RicoS321

Because the sea exists.

No, No. Don't worry about me.

Couple of beers last night Jess?

No. It's fine.

Hampden will be full. It doesn't need Regan to guarantee that. You're basically backing up my point, our first eleven (bar Forrest) stands a chance, but Strachan will revert to type if there any injuries. Chris Martin should have been put down after the Lithuania game. Any argument that he is one of the reasons we still have a chance of qualifying is entirely nullified by his performance against Lithuania where he was almost directly responsible for us not winning by being extremely shite at football. His presence on the pitch was enough to put any sane professional footballer off their game. He's a fucking clogger, who runs like a fairmer chasing a coo in his wellies. If Griffiths is injured and we start that fucker, we're screwed. I wouldn't want him up front for the dons, and every player in that squad should be good enough to play for the dons. He's Stockley with dark hair.

I have a 24hr white bread and noodle bar on the corner of my street.

You're correct. I have legs, so I park appropriately in the correct spaces. Also, I don't go to supermarkets because I'm an ignorant cunt.

They won't persist with Strachan if we don't get through. The writing is on the wall for him. Failure to learn from his previous failings will come back to bite him. He's still doing the same old shite of treating the international team like a club (he even repeats this in his interviews). That's why continuity in playing Forrest (for example) is more important to him than form and ability. It's why Chris Martin came on last night and Hanley too. He fails to grasp that you need a mix of continuity and form players and it'll be what costs him in the end. That team we finished with last night will not win against Slovakia and would struggle against Slovenia. We get any injuries before next month and we're screwed as he'll revert to type. I don't think we're the brand new team that most think we are.

Aye, play like that against Slovakia and we'll get beaten. Need two Lithuania (away....) type performances next month. Easily possible, but the Slovaks didn't look pish against England. Three teams in the mix who all need 6 points now, so should be very interesting. Any draws will mean the 2nd place team from our group probably won't make the playoffs. Even with 20 points we might struggle.

Cheers, got it on sports-stream.net. Pretty decent. Given my internet is slower than Alan Tate anyway.

Anyone got a stream for the scotland game? Cricfree playing buggers with the old viruses

I think so Elgin, that's why I mention targets. I've always said that we'd benefit immensely from someone above the manager (not necessarily being critical of McInnes, who's knowledge seems to have been the sole architect of our current football setup). Not only in terms of continuity, so that when he leaves we're not totally fucked (we all got that feeling - again - when the Sunderland job was on the go, we really have no succession plan), but also in terms of accountability. If we put a plan in place for our youth development above McInnes, then he would be accountable to the director - let's say Craigy Broon for a laugh (I ken...) - for the promotion of youth to the first team. He might not like that, but currently he's failing. The entire cost of the youth team for his tenure is currently manifest in one player (Wright). That is staggering. We're not asking for world beaters here either, but we haven't been able to even offset the cost of a first-teamer with a good solid pro in the guise of a Considine or Jack or whatever. I'm assuming it's costed separately at management reporting level, in which case somebody must have that figure (the cost of our youth setup) sticking out on one of their spreadsheets. If it's something McInnes struggles with, then he should be accountable to someone at the club for that.

Tom didn't provide a 17K seater though. That's what I'm asking. For the sake of my argument, let's add 4K seats to the mainer. How much taller and deeper would it need to be? Then, based on that drawing/dimension, which hooses would need to be bought, and why? I'm afraid you'll have to go further than NZ to escape the responsibility Tom has just given you. Thanks in advance...

If they did that to my car, I'd take a shit in their veg aisle.

I think it's harsh to single out Strachan on that particular one. It seems to be de rigueur for managers these days not to admit to games being "must win". It must be taught at media training school or some shite. It's also one of the list of twenty "standard questions for fitba managers" that commentators irritatingly ask all the time because they're too fucking thick or scared to think of anything more insightful. Everyone takes from the standard list of questions and answers these days in fitba, it's not worth listening to any interview anymore, Strachan just takes longer to answer the same question with the same answer in an attempt to sound more intelligent than he actually is.

I'm assuming Carhandle's illustration was a piss take out of those suggesting re-development of Pittodrie, no? Nobody is calling the profession's name into question. My point was that there are certain companies, within Aberdeen or anywhere else, who you could call upon to make a case for a point you wanted to make. If I went to a company, let's say HFM for example, and said I want to build a case for making a new stadium and I want to show that Pittodrie could only be re-developed to a small capacity. It wouldn't be calling the entire profession's name into question, it would be suggesting that this particular company will put profit over ethics in this case and choose not to question the morality of the request and simply do it (that's not a criticism of the company, but the club). The question I've raised, and Tom's simple drawing (simple for a man of your talents, Tom!) helps illustrate, is: was a company asked to maximise re-development capacity, or minimise it? Were they given the task of trying every single possibility to eek out every single seat and present a list of options and red lines (e.g South Stand must be less then 6metres, we could add 2K capacity to the main stand, but we'd have to re-home/buy out two tenants or get planning agreement to bypass this requirement) that showed where we could get to and why? My opinion is that a company was asked to show that Pittodrie could not be re-developed. Not that a company tried absolutely everything to come up with the maximum re-development capacity and were simply unable to do any more. We've all seen the shite that goes up in Aberdeen - and I'd certainly call Muse developments name into question - with absolutely no public support and defy any number of planning questions (the capitol 6 storey rear end anyone?). We haven't even tested the water. That doesn't seem like the move of a club that's explored all options. Tom's drawings were great. They really helped illustrate why the club came to the figure they did. What I should have asked him was to draw a 17K seat stadium in position with the least number of perceived planning issues and then list those planning issues. Because that's what the club has done with both Loirston and Kingsford, but not for Pittodrie it would seem, for which they took the reverse approach. Would you agree with that last statement?

Are you suggesting that Scott Wright wasn't good enough at all last season right up until the final game where he scored a hat-trick? He should have had more game time last season in my opinion, he didn't just become good overnight or in pre-season. At any one point in time, we should have at least one player who is deemed good enough to make the step up, or at least be tried out. I think that's a reasonable statement to make? Ideally, we'd have two and anything more than that is probably unlikely or a stroke of luck. Given Wright's performances to date, I think we can remove him from the youth development equation and put him in the first team player category. This season, our one or two youth teamers are probably Harvie and Ross. It's a question of position, trust in the player and trust in those around him. For example, last season there were numerous occasions where we were a couple of goals (at least) up with more than 30 minutes to go. Those instances should be classed as opportunities to develop our youngsters and not to give game time to squad members, (unless returning from injury) who should be used to give us something different when trying to hold onto a lead or return from deficit - they've had their opportunity and are in the squad on merit. If we're explicit in this, players won't take exception at not getting on. By not playing a youngster in those minutes, we're saying that either: Our other ten players are not good enough to carry a teammate through a game who is in the learning process or Our youth player is so shite that we could lose/draw the game from a comfortable lead by bringing them on The first is largely rhetorical. If we're good enough to have got to a comfortable position, we should be good far enough ahead to maintain that. If a player is being substituted anyway, then there is either a fitness issue or an issue of form or tactical position. If it's fitness, then you're effectively comparing a 70% (for example) fit player is better than a 100% fit youngster, so the margin is significantly less so less risky. Similarly if the player is having a bad game, you're comparing the player in poor form with an unknown youngster. If it's tactical, then that suggests that the lead is not comfortable or that you think you can blast in a few more. If the lead is not comfortable, then you don't take on the youth player, if it is you perhaps sacrifice the extra goals in return for player development (I'd argue this happens already but with Stockley, Storey, Maynard etc in place of a youngster). The second is obvious. If the youngster is good enough to make the bench then they should be good enough to get on the pitch without causing serious damage. If not, they shouldn't be there and we begin to ask serious questions about our youth setup. There is the further issue of position of course. Central defence, midfield and goalkeeper are obvious positions that could cause stress on a team if you dick about too much with them during the game, or put a weak player in there. The front line, wide players and fullbacks (and possibly one of the centre mids) are all lower risk areas of the park, where a good outfield ten should be able to support a developing youngster without issue. Where a youngster is in one of those positions, then they should be given more game time. If a developing player is a centre half then you either give them game time in a wide area or instead, or wait until the game is further beyond the opposition before making the switch. A goalkeeper is for emergencies only (although Rogers would be fine I'm certain)! First team youth development is all about risk. The risk is that a player is brought onto the pitch that upsets the flow so much that they cost us points. That is really the only risk. The upside is that a player will get fitter, stronger and more familiar with the game at the top level. McInnes is very risk averse. I think the club needs an over-riding strategy and some targets in place that McInnes should be persuaded to meet in order to combat this risk averse approach. If we took the approach above, where we set a target for each game that if we reach then any minutes beyond that point are designated "development minutes". McInnes is then measured by the number of minutes given to youth players within those minutes (if he doesn't feel it is appropriate to bring on a youngster then that's not an issue as he's the manager) and tasked with maximising those minutes available. For example, if we're playing Kilmarnock, we might designate our development point as 3 goals up with 30 minutes to go, 2 goals with 20 etc. If we reach 60 minutes with a three goal lead, then everyone in the squad knows that this is a development point where the manager is obliged to give a youngster an opportunity and they know their roles therein. If McInnes feels we're lucky to be 3 up and shaky at the back, then he has over-ride. It's a structured and logical approach to development that appears to be missing from our setup. Young players need minutes if they are to make the step up. I think McInnes proved last season with Wright that he was too cautious with introducing him, and had to manage the expectations of the other squad members who felt they should get first opportunity. There was no mechanism in place by which he could throw Wright on ahead of well paid, eager squad members without facing some sort of unhappiness. Or perhaps he does have this in place, but has such a high threshold for when he deems a game to be "safe", it's just never happened. Either way, I think it's an issue. Currently there is very little mechanism for throwing on Frank Ross without upsetting Maynard (I ken, they're different positions) for example. It's not acceptable to say a youth player isn't good enough, you have to say why they're so bad that we'd lose a 2-3 goal lead by bringing them on, because we have a duty to them to develop them.

Bit of a slip up from Strachan on Friday. Scott Brown a booking away from suspension. Not sure why he wasn't told to hoof the ball away in the 89th minute versus Lithuania to pick up a booking and miss the Malta game. On current form you'd want him to available for both Slovakia and Slovenia. There's a good chance he'll get himself booked against Slovakia (because that's what he does) which means he'll miss the final game. I'd have taken the hit now and let him miss the Malta match. He can be the difference in big games, and was very good on Friday. Not saying we need him, just that he can be very good when on form. You wonder if they look at these things and are aware of them? They should be.

I ken fit the fixie brakes are. He swerved to avoid her, but he also shouted, so she stepped back into the path he had subsequently taken. I think that's what I would have done rather than break given the distance between them (6metres). I was suggesting he'd go over his handle bars, because of the distance he had to stop; he wouldn't have been able to use the techniques you suggest and come to a stop. Again, I'd say that he's clearly a dick, but it's unreasonable to expect anyone to assume that removing front brakes could possibly lead to death. Ten Caat, your link to the daily mail does not say that she wasn't on her phone. Neither does any of the evidence raised in court that I've seen. It all suggest she was at the point she stepped onto the road. Had he swerved into the road to avoid her and was killed by a car, would she have been (attempted to be) charged with manslaughter? What makes stepping onto to a road on yer phone less irresponsible than riding a bike without brakes. Neither can reasonably be expected to lead to a death other than yer own.

Have you got a link to that? All the paper reports I read suggested that was not contended by the prosecution (I say suggested, because it wasn't explicitly mentioned, which you thought it would have been otherwise). The case seemed to be based entirely on the person's perceived lack of remorse and what he said on online forums. A person being a dick should be not taken into account in the courtroom, as people react different ways when accused of something. The whole case appeared to be a persecution circus, where the guy was held to account for something that was clearly a horrible accident. I suspect that had he a better lawyer he'd have got off. Ignorance of the law is a perfectly acceptable defence. It doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished for it, but the punishment should be in line with the risk. Back pedalling instead of braking isn't inherently risky (especially not for the cyclist) and couldn't reasonably have been expected to have led to a death of a pedestrian. Indeed, front breaks would have sent him flying over the handlebars because the poor lady didn't look before crossing. There appeared to be a massive political side to this case, and a stoking of the flames by a retarded press. The important take away should have been the requirement for better cycling infrastructure, but that wasn't the case.

Magennis with a couple of goals last night, leaving NI just one point from the play-off. That's phenomenal. Not suggesting we should have kept him, but we haven't actually replaced him with a better forward until May.

I could be wrong, but I think the results against the bottom team (Malta) don't count. That would mean our goal difference would be pash, given our 3-0 loss to Slovakia previously.

We haven't earned the luck in this campaign. If we're going to do it, it has to be all our own doing now. The Slovak draw was a bit unfortunate like. Assuming they lose against England (although they are gash at the minute), then that could have allowed us to go into the final game with a 4 point gap (again, assuming we beat Slovakia, which is our only option at present). However, it would also have allowed us to draw against Slovakia at home and still have a chance of qualifying. It's that sort of position that Scotland fuck it up in (call it Alex Smith syndrome). When everyone knows that you need to win, but a draw wouldn't be the end, is when we inevitably get the draw and go into the final game in the wrong state of mind and end up losing, and glorious failure ensues. Ironically, Strachan's earlier incompetence has left us in the best possible position for Scotland to be in. We just need to go out and really take it to Slovakia* and go all out for the win. If we win that, then the confidence will be sky high for the final game, against a team who will likely already be out with nothing to play for, there for the taking. *I'm taking for grant(Hanley)ed that we'll tank Malta.

Hemmin. There's a thread for this... Nice site.

Decent half. Hope yer watching nips. A couple more required to get the confidence going. Impressed with Phillips, and wondering - as always - why he hasn't been in the team more often. Forrest living up to my earlier comments unfortunately.