RicoS321

I don't think we need another centre half. If we've got Considine, McKenna, Vyner, Devlin and Taylor that should cover it. If the midfielder is an attacking midfielder, then I agree we need to get someone in that role. Failing that, a better wide player. However, I think we're short on quality more generally again. Lowe is a huge loss, we've got nobody being the captain in the centre of midfield and May, Main, Wilson, Wright and possibly McLennan aren't good enough to regularly produce anything of note in the forward areas. Unsure about Gallagher and Bryson so far. We need a player in the forward areas that is really going to be a first name on the teamsheet (like Cosgrove is at the minute). The ones above are all just filler really.

It's okay (only been in at lunch). Yorokobi just down the road is better if you're not needing a quick fix. Also, I've heard that the sushi place on Union Grove is good, but not been yet.

That's interesting. I was told a couple of weeks ago that it had closed down. That's good that it hasn't. It's a strange one, as I always forget that it exists for some reason. Must be its location. It's always been decent.

No he hasn't. Unless that was specificied in his investment agreement. Which would be weird. It sounds like we're honouring our future chairman. Which is weird. I doubt that the club hadn't considered naming rights though. The fans are getting to name the pitches though. I think we should call one "Pittodrie, 6 miles East."

^^^^This.

I actually thought they showed up more after McLean left, but I know what you mean about Jack being there. I'd argue that had a lot to do with Shinnie having to do the work of two players after Jack left because we didn't adequately replace him. Shinnie's role didn't change, he wasn't really asked to dictate, that was supposed to be McLean's role and it took a long time for him to get into that. When we had Flood and Jack, you could tell that Jack hated it as Flood was so unpredictable and would make the wrong move at the wrong time. That clearly wasn't the case with Jack and Shinnie, where Shinnie's game was easy to read and Jack knew when and when not to cover - they worked very well together. Jack is a better footballer than Shinnie though. Shinnie a significantly better captain. You're not really making your point very well. I'll say it again: I am not suggesting Shinnie is an amazing footballer, I'm saying he was very good in the SPL and one of the best in the league. That is borne out by him getting - deservedly - into the Scotland. Of course that is a small pool of players. I'm really only arguing that he is one of the best of about 25 Scottish based central midfielders. You're even using the case of when he was awful at left back for Scotland as an argument against him being one of the best midfielders. Is McGregor at the Tim now shite because he was guff at left back the other night? I have no problem with most of yer argument but when you say this: Then you just sound stupid. I might be wrong, but given the above evidence I've provided: his Scotland call ups, his move to a better club etc. it's clearly not the clear cut issue you're suggesting.

This can go here probably. Interesting enough read. https://aeon.co/ideas/if-work-dominated-your-every-moment-would-life-be-worth-living

Wilson is absolutely fucking horse shite. We'd have change our style of play to learn how to play with ten men. Cosgrove has taken the close season to work hard and vastly improve his game in every area. Main is a shite Stevie May and wouldn't close to the same results as Cosgrove. Cosgrove is winning headers, taking the ball down and bringing others into play, tracking back, not making rash decisions at corners and appears to have actually learned how to shoot too.

Except he was miles better than Flood, technically and positionally. His running was generally not headless chickenery, it was - for the most part - targetted and relentless. The times it wasn't were usually when everyone else had stopped working or he'd already run himself into the ground. A yellow card every 3 games is absolutely fine for a player that was regularly making up for others' lack of workrate, which he was (especially in that Motherwell game, where he was pap alongside a host of other pap). Two Scotland managers, and pretty much every pundit on the BBC agrees with me. You seem to be thinking I'm saying that he was the perfect player. I'm definitely not. Like TC, I don't think he'll suit the game down South either. The limitations to his game are more apparent down there and his obvious attributes of drive, strength, fitness and workrate significantly less useful. I think he'd also reached the peak of his game in midfield and I don't see any avenues for him to improve as his passing isn't good enough to be like Jack or Ferguson or the like.

He was one of the best midfielders in the league in every season he played there. Almost always got the better of his opponent over 90 minutes. Including - regularly - likes of McGinn and McGeouch at Hibs and held is own against opposition in Europe (Burnley, notably). He was very good for us. His workrate phenomenal at times, regularly running himself into the ground where his teammates stood watching. Pretty much every pundit would agree and most AFC fans. We can discuss his obvious limitations, but none of that takes away from the fact he was one of the best in our league when playing for us. He formed part of a team with a very clear role. His simple passing was absolutely fine, it was when he needed to play a quick pass or a difficult pass where his limitations were notable - for which we had others.

Interesting that Harvie is in there. 3 Ayr Utd players suggests some sort of link between the U21 manager and that club - fa's in charge these days?

He is a very capable SPL midfielder. He proved that over several seasons. How he fares in England doesn't detract from that in anyway.

Nonsense. It's just the company Bolton/Bury/etc that's dead, not the club. You just set up a new one, play at the same ground with the same strip and with the same list of honours.

Aye, absolutely. Jack in there too, just allowed the game to be played in front of him, covering Logan and even Considine when they went up the pitch. We've not replaced most of those players (Cosgrove probably doing the best job of replacing Rooney, as McGinn isn't replacing McGinn currently!).

I think there were 2 x 20+ yard trundlers on target thanks very much! I know what you mean though, I'd have thought that at 0-0 at half time there might have been a change in tactic. That said, and noticeably more so at Pittodrie, they were decent at retaining possession and very good at pressing in the midfield, which meant changes would have been difficult with existing personnel (Ojo, especially, struggled over both legs but then as did Campbell when he came on). McInnes does tend to err on the side of caution, and that seems to be the difference in games like these (Maribor, and Limassol spring to mind), but I don't think we should over-estimate our squad's ability either as appeared to be happening post-Hearts. I still don't think we'll get close to the team we had a couple of season ago with Hayes, McGinn and Rooney banging in shite-loads and Considine firing hat-tricks for a laugh. In the end, I think that is our major issue.

It's pish. It was always going to be pish. TV rule for the TV game. Plastic as fuck.

In my opinion, the bit about Rijeka being a worse team than us. I'd have put them better than us, and better than Hertz but probably not quite as good as the hun (this season). However, when you're in Europe, it's generally difficult to tell how good a team are going to be in comparison to your own team because of the differences between the leagues, early in the season etc. So a team like Rijeka who are at least as good as us, you would generally be quite cautious away from home and try and sneak a goal. You wouldn't go all out in case they turn out to be better than expected and you get a hoofing. You keep it tight and when they begin to get frustrated and start pushing forward more in the last half hour of the game then you catch them out with a quick break. We failed because of a total fuck up by Logan, before which they had about 1 shot on goal. I think those are acceptable tactics in a game like the Rijeka one. They failed, of course, but the decision to play like that wasn't illogical.

Shinnie worked his fucking arse off in every game he played in and ensured that those around him did the same. He led by example. Some obvious limitations as a player, but a very good player for us.

How can you have any idea whether we set up the same or not? Picking the same (or similar) team doesn't mean the same tactics clearly. We lost a goal within 10 minutes (because we had nearly all our team in their half on that particular attack) and then a player in 20 with the tie completely over in 30 minutes. From that point on, a manager has to be pragmatic, whether it offends every spectator's eyes or not (it did). We weren't scoring 5 goals with 10 men, but we could very easily have let in another 3. There's a certain Mark McGhee who would have done, and did, exactly that and we appeared to have a mentality that thrashings were okay under him as a result (losing 2-0 or 9-0 doesn't matter). It was horrendous stuff last night, but that was due to individual errors rather than a tactical thing, which meant that the game was over before it started. They did press significantly more than they did in the first leg though, which was a surprise.

Nah, I'd say due to ability. We rarely look panicky under McInnes. We're generally far too conservative to be panicky. Ojo just didn't like being pressed, and it was obvious from the first minute (there was a couple of hints of it in his debut, but I assumed it was just first game nerves/fitness). The guys that have been here since last season are fine, but Leigh definitely way off and Hedges and even Gallagher looks a bit jaded at times. I think that the lack of Thursday games will actually do them good over the next few weeks.

To be fair to McInnes, tonight was the largely the players' doing. Ojo was abysmal and panicky as fuck on the ball and Leigh was a disaster at that first goal; he was marking the fucking white line of the box and just opened his body to show the guy where to hit it. Individual errors killed it after 10 minutes, with 20 minutes ensuring no way back in. The bookings were ridiculously soft - both should have been a talking to (i.e. one card for the two). Just shows that foreign refs are definitely not the answer. They were a decent side, but not amazing. They pressed very well tonight. We shouldn't have been giving away stupid goals in the away leg which set us up for the first goal fuck up here. Most worrying part are Main and Wilson again, plus Ojo in midfield and Leigh at left back. Ojo made a couple of glaring mistakes that a central midfielder shouldn't be making in the first leg, and he was terrible tonight. Giving away the ball and generally just being poor on it. However, I'd say the biggest issue is that we've not replaced Shinnie as a player and definitely not as a captain. Zero leadership on the park, with Joe having a poor game (he had to come for that ball for their second, it was his all the way). Wasn't actually expecting us to get through, but really didn't expect such a disaster.

I have no idea the answer to the question (cashout&win vs cashout&lose) as I'm not a bookie, but I have absolutely no doubt that a company using complicated maths to generate odds will definitely know the answer, because it's extremely simple to define in their existing databases (unless they've made a right cunt of it). Not just in total, but for every single punter. Because it might be sophisticated to be simple in a single instance, but that won't help the bookie going forward. Probably, but that they just stopped there is unlikely. The reason that I mentioned enticement was because of the large area that can be utilised (by the bookie) by knowing about cashouts not accepted/taken. If cashout is losing money based on your 1 vs 2 formula then this area is where that a bookie can reduce that deficit or turn it round. Cashout is effectively an advertising tool that directly draws the customer into the transaction. I can look at your cashout and say "I lost/you won", but I can also look at the number of times that you checked your bet, any previous cashouts that you ignored during those visits and the amount or the odds that it took for you to "break" and accept the cashout. Across a number of bets, I could probably make a semi-accurate prediction of what it would take to accept a cashout, how it varies from others and . I can then start personalising your betting and the odds I'd offer. I couldn't get to this point just by analysing the times you cashed out, I'd need to analyse the times you didn't cash out. I stand by that - obviously - but that is in relation to Minijc's point that we shouldn't ever use the cashout. I think that's ridiculous. However, if he'd said that his mates would never use cashout because they didn't want to reveal data to a betting company that could be used against him in future cashout settings then I'd probably have been interested. Because every time you do or don't cash out you give the bookie something more to work on. The key for me is not basing your decisions on what the bookie is offering. Going back to your original MK Dons mate, I'd be interested to know his thinking behind using the cashout? If it was because he had a feeling that they'd score then he's probably equally as likely to be wrong on any given occasion than he is right and so he'd be a prime target for the bookies to offer cashouts if their odds/predictions suggest a likely opportunity for them to reduce exposure. If he'd done his own calculations, had targetted a specific return or was actually watching the live game and could see that things were changing then using cashout is likely a great option for him.

No problem. It made perfect sense to me, and I think you're wrong. I think you miss a large part of the calculation (of whether cash out is of value to the bookie or the punter) by just looking at best that go on to win versus bets that go on to lose. Given that the data of those that cashed and went on to lose would be easily as available as the data for those that go on to win, I would think it extremely likely that the bookie would know the answer to your question. It would be exceptionally negligent not to. Cashout is an enticement. It's basically a form of advertising. It's like a whole new bet. If you don't take into account those that don't play (i.e. refuse the cashout) then you're missing a huge chunk of opportunity. I suspect the bookies don't have a great handle on that as I think it might be difficult to measure accurately.

I expect that the bookies have a very good idea, and they constantly "improve" the cash out to catch you out at specific times and with an optimum rate that is just enough to get you to cash out or not. It's a very crude measurement though, because every single bet won without cashout is as a result of the punter not using the cashout option in theory. If your local chap had seen and decided not to accept the cashout and MK Dons hadn't scored then that is a failure for the cashout too if your analysing its success in getting punters to sabotage their own winnings.

I hope we win 4-1 just to spite those mugs who spent hundreds of pounds to watch us play like fucking pussies in Croatia.