RicoS321

How much would you usually pay for yer wind?

Heap of shite. There's clearly been no contact with Rangers, they are (and were not three days go) very obviously not in a position to be signing or approaching players. McLean might be stupid enough to think that, but there's not an agent on earth that would let him think in that manner when a signing on fee is involved.

Not to make things worse for Nips, but there was no way on earth Lewis was at fault for the first. He blocked the entire goal bar a ball shaped space in off the bar, which Tierney absolutely roasted it into. It was a cracking effort. And Maynard is the worst player ever. Although some gimp in front of me was suggesting that May was the next Goodwillie? Outrageous like. Maynard is Goodwillie, and once again showed his effort-free gash lastnight. He did that thing where he makes it look like he's making a good run, when he's obviously running away from the ball rather than take it easily into feet and be forced to play fitba, something he's forgotten how to. The Hayes booing and clapping was weird. I just ignored him. He's a Tim player with a very good dons history. Don't wish him any ill, but doesn't deserve our applause.

I agree entirely about Rooney, but what was the alternative to Considine bearing in mind Tansey clearly wasn't fit to start? If you're replacing Rooney with Wright let's say, that leaves Stewart, Ross or Ball to play in midfield instead of Shinnie. Whilst we may have been more secure at left back, we'd have been destroyed in midfield with either of those three (harsh on Ross of course, I think he'll be a great player soon). I've seen several criticisms of playing Considine and moving Shinnie to midfield, but in Christie and Tansey's absence I haven't yet heard a better alternative, can you say what that would have been? To add, I think Considine would have greatly benefited from the 5 man midfield as Forrest/Rogic wouldn't have had 10 yards to run at him prior to taking him on. That'd be the same for Logan on the opposite side, although he at least got some support from GMS in the first half. The midfield 5 might have meant that O'Connor didn't spend the entire game slowly chasing shadows too.

We're entirely equipped for our domestic league as results show. We're just not equipped to challenge Celtic, who are not equipped for our domestic league.

^^^^This (although there were only wing backs for them, which was one of our problems). It's one of the biggest reasons I wanted Moult and not May at the beginning of the season. I think Rooney and May will be fine against a lot of teams this season, they're not a partnership that will play off each other. They're not a genuine front 2 as neither are target men. It should have been very obvious that Rooney's pace wasn't going to be the answer last night and he should have made way for Wright. That said, I can see Wright's limitations in a game like that one too. Our problems were glaringly obvious when looking at the bench at half time last night. There was nothing that was going to change that team for the better. Forgot to mention, highlight of last night was McKenna hoofing thon cunt up front for them. Miles out of position like and a little worrying that he thought that he should have been anywhere near where he was, but he dealt with it in the best possible way.

That was never a pen, dirty cheating hun cunts.

Aye, agreed Rocket, it wasn't the worst idea. When you look at that bench, there simply wasn't another option for that midfield slot. Even Shinnie got bullied a lot of the night. As I said at the beginning of the thread, we didn't have the room for Rooney and May. As soon as you see those two on the teamsheet, you do as Rogers did and play 3 at the back and the extra man in midfield. At that point, the dons are left with Rooney chasing from left to right and back again, something he was never going to maintain, because we simply didn't have the option of changing without a sub. For the second goal, Rooney was left to chase Brown the full width of the pitch to attempt to stop him getting the easy throw. He was too slow (obviously) and the attack was on its way. We had to play the extra midfielder/winger in there today. At least with that approach you have the option of sending one of them (McLean) further forward if needed. Anyway, Celtic were very good tonight, especially in midfield. Tierney is some player. None of the bookings received by dons players were close to as blatant as the one that should have been given to Dembele for the cynical dive in the box. We obviously just ignore those now. The ref was a total dick. No good performances in a dons top tonight unfortunately. I don't think I'd single out any as worse than others.

Did he have a tidy ex?

I agree. He got absolutely no credit for the amount of tracking back he did in all games, which was phenomenal. He was classed as lazy and disinterested when he was struggling - as all wingers do - to beat his man (we see Wright missing for large spells of games and will continue to, as it comes with the role). He never shirked his responsibility when tracking his man, which has been far more visible since Stewart, Wright, GMS and Christie have joined. I don't want him back because the fans don't particularly like him, and I can't be airsed with the general abuse and pre-conceived performance criticism he gets because he looks like a sulky Tim fuck. Same reason I hope McLean leaves for looking like a sulky hun fuck.

I'd argue that Considine has been our most consistently high-performing player in the last 5 seasons (mainly cause he's been there for that duration!). He's been consistently above average in our team and consistently deserving of his place in the starting eleven. I just think his level is just short of being good enough to play well against the Tims. I don't think that's a bad thing, and the same could have been said for McGinn previously and many others (hun-Jack a good example). That's not to say he hasn't ever had a good game against the Tims, he's had a few, it's just that when he plays against players at that level he struggles at left back. But, as you say Rocket, we shouldn't be judging Considine versus Shinnie at left back, as Shinnie is clearly the better player there. What we should be judging is the Considine - Shinnie v Stewart or Ball - Christie Let's say Shinnie is a 10 at left back and Christie 10 behind the striker as our preferred options I'd say Considine is a solid 7.5 at left back and Stewart and Ball are, so far, a generous 5.5 in midfield In conclusion: Shinnie - Considine (-2.5) > Stewart or Ball - Christie (-4.5) A stupid anology, I ken, but it really isn't as simple as saying Considine is worse than Shinnie, it's whether we lose more by shoe-horning a useless cunt into midfield rather than Shinnie with Christie and Tansey out. Considine is definitely not a useless cunt at left back - he'd get into the starting 11 of every team outside the Tims and Huns - he's just not as good as Shinnie. I certainly don't think we could be too critical of McInnes for playing Considine at left back and putting Shinnie into midfield. He has to make a change of some sort because of Christie's absence. We could definitely be critical of McInnes if he drops McKenna or plays Reynolds as part of a back 3. Those are changes that aren't required and are negative.

Aye, if that was us in the tennents sixes, they'd make up a rule to disallow it. Cunts.

"rather than convening, with great solemnity, distinguished panels to adjudicate on matters the players themselves quickly shrug off as handbags" I actually agree with that part to an extent. Alves kicked out in frustration, and had the ref booked him it would have been the end of the matter. By the letter of the law it's a red card and suspension, but only cause cunts like Alves (because he's foreign, mainly) have spent their entire careers rolling around like they've been shot after incidents like these. It was fuck all of nothing and the sort of thing that 20 years ago we'd be brushing off and getting on with it. It's a shame the way the game has changed in this regard, but it has so the huns haven't a leg to stand on. Of course, it's another propaganda statement printed by the BBC despite the fact they are not given access to raise questions - of which there are many - in regard to the statement. It's the equivalent of the BBC not allowing someone right of reply (in reverse), and they just shouldn't print such bollocks.

Surely these two statements conflict? McInnes, in his interview, portrays McLean as an honest professional. There's no real reason to doubt this. If so, then a professional manager - which McInnes is - could easily have talked the player into keeping it quiet for a couple of days without difficulty. If McLean didn't respect the club or manager enough to wait if requested, then he can't be trusted to play for the team either - that's simple logic. I don't think that's the case though, there'd be no obvious reason for McLean to cut his nose off to spite his face and it appears that McInnes is going to continue playing him (I have no issue with that either). So it seems like we're left with the situation where McInnes has just been uncharacteristically forthcoming on a behind-the-scenes issue. Unnecessarily so, and unsettling too, in my opinion. I just don't get it. Bad for both parties.

^^^This. It's absurd. McInnes is an absolute professional when it comes to business deals, this just stinks of laziness (I'm not blaming McInnes like). I can't think of one good reason to announce it right before a big game. I don't buy that a paper had got hold of it, as it would be easy for McLean and the club to deny the story for a couple of days. I don't buy the hun links either, it's just far too early for that shite. They're too early for pre-contract and their manager is on too much of a sticky wicket for McLean (or his agent) to trust any promise to sign. Anyway, I've nae problem with it, he's in exactly the same position as Christie and Stewart. Its interesting to see McInnes' comments regarding his work rate etc. I've always thought he put in a shift, covering a lot of ground and got a lot of unfair hassle (obviously, fuck him the hun cunt now like) so it's good to see that backed up by the stats. It's come out early enough that it shouldn't be an issue, he'll have to keep up performances for a good while and hopefully we might get something for him in Jan (although by announcing it now, we've likely screwed any chances of getting a good fee). It'll get fucking tedious if he gets booed from now until May, that's for sure.

Shinnie had an absolute shocker last time he played left back against the tim. Got moved into midfield and Considine was brought on in his place and played well. Problems usually occur when we dick about too much and try play Considine left of a three or some such or fuck about with it during the game. If he can play fullback and get very close to the winger, they often struggle because he's reasonably physical. The problem occurs when we drag him away from the winger and let him get run at all day, so if he does play then he has to stay planted on the winger and bully him. I'd definitely keep Shinnie at left back though if Tansey is able to play. I'm not convinced he'll make it, probably another sneaky comment by McInnes to keep the tims guessing.

Correct. They specified an arbitrary criteria of 12.5 hectares as required for building a new stadium, thus conveniently ruling out any sites offered/suggested....

Aye, generally the one poster with unrealistically high expectations. Something's gone wrong.

You just know he will though. The only thing I'm hoping will prevent it is the fact that we tried it earlier against Hertz and it was woeful. We have an abundance of (pish) defenders in our squad which makes me think he'll take that option. The problem is that Christie being out forces a change in that area, and Stewart has so far been pish. That's why I think he'll do it. The problem being is that we'd still be one short in midfield. Shinnie is the only player capable of playing the left side of a 5 (Considine is fine as left back, but not as a wing back and Wright/GMS is/are fine as winger but not as back-tracking wing back), so we'd still have to chuck Ball into midfield meaning we'd potentially have 6 centre halves on the pitch at once. However, he may decide to play May in behind Rooney and just have McLean and O'Connor in the centre given the extra protection at the back. Generally you can tell a lot about McInnes' intentions by the way he finishes the previous game. He likes to try things out (Taylor being re-introduced in the lead up to the league cup final last season as an example) late in games with the intention of starting that way in the following match. Reynolds coming on was indication - to me - that he intends to set-up this way against the Tims. It worked in the game where Quinn scored a couple of years back mind, but it's risky and I don't quite think we have the personnel for it this time round. Or, more correctly, I think we have a better chance setup differently. I see McInnes going something like: -----------------Lewis------------------ --Arneson----Reynolds----McKenna-- Logan----------------------------Consi ---O'Connor----Shinnie----McLean--- ----------------May-------------------- --------------Rooney------------------ That'd be brutal.

I don't think he's saying that. It is completely possible that McInnes might have not wanted to blow his entire budget on a single player. Or he might have thought that paying the extra cash just wasn't worth it and that he could have got a better/different player for that money. I think he'd definitely have had an opinion on what he thought Moult was worth. I'd also think he'd have the integrity to not spend the dons' money if he didn't think it was worth it. McInnes is a cautious guy too, if he wasn't 100% confident that Moult would do the business, he maybe didn't want to be the guy spending 600K + on him. It's not a criticism, just a genuine possibility.

Getting Moult would have got us to the playoffs. It was the blatant hole in the team. Trying to get there without a striker of that quality (May earlier would have also done) was a stupid risk when paying £400K for a striker shortly after anyway. I firmly believe that a decent striker to aim at was the only difference between us and the Cypriot fucks. Ironically, signing Moult would have meant we'd have made enough money to sign May too. If, as Ten Caat suggests, it was McInnes' decision the it was a fucking shocking one. Anyone who couldn't see we were going to struggle in Cyprus with a Maynard/Stockley combo disnae have a fucking clue about fitba. If it was McInnes' decision, then it's by far the worst he's made as dons manager. I'm not convinced it was though, I think there wid have been a big push from the board not to pay over the odds for a player. Anyway, I expect we'll never find out.

That boat has sailed unfortunately. We'd have been still in Europe and in a final if we'd upped our bid, and we'd probably still have managed to get May too. I expect he'll join der hun in january and come back to haunt us (more than he has already). Top performance by Well, completely deserved their victory.

Think we have to move Shinnie back to midfield assuming Tansey isn't fit. We have to go to a 4-2-3-1 as Rooney drifting out wide isn't going to work against the Tim. I'd have May up front on his own as his movement is much better than Rooney's. Shinnie into midfield alongside O'Connor with McLean in front. That's quite a solid midfield. Shinnie at left back would be my preference, but Considine replacing Shinnie there is a lot less of an evil than either Ball or Stewart in midfield. O'Connor and Shinnie holding is solid, O'Connor and Ball is ridiculously slow and we'll get overrun. Stewart hasn't cut it and doesn't deserve to start. I expect McInnes to do some weird back 5 shite though with Reynolds joining McKenna and Arneson. One thing's for certain, McKenna has to be trusted for this one given his previous few games.

Have you read all the recommendations on the thread yet? I was waiting for positive feedback on my last recommendation before suggesting another you see. Chasing Shadows by Ken Hughes worth a read, about Nixon. But read the last recommendation first.

Well done indeed. Do we get to read it? Not suggesting I'd understand it like.