RicoS321

McRorie was actually okay out wide last week, but it is a waste of his talent. I think the idea was that he'd be able to switch McRorie central and Hedges out wide during the game if we were getting overrun in midfield. When he realised that McGeouch, Ferguson and Hedges were matching their midfield he seemed happy enough to replace McGeouch (once injured) with the dedicated wide player in McLennan rather than bring on Ojo (thank fuck). McGeouch was actually playing quite well before he got injured, so it is a bit of a dilemma for McInnes if he's fit. Does the extra five metres Hampden width make a huge difference in deciding whether to play a 3-5-2 (with McGeouch) or a 3-4-3 (with Hedges/Wright)? Obviously, we can play a 3-4-3 with Hedges and Wright dropping into a 5 when they've got the ball, which would be my preferred approach. I think last week gave us a good insight into their abilities as well as our own, and we have a good chance this weekend. All the choices we have to make are good ones too, there's a number of players that we could have in our starting line up that are going to cause McInnes a headache, and he needs to make a decision on when to involve them all. I'd start with the team that finished last week, with a front three of Wright, Cosgrove and Hedges and McLennan deservedly keeping his place out wide. That leaves Watkins, Edmondson and McGeouch (and Kennedy if fit) part of an exceptionally strong bench. I don't think Cosgrove or Wright will be fit enough for a 90 minute outing at Hampden, so it's up to them to get us ahead in the first 60-70 minutes. McInnes might be inclined to bring them on instead for a bigger effect against tired players, but I think you have to go for it from the start.

Very reasonable. Of course, the first thing you'd probably recognise is that unless you're at the game, your analysis is going to be fairly weak. There is simply no better way to see a player than in the flesh. Having been to many a dons game over the period that Andy's been here, I agree with some of your analysis, but I think your off in part too. The point I made about him sticking close to the attacker was in reference to his years at left back, I should have made that clear. I completely agree about standing off at centre half and especially left centre half (depending on the opponent's formation). At left back, his biggest problem was standing off and allowing the player to run at him. That was how he got caught almost every time in his early McInnes years (his early early years, alongside guys like Mulgrew, he just allowed himself to get thrown off the ball by strikers half his size). At left back, he simply couldn't afford to give the attacker a five yard run up every time so he had to learn to stick to his man and be very aggressive. Start by winning the headers against them, then sticking close and using your body so that they can't get going. Most wingers he came up against struggled with it - the overwhelming majority. Hence why, in the words of Clarke, he's a consistent 7/10 every week. Usually against Celtic, McInnes would ask him to play infield slightly and allow James Forrest to run at him full pelt all day long. He did the same against Hibs in a semi a few years back when Boyle was given the freedom of Hampden to run past him - again, tactical stupidity playing to a player's weakness. I completely agree that in the last year or so, since moving back to centre half, he's changed his game and now seems comfortable at left of a three when given a run of games there. That's not entirely surprising, given he's proven extremely adaptable over the years. In terms of penalties etc, over the last decade he probably averages two a season at most no more than you'd expect from a McKenna or Hoban. Similarly, he's fairly low on red cards in the last decade too, with 2 I think. Finally, it simply isn't true that he is heavily left sided, that's just incorrect. He's one of the most two footed defenders we've had in the last 20 years (probably not a great compliment!). He's happy to take a touch on his right and pass it short. He loses accuracy with anything long on his right, but that's fine. There's a reason McInnes trusted Considine to play on the right side and McKenna on the left recently when we had players missing (he was phenomenal there against the hun a couple of seasons back), because he can take it on his right without squaffing it. Compare him to guys like Reynolds, McKenna, Taylor and even Anderson on their wrong foot and it's night and day. For a defender, he's more than adequate - not amazing, but that's not AFC's benchmark - on his wrong foot. In terms of punting it long, he plays to what is in front of him, and it's almost never done in panic. If there's no space or runner in midfield and turning and playing back is risky, he'll chip it into the channel for the striker to chase - rarely hitting it out of play in the process. It's exactly what you want a defender to do. Again, it's never obvious on the TV, but in all my years at Pittodrie I don't remember ever thinking Considine was (with any regularity) ignoring a pass into midfield before playing it long, it was almost always the lack of movement in midfield that preceded the pass. Again, compared to Taylor, McKenna, Devlin, Anderson and Reynolds (especially Reynolds) it's night and day. Again, that's not saying his passing his perfect, but his choice of pass, like Hoban on the other side (also guilty of not finding a man when going long), is consistently correct. Having watched this entire season on TV, it's amazing how much I'm missing and basically filling in the blanks based on what I've seen in prior years with any of the guys on the pitch.

You've clearly not been to an Aberdeen game in a long time. He was on the road to being our player of the season when he broke his leg midway through a game under Brown around 8-9 years ago. You could see the point in his career at which he finally learned he could use his strength to go hard up the arse of players to make up for his lack of pace. He's been solid and above average in our first team in every single year since that. McInnes has never been able to replace him - despite trying - because he's that dependable (he even came on at left back in place of Shinnie in a game against the Tims as Shinnie couldn't cope). He's never been similar to Ash (or Diamond, to take another that came through at a similar time), as he's always been able to play football and his positioning and reading of the game is ten times better. Under McInnes, any time Considine has struggled it's nearly always down to poor tactical decisions. He got hung out to dry at left of centre numerous times against the Tims for example, which took a long time for McInnes to work out. He's limited his mistakes in a season for a long time now and the only time I hear folk criticising him still are those that decided he was pish more than a decade ago and can't get over the fact he's made himself virtually indispensable to the dons for a long time through immense workrate, commitment to the club and consistency of performance.

Yes, I was just being cheeky. You accidentally put final instead of semi final. Although I was drunk at the semi final.

This shit needs done. Four years, take a gamble.

Bit harsh on Ash to be honest, they're first goal was class, really quick feet from McGregor. Their second was down to McRorie getting drawn in to the ball unnecessarily, leaving his man in acres. Ash obviously partly at fault for both like, he doesn't get off with it, but just not wholly to blame. I have to admit when I was watching the pen I had already blamed Taylor before noticing it was Hoban that gave it away! In terms of the overall approach, I'd say they got a lot less easy ball than in previous games. We pressed them quite well from the start and didn't give them any easy passes. They still moved it around without much difficulty but not in areas that would trouble us. They might as well not have had a left side, nor us a right side as the two largely cancelled each other out. If anything, I'd say Hayes gave frimpong far too much space on their right, sitting way off him. I assume it was tactical, but it was a dangerous approach given Christie was on that side too. They got a number of - thankfully shite - crosses in from there. Cosgrove only played 30 minutes ish, and we didn't really change as Wright came on at the same time. I don't believe it's Cosgrove that makes us play long ball anyway, I think it's the lack of movement in midfield and there is plenty of that when Hedges and Wright are on the pitch. I think we'll see a much better Cosgrove with players in and around him.

I assumed it would be Watkins and Edmondson/Cosgrove, but I suppose it depends on whether Wright starts or not. Watkins took a knock, so might make the decision for us.

If he's fit, he should start. Not sure he will be though. Had three shots on goal when he came on, Edmondson had none and did very little. Cosgrove just a way better player. Still not convinced by Edmondson yet like, despite a good game against accies. He's far from pish though, so it wouldn't be the end of the world if Cosgrove wasn't fit. I'd probably rather Cosgrove came off the bench if he's not fully fit. Once we're three up.

He was a young lad learning the game similar to Anderson in his early years. Considine has been good for about a decade. Once he learned how to use his physical presence he's been good. The entire tenure of both McInnes and Brown, and even for a while under McGhee he was good.

Great game and a good performance. We didn't deserve to lose that, the equaliser very much deserved. Wright awesome when he came on. That run at the end was like watching Eoin Jess. Phenomenal. Cosgrove also offered us a lot in attack even though he looked way off the pace. Ferguson, Hedges really good. Hoban good, but unlucky for the pen. Can't complain too much about it. Felt sorry for McGeouch who was doing well before he went off. McRorie was okay, but was really poor for their second. Staring at the ball instead of his man. Finally, McGregor should be missing next week, he had several fouls after his yellow and his hack at the end was a deliberate attempt to stop McLennan that was a booking all day long.

Aye, I thought that too, but it was weird he got ninety minutes. Normally if you're not good enough to get in your preferred position you're the first to come off. Or, if you're good enough, you'd then be moved into that position when the switch was being made. It just suggested that he wasn't seen as a striker by Campbell. Although Campbell likely too busy swearing at the moon to worry about positions or shite.

Both looked okay. Virtanen in the unfortunate position of being a central midfielder, so as absolutely zero hope of getting in our squad. Ruth playing on the wing looked comfortable in the ball and put in a few good crosses. Was really hoping he'd be a striker, but doesn't look to be the case.

I must've been very drunk to have missed that!

Shame. Seemed like a gentleman. Had a great team for about ten games once. Gets a lot of credit for a fairly mediocre record. Brought in some imaginative signings (had a lot of backing), and had some of the best and worst performances of our recent history.

Yep, I think your second paragraph is pertinent, they're not on a high, but they also might have a point to prove. Christie makes a big difference to them too, which is annoying. Celtic haven't dropped plenty of points to other teams. I put a thing up the season before last showing deek's record v Tims and everyone else's and there was no real difference. Killie and Hibs had an extra win from memory and everyone else had similar to us. I don't think that's changed. Hibs got a couple of glorious draws under Lennon. Clarke too. But none really went for it, they generally did the same as we do. I agree that we've been guilty of sitting back too much, but that's not what my original post suggested at all. Our strengths are being organised and not shipping goals and being fast on the break. All of which we can do. But the suggestion that we play to our strengths completely ignored the fact that we will be playing a team who are also playing to their strengths. If they're better at that than us, then we inevitably will not be playing to our strengths. It's just too simplistic. But in the end, we're likely asking for the same thing, which is that we give a performance like the cup final or the parkhead game a few years back.

I agree with your last point, but I also think that we have the personnel this season that helps in that regard. McInnes has had us playing great football in the past, but when he doesn't trust his team, he reverts to stuffy shite, and I don't think he's trusted his team - probably correctly - for a few seasons now (since Hayes left). Defend higher up the park and we possibly get caught for pace at the back, but I sort of agree with your point. The problem with it, as I mentioned, is that we don't have the fitness or concentration levels to do that for 90 minutes, which is why I would rather we took the game to them at various points of the game. That's what we did when we beat them a few seasons back and got close in the final and the games where we've beaten the hun too (large spells of all those games they were given plenty of possession in front of a very organised dons). Whether that be the opening 20 minutes or whatever, I don't really care. You could see guys like Wright and Watkins slowing down in the last 30 minutes against Hamilton, I see no reason that wouldn't happen against a better team. I just don't think it's realistic or fair to expect us to press or hold a high line for 90 minutes. You're right, the subs need to be used, used earlier and used more effectively. It's a real weakness in McInnes' game (although Clarke for Scotland seems to have taken it to a whole new level of procrastination). He has his 65-70 minute sub where he takes off Wright and then his 80-85th minute and it's all very championship manager. Two easy victories.

Not this season, no. We lost one goal from game management this weekend, and one whilst being on the attack. We've had many clean sheets, and game management has probably been applied in the closing stages of all those games suggesting it has been succesful. Livingston was the only other game we lost a goal from being a couple up and then we managed the game through to the end. Also, I wouldn't describe the Hamilton game at the weekend as game management, it was more about trying out a formation before the weekend and giving guys like Ojo a run out in the unlikely event he might be needed and probably to keep the squad happy.

Fourteen goals in fourteen minutes in the semi will ensure his 97th minute winner versus Hearts in the final at Hampden brings home the trophy for dons' legend Niall McGinn, at the same time reaching 100 goals for the club. He'll be rested between the ties.

I don't think that's entirely true. We've got a decent squad of 16 or so. Even Woods is probably a half decent sub goalie. Defence and left wing back would be the only weak spots on the bench, although that could be slightly mitigated by Leigh and Devlin returning. For the Tims games, barring injury, we shouldn't be down to the dregs of Ojo. The midfield three of McGeouch, McRorie and Ferguson will pick themselves and if we need to attack, then we bring on Wright, McGinn, McLennan, Kennedy etc. Lewis/Woods Logan/Hoban/Devlin/Taylor/Considine/Leigh McLennan/Kennedy/Ferguson/McRorie/McGeouch/Hayes/Hedges McGinn/Edmondson/Wright/Watkins/Cosgrove There's 20 good enough for a starting place against the Tim (I'm being generous with Devlin because he's nearly as good as Taylor depending on which Taylor turns up. Thinning that out to allow for 3-5 subs and you'd have a pretty capable 16

Hate the fact that we've got two games in succession against them, it always seems to cause a tactical dilemma. I think we need to go for two entirely different approaches in these games, but I don't know which order I'd do it in! The bottom line is, they're a better team than us, so we need to get it spot on tactically and work out the best way to beat them. We showed in the last two games that we can go all at teams for 20-30 minutes, so we'll need to time that to perfection and hope that we get a goal out of it. Back that up with extreme discipline, slowing the game down, making it difficult, fouling etc and we could get a victory. I disagree that we don't need to worry about their strengths, I think that would be "Brian Rice" niave. They have a good team with some very good players who we simply need to cater for. That approach is fine for most games where we can expect to be the better team for 60-70 minutes of a game, but I just don't think that's fair or realistic against the Tim. It's all about picking the right time to have a go at them and taking our chances, whether it be a concerted 25 minutes or, more likely, three 10 minute spells where we press them and try and turn them over and grab a goal. As Hamilton showed, pressing a team that's better at fitba than you can lead to you being overrun and chasing the game. Hayes will be a massive miss if he's not fit. I'm not sure about Edmondson still, but a player of his style might be beneficial. I'd go 3-5-2, with Ferguson, McGeouch and McRorie providing the solid midfield. Watkins and Edmondson or Wright and Hedges and Hayes/McLennan on the left.

I bow to your got

And Considine

It won't be those players, but it will be similar tactics. McGeouch will be in for Wright to make a three in midfield. Possibly two up front if Edmondson is fine to play. They play a back three, I think McInnes will match up, so no change at the back. We might just see our wing backs becoming more defensive, perhaps even see Logan at right of a back five. If Leigh is fit, we might see him if Hayes is out, otherwise I think McLennan probably did enough to get in despite not being great on his left. If Logan plays, then we'll likely see Watkins and Hedges slightly behind. It'll be stuffy. We'll save the all out attack for the semi.

I think it was an airse injury. Struggled a lot with injury basically. Perfect for us. I actually mean that genuinely, there are a lot of young players get regular injuries and then go on to have few later on.

Do you think it's a fear of missing out thing? He's 21, so it's not like he can sit in our reserves. I'm guessing he's decent though and that's why we're considering him, making sure that nobody else can sign him. There's competition for places, then there's a breeding ground for discontent. We simply can't afford to have Ferguson, McRorie, McGeouch, Ojo, Campbell, Gallagher and another player going for two places that are going to be taken most weeks by two players. Unless two of those leave in January, which is unlikely at present, then we'll have a lot of dissatisfied players. The only thing would be if we signed him and then immediately loaned him out for the rest of the season, but I don't think that is even possible just now? Hopefully it's just a favour to an agent or something, to give the lad some training opportunity.