RicoS321

11 each in SPL and non-SPL players. Must be a recent record.

Was listening to the radio the night and one of the cunts (might have been Darryl Broadcunt) on made a really interesting point and something I wasn't aware of. Apparently the rules were changed a while back for these types of incident. It's apparently not a red card unless there is "danger" (or something to that effect) to the victim rather than just a player acting in anger. I can't remember the exact wording but he read out the rule and it made complete sense. It was apparently changed after they added more players to the committees deciding on these rules. Regardless of the huns benefitting, it can only be a good thing. Neither Morelos or the other hun did anything malicious, reds for that type of thing is nonsense. No chance of this one getting reviewed by the actual laws of the game.

Subbsy binned. Hilarious. Worst management performance I've seen at Pittodrie since McGhee in that cup match. Sticking with ridiculous tactics despite shipping goals - classic McGhee.

That is a ridiculously partisan view of that pen. It was an atrociously stupid challenge by a player so far off the pace it was embarrassing (don't remember if he played again?). It was a pen all day long. Anyway, onto Rocket's point. I disagree. We've got the remnants of a decent squad as well as a few that should be on their way. Lewis, Devlin, McKenna, Considine, Logan, Shinnie, Ferguson, Wright, GMS and McGinn on his day (still) are good players with Anderson, Campbell, maybe Ross (I don't think he'll make it) and others from the youngsters to supplement. Lowe looks decent, Wilson it remains to be seen. The rest are filler that could be replaced, but there isn't a squad in the league bar Celtic who don't have that filler (they do, just at a different level). We're significantly fitter, more professional and more consistent than we've been in years and behind the scenes we've progressed in terms of training methods, soon to be training infrastructure, contract renewal, player sales, fan engagement (sort of), marketing etc. etc. The club are night and day from when McInnes joined. We can argue/agree on McInnes' failings, but anyone who couldn't make something of the squad and environment if McInnes were to leave tomorrow wouldn't be fit to be dons' manager. If the club could take more lead on player recruitment (better scouting) and introduce a strategy for youth development and introduction then we'd be only looking at McInnes' cautious tactics and failure to appropriately motivate his team in bigger games. But then that would be ironing out every single error in our manager, which is probably a little unrealistic.

Was this not due to police shutting a road or some such? Not stadium planning requirement, but match day planning requirement?

What happened in that first game like? I remember Tansey giving away a blatant pen, but I don't remember much else (Stewart having an atrocious game rings a bell).

Surely Rocket is allowed some sort of poetic licence here? They were fucking atrocious by any standard, but not SP or MM bad. However, if you compare peak Mcghee with the poorest McGhee performance then the difference between those performances would be comparable to peak McInnes and those hun performances - they were fucking atrocious. The only problem that I have is that he wasn't "considering" anything as no offer had been made and so there was nothing to consider. McInnes had already made his intention to stay clear (as announced by Milne in the prior weeks), we just had to hear it twice to be certain due to a huge media campaign by the impartial BBC who attempted to railroad our manager into resigning. In the end, we got over it and finished above them in the league. I don't think we'll be saying the same this season unfortunately.

That's about it. He was atrocious at the weekend, his worst game this season and probably his time here. There was a gaping chasm between him and the rest of the team when we went down to ten, but he was on his heels throughout the entire match. Normally he'll make the runs into the channel and get his body in front of the man and retain possession, but he was Nicky Maynard poor at the weekend, hiding behind the defence. The only decision Thompson got right in the first half was when he told May to get up after he inexplicably dived after skinning a defender (not really, inexplicable, the real explanation was that he didn't fancy his chances in front of goal and took the easy option). That said, I understand McInnes starting him and I understand his attempts to play him into form. Anderson has a bit to go yet and I don't imagine we'd get even half a season out of him of consistent form. I don't think it was wrong to play May against Killie, and I think it was even correct to give him a bit of time with an additional striker alongside him in Cosgrove to see if that would help. However, he definitely shouldn't start the next game after that performance. It's a shame that Wilson will be fit for the next match, I imagine, and so Anderson won't get the opportunity but as long as there is a change then that's a start. The sub of Gleeson was telling at the weekend. It shows that McInnes doesn't have the faith in him at all, yet. McGinn would have been the obvious one to take off in the circumstances but Gleeson clearly couldn't be trusted and I agreed with McInnes' decision to hook him. In reality, yer centre mids should be the last people you're considering taking off in that situation but there are serious question marks over his coverage, in exactly the same mould as Tansey last season (although Tansey should have been no surprise). Overall, I had no issue with McInnes' approach at the weekend, made his subs in decent(ish) order - I'd have had them on sooner like - and took on/off the correct people. However, it is abundantly clear that beyond our preferred 11-13 players we are pap and nowhere near good enough to be beating a team when down to ten men (compare that to the huns v us in the first game; it's night and day). We're possibly looking at another window of sub-50% effective recruitment, which has to be questioned. McInnes has earned, financially, a bit of leeway here as we can afford to bring in slightly more players due to past-seasons' performances but there is only so far that can be tested if we continue to bring in below-par players. If Lowe turns out to be decent - early signs promising - and Wilson too, then he's got his breathing space and it could be deemed a succesful window (including Devlin of course), but I think that's a big "if" and it still leaves us significantly reliant on the loan market to supplement poor recruitment. That poor recruitmentis also hindering our youth as May becomes first sub for Wilson over Anderson, and Gleeson fills a hole that objectively could be better filled by Campbell (I don't think Campbell is ready, but he'd be a more worthwhile project than getting Gleeson up to speed on current showing). Similarly Forrester coming onto the pitch ahead of anyone at present is bad use of first team time. Special mention for that cuntpiece Thompson at the weekend. What a total fucking dick. Arrogant wanker that shouldn't be anywhere near a pitch. Steaming up to give the red card to Devlin (disagree with whoever suggested that the Killie players surrounding him made any difference - he'd made up his mind in .01 seconds) when every other ref would have understood that it was a booking (just like he did with Hayes a couple of seasons back). Generally imposing himself on a match that didn't require it to make himself centre of attention again. When every other ref in world football draws a straight white line in front of the defensive wall as a signal to the players, the fans and as an aid to themselves, Thompson decides that he doesn't need that and places a small dot to the side because he's such a good ref he has it under control. It opitimises his arrogant wankerishness and is a personality that isn't required of a ref. It showed throughout his entire performance at the weekend and in recent years. He doesn't make mistakes like other refs, he is the mistake. Everything about him is just wrong and he can't be trusted to ref a football match. Anyway, Killie very good for the win and a sublime goal by Stewart in an advanced role. Considine poor for sending off and the second goal, Ball doing another thankless task wasn't great, McGinn looked fucked, May pap, GMS less than average, Shinnie and Ferguson looked okay but had too much to do. We need to get our first eleven worked out and hope we can get them on the pitch at the same time soon.

It would be written into the deal that he was there player but effectively loaned back, with a watertight contract. It's happened in the past. There's no way AFC would accept anything else, and Villa not stupid enough to try it. Otherwise we'd just wait until January. Anyway, it's some serious dealing by the dons if they've turned down £6.5M. A bizarre gamble to be honest. There's nothing that AFC could win this season - that having McKenna here would make significantly more likely - that would get us close to that type of figure. It's a fee that would fund the entire training complex at the shitebag arena (which is insane really). I don't imagine even McInnes would kick up a fuss at losing McKenna for that type of fee. Perhaps McKenna thinks Villa are shite? Is it midnight for the window? Expect more movement if so. The beeb reporting that it was in excess of £3.5M offered by the Tims. Have to admit, not seen anything reliable in regard to the supposed £5M+ offers, all just gossip.

Yep. It's a shame McCoist wasn't still in charge. He'd have fucked it up properly for them.

Except that he can't even finish above us and hasn't yet won Hibs a trophy or looked likely to (despite a healthy budget similar to our own). He talks a good game, occasionally performs well against the Tim and the Hun but his tactics are at times bordering on stupidity. He's been outwitted (actually outwitted, not just had an off-day) by McInnes on more than one occasion and has never produced a Hibs team close to the one we had a couple of seasons ago when we were banging in goals for fun. He's "a winner" except when he invariably isn't and goes in a huff blaming anyone and everyone. He lacks nuance and class - he's fucking Kevin Keegan. I don't get the love in, and I certainly don't get your stated to desire to bring him in and give him more money than McInnes has had in total over his 5 years here, that's just fucking stupidity. Nor would it prove that Lennon is a better manager, it would just prove that spending £2-3M in Scotland gives you a good chance of winning a trophy (something I think that we'd have done last season if we'd spent £750K on Moult, or whatever the asking price was). I actually don't mind listening to Lennon's commentary and in some interviews comes across very well but he's shown nothing on the pitch to warrant the weird adoration by some dons fans.

Totally agree. I think you'd need near perfection for us to win the league - zero mistakes. I think McInnes has too many individual flaws to ever do that. I also think that poor recruitment over the last 2-3 seasons is now beginning to take it's toll. My only hope for a decent season is that Wright finally comes of age and makes that attacking midfield spot his own. That role could be the difference between us challenging for second all the way (again, we're nae going to get first with this squad/McInnes) and scrapping it all the way for 3rd-5th. I don't think there is a manager in the SPL at present who would take the dons to the league title, and there hasn't been one in recent memory. None of them seem to have the right blend of risk-taking without being shite at the back and the ability to get >50% return (of good players) in the transfer market. I'd include Rogers in that.

Why? Those are massive games for them that'll earn them a fortune. They've done the hard bit and have reaped the rewards, anything else from now on is a bonus. They won't give a shite whether they win, lose or draw.

Because ayrshire_don74 is, almost without exception, unhelpfully negative without reasoned argument. Nobody on here is arguing that Ball is a great midfielder, so the unnecessary attack on him as a player isn't required. In short, he was being a dick about it, so the only reasonable response was either not to respond or a facetious/wind-up type of response. I've never argued against that, I've only argued over what is put in front of me. My points have been regular and clear that McInnes' problems lie in his recruitment (striker/midfielder - see my points regarding Gleeson), his lack of youth development, his cautious approach - i.e. the same as everyone else. I don't need to argue that further, I don't see it as beneficial. Nor do I see the need to be massively critical of McInnes at every venture because he's done a better than reasonable job so far and we don't live in some alternate univserse where we can afford a better manager or have a chairman with the ability to find one without catastrophically fucking it up. The point about Shinnie is a great case-in-point. People were arguing that Shinnie should be playing left back because he's ace there. My point was that you can't just say that Shinnie is ace at left back and move him from midfield without addressing the gaping hole left behind. We were a couple of days before the end of the window and unlikely to be getting in any further players that would be any good (maybe this new left back will be of course). There was no point in me going over old ground and saying McInnes is shite at recruitment - I've made that once or twice before (Gleeson, Forrester, Tansey) more quickly/aggressively than most - I'm interested in the nuance of "we are where we are, with the players we've got" how we get the best out of the existing situation. I'd say that's the point of a fitba forum and indeed watching fitba - talking about how best we could set up the existing team, not some team that doesn't exist where we've signed an ace midfielder and a 25 goal a season striker. I actually don't mind a major slump, that's what fitba is about for me. Being good one year, shite the next. We're nae the Tims, winning every week. If I can understand, or at least think I can understand, why we're shite because I've watched us every week then that's quite enjoyable and it makes it great (and frustrating) when you see things turn around, or even see us set up well in individual games like we did against St Mirren, Burnley and much of the post-split last season. It makes it frustrating when you see repeated errors such as in our recruitment and in youth development and our apparent (I still haven't seen the highlights of the hibs game) cautious approach to the game, but that's what makes fitba worth it for me. McInnes will be gone in a year or so, and someone else will come in with a different way of working. It's the big things, the major fuck ups that I get annoyed by: the new stadium location, the 11-1 vote split - things that'll fuck us up for generations. On the playing side, the inability to recognise and capitalise the opportunity we had to get into the Europa league last year, which has set us back a couple of years. Those bigger black marks are the stuff that concerns me, the detail is the stuff that is great to discuss on fitba boards and the like. Should Wright have started more games: is he a dick in training, or is McInnes just too cautious? Does McInnes buy too many squad players, rather than supplementing with youth? Should McInnes have said: X,Y,Z after the game (and if he said that a point would have been taken before the game against Hibs, then that's very poor). These sorts of things I think are great topics, but the margin for error is so tight - and the buffer so small - at our level that I find it difficult to be completely scathing either way - especially when I don't know the exact reasons for decisions that are made: attitudes in training, player X decided to go to club Y for £2K more per week and so on (i.e. I don't have a complete picture). I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was optimistic from either? I'd say balanced perhaps, I think we'll finish 3rd this season and won't win any silverware - exactly where our budget and the bookies would put us. I think that our personnel are not good enough to get us beyond that unless we can keep everyone fit every week.

Both. I ken like, I was being facetious mainly.

Can you name a single fixture in which we've lost in normal time with Ball in midfield?

I'm not sure about Gauld. An exciting young player no doubt, but where does he actually play these days? If it's attacking midfield then I think we have a duty to give Wright that role for a decent run to see if he can make something of it rather than a loanee. If it's out wide, then it might be decent to challenge McGinn and GMS. Otherwise, assuming the new striker boy is any good, then we stick with what we've got until January. Re-assess the midfield then.

That's about it I suppose. Reynolds very much the square peg in that scenario of course. As TC says, the introduction of Lowe (if he's more than backup) would involve a change of style that would be awkward to revert from in January, as Reynolds just provides a shitter left back version of Considine rather than an attacking player. Still, it's important for the next few games while McKenna is out at least (unless he misses the weekend game and McKenna returns after the international break!) as it retains Shinnie in midfield and we get the chance to assess the guy and see if he's an improvement until January - then we re-visit. As it stands, we've either got this guy as backup to Considine or we envisage signing another left back in January (and Reynolds just comes in handy if McKenna leaves or we get more injuries). It's just a real shame that we've had to sign 2 "senior" players in our fullback positions as cover because we haven't been able to produce a good one from youth.

Welcome aboard loon. Could this mean McKenna getting shifted today/tomorrow? Would be leaving it late if so. Considine done an admirable job at left back over the last few years, so this guy (albeit a totally different type of player we'd assume) will have to be good. Wonder if he can play midfield?

That has never actually been said by McInnes though. I remember I, and others, speculated at the time that we assumed it would have been the case that he came to agreement with McInnes but that was purely guess work based on his continued placement in midfield. It's interesting though, and all of the chat stems from the fact that he's very good in both positions, which can only be a good thing for us. If the player really wanted to play in midfield then I don't think it's bad management to facilitate this despite the fact that he is a cracking left back too. I think we get to hung up on it to be honest. He's set a very high standard in both positions and will be difficult to replace in either which is why we're struggling to do so. He's more than matched McGinn (£2.75M) and McGeouch (massive wages) in numerous games in midfield and occasionally seen to Scott Brown too. He easily held is own against Cork for Burnley also. That's a very high standard for a dons player, and should show the difficulty we'd have in finding and affording a replacement. The fact that he's also a very good left back just makes it very difficult for us to get a left back in too! He's in the Scotland squad as a fullback despite playing the majority of games in midfield, which shows how good he is there too. He's set such a high bench mark for a left back that we will struggle to get one who's even close without spanking a wedge on him (Considine at least manages to avoid too much comparison by being a totally different style of player). Whoever we get in will always be classed as inferior to Shinnie unless we get lucky. Shinnie is a better fullback than Logan, who has been a fantastic signing for us, so that's the level we're talking. Shinnie's biggest problem, then, is that he's set an impossibly high (AFC) benchmark for two positions despite only ever being able to fill one of them. If we'd bought Shinnie as a midfielder originally then we'd be over the moon. If he'd never played a single game in midfield for us having signed as a left back we'd still be over the moon. I don't think we should understimate the standard he has set and the difficulty we have in meeting that standard. One disappointment is that we've not had a young fullback come in and make the role their own. I think that a certain level of leeway would have been afforded to a youngster that won't be to any new senior left back.

Ha ha ha. Fucking pathetic. Cunts.

I'd probably agree with most of that. The suggestion is, is that it is Hampden as is or Murrayfield as is, with no hope of improvements to Hampden. Aye, you could be right. However, the existing Glasgow base (of the SFA at least) worsens the pervasive grip that the scum have in this country, which is at a detriment to the game, to the extent that it will eventually ruin us and others completely. Any change to this arrangement greatly heightens the chance of progressive change in the game from an objective perspective. Obviously it doesn't have to be a stadium move, however the notion that the scum travelling to Edinburgh regularly is a bad thing is a little short-sighted. Anything that can get them to compromise, to not be put at the forefront of every decision and to not entirely have everything their own way can only be good for the entire game, and it doesn't have to be from a "get it up them" type viewpoint. It's about reducing our reliance on the scum and making the game more broad in its appeal. To add: Donsdaft's point is so pertinent. A new start for Scottish fitba. End that shite.

That would suggest McKenna on his way and Considine into centre back? Or just Considine on the bench.

Yes it is, Hampden's shite. I like Hampden's location actually, but the ground is a disgrace and paying money for the shite view you get from the ends is a disgrace. A bit like Westminster being in London results in a London-centric view of everything politically and a drain on resources, Hampden does similar in Scottish fitba by being in Glasgow. Hence the wailing of the press who would have to get off their arses and move to Edinburgh to be in front of the story. The quote above from Lencarl perfectly encapsulates the need for Scottish fitba to relocate. It's for the betterment of the entire game. Murrayfield is pish as well like with it's 800 metre long pitch. It's still better though.

It's nothing to do with "succeeding", as that is a subjective measure based on expectation. It is whether a team is better or worse with a player in one position or another. My argument is very simple: Shinnie in midfield + Considine left back > Shinnie at left back + Gleeson/Ball in midfield. Specifically in games where we will be under more pressure and reduced possession. I'm not mitigating anything, I'm making a point based on our existing squad. Anything else is pointless (or at least will be in three days time when the window closes). Very little point in discussing Shinnie's left back abilities without discussing it in context of our squad and the pros/cons within that as opposed to how great we could be if we'd signed a better player. I've been very clear that are inability to procure a better central midfielder (and striker) is a massive failing. I think it's ridiculous that we've signed 3 and only one appears up to the job but still with a good bit to learn. That is the issue in its entirety for me. I don't think instilling a winning mentality in Ball will make him a more competent passer or quicker. Nor Gleeson (caveat: I know it's early). I just don't think they're good enough. None of that impacts the central question though which is why does anyone think that our midfield without Shinnie is good enough to match the Tims, Huns, Hibs or Hertz?