RicoS321

I detailed it further up the thread (Gallagher forward central from the wing, Ferguson deep, Leigh wide from centre, Considine less narrow). I can't comment about the TV experience, but it was incredibly obvious to anyone at the game. The reason why the commentators probably didn't see it (apart from their absolute incompetence) is because they're not there to watch AFC. I find it difficult to spot opposition tactical changes when watching AFC as I'm concentrating on what AFC are doing rather than the opponent. I have to make a mental note of who is playing where and often I don't recognise who players are which doesn't help. Or the commentator was just playing to his hun audience. Either way, it's not acceptable for a pundit for missing the changes. I accept that. But surely Aberdeen's "collective mind" in last night's game when they came out after half time was significantly improved by the fact that they were playing in a system that played to each player's strengths rather than the initial setup that played to their weaknesses? Mindset is obviously a significant factor, but that can be hugely affected by what you're asked to do. Using your golf analogy, McInnes basically gave Gallagher a new putting stance before he went on the pitch and it affected his mindset. You misunderstand completely. I'm not the AFC manager. It has no bearing on AFC what I think. I'm talking about AFC in their existing form with their existing manager.

There is absolutely zero evidence to back up that claim. There is significant evidence to show that this isn't the case. Even if there was, a footballing brain is entirely useless if that brain can't instruct the rest of its body to perform the required actions. I've got a better footballing brain than Gleeson, but I'm just shite at fitba.

I remember one (the second being the goal), but I haven't watched back. You'd have seen the replays, so you'll be right. I guess I'm saying I'd have expected 5-6 good chances with the amount of space we'd given them and at least three goals. That's where I think the Tims would have been more clinical and ruthlessly direct. Well only one team made tactical changes and that was AFC. If you'd been at the game, I think you'd have been able to appreciate the massive difference it made and how blatantly obvious it was (and should have been before the game). They were taken by surprise by our goal and by our start to the second half. There's no way they came back out after half time to manage that game, we just played with a lot of intensity until we scored. That's not to say the huns weren't fairly formidable in the opening 30 minutes, they were, but that was hugely aided by our setup and the significant level of space they were given and that hun team can't maintain that level of performance for long spells of the game either. It's depressing that AFC have allowed it. The huns are now spending 4 times our wages, with the Tims 6 times. We'll be back to the same points difference (between them and the rest) as had the last time the wage differential was at that level. There's a very obvious correlation. Not to say it's not impossible to overcome, just very very difficult. The question is, should the points gap between us and those behind us be bigger given our budget gap? I don't think it's enough of a gap to have the same impact at our level, but we should always be finishing third.

They played some nice stuff indeed. However a lot of that was due to the midfield duo of Leigh and Vyner not understanding where they were supposed to be or what to do. Similarly Gallagher. We made so much room for their midfield it was unreal. It was a nightmare for Ferguson who was trying his best to influence the game from high up the pitch. The only surprise for me was how dominant they were without creating far more clear cut chances. They were happy to play the intricate passing in front and around us but seemed to forget to move that into the box, which seems to be the big difference between them and the Tims who would have slaughtered us in the opening period. The Tims under Rogers blew a much better dons team off the park up here and were significantly better than this hun team. That's typical of commentary in yer Sky and BTs. They're not there to discuss the dons tactics. If they didn't spot, or mention, the tactical changes then they're clearly not good enough at their jobs (from memory, Walker is a clueless fuck there for the "controversy"). It was clear as day. Gallagher started out wide with Leigh sitting deep alongside Vyner with Ferguson getting up to support Cosgrove and Considine playing very narrow. That changed immediately after the second goal with Gallagher supporting Cosgrove, Ferguson dropping deeper and Leigh moving wide in front of Considine, who then started to overlap on occasion and got into the box for our second. It was like two entirely different teams. Rangers were pedestrian because we got in their faces (like we should have done from the start). The main difference being Gallagher pressing their defenders and McGregor having to kick long for almost the entire second half. Ferguson was able to put his foot on the ball and take some possession back from their midfield rather than us standing and watching. McKenna had a decent second half, his first was one of his worst performances in a dons shirt. He was very aggressive in the second and he needs to maintain that level if he's going to get a move. There are guys like Hanley playing at a higher level who are much worse than McKenna. I don't think he's amazing, but he's definitely a sellable asset. Cosgrove looked knackered last night. He's been excellent this season but seemed to get frustrated very early in the game and let it get to him. Still relatively young and he has some attributes that'll take him to a decent level down South. Significantly better than Stockley for example. He's on course to score 20 goals before christmas, which is phenomenal in this dons side. Agree that the gulf continues to widen (as does the spending on wages, coincidentally). Although last night showed that there are ways to play against them that it make it difficult for them to beat us and also for us to get goals. Hopefully McInnes understands what went right and takes it forward to the next few games against them. I'm not sure he gets it.

Aye, the ref should be apologising for giving a free-kick, because it was a fucking dive after minimal contact. Beaton is a hun (former season ticket holder?) and has a blatant chummy bias toward them to an unhealthy level. It's not so much his decision making for individual free-kicks, but his knowledge of their team and players resembles a fan dealing with his heroes. Witness Taylor getting a word in his ear after Morelos tried to get him sent off. That shouldn't be happening. It was clear he was of the: "you know what wee Freddo is like, just don't wind him up too much". The similarities between Beaton's approach and McInnes' "Jacko and Stevie" are clear. I agree, although I do wonder if the change in approach during the game also took them by surprise and they had no answer to it. By luck for us, more than design of course. He still shoe horns players into positions they are not comfortable with Leigh was far better when he was shunted to looked like LWB (will be even better at LB) and nullified Tavernier/Kent and Vyner was horrible in CM , assume he really doesnt rate Campbell. Wilson was anonyomous. So thats 2 players down. The problem was that we were always going to have to shoe-horn at least one player into midfield that wasn't going to be comfortable there. Leigh proved last night to me that he isn't a central midfielder. I thought he was very weak positionally and didn't know when to stay or go. Vyner was clearly tasked with a particular role, which - in hindsight - he probably did okay. It would have been difficult to see on the telly, but when we moved to a 4-1-4-1, Vyner was clearly asked to permanently sit in the gap between their midfield and Morelos, meaning that he was a lot less of the ball as the pass wasn't on. Given Vyner's lack of mobility, it wasn't the worst idea and with Ferguson and Gallagher more than holding their own in the second half. Overall, when Ojo or Bryson return, then you simply don't have to have Vyner in there. He's basically this season's Dom Ball so I think we should cut him a little slack as he'll be asked to play a lot of different roles. His optimal position is clearly the most forward central midfielder in a three. It was obvious in the St Mirren game and obvious in every other game he's played. Why the fuck McInnes thought he could play out wide is beyond me. It's not just the fact that he is a nuisance, he also makes very good runs that make space for the rest of the midfield or provide an outball for a defence under pressure. A number of times he out-paced their centre half to take the ball out wide, and generally did something with it too. He won us a lot of throw-ins and corners high up the park taking a significant amount of pressure of us. The imporant thing is to not expect him to be the creative genius or the tricky winger. Play him to his strengths, make sure he knows those strengths and thus amplifies them or don't have him on the pitch at all. The good thing about Gallagher is that we can see what he does and what he can't do. Compare that to Wilson who seems to have zero redeeming features at all that would work in an AFC team and hence he should never have been signed.

I'm very glad I didn't leave when their second went in. Great turn around. Credit to McInnes, he made the changes in midfield that got us back in to that. Shite line-up in the first place, but it's difficult to say if the change in itself was enough to throw them as they offered very little beyond Morelos diving all over the shop after that point. Gallagher was excellent after he moved central. It does make you wonder what game McInnes was watching at the weekend. He's not good at fitba, but by fuck he puts in a shift in the advanced area and his movement makes so much space for others, as well as putting their defenders under pressure and preventing the easy pass from the keeper. Keep him the fuck away from the wings. The back four had an excellent 60 minutes once we sorted out the midfield. McKenna much more aggressive, as was Taylor and Logan upped his concentration and put in some fantastic challenges. Considine outstanding for the entire time he was on the pitch. As was Ferguson, but especially when we changed shape. Pleasing to see us get right in their faces for a good proportion of the match, pressuring their back line and not letting them have their way. Obviously your not going to do that for 90 minutes, so it was good we kept it tight when we weren't pressing high, to the extent that we had by far the best chance of the game to win it, which Cosgrove made an airse of (he was poorer than normal, but did a lot of running). Edit: forgot to add, for the avoidance of doubt, Wilson was horse-shite again.

Taylor hattrick

Aye, exactly the same as the Record story. Did he give the same interview to two journalists? Or was it in his press conference but not aired? McInnes, for all his shite tactics, is generally quite astute with dealings in the media. It wouldn't surprise me if this was a re-gurgitated interview from a year ago or something. It disnae sit right. Unforgivably stupid thing to say in the lead up to a match against the scum if true.

It's cool. It's in the Record. I won't provide a link. The stuff being written is in quotes, but it doesn't say when he said it and to whom. Or provide video linkage of him saying it. I'm not saying that the Record is a disgusting shite-rag that can't be trusted, but I would like to see it being said from our manager's mouth before I write to AFC in disgust. It's very JC that one like. Very JC indeed.

You're going to have to give a link for that quote.

True Detective Season 2, or perhaps True Detective Season 3? Bloodline good on Netflix for that line of programme. Amazon, Mr Robot been very good (if you can cope with Rami Malek's voice).

I wasn't counting you as a reputable source!

Aye. Although I'd probably end up playing Leigh in there too I have to admit. Mainly cause all of our midfielders are either dead or pap.

I've yet to hear a single reputable source that's quoted the £5-7M. The BBC reported "over £3.5M", which seemed more likely. I just don't see an instance where the dons would turn down 3-4 times their annual prize money for one player. It'd be insane. Especially as they could easily have finished 4th with Considine at left centre half instead of McKenna (would have been a worse team, but not significantly enough to warrant keeping McKenna).

I'm guessing there's a rake of defenders in the 6 too, given our lack of functioning midfielders.

Great analysis on twitter ayrshire, cheers for the link. When you look at other clubs, they tend to go through spates of player sales and generally it's better looked at over a decade. Obviously the last decade has been poor for us, but we're really only looking at Fraser that could have gone for mega-bucks (and he may still make us a similar wedge to that which would have been recieved if he'd signed a new deal with us). McLean made us £600K, but a player of that age is only ever going to look out for himself (as opposed to players of Fraser, McKenna, Cosgrove age) - we bought McLean (and Shinnie) as ready-made SPL players at an age where they weren't likely to make us a huge sum because their next deals were always going to be critical for them so there's little change that they'd have signed long contracts with us. Jack was disappointing, but he was also beginning to not live up to the hype too. A great player, and has improved further with age, but was never going to get us a few million after he signed his final contract with us. We're looking good for saleable assets at the moment though, with McKenna, Ferguson and Cosgrove all worth a chunk of cash. We'll need to cash in soon though as the market seems to be at a high point with ridiculous fees all over the shop. I'd happily sell all 3 in return for doing up the main stand.

The club as a whole has to take responsibility for the signings, not just Deek. If we're concerned that individual signings are causing us to make a loss then we need to either invest in scouting or reduce the budget for transfers. We need a system in place that transcends the existing manager (I've been saying this for years). A manager will often come in and use their knowledge and contacts in the first couple of seasons, which can often be fruitful. Beyond that, the manager starts to lose contact and knowledge because they've been at one club for that time, so they start to lean more heavily on the scouting network. That needs to be really strong, and I don't think it is. It needs to be more than a manager That said, I reckon we might get as much for Cosgrove as we've spent on transfers, so in terms of overall cost we might be break even on money spent/recieved. I know what you mean though, the transfers in the last 3 seasons haven't been up to scratch and that has caused us to lose a few important fixtures. However, a return to the duopoly status quo is a significant factor too. The fitba on the pitch hasn't been inspiring and neither have events off it. We'll still get a decent crowd tomorrow night like, but a shoeing will see a good thousand or two off the gate the next time either scum are in town. Overall, the loss is made up of a number of things. I think that a less risk-averse manager might have seen us get a greater return in Europe and the one-off games, but I doubt we'd be sitting third (and second in previous years). I think that is definitely a factor in the losses.

That doesn't happen anywhere in fitba these days though, does it? Nobody talks like that. They deliberately talk up their opposition as some sort of weird/pathetic tactical ploy so that the proverbial atricle pinned to the dressing room wall doesn't happen. If you look back to McInnes' quotes before the games last season in which we won, they were near identical. It had no bearing on the outcome. I'm surprised that anybody listens to pre-match interviews these days, it's like they've all been written by the same person. The biggest difference this season is that I think we've got worse and they have got better. I don't see a midfield that will contest theirs, and I don't see a consistency on the wings and behind Cosgrove that will produce anything against a superior team than we've faced recently. Our best midfield at the moment seems to include Leigh, which means Considine is left back. As bad as that sounds, it's probably better than a midfield where we're forced to play Vyner and Campbell, both of whom cover significantly less ground than will be required against the hun. The lesser of two evils perhaps, but not a great choice. The Bryson signing, especially, is looking like a bad bit of business but perhaps a tad unlucky with Ojo.

McLennan has been pap in nearly every game he's played for us. Also, we were playing a back 3 today with Gallagher supposed to be a wing back. We were significantly better when mcginn moved there in the second half mind you, but mainly because mcginn was shite in the middle and Gallagher's one attribute is his fitness and runs from deep to make space for others. Once again McInnes plays a back three ahead of a game against the scum, with the clear intent of playing that way against them. It was fucking awful. We clearly can't play that way and especially when considine isn't in the centre of the three, exposing his lack of pace out wider. We'll get destroyed by the hun if we attempt today's shite against them. Especially if Campbell plays too, he's nae close to being ready yet. I expect we'll see the back 3 again on Wednesday despite today's game proving it doesn't work. We're a midfielder short definitely. Vyner looked okay when he moved into midfield, but left huge gaps as he's nae nearly mobile enough.

I was just joking like, I expect they'd nae long finished (although I didn't see any cars either). I didn't think anyone but AFC were using the facilities though? Or am I mistaken?

Well when I drove past on Monday, it was after 18:30 and nae cunt was there but some fucker had left the lights on, on all the pitches. Nae wonder it's so expensive. Where does the £750K per year come fae like? How does that compare with the previous cost of various pitch rentals and so on? Does that figure include a loan repayment of sorts? Will we ever find out now that we're nae listed?

I'd say that it's "uncertain" times to be a Don rather than exciting (I quite like a bit of uncertainty however!). Let's be honest, we're all quite ignorant here. The sharing of business practices doesn't quite ring true to me - that didn't need investment, we're not direct competitors we could simply have set up a working partnership. I understand Cormack's involvement sort of - he's been here before. I don't understand Atlanta's involvement, nor do I understand what we gain from it. I don't understand if "investment" is new investment or just the purchase of some unwanted shares. I don't understand why a business man would think that moving to Westhill is a good business decision. I wasn't jealous when Romanov came into Hearts, nor Farmer to Hibs, so I'm not convinced many would be jealous of another rich business man buying up equity in a Scottish club. Ultimately, I think that the several mentions of "top-100 European club" over the last year suggests that the aim is some sort of European league type thing. I'm guessing it'll be a matter of time before the big teams setup a european premier league and I suspect that the aim will be for the dons to be on the fringes of a second tier of that when it comes round. That seems, to me, to be the only avenue in which these rich business men will see a return on their dough. Not my cup of tea, but I could see it selling well in the North East. But good luck to them, and I'm interested to see their plans, and I totally agree about the 90 day reflection. I would like to see Milne become uninvolved within that period so that the new board members are free to impart their own ideas without feeling that they're undermining him in any way.

What a cunt. About as self-absorbed as naming a training ground after yerself.

It is, but we need to be bigger than McInnes, and think beyond his tenure. We need a much better structure in place for scouting and recruitment so that everything doesn't fall on one man and his contacts. Obviously a new manager will have players that they know, but that list is usually limited to the first season or so as they lose track of players or simply get the level required wrong. We need folk at AFC who understand the SPL level and understand the type of players that fit in to the game up here. They should be presenting players to the manager based on criteria requested by him, nae the other way round.

If a manager can bankrupt a club then we've got far bigger problems than just the manager.