RicoS321

Let's get this one back to the top. What's everyone's views for tonight? Same team as Saturday? Any ideas on GMS or McGinn's fitness? If availabe, I'd take GMS in for McLennan and if he's not interested then ditch him at half time. Otherwise probably the same 11, and definitely the same formation (4 at the back). Wilson looked like he did some actual work, so give him a wee chance to show what he can do again and perhaps ditch him for McGinn at half time (a lot of half time subs!) if he's pish. I always think that Wilson might produce a belter fae nowhere, despite the fact that he's been lazy, pish and uninterested because he scored a peach at Hamilton. Also, any idea if the game will be shown on Red TV or anywhere else? Or are we to be dictated to by UEFA due to some horseshite tournament that all fitba fans must surely watch?

I think it's actually much worse than that. I think he did watch him play.

But McInnes clearly believes he has committed himself, working long hours and sacrificing family time. I don't think he's lying in any way in the article below. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aberdeen-gaffer-derek-mcinnes-reveals-10185861 So there's an obvious discrepancy between what you think commitment is and he does. I think that it shows that he's an above average SPFL (and probably championship level) fitba manager. I don't think "barely competent" is an objective view point. I think that the evidence of the last six seasons show some glaring inadequacies. In my opinion, he works very hard for AFC and he is committed (maybe to his career as much as to AFC, but that would be splitting hairs) but perhaps his inadequacies can't be overcome by hard work. Perhaps he doesn't recognise them (or - just as likely - I'm wrong). Either way, from chatting on here, most folk are in agreement about his inadequacies, so at the very least we can identify those in another manager (as well as those of McInnes' qualities we'd like to retain). I liked your comment about culture on another thread and I think that's definitely missing at AFC, along with accountability. Our signings and youth promotion appear to be without a club strategy and they are definitely areas which the board and staff should have offered more resource to help the manager (maybe they have, I don't know). I think McInnes has taken us forward and there's a clear path to improvement. I hope that the club sees that.

Avoiding the McInnes debate for a second, would you want somebody who didn't see AFC as a stepping stone? I probably wouldn't. Not with our existing position in the game. Unless it was me of course, I'd be there for life. I don't think Craig Brown ever saw AFC as a stepping stone whereas Mark McGhee made clear before he played his first game that he wanted bigger things. I want us to have an ambitious manager, with ambitions for both himself and the club. For what it's worth, I think McInnes does have ambitions for AFC as evidenced by his persistence on the training ground issue and his overhaul of the backroom staff and processes, but I'm not convinced/unsue he has the ability to match his ambition, which I suppose is the key.

Have you got a piece of land like? Or one available? It's usually where the cost is. A self-build is a no brainer like if you can find land somewhere you like. Be much cheaper in the long run as you'll get a far better build for the money. Especially if you look to minimise yer energy uses by way of good design (insulation, elevation (solar gain), yer solar power etc). Depending on your plot, you might be best to get an architect to design something that takes these types of things into account as yer pre-fabs/kits are not designed with any particular thought to the land in which they sit. I have a kit hoose with amazing views from my frosted bathroom window and frosted en-suite because it's a standard design (nice hoose like, just doesn't make best use of its surroundings). Obviously cost is a big part, but if you give an architect a budget and challenge them to work to it I'm sure they'll get something.

It's been good as always, but you've taken it too far with that. I have never said that the "day-out" was an important factor! Unless I was posting whilst on drugs. Drugs that turned me into a queer.

Wiseness isn't a function of age, that's just an arrogant statement by an older person. Experience, definitely, but the phrase "wise beyond their years" exists for a reason. Can you quantify "more often than not"? You're missing the point. I'm not here to argue that McInnes is a winner, I'm arguing the extent to which being a winner makes any difference in the overall scheme of things in a season and suggesting that it has far less impact than good transfer dealings, etc etc. You would have made exactly the same point about McInnes' interview prior to the hun semi final too, most definitely, but we won. Grow up, nobody is insulting anyone. You and I both know that you're not the type to take insult in an online debate. No I didn't. I simply said that it was the only example of its kind anywhere this century and they haven't repeated those conditions since, which suggests it was as much a case of everything going right at the right time. I also suggested that the dons winning the league would have been a bigger achievement and that you would definitely have accused Ranieri of not being a winner prior to being appointed Leicester manager. Don't tell me what my objective is. I'll have to take your word for it on McInnes talking about getting to a final (I do, I'm not suggesting your lying). I've heard him on numerous occasions state that, but it's always been caveated with "but it's always been my desire to bring silverware back to Pittodrie/fans deserve it etc" (pharaphrasing, obviously). I heard him say that on so many occasions I can't take it particularly seriously, nor do I think it has any bearing as to what he says behind closed doors or to the team. Obviously, prior to a game I'd rather he said as little as possible.

I understand entirely what you're saying. I also know that you need more than placating interviews on the TV to judge a man's personality. I'm also not arguing that McInnes is a winner, I'm arguing that you or I are not best placed to know (or that you haven't evidenced your additional knowledge that allows you to make the decision). Anyone suggesting they have a real insight into a man's character based on his interviews is a snake oil salesman. I appreciate that you probably have more information than that, but you haven't been forthcoming with it. I've provided you with reasons for us not winning the league - far more plausible than just being a winner - you just choose to ignore them. I've been very critical of McInnes on this forum because of them. Where you see bottle collapsing, I see a significantly better and more clinical side beating us because we didn't do everything 100% correctly on the day (most of the time I blame McInnes) to ensure that we win. I also recognise that we've won a shite load of big games under McInnes where we've gone in thinking that we'd lose; they just don't happen to have been against the Tims (because a big game isn't just playing the Tims, there have been plenty of unexpected league and cup victories). Finally, I do recognise that McInnes' tactical approach against the Tims has been too negative and have mentioned, and criticised him for, it on hunners of occasions. I only comment on his tactical side because I don't have any visibility of what he's like behind the scenes. Anecdotally, I've heard that he may actually be quite good in instilling belief in his players at times, but I wouldn't take what a person says to the press as evidence of what happens behind the scenes at a fitba club.

Murray is a good example. For years he played safe by getting his first serves in, rather than getting them in and making them winners. He generally played to his strengths of returning the ball over playing winners. That quantifiable change (playing for winners and stronger first serves), as well as his overall fitness, made a big difference in the year he became world number one. Having Lendl (a winner) as his coach relentlessly pursuing these changes with him took him over the edge to top spot. The difference for me was that he was very close to the other 3 in terms of ability. I don't think Aberdeen, this season, are anywhere near it (the Tims) - I think we're significantly weaker than we were two seasons ago. As I mentioned earlier, we had a weakness in the right side of our defence which meant that a quick ball over the top of a high line would be very simple to exploit. Tactics don't exist in a vacuum, they're deployed against an opposition who also have a huge desire to win, who will spot those weaknesses very quickly. In a straight head-to-head of who can score most goals I think they'd win every day of the week. Basically, I think that by playing on the front foot (a high press or whatever) we'd increase our likelihood of losing a goal(s) by more than we would increase our likelihood of scoring a goal. I also think that Celtic were not that good because we weakened them by playing to our strengths. Had we pushed them high up and lost a goal in the process, I think we'd have seen a more relaxed and ruthless Tim. I accept that you have more insight into the game though as I wasn't there so you'll know much better in that regard. All I'm saying is that I can see the point in the tactical choice, and that it is just a tactical choice. Aye, that's wanky as fuck like. I wasn't aware of that.

I understand entirely what you're saying, I just don't believe that you have the evidence or knowledge of McInnes to back it up - or you certainly haven't produced any. Instead, I concentrate on the things that we can know based on watching the team on the pitch when I regularly criticise McInnes. I regularly criticise his record in the transfer market, I regularly criticise his failure to provide a clear path for our youth players to their detriment and I regularly criticise his ability to change games through timely substitutions. All of which I can quantify based on what I see on the park. I can speculate on whether he's a loser or a winner, but it would be just that (throughout his career he's been identified as a winner - possibly by losers, I don't know - and he clearly believes himself that he is a winner). I also don't believe that being a winner would be enough to overcome the existing gap in ability between our players and the tims' players - I think it would need more than that.

Exactly, using 30-40 year old data as a comparison for today, when there's a whole rake of more pertinent data - worldwide - from the last 20 years is pointless. Saying "I can remember when going to either of the arse cheeks and playing for a draw was frowned upon" surely doesn't refer to anything in the 21st century (and at least back as far as 1995)? So why say it? Why are we judging McInnes against a different era? You could argue that it's Milne's fault, and I think there is a lot in that, but you can't then take McInnes out of the Milne era and hold him to a standard based on a previous generation and owner.

Interesting take on a solid performance. The way I see it is that you have two options. The first is to go for it, pushing high up the park against them and beat them by being aggressive, clinical and quick in defence against their break. The second is to maintain shape, frustrate, be clinical on the break and sharp in your own half. They're both just sets of tactics designed to win in a different manner. Nobody actually plays for a draw in league football. Based on our lack of pace on the right side of our defence (Lowe and Considine), the first tactic would have been a dangerous one, as their pace in behind and over the top would have led to significant opportunities. We'd have been relying on luck not to lose a goal as much as our ability to score at the other end; we'd be relying on scoring more than them as they'd definitely have scored. The second option relied on our proven strength of discipline, shape and aggressive play in our own half, leaving the weaker part of our game in holding the ball up and taking on a man higher up the pitch to chance and fortune. In other words, we played to our strengths to give us the best chance of winning the game. On it's day, our defence is significantly better than our attack, so it's a no brainer to me that we'd rely heavily on it in a game away from home against a team that is better than us. It's just tactics. If we have GMS available tomorrow (and he removes his head from his airse), then I'd expect a bit more adventure, but still retaining that discipline and shape. Difference being is that I think we are far more likely to score against the hun with this approach.

He did play wide on a number of occasions against us for Dundee, but he played a lot through the centre too. But, you're right, the 3 behind the striker have always been interchangeable under McInnes and that is where Stewart (and Wright and to an extent GMS) really struggles. Yesterday, McLennan played almost the whole of the game (that he was on for) in the centre, which is really unusual. On Wednesday, Stewart played a huge chunk of the Hamilton game in the centre (and did nothing). Neither got close enough to Cosgrove when he was winning the flick ons (neither did McGinn). Stewart clearly has ability on the ball but he needs to be that little quicker in releasing it (a prime example near the end yesterday when he dithered for ages on the ball - when he was through the middle - allowing a hun to nip in with an easy challenge. That said, despite having a poor game, I thought he tracked back quite well (for him), and I understand why McInnes wouldn't have trusted McLennan to do similar (McGinn's tracking back yesterday was excellent, with a number of well timed challenges). Overall, we probably did enough to win the game. The McKenna header in the first half (great ball from Stewart) should have been directed down the way, the Considine effort(s) and the McKenna follow up as well as another couple of scrambles that didn't fall were enough to get another goal on another day. The Wilson sub was too late in the day for me, and I'd like to have seen May on for Stewart for the last 15 too just to change things up a bit. I think that was our chance to get through to be honest, but we'll go into the game with a bit of confidence nevertheless. I thought our back 4 was very good yesterday, and Shinnie put in a great shift too. Brilliant from GMS putting himself in a dangerous position in order to win the penalty. McGinn would have wimped out of that.

Interesting, but I don't believe it's just those born since 2000. I think that reading in general seems to be "not a thing". Perhaps with the rise of the internet, but perhaps not, I meet a lot of folk of all ages who don't read. My thoughts are that it's to do with the built environment. As a rural child of the 80s, I also used the library a lot but then my toon was built in such a manner that it was easy to do so. I could cycle, walk or run to it. But, most importantly, there wasn't a book shop or an amazon. The entire design of towns these days sets folk up for a life of consumerism. We can be advertised at in our own homes, so we'll just buy books, because that is what we're pushed towards. It's easy for me, and you too, because libraries were on our walks home fae school or to the shoppie. Any new housing deliberately eschews that. We also didn't have endless manner of shite rammed down our throats from a young age. The sharing setup of a public library gets in the way of the massive cunt selling books and we're taught - now - from a young age that you need your own shite. Books were free when I was a kid, or they came in reader's digest volumes. Libraries have completely failed to evolve, mind you, but I believe that is entirely deliberate - the markets will decide who is wealthy enough to read.

Aye, I read that yesterday. It's easy to say that a library isn't used though and just close it. Rather than make the library more than just a library, a place that offers more than just books (I'm aware that a lot of them do baby book clubs and the like) they just close it. I realise that some of the buildings aren't probably fit for purpose, but why not turn them into places where you can borrow more than just books? Golf clubs for a trip to Hazelhead, tourist info, a library of tools where locals can go and have access to tablesaws, sewing machines and other types of equipment that might not be every day use. A maker space, with basic electronic equipment. Computer and reading space. Bike hire and repair kits. Music rooms. Snooker tables. Basically anything that guarantees footfall and inspires the community to use it. Because that's all it needs. As soon as folk use it for other stuff then they'll grab a book next time they're there too and we'll have an engaged and literate community perhaps. I suppose it's nae very British though is it? People like me, with their own book collection, they're own vast tool collection and very little time to read or make stuff - that's the way. Anyway, I'm part of the problem. I'm not a city centre citizen, but I was for a long time and never used the library because I bought my own books. I can look intelligent with my bookshelf filled with funcy literature next time I have visitors though. Not that I look at them anymore because I have a Kindle.

That's a shame, it was one hell of a strike. One thing about last night was that sublime pass from Stewart to McGinn in the first half that led to Shinnie's chance (from McLennan's pass). Too often we do the easy pass and make the easy run and that move was a perfect illustration of that. McGinn had the entire wing to run into, but he did his very best to position himself for the square ball from Stewart. It was like he was frightened to take responsibility. By playing the difficult pass, Stewart forced McGinn to get on his bike. That's been the pattern of our home games this year. Nobody risking the difficult pass, everyone coming short to take the easy ball off the defender, nobody taking the step forward (Shinnie, perhaps, aside) to take the ball in a difficult position. It's the sort of thing we saw from likes of Chris Clark for years at the dons, but we've got actual fitba'rs (in that they can all control a ball and shield it) these days and these guys should be doing much more. We saw it from McLean previously and Jack before him. The lazy comment that McGinn's "legs have gone" is just nonsense. He's never been that quick, he's always made space through skill. He needs to get his arse back to dropping his shoulder, beating his man and playing the difficult ball. We all know he can shift the ball and play the safe loopy cross into the penalty area after taking too long to get the ball in (from where he can effectively say "I've done my job, the striker has to win it now"), but he's still capable of much more. He needs a rocket up his hoop. Sit him down and make him watch his own highlights reel. Make him watch that game against Hearts and that sublime skinning of the EPL's finest, Calum Paterson, multiple times. He's good enough to not do the safe pish every time and as a team we need to stop doing it.

Aye, fair point. This'll make up for it: http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-war-on-venezuela-is-built-on-lies

Good report like. Hasn't made it to any of the UK news outlets. It should be a pretty big story I'd have thought.

That was fucking dire. I said earlier in the thread that I hoped we'd go with a back four with Ball at right back because we're pish with a back three and we did. Unfortunately, as soon as Lowe went off it was time to try out the back 3 again. The only good that can come of tonight is that we were so bad at the back that we couldn't possibly attempt the back 3 again. All 3 centre backs were terrible tonight, it was like a competition to see who was shittest. Every player on the pitch was pish tonight. Pish and disorganised. Lowe missing (I assume he will be) is a major issue. We simply cannot play a back 3. It has to be the brutal 3 centre halfs and the defensive midfielder back line unless the new boy is ready, which I doubt - he can't be close to being match fit. A look to that bench tonight and there was just nothing. If we go a goal behind on Sunday, there's basically nothing we can do to change it. Not sure where GMS and Wilson were tonight, but this wasn't a game we should have been relying on subs for anyway. Fair play to Hamilton like, they worked their arses off, with the two guys up front putting in a phenomenal shift. They rode their luck and deliberately slowed the game down at every opportunity, but they were the better team and the deserved winners. Night and day from the last team Canning put out against us.

And the trial was in December but wasn't allowed to be reported on - not in the public interest apparently. Are there a lot of catholic kirk contributors in the NE? I didn't realise it was a big thing, but I suppose it must be. It does seem a little preverse that people don't see the conflict between their beliefs and the absolute wealth of religious institutions (because it's nae specific to Catholicism obviously). I suppose that there's nothing specific in yer religious texts that condemns their exhorbitant wealth and resultant power, but it could surely be morally extrapolated from the other shite in yer bibles and the like.

I think there might be other reasons as to why he couldn't be a future Aberdeen manager...

Totally agree. In fact, I think he's an excellent example of how we should be handling our youth. I thought he was a little bit headless chicken at times when he came on for us but with a good eye for goal. I think it would have been a huge mistake to keep him here if we couldn't guarantee him 60-90 minutes every week. He has the confidence to become a very good player for us and sending him somewhere where he can prolong that for several months will do him the world of good. There are a lot of decent teams in that league too, with County, Utd, ICT and Ayr easily as good as some of the teams in the lower SPFL. I think we could have easily given him a run of games as he was playing better than the players around him, however - judging by the games I saw him in - I don't think he was quite good enough to be scoring every week and I think we'd have been inclined to chop and change the striker because of this, which I think would have had a negative effect on his overall development. Given Cosgrove's form in December too, it was an absolute no brainer as there is no chance we'd have been dropping the on-form Cosgrove for him. I think that sometimes we have to think of the player's development first over the team needs and I think the long term benefits of his development will outweigh the short term benefits we might have gained with a couple of goals here and there in our first team.

McInnes had a very good playing career though. Not as good as Lennon or Robertson, but better than a hell of a lot of others. Captain of West Brom (to promotion from the championship and into the EPL), Arabs, Millwall* and St Johnstone. He was clearly a decent player and a leader on the pitch. *With Nigel Spackman saying: "Every Millwall player on that pitch should be a Derek McInnes." when he signed him at age 34.

I think you might be right. Although I don't think we'll necessarily change tactics for tonight and against the bottom 6 teams in general. Post split last season, we succesfully switched to a 4-5-1 type format with Ball as an additional midfielder. I expect he'll want to do similar this season post-split but with a 3 as you suggest. I actually think we'd be better retaining the back 4. Considine's worst performances at left back were when we dicked about with a back 3 or 5, leaving his pace exposed (usually to a Tim winger). When he was left of a back 4 and able to sit right on top of his man he was significantly better and often very good. Given we have Lowe at left back, who is very forward thinking, in my mind we can just simply invert our lopsided one attacking full back, one defensive full back method to suit. I suppose it's pragmatism really. Even with this new guy, I suspect we don't have an actual right back, so we need to pick the least worst option. A back five would be fine up until we're due to fill the right wing back place. McGinn would be the only one, for me, that could be trusted to track back as well as get forward, but I think we'd struggle to accomodate that formation with our other personnel and we'll get congested - especially at Pittodrie which is quite narrow. Either way, we've nae got the perfect solution.

You're changing the subject, I clearly replied to - and quoted - the bit where you said he lacked commitment. You're grasping at the fact that McInnes hasn't moved here as a sign of his lack of commitment is what I was saying (that particular point, not your other stuff). That's not harsh, cheeky or anything else. If you're not grasping, then you're not putting your argument forward correctly because it appears - to me, anyway - that you're grasping at it. The reason I'm suggesting is because you've got no evidence. I've suggested that he might not want to move his family for other genuine reasons (again, I've no idea and don't care), and you've not put forward any evidence to suggest otherwise. The reason I suggest your grasping is that you irrationally use McNeill as an example of commitment because he moved his family to Aberdeen. Yet he left after 11 months to join Celtic, because it was too big a job to turn down (stepping stone in other words). McInnes has been here for 4-5 years already, and there's a good chance he could last as long as Ferguson (8 years?). In this regard, you're either grasping, completely wrong, or are right but just haven't backed it up with any remotely useful evidence. I wasn't being harsh, provoking or anything else, I'd be interested in you proving me wrong. The problem is, that by putting forward your argument about commitment so unconvincingly, then I question your argument about the supposed qualities that Lennon has that McInnes doesn't because you put forward zero evidence for those too. That Lennon is somehow a winner that just happened to get sacked by Bolton and Hibs and regularly loses to McInnes' AFC, but McInnes is a loser. I just don't buy it. Most importantly, I don't buy the extent to which it makes a difference, which is the most important bit for me*. Lennon might believe he can win the league, he might hate losing, he might even be a winner but the extent to which he can pass that to players who are not as good as those above them (like AFC) will always be limited, and the extent to which he can maintain that winning spirit with regularity in order to win a cup or league is massively in question. *To me, your "winner" mentality is just another attribute in a series of attributes managers will/won't have. It's not nearly enough on its own. Where McInnes lacks a winning mentality (let's say), Lennon lacks in getting players to play for him and in self control (see the Hibs bust up). McInnes lacks in youth development and use of subs where Lennon lacks in concentration and organisation that sees him lose games he shouldn't. McGhee was undoubtedly a winner, but he had zero other attributes. I agree that AFC probably won't win the league without McInnes improving in those areas that he's deficient in. But I also think we're at least 6-7 good players short too (we need a squad to win the league). The extent to which a winners mentality has an effect is - in my opinion - negligible in terms of AFCs ability to win the league and, to me, is far too simplistic.