RicoS321

It may or may not be a load of shite, but you clearly do not understand any of the arguments so I wouldn't trust your judgement. The different demographic of fans are not in Aberdeen. That's the point of the club being called Aberdeen Football Club. It's not Aberdeenshire Football Club. The location doesn't adequately cater for Aberdeen supporters of Aberdeen football club. The notion of "a lifetime of convenience" is the most retarded thing I've ever heard. I live in Aberdeenshire, and have done for most of my life. I'm perfectly aware that by supporting a team called Aberdeen, I have to go to Aberdeen to watch them. It's a choice I made. There's no inconvenience, because I'm a person not born in Aberdeen supporting a team for Aberdeen. I don't expect them to move to Portlethen to make it easier for me. Being in Aberdeen is pretty fundamental to being Aberdeen Football Club. If you want a club to support that plays in Aberdeenshire (and the stadium fucking is, regardless of some constituency boundary that is bound to move post-bypass), then they should be called Aberdeenshire Football Club. It's the fact that you're so partisan that you miss the obvious irony when you make the point about people from Westhill didn't complain about building when they built all those Westhill hooses. You live in Garlogie, what the fuck are you doing at the beach looking for spaces? You could park anywhere from Anderson drive down and walk to Pittodrie within 40 minutes. Although you don't go to the games because it's not on your doorstep though, do you? Do you think that the traffic you experience going into town from Garlogie will in some way be easier for those coming out to Westhill? Or is this whole thing to you just some selfish: "it's better for me" as eluded to in your point 1? Again, you've totally missed the point. Nobody give a shite about the various exhibitions and meetings held regarding a stadium in fucking Westhill. The supporters of AFC were given no opportunity to review side by side plans of a re-developed 13,000 seater Pittodrie alongside the Westhill shite-dome and choose for themselves where they wanted the home of their club to be for the next 100 years or more. The fans did not choose Westhill, it was chosen for them. Then they were invited to meetings about it. You're a ridiculously partisan SNP supporter, why don't you apply some logic to it? If you voted for SNP because they wanted to build a new Primary in Garlogie and then the Tories won and came knocking on your door asking how you'd like the hooses to look that they're building instead would you tell them to fuck off? I think that the suggestion in the other thread by the club that UEFA would have forced us to play in front of 13K had we made the group stages should make AFC fans sit up and take note. If you seriously don't think you're being lied to then you're not looking hard enough.

That is vile, but the subject worthy of discussion in this debate. The Tims have taken the same club, different entity excuse to a whole new level. They are refusing to compensate the victims of the abuse because Celtic boys club was apparently a different legal entity to the Tims. A different legal entity, that supplied their team with players, trained on their facilities, toured their ground and had all the other attributes associated with being a part of Celtic fitba club. If the Tim support were "better" than the despicable hun, then they'd be calling it out for the shameful approach that it is. They'd put their partisan: "our club can do no wrong" attitude to one side and fight for their club to do the right thing. These were children in the care of Celtic football club when they were abused, in the same way as they'd have been in the care of Celtic football club if they'd gone on to success as a player. From that point of view they are one in the same thing. Utter scum. That said, in similar circumstances, I'm not sure what AFC and - more importantly - AFC fans would do. Are we any better?

Anyone who signed up to DNA is too pliant to question authority. Probably. I don't believe for a second that Pittodrie's capacity would have been restricted to 13K. That seems like an outright lie.

Maybe you're a hun.... I know what you mean. I think that their recent liquidation was of huge importance to the whole game in this country and its ramifications massive. There are people who can't admit a hun is a good player, or that the huns played well on occasion etc etc, which is just annoying. I'm with you on the tim being in the same category too.

Surely that's the entire purpose of the word?

Totally agree. I found it utterly meaningless. Would we have had a minute's silence for any other European club chairman? If not, why do we feel the need to link Scottish and English fitba in some way? They're not related at all.

Aye, it was the same for the semi. £7 recorded delivery. Shocking like. I'll bring my phone so I can watch it on the telly close up.

I totally disagree about Shinnie. He's had a handful of poor games and a handful of exceptional ones (he held his own against Burnley home and away against some top class midfielders), he was excellent against Hamilton when alongside Ferguson too. The things about Shinnie this season is that he's being asked to do the work of his previous role last season plus the huge gap in work rate left by McLean leaving. He's covering more ground and putting in more effort, which obviously has an effect in some games on his passing (if you're tired you make more mistakes). I think that's why we're seeing an inconsistency. To me, it's more noticeable in the games where Ball is in the deep role than when Ferguson is there, and that correlates with Ferguson being the more suitable/like-for-like replacement of McLean in terms of positional play and work. Ball gets stuck in but his lack of pace means the coverage isn't there. When Ferguson(McLean) is in the role, he does the dropping deep part and take the ball off the centre backs. When Ball is there, that is often left to Shinnie or the centre backs just launch it to the smallest available player on the park. In terms of the two up front, I think that it would happen on paper only for the dons (if it was Anderson and May) because - as you mention - the fluidity of formations during the game would result in one of the strikers actually being forced back into the attacking midfield (central of the three in a 4-2-3-1) for the majority of the time rendering a 4-2-3-1 as the actual formation despite having two named forwards. I just don't think a 4-4-2 can be maintained in an SPL game with the dons' personnel. The only question for me is whether May is a better person to have as the centre of the 3 in a 4-2-3-1 that occasionally flows into a 4-4-2, or whether Wright (or another) would be a better player to have as a more natural attacking midfielder in a 4-2-3-1. Because that's what will end up happening either way. There is plenty of evidence last season when we tried to shoe-horn Rooney and May into the team together. Rooney nearly always ended up out wide as the opposition simply widened the pitch and forced us to move a player wide because it's really easy to play against.

It's interpretation of the atmosphere by the individual involved. It's about taking responsibility. Killie were at home and aren't a rival of Aberdeen's. Lennon didn't deserve a coin off the coupon, but he should have known that there was a high risk of it compared to at a Motherwell match for example. Similarly, if Boyd was doing a risk assessment of his actions prior to doing them then he'd know that there was little risk of a coin off his coupon against the dons. I think we're at risk of regulating entertainment out of the game instead of allowing common sense to dictate. Common sense dictates that - as a manager - you don't directly antagonise the support of your biggest rival. Common sense dictates that Boyd was having a laugh - partly at his own expense - in front of fans that largely don't give a fuck about the club he plays for.

Mistaken identity or simulation are the only two instances where it can be challenged I think. There's always room to set new precedents of course, regardless of the team involved. I don't see it as a bad thing necessarily. There would be cause for Hamilton to complain about Imrie's second yellow against us of course and so it could lead to a lot of unnecessary panel reviews. Candeis' second yellow didn't seem to be correct, but unless you can create a whole new category that can be subject to review (like mistaken identity etc) then I don't really see how you can overturn it.

Me too. Shite seats. Wasn't impressed with all the glory hunters able to swan online and get tickets before superfans like myself. Again, Hampden should be split vertically so that more fans can get a seat with a view. We should have had the North stand going into the wings. That way we'd have had about 12K of good seats. £31 for a restricted/binocular view seat. £38 if you want that ticket posted to yer house.

Aye, that probably lacked a little in explanation. I meant that you need to play direct with a 4-4-2 in the modern game as every other chunt is setup with a 3 man midfield. You can do it the Tims under O'Neill way like Motherwell have done recently with Bowman and Moult/Main with two big guys or the old school way of big striker knocking down to the little guy as used to happen. What I meant when I said "modern fitba" is that teams are nearly always setup with a midfield 3 these days and with the personnel to suit. You play a two man midfield against a three and you lose control of the ball. They play 2 up front and you can too. The problem is one of catch 22 in that you can't really play 2 up front (unless you have the big man/men) unless the oppponent sets up similarly and they won't do it cause you won't do it. 4-2-3-1 or similar has been the fashion since about 2006 now and I don't see it changing (I'm not talking the big teams in world fitba, they have options not open to the rest). As mentioned, you could play 3-5-2 (ala McLeish) but that wouldn't get the best out of our personnel. Put it this way, we play 2 up front against hibs and we get slaughtered in midfield (you mention it's about personnel - do you think that Shinnie and Ferguson will be a match for a Hibs midfield 3?). That doesn't preclude May and Anderson playing together, but expect one of them to be tracking back like a high-lying midfielder (which is fine by me, preferably May).

Homecoming on Amazon. Top quality again from Amazon. They've seem to hit a pretty high standard. The Man in the High Castle Mr Robot Homecoming Sneaky Pete All excellent. Most likely others too.

The thing is, 4-4-2 is far too easy to play against in modern fitba unless we intend going very direct. If we lose a player in midfield then Hibs simply overrun us. That is unless we play a 3-5-2, but I'm not convinced that best suits our personnel. If it's May and Anderson, then it'll be May in behind Anderson (probably not vice versa) or a shoe-horned winger approach like we used to see with Rooney. Folk were critical, quite rightly, of McInnes when he did that but it's the logical conclusion when you attempt to play 2 and the other team just starts passing around you and you inevitably drop a player in to cover. For me, it's 4-2-3-1 all the way, although I'd be happy enough to see May in behind Anderson in that setup given the paucity of other options for that role (Wright hasn't performed as well as May in the last few matches unfortunately). I just hope McInnes has learned his lesson and keeps Ferguson and Shinnie as the 2 in midfield. It allows Shinnie to do the Flood role and give Ferguson the space to pass whilst giving the defence an option to come forward with the ball rather than a long distance punt.

I think that's taking conspiracy to a new level. It seems like he enjoys the villain tag and the "banter". When McInnes shook his hand at the end of the game Boyd had a smile about something, so I wonder if McInnes had a joke with him about it. I think it's great to be honest, I'd far rather a player like that than the bland identikit players they churn out these days. It's entertaining. The folk that get upset about it in the dons end - and there are some (not suggesting you KFP) - need to get over it.

Shinnie and McGinn were both good against the Hun and especially Hamilton.

Fucking moron. You didn't question Ball and Shinnie, you incorrectly stated that they were defenders. They're not, and it's a fucking thick argument to pursue. You're well put most recent argument is pretty hard to take seriously when you put such a pathetic argument forward previously. I think it's a ridiculously harsh judgement of Shinnie, for what it's worth, but otherwise I'm in agreement as is obvious from my other posts, which is why your "temerity" shite makes you sound even more stupid.

Aye, but if there isn't a player available, then you don't just sign someone for the sake of it. We're paying a decent amount for Wilson, so he's due us a return. We could easily buy a decent striker but only get them on a year or two contract, so a guy that's here for a season should rightly get our support. I think at a point in time this season we just have to accept that we don't really have a good striker and just give who ever draws the short straw our backing. I've resigned to not expecting anything from the front one or two this season and it's made me feel a lot better about it! Young Bruce up front for the next game I'd say.

Totally agree. It also means that Shinnie has to do twice the work, and it's no coincidence that his poorer performances have been alongside Ball - his passing suffers as a result of the extra shift. Ferguson is completely suited to the role too, which makes today's lineup more frustrating. I understand the use of Ball on occasion (and previously Hoban) when we know we're going to need that extra defender. I also feel sorry for Ball who hasn't done much wrong - especially when you compare the poorer performances from our strikers and our shite midfield signings - but there should be no harm in dropping him because he's not as good as the alternatives. He was mainly back in because Wright wasn't great, but Wright not being great should be a reason to play McLennan or Forrester or someone, not bring Ball in. Ball should be a replacement for when Shinnie is injured or if we're playing away at Parkhead and need some additional cover in midfield in a 4-1-4-1 (or the Burnley game as a good example), or as a sub to shore things up and protect a lead. McInnes is trying to keep everyone happy by playing three players who don't really fit together. It's poor management. Does anyone know our best 11 after that game today?

There is no debate. Shinnie and Ball were signed this season as central midfielders. That's the bottom line. Whether we think either are better played elsewhere is irrelevant, they are recognised midfielders for AFC and the utter bullshit of saying that we started with 6 defenders is just moronic, childish shite that takes away from the actual argument. Shinnie was excellent mid week and against the huns, against Burnley and in several other games this season too. When he's not playing well he still puts in a huge amount of work and plays like a captain should play - aggresively and thanklessly. The real debate is the negative starting line up of two defensive midfielders and Ferguson in the advanced role. It doesn't work against a team that are no better than us, and it wasn't necessary today. It was a huge opportunity missed to establish a style of play (and possibly personnel) ahead of the Tim game in a month and leaves us no closer to finding an eleven that will get near the tims. Ball isn't a bad player, but he should be in a 4-1-4-1 type formation in games against better teams or not at all. Shinnie is asked to do far more work when he's sitting alongside him and until Ferguson moved back today he was anonymous too. It plays to all three player's weaknesses. Ball should have been on with 30 minutes to go after going a goal or two up, not as a start in games like these. I understand that Wright wasn't great the other night, but he did enough to be given another opportunity to develop something with Wilson and have us playing higher up the park. It was noticeable that when Ferguson dropped deep the defenders could come further up the park and we'd have had more space centrally as a result (we'd taken May on by that point who was playing higher than Wright would have). On the speculative punting front, a lot of that was forced upon us by shite management, but the Kilmarnock players were excellent at closing down today and they were very disciplined. Also, the dons really didn't look comfortable on the surface, it looked a lot more bouncy today than it has in the past. I can only assume it either wasn't watered, or the surface is wearing a bit as it reminded me of Hamilton's a few years back. There were several balls that were bouncing further and higher than expected and our defenders weren't taking any chances with it. Agree with TC, a decent showing from May. Plenty of fight there.

No it fucking isn't. Can we stop this moronic shite? Ball is not a defender and neither is Shinnie. Poor setup though. We should be attacking from the start with Wright retaining his position ahead of Ball and then bring Ball on if we need him. Not the other way round. Negative stuff.

Because he was here and he needed some game time, GMS wasn't consistent, McGinn was only here for the second half of the season and we had Christie who was better than Stewart through the centre too. There were a multitude of reasons why he didn't get regular game time there, but I'm arguing that it was mainly through his own lack of fitness that he wasn't given a decent chance as opposed to the bit part opportunity. He didn't earn the right to get a decent chance and so he was left to pick up the scraps of opportunities out wide and sub appearances centrally (he did start at least one game in the centre at Pittodrie as I remember thinking it could be his chance, but I think he was just okay). You, correctly, questioned my suggestion that Wright should be played centrally for us against the hun and other games. For me, Stewart is in the same boat. Neither necessarily deserve an opportunity and should just take the chance they get. However, I quite liked Stewart and I didn't think he did that a bad job out wide, but I could see why he wasn't given a long run in the team as I don't think he worked hard enough - at that level of fitness he was just a half decent squad player.

I know what you were saying. I'm suggesting that you might be wrong. That his unfitness was more of an issue for us than his positioning as evidenced by the times he did play centrally for us but was still poor. Unless you are saying that the times he played wide were detrimental to his confidence to the extent that it affected his performances when played centrally? If so, you could be right.

He played several times in the centre for us as a sub. That's what I was saying.

He didn't fit into our system because he didn't do the work. He played a few times (mainly as sub) in the advanced role of a 4-2-3-1 centrally. I don't see that position being far off what is being asked of him at Killie now. The main thing being that he now looks fit enough to do the tracking back that he didn't really do for us.