RicoS321

The key is who replaces Logan. Wonder if Jack might play there as a one off given it's just a suspension and it's arguably a less physical roll than centre mid (although not the way Logan plays it).

Templeton was just like Pawlett and every other young player (Fraser, Gauld etc). Storms on to the scene and catches the eye, but once defenders work out how to play them quickly fade into obscurity. Doesn't even get a game for der hun, and certainly isn't superior to Pawlett - pretty much the same I'd say. Also, I'm not convinced that a player who moved down to the bottom tier of Scottish fitba to further his career is someone we should have anywhere near our club.

It would have taken a very good signing in January to replace Hayes. Put another way, we didn't lose anyone (outfield) of any note in January that wasn't replaced. I think the damage was done in the summer with the failure of Parker, McLauchlan, Quinn (relatively) and the prior re-signing of Goodwillie. In January, you're really only expecting a couple of signings maximum due to contract situations. The Tansey thing fucked us over on making two signings. However, I don't think Church was a good enough target. He strikes me as a slightly better Parker, taken in on a whim because he was available rather than because we scouted regularly and identified him. It was obvious a few months ago that Goodwillie wasn't the answer, and I really think we should have had 4-5 replacement targets ready, with a budget available for a fee if required. Perhaps we did, but couldn't secure any of them. I suspect even Tansey was 4th or 5th on our list, and probably only came up after others were ruled out as unavailable. In short, January is probably a difficult window to bring players in, despite our previous successes signing known quantities in Reynolds and Rooney. I reckon Logan was a lucky signing if I'm honest - a punt, like Church, that actually went right for us. I think we were right just to focus on a single midfielder and a striker - we only have limited scouting resource - and take a risk on both defence and goalkeeper. I think we were a touch unlucky not to get our preferred targets. I think that perhaps we need to be ruthless in the summer with regard to Smith and Pawlett and bring in a player that really challenges our first 11 (if neither performs when Hayes is out), something I suspect we didn't have the time or inclination to do in January.

I know what Tyrant means though, one of the few songs I did hear from the mainer earlier in the season was something about Darren Mackie - hilarious. Loons enjoying themselves though, so fair play. Hopefully they'll be joined by a lot more folk next season.

This exact scenario was suggested to the club on several occasions. It seems strange they're now forwarding it as their own idea. Anyway, it makes sense. Family section next to the tunnel and back, probably enough seats in that side and along the front to keep the kids away from the away end (although 99% of the time that won't be an issue). Giving the whole Merkland up for those that wish to jump around and wave flags and so forth is a good idea, especially if they unofficially allow them to stand. From where I sit in the mainer, it's very difficult to hear any singing from the current singing section in the RDU. In the Merkland, it may just be close enough to get the rest of the ground joining in a bit more.

Yep, possibly, although he does make some very good runs into space in the box, and off the ball generally. It's mainly when he's got the ball that his head goes down and he charges. That's why I suggested a few simple instructions for him during the game and focus on doing a couple of things consistently and well would be a good start for him. Play him high enough up the pitch so that any mistakes should mean plenty of cover.

I didn't think he did run about a lot against ICT, I think that's why we missed Hayes so much. It'd be interesting to see the stats regarding metres covered as I thought Pawlett's must have been poor on Monday. Whilst McGinn had a shite game, he was at least tracking back (something he rarely gets credit for, but his position requires a lot of). Interesting to see Church's stats too, as I thought he was laboured and didn't do enough work. In Pawlett's defence, he made some great runs into the box and only on one occasion was it spotted and McLean over-hit the pass slightly. I think he has a lot to offer in that department, but McInnes needs to spend the time on him individually to explain what he wants him to do during a game. He looked devoid of instruction on Monday night. Perhaps he just didn't do as he was told of course, but I think he needs a basic set of instructions drummed into him to get the most out of his obvious attributes. One thing he does well, is plays the pass in front of the player so that they can run on to it as he would expect himself. He's a fantastic player to have on the break, which is possibly why he struggles when teams sit in a bit as seems to be the fashion in football these days.

We really had to hope that Hayes stayed fit for the remainder of the season, he's irreplaceable for us. We don't have another player that covers the amount of ground that he does and creates so many opportunities consistently. McGinn is class, but inconsistent. O'Halloran would have been the ideal signing for us to battle it out with Hayes and McGinn. Unfortunately the lure of 1st division fitba was always going to be too much for us. I think Church was always an unknown gamble, possibly because we didn't get our other targets. I'd have been happy to get a decent striker and a midfielder in January and taken a gamble on not replacing Quinn. Unfortunately, we seem to have signed another Josh Parker. Having seen the Taylor incident again, I was being generous! Although, I don't think we should ignore the poor midfield covering by Storie, who should have pulled across to prevent the run, it was fucking awful by Taylor. I've been critical of Taylor since he joined, but I've been giving him the benefit of the doubt in that he seems to have more good games than bad. He's worse on the ball than Langfield and prone to the odd mistake that the majority of defenders just wouldn't make. He's always reminded me of Diamond. Like Diamond in his second or third season for us, the worst thing to note about Taylor, I think is, this is him at his peak. You can tell by his game awareness and general ability that he isn't going to get any better. There's no room for improvement and no areas of his game that will improve with age (he's not suddenly going to learn how to pass). I think he's been okay this season, but it'll be interesting to see how long he can maintain this level.

Also, they mentioned on Red TV that the penalty was for high feet. Not that Taylor's foot was higher than Draper's anyway, but high given that it wasn't dangerous as both players were going for the ball, it should have only been an indirect free kick. I hope there's a complaint made by the club, as there's no other ref in the world would have given that decision. He looks for things that aren't there. Actually thought Ash was unlucky for the first. Storie and Mclean let the runner go and Taylor did well to read it, but he seemed to run past the ball. Perhaps the ball held up slightly, although it looked like he just forgot to take the ball with him. I thought Reynolds was pap too tonight.

That's some pretty awful refereeing. Bordering on cheating. Although Collum does it pretty much constantly. He shouldn't be reffing a game of football. There must be some corruption going on at the SFA - this was a ref that was sent down a division for being wank, who's now seen as the best in the country. That said, we were awful. My point regarding McInnes's subs in another thread highlighted perfectly tonight. Church should have been off ten minutes before he was binned, yet we wait until we're two down before making the sub. An earlier switch may just have upset the balance of the game and prevented the third. Shoe on the other foot and Smith would have been off around half time. Thought Pawlett was poor, would be interested to see distance covered stats as don't think he did nearly enough. McGinn was just playing pish. Shinnie and Logan decent.

It made me smile. Wish I was in Toulouse to witness it. Although I suspect, given the lack of preparation, it might just be rocket on his own. Hopefully someone videos it, as it'll be class.

Of those 65 non-starts, it'd be interesting to see how many were less than 15 minutes. I suspect the vast majority. And of those 20 starts, it'd be interesting to see how many of those he finished. My point was that if Smith started a game and was playing badly, he'd get taken off early. As opposed to McGinn (just an example, I really like McGinn) having a bad game - he'd be given >75 minutes to try and turn it around. I think that must put additional pressure on Smith (and Pawlett) as he knows he's not the preferred choice. There's been plenty of games where we've not looked like doing anything, yet poorly performing (by their own high standards) players have been given a lot of time to turn it around, often to no avail. McInnes makes very late subs regularly to the extent that it's difficult to describe many of the appearances as opportunities.

I was being facetious. I agree. I never thought Shankland was good enough and don't think he'll make the grade (although he could come good in his later years as a target man). I'd like to have seen Smith given more game time and perhaps a run of games though, but we've just never been shite enough or good enough to allow it. One thing I found interesting about the weekend game though was how quickly Smith and Pawlett were subbed. McGinn and Storie were given a full 30 minutes. It's rare that we see that opportunity afforded to Smith or Pawlett. McInnes clearly has his preferred team. What I mean is, I've watched McGinn and McLean (as an example) have poor games and not be involved in the play at all, yet they've generally been given 75+ minutes as standard before a sub is made. It seems like they have to do a lot more wrong in order to be subbed. I would think that both Smith and Pawlett are aware of the pressure on them to grasp any chance given, and I suspect both will move on in the summer.

Ahh, but then we were the bogey team (I'm sure we beat somebody more than once in that era, although I can't think who), because we were pish.

You can only have one bogey team. Those are the rules.

He's fuckin ace. I'd have asked him about his inability to make subs early in a game and trust in youth like....

I thought St Johnstone were our bogey team?

Looks a decent player like, would have him at the dons.

He's a distraction; he won't win anything. Rubio's the one to watch out for. He's this election's Obama. Relatively clean, not much said about him, but with lots and lots of money behind him. I can see him quietly winning the republican race and then the election. Think Sanders will challenge Hillary all the way, to the extent that a lot of his disappointed supporters will not bother voting for Hillary when the actual vote comes around resulting in the Republicans winning. In the interests of keeping the republicans out (if that's a valid interest anymore), I'd rather Trump won the Republican election. The democrats would turn out in force to vote against his election, and the big Republican money (and brains) would stay well clear of Trump meaning he wouldn't benefit from the list purges and general rigging that'd go on if Rubio or Cruz won. I have no problem with Trump to be honest. It's more interesting to watch what he doesn't say than what he does.

Rangers get drawn at home. Then the re-draw draws Rangers at home. That's 8 from their last 8 Scottish cup ties at home (including the mis-draw). Aye, but prior to that they played Utd away they'll say. A real tough draw. That game, of course, was played at a neutral ground. Of course, with Hampden being re-developed, there was only one possible neutral venue for that game. Ibrox. Rangers have been drawn 9 times out of their last 9 to play at Ibrox. At a time when they're struggling for cash and need the most number of home games possible.

Big game like, the fermers have a great record against us. Be interesting to see what team McInnes goes for. For all our success on Wednesday night, I'm not sure the Church, Rooney set-up worked. If he played a 4-4-2 then that'd be fine, but Rooney wide right just nullifies his game. He didn't really get into it until after Church went off and he moved central. So it's a decision of whether we play Rooney or Church for me, or a 4-4-2 with both of them. Whilst I thought Church worked hard against the Tims, I wasn't 100% convinced. I'd go for Rooney up front tomorrow (Church coming on earlier than our normal subs if possible), with Hayes left, McGinn right and Pawlett in behind. I expect him to go unchanged though.

Just in. Fuckin craking performance tonight. McInnes got it spot on. Wasn't sure if Storie would be up to it, but was very glad to see him getting the opportunity and he didn't disappoint. Shinnie MOTM for me, was immense.

Does it? I think there are several unknowns in regard to team selection tonight. Stick with Storie? Play the new guy? Considine, Reynolds or both? I'm quite intrigued to see our starting 11.

I'm with Manc, I think Souttar has the potential to be a good player. Still 19ish, so plenty of time. Don't think he'll be a world-beater, but a good signing at a good time.

Agreed, perhaps my diagram wasn't great, but Consi was left of a back three, with Shinne at Left wing back. Sort of like how McInnes set-up in Europe at times. If it was me, I'd go with your suggestion and have Pawlett running at Brown all day long. Lost count of the number of times Brown has had to foul Pawlett over the games they've played against each other - he really struggles against him. I'm just not convinced McInnes will see it that way and will take the cautious approach - especially if Storie is in there. An alternative - that McInnes might go for - is a back three with Hayes wing back and Shinnie in midfield alongside McLean and Pawlett close to Rooney. That would maybe alleviate any concerns over Storie and also retain pace on the left and cover at the back. If I remember, we set up in similar fashion in the 2-1 game with a back three of Taylor, Quinn and Considine at the back and Shinnie alongside Jack (think McLean played further forward instead of Pawlett), with McGinn hanging around looking for Jay in the crowd.