RicoS321

I don't gradually screw it down, I usually have it hot for a minute to gie masel a dicht and then turn it straight to freezing, so it's pretty much instant cold (I don't really need the hot, I just find it better for cleaning my ba's and the like). As I say, I've never really been that bothered by the cold, so I found it quite easy. Started doing about 15 seconds of cold roughly, then within a couple of days I just stayed in, as once yer beyond the first shock you can pretty much hack it. I'd say I do no less than two minutes of cold, no more than three. Seems about right. I'm not sure it does anything good or bad, but I got really bad flu at the turn of the year when I wasn't doing it, so I started again a few weeks after. Anecdotal, of course!

I don't think he's meant to be a Shinnie though. I had fairly high hopes for him as he's quite a fitness freak apparently. Obviously that only works if yer nae injured all the time. His general attributes were that he was box to box and didn't hide, I'm not sure what happened to those at the weekend (happy to write off last season for him). I think he struggled high up the park and was chasing shadows a lot of the game, I don't think that's a good role for him. I'd have him alongside Ferguson for a few games with McGinn in front or a front two. Same as usual, the three midfielders together never really works (at a push, Ferguson higher up the park would be better). We just don't need to accomodate all three (and fucking McGeouch). We should be using the strongest two and an attacking minded player in front who drops back when needed, nae a holding midfielder going forward occasionally. Very difficult to tell like, given how far off the pace we were. Everyone was pish. I don't see what others saw in Hernandez either, he looked volatile at the back and average going forward (although a massive improvement on his debut). Playing Kent onside for his first one on one was primary school.

Or he'll finish third, nine points ahead of the others and gets to two finals and gets another chance. I think a lot will depend on the Covid situation. You want a new manager bounce when making a change and I'm not sure that will have the same affect without fans in the stands. The excitement just won't be there. I'm no optimist, but I have a feeling that Deek lifting the Scottish cup in May - our fourth trophy of the season - will complete a new era for the country; unilateral independence having been declared, following the Holyrood election two days' earlier.

Of course DNA was, and nearly everyone on here said so. It also has fuck all to do with McInnes leaving and nobody has argued that point or competed to be a superfan. That's why it is a straw man. Just like you adding the bit about Milne in. That's a totally different argument. A very valid one that virtually nobody here would disagree with. Even the argument about Calderwood is superfluous, most folk were in agreement that Calderwood was sacked correctly and had likely been suggesting it in the lead up. I think you'd struggle to find a person on this forum that didn't think that way. There's no blindness about McInnes, you're presenting it as if we're suggesting that McInnes is the answer to all our problems. Most on here are recognising his successes and highlighting his obvious flaws. I'm suggesting ways that the club could mitigate those and help the manager, whilst building a strong foundation for the next manager and you're suggesting that we just find the perfect manager. I think your way is unrealistic and I think it'll lead to us having to find another manager, and another manager in perpetuity. If anything, your way is to continue the Milne approach. Throwing all responsibility on the shoulders of one man is an idiotic way to run a club as has been shown on every occasion in the last 25 years. Even more so when the pool of managers available are no better than McInnes. I want the guy to step up, do what we're paying him to do and have the club do everything in their power to force him to get better in the areas that he's failing in - for him to take responsibility for them. Start by removing him from most of the recruitment work, the youth setup and sports science areas and instead give him targets that he must meet (50% success rate on integrating signings into the first eleven, 2 youth team players introduced in any given season with X no of minutes, 1 trophy every 2-3 years etc). There has to be no doubt, and no complaints when he goes and it has to be this season if things haven't improved. You're trying to paint it as a black and white issue, I don't believe it is. For the record, if we'd finished last season and remained in fourth (or worse), I'd have wanted McInnes to leave. The pandemic either let him off the hook, or it didn't allow him to prove folk wrong, so he gets the best part of this season instead.

Who are the bang average teams? The huns? They're not an average team and you'd have to have a fair bias to suggest so. They're a good team, with several good players. To me, that shows the lack of nuance in your argument. Your pish about superfans, not expecting success and happy with mediocrity highlights that. Nobody is actually defending McInnes on this thread, if you read it. They're just not calling for him to be sacked. There's a massive fucking difference. Every post in this thread is critical of all or part of McInnes' game and of the club's approach. Every single one. Either argue against those individual points or don't, bit don't throw up straw men about DNA or some other shite. You're arguing that we should sack the manager after one game of the season when we're playing with zero crowds and zero income. The onus is on you to explain in detail why that's a good idea and what we'd do next.

I've never suggested that the refs or the SFA or the SPFL are against us, but only an idiot would suggest that money isn't the overwhelming factor in no other club winning the league in 35 years, coinciding with the 1000% increase in income inequality. To answer your question though, I don't know if he's fit for purpose, but to me the evidence suggests there's a good chance that he could be, or at least as good a chance as any other manager in the league or that I can think of. I think there are areas of his management that can be improved and that it's the club's responsibility to force that. If that fails, move on. I want to see what he can do under pressure and I think he's done enough over the years to get the opportunity. There's zero flowery management spik, just actual management suggestions. You seem to think that the gap between us and the scum is so small that a good manager will drag us kicking and screaming to league victory (in the deila years, that would have been 5 additional wins and around 40 odd goals - not insignificant). I think that the entire club needs to get its shit together to give the manager the sort of opportunity Ferguson was afforded (less the massive gap in funding, obviously). I want there to be zero doubt when McInnes goes that he knows why and we know why and we've given him the exact same setup as the next guy. Otherwise, unless we get extremely lucky, then we'll just be having the same conversation again in a year with the next guy, who we've handed the keys to the club and left all our shit at his door. In the ridiculously unlikely chance we get the next Ferguson, the club needs to be ready, and it definitely isn't. Cormack has a fair amount of work to do before taking the easy option of ditching the manager.

It's true. Better if you are outside a lot of the day though and active. I have cold showers most days in the summer, maybe from March until October, but nae so much in the winter because I sit in an office all day. Seems to just improve the circulation a bit and helps my recovery from hayfever symptoms. Been a lot more regular with it during the pandemic as it's apparently good for fighting colds and the like. I could definitely hack a walk up a hill in a t shirt in November, but nae chance I could sit through 90 minutes in January in the same outfit. Have to keep moving, basically.

Aye, doesn't surprise me, he had to completely overhaul everything when he came in because we had let it get in such a state. The data folk, sports science etc were all McInnes appointments as well as youth (think the scouting preceded him). It didn't bode well for any succession planning and that's always been a huge problem. Cormack mentioned it in one of his first interviews so I'm guessing he has a handle on it, or is at least trying to get a handle on it. We need to get our shite together well before we get rid of McInnes that's for sure and get a defined strategy in place that transcends the manager. We can't be employing a new manager next month then telling them that, by the way, they have to have at least four youngsters in the starting eleven. I understand why people want rid of McInnes but the club has to be in the right place and the timing right. Give McInnes a chance to manage on our terms and set the terms of his employment so that there can be no excuses. Don't just do it on a whim like Milne did on every occasion.

Agree, but not sure why that would be McInnes' fault? I've been saying since he first came in when we got sheerin in and ditched every youth player that we needed a strategy on youth development. That has to transcend the manager, always. The board have to set the limit on purchased squad players to ensure that the youngsters get opportunity. McInnes' job is to win as many games as possible, which is easier to do with a squad of experienced players than blooding youngsters at difficult times. There's a direct conflict, so it falls to Milne, now Cormack, to set the parameters to force his hand. I'd probably argue that all three of our January signings crossed the acceptable level of senior/youth ratio for very little benefit, so I'm not convinced Cormack has it right either. Virtanen, Campbell and Ross could have substituted for Hernandez, McGeouch and Kennedy. It wouldn't have been in the comfort zone though, which is where McInnes needs to be taken from.

Failing to beat Ronnie Deila was because our squad wasn't good enough. It's been done to death. We beat the tims twice, Motherwell the only other team before the league was over. If Milne had gone for it and taken a couple of million punt in January on 3-4 players, I think we'd have won it. We got Simon Church. I don't think he'll succeed post-AFC either, but mainly because he's on a downward trajectory and I think he'll leave us on a low. If he'd left for the Hun, I think he would have been more succesful than Gerrard. As you say, the results don't lie, and his results are exceptionally good for the dons. It's his performances that have been pish (post 16/17). Saying he'll never succeed in management is too bland a statement to mean anything. He could easily go to a club like West Brom and do well, he's a good club manager. His style is unsuited to winning cups or causing shocks, but he's very good at building points and the background professional stuff within the club. He could easily have been as succesful as someone like Walter Smith for example, and in a very similar fashion. He's definitely as good a manager, but I don't think he'll ever get to be in that position. Smith looked out for number one and always left clubs on a high and joined clubs on a low. It was a case of right place, right time when he got the hun job originally and that set him on the gravy train for life. I think that ship might have sailed for McInnes, it'll be interesting to see - this season - if he knows that yet. He really, really needs this season to go well for him if he wants to continue to have a good career in football (I mean good, as in good opportunity). I'm not convinced he will, but he definitely has the ability if he wants it enough.

Go on.

Me neither. But is there any manager that the dons could dream of getting that would? Bearing in mind that rant came after winning the Cup Winners' Cup (and was followed by an apology the next day), Ferguson did have a bit of prior goodwill before that incident. I don't want some nut job coming in and slating the team off the bat, so you're looking at a manager that has already won several competitions with the dons before they can really do that and, of course, McInnes doesn't come into that category. In terms of West Brom or whatever, I don't see what your point is? McInnes has never stated his desire to join another club and has always talked of his enjoyment working for the dons, I'd say he's been very professional in that regard. His first few years with the dons were his most successful, and our most successful since the early nineties, so the evidence doesn't really back up the point that having one eye on another job affected him. In fact, turning down another job had significantly greater impact (with the fans). I just can't see a situation where a manager would expect to take their eye off the ball at one club, expecting to get a job at a wealthier one, they just wouldn't get the job. Given the level that the dons are at, could you imagine the dross you'd get if you were signing a manager who didn't aim to step up beyond that? As long as they keep that desire to themselves, I don't see it as an issue. In fact, I'm struggling to see what the actual issue is. McInnes being not good enough isn't likely related to his desire to work elsewhere, it's more likely that a desire to remain would see him go stale and run out of ideas.

Jesus

Cormack needs to put the pressure on, let him know what is acceptable and what isn't and start giving him support by identifying exactly the strategy and goals so that McInnes can't claim to be hard done by. There should be no surprise for McInnes if he does get fired. I very much disliked Calderwood as a manager and was pleased when the club decided to let him go. But the fact he was so surprised by it shows how out of touch with the manager the chairman was. If Cormack can lay out exactly what he expects of McInnes then failure to meet those expectations should see him punted. It's not McInnes' fault he has had zero accountability and free reign to date and it would be exceptionally unfair to punt him in the early part of this season (before January). It's a new Chairman with new expectations (hopefully). McInnes proved in 16/17 that he has the ability to put an excellent team on the park (74 goals, 76 points, +39GD is phenomenal), he needs start taking the risks and making the decisions to get back near to that level again. After he lost a few players from that side, he hid behind grinding points out, now is the time for him to face up to the difficult choices on the pitch. Get playing again or leave. I think he has the ability, I just think years of not being challenged has left him complacent. With no games in front of a crowd until January, I'd give him every opportunity until then.

Aye. Step by step it's called. Interesting like. A good holiday read, if yer heading to Spain or inverurie or wherever folk ging these days.

His book is quite good too. Quite a likeable guy, who on first listen I thought I was going to hate, because of some deep seated prejudice of mine, probably.

Agree with Elgin and yersel like. I've said for ages that McInnes seems to have zero accountability, through no fault of his own. He has completely transformed the club in the way you would expect of a football director, that allows for no real succession planning. Whilst the strategy produced by the club was a little light on detail, it did suggest that McInnes would be required to deliver rather than be left to it like under Milne. I think a set of goals around youth integration and entertainment would go a long way toward improving the team if he was to accept the challenge. He needs to be challenged, that's the issue. The team from a few seasons back banged in seven goals in more than one spfl game and several four goals, a five and a six from memory. They were the best I've seen since Willie Miller's first season. That's the freedom we need to be seeing regularly.

We produced Jack as a full back, Robertson has had a reasonable career too, Harvie looks half decent. Considine filled our left back spot for a decade. Virtanen supposed to be good but seems to be a midfielder now. Low was a hard working midfielder, Cammy Smith etc. The problem is that we're better than we used to be. Where we seem to fall down under McInnes is the squad numbers. We shouldn't expect our young players to play every week, but we don't really need to be bringing on Wilson, McGeouch, Ball, hedges etc. The ratio seems to be wrong. Campbell and the like should be first reserve.

Well, aye, but they're nae all good enough though. If McKenna gets a hard time as a still developing young player, and Cosgrove, do you think a team of home-grown young players would be afforded time when we're sitting near the bottom of the table? Our best youngsters come in the shape of Wright, Ross, McLennan, Anderson, Campbell and so on. I think Campbell will make it out of those, maybe Ross too. The rest probably won't be good enough and no amount of forcing will make them so. There is a happy medium in there somewhere of course, and I think McInnes has the balance wrong, but our youths are never going to be good enough to make up the majority of our first team. Worryingly, the signings of McGeouch and Hernandez suggest that even Cormack isn't going to force the issue. Virtanen and Campbell should have been the focus for those two positions.

I believe McInnes has earned the chance to have a season or so of mediocrity, but I even I think that's a generous summation. The squad is decent, but hugely overloaded in midfield, which results in constant chopping and changing and shoehorning to keep players happy. McGeouch was a signing completely lacking in imagination for example. It's a congested squad, at best, and one without a settled and obvious starting eleven. I'm prepared to accept that we were miles off the pace yesterday (Ojo by far the worst offender). Our first game back in difficult circumstances, I'm not going to read a lot into it. A really shite fixture for the opener too. If Cormack is really as ruthless as you suggest then that can only be a good thing. McInnes is perfectly capable of putting a good team on the park, but he's so concerned about losing that it's stifling at times. A bit of pressure on him will hopefully see some risk taking and attacking. He'd build a lot of goodwill simply by allowing us to play a bit when we're ahead against teams we expect to beat, it should be an easy win for him. For example, I imagine Edmondson will start against st Johnstone. If we go a goal up, then bring Anderson on alongside him to try and finish it rather than congest the midfield and manage it out. McInnes' game management has been very successful in terms of points gained, but there's no real evidence to suggest that further attacking would gain less points, whilst being more enjoyable. In fact, the season we got our record points and goals is evidence that we can win big. It's annoying, McInnes can do better. He shouldn't need to be in this situation. He's bringing it on himself.

So they cheated to stay up, and still stay up? A bit fucked up.

Nae idea what to expect today like. Hate having this as the opener, with no prior look at how we might set up. I think we might see a very flat back four today: ---------------------------lewis------------------------- Hoban------taylor------mckenna-----consi --------------------------ojo----------------------------- Mcginn-----ferguson----hayes---kennedy ------------------------anderson---------------------- A 4-1-4-1 with Hayes and Kennedy interchangeable, getting up in support of Anderson. Looks horrendous like, but exactly the type of thing I'd expect. I've left Hernandez out, as everything I've seen so far suggests he's nae very good. Although not much to go on from pre-season, the screamer far Hibs shows Hernandez playing primary school fitba in the lead up, headering back into his own box under no pressure. We simply can't afford pish like that against the Huns. His debut showed a player that didn't know how to play right back at all, I think Hoban might be seen as the safer option. Hopefully I'm wrong. 2-0 the dons, Hernandez double

Gogic is an absolute hoofer. A slow one at that. He's like Anthony O'Connor. Agree about McGeouch though, I think he was a poor signing. Although he did have an excellent game in our last one v Hibs. Ojo came onto a game after January too and Ferguson improved also. Bryson to outshine them all (by not getting injured more than 6 times).

I don't think you need a 4-4-2 to get someone up there close to him, like McGinn or Kennedy, but with the workrate to track back and niggle when Jack drops deep. I'm unsure about Anderson to be honest, I can't quite figure him out. I don't think he's got the pace to really make it, but then neither did Rooney. His finish against Livingston was really, really good; his use of his body to get in front of the player, his touches and then his finish top class. Every other time I've seen him, generally speaking, he's not cut it. I think he'll need 4-5 games to prove himself, and we gave pap like James fucking Wilson (and many others) that time so why not Anderson? He's a fucking dandy too, and hates the hun, so that alone means he deserves his chance. Do we need a target man? I'm not convinced. Main was a fucking atrocious target man as he had zero game intelligence, his runs were awful, he played on his heels and his touch was brutal. And even he managed to turn out a couple of good performances.

Yep, it is. Unless you get a side-letter of course. I mean, do folk just ignore reality? How the fuck can Cormack pay for an employee in another business? Saying that, Fletcher isn't outwith the realms of possibility. His agent was touting him toward the Tims last week though, so I very much doubt it. I think it stems from a rumour on some of the other forums from a "I know someone on the board" type about an international striker joining. I'd like to see Anderson against the Hun and for the next few games. Give him a chance to sink or swim.