RicoS321

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?

We haven't had a midfielder that comes close to the tenacity and drive of Shinnie since Severin and none of our existing midfielders come close. Yer Gleeson's might cut it against St Mirren, but I wouldn't want to go into a game against the hun or the tims without Shinnie in there (as shown recently in our powder-puff performance against them). He was phenomenal in there against the Tim in the last game of the season and carried us through the game at times away to Burnley. His best position is left back, but the margin between Shinnie and Considine at left back (and the impact it has on games) versus Shinnie and Gleeson/Ball/Hoban(?) is considerable in favour of Shinnie playing in midfield. Unless either a) Gleeson/Ball remarkably ups their game; b) we completely change our style of play; c) sign a better midfielder; then we definitely can play Shinnie at left back this season. If not, then I think we need to choose one or the other for the sake of continuity (unless to cover injury of course) as I think chopping and changing is affecting Shinnie's performances too. The problem that we have is that we could play a midfield of Ferguson, Gleeson and Wright (or Ball in place of either of those) for 65% of the games and be fine, but when we get to the big games that combination just doesn't cut it and it's the heart of our team (and the pitch). We've shown on numerous occasions that Considine at left back is fine in the big games (see Burnley, Tims last game, Huns last game etc) if we don't start fucking about with him in a 5. We can mitigate for his lack of pace, but I don't see any way of mitigating the lack of ability in a midfield without Shinnie and I'm very surprised that you guys do (with existing personnel, obviously). We wouldn't have beaten the Tims in the last game of the season with Shinnie at left back, we wouldn't have drawn with Burnley with Shinnie at left back. Those are the big games that we can't do without Shinnie being in midfield. I don't see the point in playing one way against the poorer teams and then completely changing for games against better teams but I can't see another way. We've only just found a way that we can play against better teams at all with the post-split games and the Burnley tie, I'm not sure that we should change that. Not without better players.

Walk along the length of Hadrian's Wall shouting abuse at Brexitland.

Goalkeepers Jordan Archer (Millwall) Craig Gordon (Celtic) Allan McGregor (Rangers) Defenders Jack Hendry (Celtic) Charlie Mulgrew (Blackburn Rovers) Stephen O’Donnell (Kilmarnock) Andrew Robertson (Liverpool) Graeme Shinnie (Aberdeen) John Souttar (Heart of Midlothian) Kieran Tierney (Celtic) Midfielders Stuart Armstrong (Southampton) Tom Cairney (Fulham) James Forrest (Celtic) Ryan Fraser (Bournemouth) Kevin McDonald (Fulham) John McGinn (Aston Villa) Callum McGregor (Celtic) Scott McTominay (Manchester United) Callum Paterson (Cardiff City) Forwards Leigh Griffiths (Celtic) Oliver McBurnie (Swansea City) Matt Phillips (West Bromwich Albion) Johnny Russell (Sporting Kansas City) I'll remove the unnecessary spaces in your squad list for you.

I didn't see the game, or listen to it as I wasn't about on Saturday. I haven't watched the highlights yet, but it sounds quite typical of our approach. As others have pointed out, the tactic of "game management" does actually work and is clearly drilled into the players despite how horrendous as it is. I also think that there's a vast difference between game management of passing the ball about and retaining possession - which we've done very successfully in the last few seasons and the backs-to-the-wall approach which sounded as if it were the case at the weekend. I think McInnes would recognise the distinction and would want to aim for the former. I mentioned after the huns game that we deserved a draw as they sat in when there was no real evidence that they needed to (they could easily have continued the way they had for most of the match and won), and this is no different. Whilst we've held out in a lot of games, you deserve to lose a goal if you play specifically not to lose a goal (for a long period of time). Claims by McInnes about a penalty decision earlier in the game are irrelevant too, that had zero bearing on our tactics. The above said, I do still think we have personnel issue when trying to win games comfortably. I think Wright may be the answer to that this season unless we can get likes of Christie (a Christie-like player) from the Tim. Either one of those allows that bit of breathing space further up the pitch and means that May isn't the only one preventing a defender walking out of defence with the ball. None of the midfielders at the weekend fitted that bill. It is also very worrying that Shinnie is still our best midfielder (hibs game aside it seems) and it means that we'll be having the left back discussion all season.

Why in the world would anyone think that Forrester would be in the starting line up? He's been terrible so far and hasn't done anything to warrant getting a start. Not to say that he won't turn it around in the coming weeks, but unless you've been watching our training sessions then I'm struggling to see what you could possibly have seen that you think would give Deek any real decision at all. I understand the rest of your suggested team like, just not Forrester. To me, that'd be a far bigger risk against Hibs than playing Ross and to the detriment of Wright in that attacking midfield role too would be a double blow to our chances. I think it was telling that when Forrester came on last week, he was played in a wide role (where he really struggled defensively) and Wright continued centrally until being subbed. To me that suggests Forrester is second to Wright in that role. If anything I could see a midfield 3 of Ball, Shinnie and Ferguson or Gleeson for Ball over your suggestion. I think you're right with the Hoban and Considine arrangement though. If it came to it - I'm not sure it will - I think McInnes would trust Considine at centre half over Hoban.

McInnes suggesting McGinn won't be fit (although we've heard that sort of comment before), so I think Ross just slips straight in. Hoban back too, so we might see Shinnie back in midfield, but I doubt it.

It would be, and I don't imagine it will happen. It would be as good as deliberately trying not to win. Wright made himself un-droppable after last week's performance to the extent that there's not even a decision to be made (a bit like McKenna did last season). The other point is that there is simply no other tactical/personnel option that currently would allow for a typical McInnes cautious move. If Forrester had been playing well then we would undoubtedly have seen him given the opportunity over Wright. However, he's been pap so far and hasn't left McInnes with a decision because the two are night and day at present. It's too early to say but I think, like McKenna last season, Wright will be the guy that gets us out of the hole of poor(ish) signings this season.

Should be a good one. Will be interesting to see how we approach it. The St Mirren game was almost useless as a barometer of what to expect from SPFL opposition, we certainly won't get the freedom and weakness shown by them from Hibs. I think I'd go for McGinn if he's fit, as his tracking back would be useful (and I think he'll make an airse of Ambrose) and I didn't think Ross quite showed he was ready to play against a better team (although I'd have him involved a lot more this season as he looks a lot more solid), but certainly get him in if McGinn isn't fit. Main concern is midfield. I don't think we've quite got a good three in there with Gleeson the main concern. He was better against St Mirren, but just needs to get the workrate going a bit more. He certainly showed that there was a possible role for him, of the "Jack" type, but he needs to provide significantly more cover for the fullbacks (Logan) getting forward. I think Ball should be in for this one, but maybe another run out will be what Gleeson needs. I still think we're going to need Shinnie in there pretty soon as I don't think we've got the fight in there at present. Wright will hopefully assume the role he did against St Mirren, where he played really high up the park in support of May, but also maintained excellent positional discipline too. I don't see any circumstance in which he'd be dropped. I'd go: ---------------Lewis--------------- Logan---Devlin----Consi----Shinnie ---------------Ball------------------- GMS---Ferguson---Wright---McGinn -----------------May---------------

Aye, I see fit yer sayin. I just assumed Commons had plucked those figures from his fud, but we'll never know given the sparsity of anything in the article.

You would assume that is because they are fact checking. But in this article that clearly isn't the case. They just shouldn't be publishing the article, it's as simple as that. They are obliged to be truthful and this article is clearly unresearched pish. Asking Chris Commons his opinion is an article (although it fucking shouldn't be) but the horseshite before it is, as you say, unverified copy and paste. Fitba doesn't matter, obviously, but this allowance of others to set the agenda is so destructive and so dangerous and has huge implications in everything we do. I wonder what Nigel Farage thinks about Celtic's bid? We should get him on question time 3 times a week to tell us.

Yep, it's fucking awful once again from Chris McLaughlhun. You'd think that he'd have learned his lesson after being used by the hun in their approach for our manager. There should at least be an indication of what he's done to verify the story and when he says "Aberdeen are adamant" what is meant by this. The BBC should hold themselves to very high standards and football shouldn't be allowed to circumvent that.