RicoS321

Agreed, couple of episodes to go and been pretty decent.

Stockley had a gash start to the season. Everyone on here, me especially, wanted to see him gone. We had nothing up front against Apollon, and Stockley was a large part of that. The ball 5 yards either side of him and he was nowhere near it.

Hope not. He's pap. Another striker that isn't quite quick enough to threaten when we're struggling for crosses. File in the May/Rooney category.

So it turns out that last bet won. I just remembered about it today when speaking to a colleague about betting, which shows just how much effort I put into my betting. (Un)Fortunately this means that I now have over £100 in my gambling account, and still nae idea. Given the price of high class whoors these days, I'd rather attempt to make a bit more before cashing out (or, more likely, losing it all). I was hoping to have a couple of hundred quid in there in time for the world cup so that I can make more spectacular losing bets throughout that tournament. Any suggestions on bets for the wikend?

Ach, it's good to see in the modern game. Too many players keep their mouths shut and don't say what they're thinking. It was a dirty challenge, something Scott Brown is quite familiar with. It's a pity the "journalist" doesn't have a note to hand of Brown's booking count from the previous season (16 I think?) when he makes jibes like that. Typical of the professionalism shown by the UK media, go in with a shit-stirring question but with no preparation for a response, so it ends up a pandering puff piece where the player can say what he wants. Shinnie will do him big style next season.

I'd argue that the short memories also occur each time we lose a game, and hysteria ensues. Describing McInnes as "above average" seems to be the best it gets on this thread, which I wouldn't call happy clapping. We didn't have a great team this season with a lot of failures last summer in the transfer market, but he's been above average for the club in his time here, earning him the chance to make the same mistakes again or prove he's got the ability to improve on his recruitment. Finishing second has to be given the recognition it deserves, as it is a good (above average) achievement, and pretty significant in terms of retaining some pride in the club. Had the hun finished second, we'd have seen a tail off in support and a "welcome return to business as usual" approach by the press. Second place fucks a lot of people in Scottish fitba over and is rightly celebrated. In any other circumstances it would just be another league placing, but in Scotland it's important - vital, even.

All round professionalism. Any dons player will tell you that Deek is meticulous in his planning for games (too meticulous in my opinion) and leaves no stone uncovered. Calderwood was all about having his mates around, and Levein takes the latest fashionable formation and tries to apply it to a ridiculous degree when it's obviously not working. My point was in regard to getting results against the bottom 8. We've been ultra consistent in our setup for those games (the occasional back 3 against Motherwell and Hertz) and we've won the vast majority of them by playing to our strengths. We've not fucked up against the little guy - in the league - like Hibs and the Huns, because McInnes is very precise in his tactics. He plays to our strengths, and is cautious when we go ahead. We didn't lose a game when went ahead this season - because of his tactics - where Hibs and the Huns did. We lost against the tim and hun because our personnel weren't up to the standard required (more so when any single player was injured). Cosgrove is what changed. It was the ability to play the One or two high up the pitch without being turned over. It was first used in the Tims game against their back 3 when they completely destroyed us. We repeated it against Hearts with Cosgrove and it worked perfectly. It wasn't weak tactics against the scum, it was personnel, hence why it worked when Cosgrove appeared. Deek's tactics were clear against them, when you were at the game it was very obvious what he was trying to do against both Tims and Huns, we just lacked the personnel to actually beat them. I actually believe that he had more shouty Calderwood/Lennon traits then he'd have taken more points in those games. There was blatant evidence of poor effort by players in those games, rather than poor tactics. I'd say that he over-thought them, trying to find the perfect system to beat them. I came on here after each scum game asking what formation folk would have chosen with our personnel to beat either team and all anyone could say was "press higher" - that's not a formation, that's a function of effort. When you looked around our squad, we just didn't have the options to play differently, which was required against better teams. No point in having a plan B if you don't have the personnel to change to it (May too similar to Rooney, Stewart to McGinn/Christie, Wright to GMS, no big centre mid, no cover to allow Shinnie to left back, no option to replace Logan when not on form etc. - all personnel issues). I'm 100% convinced it was a personnel/recruitment issue this season that saw us dropped points in the old firm games (i.e. they were a better team with better players), and equally as convinced that Deek's preparation, analysis and caution was what won us many games that under previous managers we'd have lost. I wasn't suggesting that Celtic's total had anything to do with Deek's tactics, I was suggesting that it was evidence that the league was stronger, and we've only finished 3 points worse off. I'd agree generally, but we've seen more than our fair share of games where effort was questioned. Stewart, GMS, Christie, O'Connor, Logan could all have been questioned about their motivation at times this season. There is evidence that he recognised the issue because A) he signed Cosgrove to fit that role and B) he tried it disastrously against Celtic earlier in the season with Rooney and May. He's not a tactical genius, but he absolutely isn't naive, and definitely above average. I think he could do much better at raging players into a frenzy for the bigger games against better teams when tactics alone aren't going to cut it, and I think that is far more an issue for him. You could switch him for Lennon and we'd tank the huns a couple of times a season but we wouldn't finish second; he doesn't have Deek's discipline.

He's clearly not average though, he's very much above average. Calderwood was average, Levein is average. Two seasons running he has finished above his budgeted position - that's quite rare. It relies on sevco making a slight cunt of it, but even they didn't finish far off the tims. The league strengthened enough to make the tim fare 30 points worse, but we only finished 3 points worse. Most of that was down to McInnes' tactics. His tactics are what ground out results, that no other team could, against the bottom 8 teams: Tims 3/12 Huns 1/12 Hibs 7/12 Killie 10/12 Hertz 5/12 Well 6/9 Saints 9/9 Dundee 9/9 Hamltn 7/9 Partick 7/9 RossCty 9/9 Those are very strong stats. His current weaknesses are recruitment, recruitment and recruitment. Probably subs as well, in that they take too fucking long and rarely change a game (although, as the stats show, we rarely need to). No plan B wasn't a choice by McInnes, he just made poor signings which meant we couldn't adapt to anything else. That changed, and so did our form, with the introduction of Cosgrove. That shows he at least recognised the issue. It's important to mention that our budget is a huge limiting factor in our recruitment success too. The Tims made some poor signings that made no impact too (Massonda, Roberts, the defender they signed in January and probably others), but they had a squad of 20 others to fill the gap. A 50% success rate on signings is probably about right. Last summer that didn't happen, we need to get back to that.

It's an interview about the difficulty of picking world cup squads on the day of the world cup squads being announced. With strikers of Durie, Gallacher, Donnelly Jackson and Booth, on paper his statement looks reasonable; McCoist had a far better scoring record than any of those. However, delve a little deeper and you see that he only played in 3 of the qualifying games, with only 1 start (he was subbed after 75 minutes) in the first game in august 1996, and only two further sub appearances. In the entire two years leading up to the campaign he had cause to call on McCoist on only three occasions with him scoring zero goals. It sounds like the deluded ramblings of a man trying to make his thoughts relevant. He's making something up 20 years after the event which doesn't align with the facts (the football managering equivalent of the UKIP voter pining for the way things used to be, based on a starry-eyed view of the past) . Pandering to a guy that doesn't deserve it and in doing so, attempting to turn his playing career into some mythical "talisman" type role (which it possibly was for the hun and in his mid Scotland career). He's over-playing something that didn't need to be over-played. If he'd left him out of Euro 96 then he'd definitely have had a point, but on this one he's conjuring a story out of nowhere. At 34, and having played his last game for der hun (albeit scoring in a cup final defeat to Hertz) he was very much a guy on the downward spiral. If Brown had any thoughts about putting him in the squad then he should have strongly considered his position, because he wouldn't have been there on merit, but nostalgia. Everything McCoist did prior and since, at Killie, backs up his decision to not have him in the squad. That said, this whole thread would have fitted nicely into the crap quotes thread. I'm not one to complain about the unnecessary beginning of new threads, but I think this could be one for the more astute moderator to take a view on.

They're correct, legally, of course. You'd think that they'd show some sort of moral responsibility. In their haste to protect themselves financially from any litigation they've completely forgotten about their season ticket holder involved in the actual case. It could have been handled so much better, by inviting the guy in and offering him support and compensation; you're talking a five figure sum at best I'd expect in what appears to be an isolated incident. Instead, in their permanent defiance of everything, they've allowed what should have been an easy-to-handle situation turn into a full scale cunt-fest as always. Once again, excellent journalism from Mark Daly, who appears to be the only BBC representative that isn't frightened to tell the truth with regard to the old, liquidated, club.

Well done TW. I couldn't think of a more worthy way to lose my crown.

Can we not just give them Tansey anyway?

I'd agree, but if we get two good centre midfielders in then we have the option of Shinnie at left back. Like you, I suspect Naismith is just taking advantage of the opportunity to sign him rather than a targeted signing. I think he'd also manage a shift in right midfield too, and possibly midfield as he's decent on the ball, and a good defender who - at 6ft2 - could happily at centre half. He's the exact type of utility that we need, and a significant upgrade on Ball. On left back, it was so obvious at the weekend the strengths of playing Considine there. He absolutely dominated Forrest by playing hard up his arse for 90 minutes. He was afforded this by the excellent shift of GMS and the support of Shinnie in midfield when required. It was actually far more effective than playing a quicker player against Forrest, who he'd manage to cope physically against. Our problem this season was playing to Considine's weaknesses by setting up with him having Forrest, or Candeias or Tavernier or Boyle or however else running at him by either playing him left of a back 5 or left of a back 3. It was noticeable that in both Hun and Tims games recently, Candeias and Forrest barely touched the ball in an advanced area as Considine was aggressively on top of them the entire games like he did all last season when Hayes was backing him up. I think we need a left back, because Considine clearly isn't an option there in all but one or two systems, but I'd put it down the list below two midfielders and a striker. It's very noticeable that our defence was significantly better than our attack this season, and one of our top scorers has just left.

I totally agree, however I'm saying that it wasn't unfeasible to assume that those two could perform all, or a good part of, the function of the two that left. We weren't going to exactly replace Hayes for example, we sold him for £1.3M, so GMS was easily seen as "best fit". Since the split, he's provided Hayes-like cover too as well as the attacking outlet. Similarly Stewart. Based on his dundee days, it was clear he provided similar attacking qualities to McGinn, but lazy back the way. Again, it still should have fitted into our system as Logan's pace could/should have helped nullify Stewart's lack of it. McGinn was never lightening either. I would have thought that what McInnes assumed he was getting was a budget version of Hayes and McGinn that would have allowed us to retain a system that fed a main striker. He'd have also have thought that in May, he had someone that would have made up for any shortfall in the wide players. He was utterly wrong, obviously, as we were 20 goals worse off. The biggest problem is that he made those assumptions whilst failing to sign a plan B alternative. I'd argue - as I did in January when we signed him - that if we hadn't got Cosgrove, we'd have finished fourth. He allowed us to change system successfully.

Aye, I watched him on Alba in their recent game against some pish. Looked good like. Strong and a good runner. Constantly getting up and doon the right.

I actually think that was the intention last summer. It's certainly not ridiculous to suggest that. GMS was brought in to replace the attacking of Hayes, with the pace to get back when required. Stewart to replace McGinn on the wing, but drifting into the centre at will. May to be the predator but with a slight injection of pace over Rooney. Tansey to fill the hole left by Jack and Christie to play behind the striker in place of Christie. I'd say all the players fitted our system quite well on paper. It just turned out that they were pish(er) at it. It was only when that became apparent that the shoe-horning plan B came into play. When he started to mix Rooney and May together, when he realised that GMS wasn't consistent enough to be relied on, and finally realised that Tansey had always been gash. It was the too-late realisation that 4-2-3-1 could easily be countered by playing a wide 3 at the back and the dicking about with our own back 3 to try and counteract that - foiled by playing Rooney and May again, and with no reliable left wing back. It took us until we finally realised that playing the big striker in Cosgrove would help us retain the ball higher up the pitch and get possession in decent areas whilst also cutting out the passing around by the opposition defence. I think McInnes will/should have learnt a lot about both his preferred line up and his preferred system. These things go in cycles, and I'd expect to see us flit between a back 3/5 and a 4 next season quite regularly and with a bit better organisation. Key will be a couple of decent midfielders in either system and a new striker with more pace (or power ala Moult if he decides to play two big guys up front like the brutally effective O'Neill tims of the early nineties). We need a minimum of 3 first eleven signings in the summer. It's a big one again.

You must be feeling down min, you should be focusing your recovery on the following May's Europa league final and Adam Rooney's subsequent hat-trick! If we get there, I'll buy you a ticket...

One striker, Two midfielders and one wide player. Get those positions sorted first. Then, if time and budget allows, look at getting another midfielder and a right back. We need to focus on our key positions and really go all out to make zero mistakes in those signings. That'll still leave us light in areas, but our first 11 needs to be better than this season and that'll take some doing given McLean's departure and the Christie of early season form. Casting the net wide and picking up a large quantity of pish like we did last summer isn't acceptable. If we can keep Ball to save us a bit of additional effort in the window, then fine. He can certainly be called upon when needed in midfield. We really need a couple of youngsters making the step up too, hopefully Campbell can do that and maybe Ross will return an improved player. Wright could probably leave or go on loan with our best wishes.

He was getting up the racists big still. Great to see. He had a fantastic game, and a great end to the season - much more like the Logan we know. Loves the dons too. Great game, and good to see my favourite Dandy, Considine, get a deserved goal after excellent play from McLean. 73 points is a brilliant total considering the changes from last season and the poor signings. Only 3 points worse off is quite an achievement. We've deservedly finished second with the post split performances. Fuck the hun.

Aye, the whole "I'll consider my position" thing is about wanky too - especially when the season isn't over. Reeks of a guy trying to pass the buck after a shite performance.

Leave the huns alone.

8 out of 12 post-split points isn't a bad return. It was the pre-split points that were the issue. Given the changes last summer, and the very poor replacements, 70 points so far is a pretty decent return. 73 (unlikely, I ken) after the weekend would only make us a win short of last season, so really not too bad. I think our squad is a lot worse than those figures, but thankfully we'll decimate it again this summer, relieving us of a lot of the dross. I think there should be an open bus party at the end of the season celebrating Maynard leaving.

Good article for ye min, if yiv not already read it: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/10/the-invisible-power-of-big-glasses-eyewear-industry-essilor-luxottica

If McInnes had said that after losing, fans would be slating him. If he know what type of studs the players should have been wearing then surely a "level of professionalism" would involve checking that they were wearing them? He's clearly unaware of the goal difference between his team and the hun too - their nae getting third in anyone's dreams.

I dinna think you get an extra point for scoring more goals min, it's nae rugby. We're 4 ahead of hibees.