucky not to score with two good chances. Campbell playing the man marking is just a nonsense, we can't afford to take a man out of the midfield, and what a difference when he has the confidence to run with the ball, a great ball across the face too. He needs a rocket at half time, because he's better than he gives himself credit for. Hornby and Kennedy poor, so I'd switch in McLennan and Hendry at half time before we lose another. Hendry will track Ajer a lot more and nip at folk. Hornby isn't bringing others into the game anyway, but not his worst performance.

He's probably right to. It was a debacle, that was overlooked because they could do the old Twitter show to create fake excitement. One thing under McInnes that vastly improved was our ability to make signings professionally and behind closed doors, but I expect Cormack prefers the drama. It sets any manager up for a fall, especially when they're scrabbling at the last minute getting loanees.

There are very few teams who'd have been able to keep the ball on the ground in those conditions today, even the passes along the ground were zipping past or falling short for both sides. You can't just will people to keep the ball on the ground. We'd have lost the game through mistakes trying to play through the midfield as everything needed another touch and a second longer in possession. Going over the top like Campbell did for McGinn in the first half was the way to go, as well as long into the channels. That's why it's inexplicable that Hornby was on the pitch for 77 minutes. Regardless of whether you think he's dogshit or not, that game just wasn't suited to him. You needed Hendry nipping at people and running the channels, not a guy who take six minutes to change direction. The subs epitomised McInnes for me, he just can't do them. Hendry spent 44% as much time waiting to come on as he did on the park. It's staggeringly incompetent management. Really bad. Goodwin had made three subs before we made one. Not because he thought he was being outplayed, but because he thought he could see a way to win. McGinn had a good first half, but it was obvious he was only going to last 55-60 minutes, so get Hendry on at half time so McGinn can feed off the scraps that might come his way. If he doesn't look likely to, then take him off after an hour and bring on McLennan. Kennedy was poor, so there was literally no possible net loss bringing him off (aye...) at the same time. That's how you properly use the extra sub, not as some sort of championship manager fashion on 77 minutes when you're never going to use the other two (McInnes has just started making later subs so he can do the double sub). It's his massive procrastination that has not won us so many points over the years. It's like he can't accept that his original selection hasn't worked or that he's frightened his sub might not work or have an adverse effect. Either way, it's not managing a football team. Nobody in the world was watching that game thinking: "if you just keep doing the same, the goal's coming". There's not a person on earth outside of Alex Miller's living room that would have waited until the 77th minute to change things. Again, this is where the club should be producing metrics that show when McInnes has successfully changed things in a game and holding him to account. It's not even an AFC thing, any club that's on a run of not scoring, if held to the 60th minute, are likely to not score again. It's a basic logic and confidence thing. You make the changes nice and early and give them plenty of chance to work.

Yep, he's not up to it. Hendry isn't an amazing footballer, but he'll got stuck in and win us balls in these conditions. The shape up front is fine if we can get the ball down, with Kamberi and McGinn doing well. Very difficult in these conditions like, so that should relieve the pressure a bit, just get Hendry on and turn it into a proper battle. Campbell doing okay in midfield.

Might be 3-5-2 with McRorie in defence. Or 3-4-3 with McGinn and Kamberi either side of Hornby

Aye, I didn't mean he was great, just likely to be the one that we can fit in/around. He's a slightly tidier version of Main. He can occupy defenders and make space for others. Ruth looks like he needs a lot more game time than Hendry to provide a similar role, looks fairly lightweight and definitely not cut out for the sole striker role. He's been playing out wide in the championship, which isn't the preparation needed for playing through the middle in a stronger league. He could probably get some minutes out wide for us if he ever makes our bench. You could be right about Hornby, I just don't think our 6 month spell should be used to find out. It was a stupid signing in my opinion, it was clear in his u21 games that weren't against dross that he'd need a lot of work.

Desperation I think. This one a bit too important. He's signed one of every type of striker. Ruth hasn't been on our bench yet, so I'm guessing the loan end was for different reasons. Maybe covid arrangements or something, perhaps they feel he's better at Cormack park doing weights or something. I'd take the last window with a large pinch of salt to be honest, I'm not convinced it was supposed to be anything like that and I get the impression zero funds were available and so no permanent moves were ever on the cards. It was a case of trawling the loanees and taking a punt. Hornby stinks of just picking a familiar name, he's clearly not even close to match sharp and there's no way we can afford to get him there. I think Hendry will turn out to be the one that sticks and I actually think he's got something about him. You know what you're getting with him and you know his limitations, so you work with it and around it. Kamberi will be available once the damage is already done, I think we stick with Hendry for better or worse. Send Hornby back, we can't afford to waste time on getting players up to speed.

There are very few players that we sign as squad filler though. The problem stems from poor initial recruitment. Likes of Dom Ball was brought in because we absolutely needed him due to poor recruitment. It was actually risk management. If we had been a poorer (financially) team, we'd simply have had no choice but to go with a youngster for 20-30 games per season. It's actually our first choices that fail so badly (Gleeson), resulting in us mitigating with a Ball type and bloating the squad. Ojo was mitigated by McGeouch, bloating the squad. There's a pragmatism to it that makes complete sense (proven, half decent, SPFL player, like Ball and Leigh), and it has taken place because we've had a budget that allows for it. The obvious problem is that we're stuck with the Ojo and the Gleeson, and feel obligated to give them crucial minutes that could go elsewhere. I've said it 100 times before, the problem here isn't McInnes, it's the club. That recruitment strategy has to be controlled by the board. You'll always get an Ojo that doesn't work out, that's nobody's fault and not worth worrying about. It's the fact that when you do fuck up, you can simply dip back into the pot. There has to be stricter limits on the number of players and the ratio of young players to seasoned pros. Also targets on number of minutes that are young players play and when they go out on loan. No manager should be exempt, McInnes or future boss.

Bit harsh, but I probably agree. He's another of those that isn't required. I don't think the young lad ngwenya was ready when he came on the other month, but likes of Dean Campbell could easily fill in at left back if required, and it would give him more much needed minutes. Again, it's where the club should have been pressuring McInnes into not buying squad fillers. We're in a position where our fourth and fifth choice midfielders are young lads both at an important stage in their careers and only likely to get token minutes between now and the end of the season. Ethan Ross been called back to bolster the time wasting sub options too. We just don't need the filler, especially with a January window. We'll probably start with no youngsters against St Mirren, apart from St Johnstone and Reims youth products.

But that is the quality of discussion in Scottish football full stop. Just listen to the ex pros discussing [anything] on sportsound of an evening. For every "McInnes will keep us top four", there's a corresponding "time to freshen things up", "we need a change" statement which is equally bereft of issue-addressing and realism.

Is it? Is social media representative of the average Aberdeen fan? Or would it be the p&j reader? I genuinely don't know the answer. I doubt you or Crichton do either.

It's phenomenal.

Think it finished weeks ago. Who'd have thought he'd end up becoming a famous drag queen with a regular slot on daytime TV and married to Mariah Carey. What a great ending. Hope I've not given too much away.

I disagree about the source of the problem, our attack has been far more of an issue than our defence this season. I'd say that the long balls are from poor movement in front than sitting deep because of a shakey back line. Given the number of clean sheets we've had, the forward players would have a bit of a nerve blaming the back line this season. All academic though, I think the 3-4-3 is definitely gone, but a 3-5-2 would probably be fine for us too. It does really depend on the opposition. It was noticeable how little Hoban went forward against Hibs compared to even a few weeks back, but the lack of Hedges and Wright has made the intelligent movement grind to a halt. I think you're right that the 4-2-3-1 will get the best out of those players unless Kamberi brings something unexpected. If we still had a lot of post split games against weaker opposition, I'd like to have seen us stick with the back three as I think the additional player is wasted against some of the dross (or should be!). Again, with Hoban and Considine piling up when numbers are required. Given we're so close to the split with the Tims to play twice (I think), we'd be as well getting a good run with a back four as it's the safer option with our attacking options.