RicoS321

Not to labour the point (okay, completely to labour the point, because I always do!), but the time to learn the lesson was on Friday night against ten men, and to instill it into the players at half time. This team are here for the taking, and when we get the first goal we need to keep pressing as hard as we can to get a second. To me, the sending off should have flicked a switch, and Clarke could have told his players at half time that winning by two was the best chance we'd get to finish second. Maybe he did, but changed his mind again because we scored so late, but it didn't appear to be the case. If interviewers in this country were a little better, it would be a really interesting chat with Clarke to get his thoughts on this. Specifically, what they knew going into the match, what they knew at half time (when playing against ten), and what they told the players as a result. Did they know the permutations? Did they look beyond finishing second or last and onto the world cup pots? I really enjoy the nations' league, but clearly world cup qualification is the pinnacle here. We might have lost or drawn to Croatia by pursuing a second, but that would still have meant that beating Poland by a two goal margin would have put us third, which is the same target we have to aim for tonight. It's difficult to overstate just how big a difference pot 1 to pot 3 makes in qualification, and that should be the sole focus of our nations' league campaign (to give us the ebst chance of qualifying for WC). Pot 2 is possible if Greece lose away to Finland (Norway or Romania unlikely to lose at home to Kazakhstan or Cyprus respectively), but really it's pot 1 or drop to 3, and that would have been fairly clear on Friday. I'd love to hear what Clarke thinks of this, and not just the usual "one game at a time" platitudes. Clearly it's important to look ahead in a league format with the pots the way they are, to ignore it would be stupid (and I don't think Clarke would). Maybe he views Pot 3 as better than Pot 1 because we still get a good Pot 2 team, and the team in Pot 1 usually beats everyone anyway, so we don't get the uncertainty of a decent Pot 3 team to worry about. That certainly worked in the last qualification, where swapping Spain for, say, Greece or someone would have probably worked out worse for us. I'd be intrigued to see the depth of thought they put into this, or if they just don't want to consider it.

I think so. They definitely can't be relied on to win by two, so we have to go all out against Poland and try and win by two or score three (if we win 3-2 and Croatia lose 1-0 then I think we go through, as we'd draw level on goals scored). Obviously we'll get more of an idea in play, and it'll be interesting to see Clarke's approach. For example, if we're winning 1-0 and Portugal and Croatia are drawing, will Clarke sit in for the victory so as not to risk third place, or will he go for a second goal and hope Portugal sneak a goal? I suspect he'll do the former. I think Clarke is an excellent manager, but he is fairly cautious.

Nice one, thanks. So winning against Poland will give us a chance to remain in group A at least. However, will that be enough to get us into pot 2 for the draw, or is it still the two pot drop from 1 to 3 if we don't finish second?

Aye, I noticed the BBC got it wrong, useless cunts. I should say that I wasn't trying to be overly critical of what was a very good win either, just when you said that it was a massive three points, I reckon that it might not be in the end. It still could be, of course, and here's hoping we at least do our bit against Poland. I don't know all the permutations in terms of finishing second or third, but it seems to be that if we beat Poland but miss out on goal difference, that could be the difference between first pot and ending up in pot three for the world cup draw? That's fairly massive if so, and we could be looking back at this result well beyond Monday.

I didn't mean we couldn't do it, just that it's unlikely. I think our best chance of finishing second is by scoring another goal in a half we'd totally dominated against ten men. Go into the Poland game not having to worry about goal difference would have been one less thing to worry about, and in international football you have to take the chance when it presents itself or you'll probably miss out. I think we'll need to win by two goals in Poland now, as I don't think we can rely on Portugal to do the business. I just think that we're good enough to scrape a win, but not win by two, mainly because we don't really score many goals. It just gives us one more route to glorious failure, and I could well see us winning by one and Portugal winning by one. We had the opportunity to take one more factor out of play, but we chose to hold rather than gamble. I reckon Jimmy T would have gone straight for the jugular had it been the Dons.

Aye, no bother. Unfortunately it's probably not a massive three points. Think we should have really been going all out for the second goal. Not being ahead in the head to head against Croatia pretty much rules out second place. Think this was our one opportunity to do it. Could see us beating Poland by a goal, but we're not going to be tanking them.

It's setup nicely for a Devlin winner. We need his energy, tearing into the box.

Yes, I meant VPN required for @OrlandoDon because he's in the US. We don't need one in the UK. Did you manage to sort something OD? Intriguing half. They played us off the park in the first 20 minutes, we couldn't get out of our half. We increased the movement in midfield and started to get back in it and put in a few dangerous balls. The red card may just have changed things for us though. It was probably a soft yellow, as he didn't come in with force, but from the ref's angle he's just seeing a guy go in around the knee and they can't have too many complaints. Great that we then got a goal kick a minute later when it was a corner too. The Israeli ref has been great for us. Great bunch of lads the Israelis.

UK only I'd think. VPN required.

Might not be searchable until nearer the time, haven't checked yet. There won't be extensive pre and post match coverage. Devlin snubbed again for the Tim reject. Conway starting is interesting. Think he could do the business.

Fantastic. Might even get a seat. The one major downside of the recent upturn in attendances.

Best ever night as a Dons' fan. Beating the Huns on penalties, keeper scoring a goal. Roy of the fucking etc A good moment when a photographer refused to return the ball to Barry Ferguson, who got very upset. The photographer obviously said something (I'm assuming he called him a Hun cunt) and threw him the ball back, Ferguson continued the argument whilst the photographer took photos of his irate ratface. Good event though, very enjoyable. £9 a pint is quite the stretch. Worth it to see Eoin Jess bang one in again. The only true master of the tournament, maybe 6 years older than the next oldest? Reckon I would challenge a few of them for fitness though. Would have shat it against Gary Kenneth mind you.

I got free tickets. Might see if I can challenge Kris Boyd to a race.

Signed by Craig Brown towards the end of his career. Didn't play a huge number of games. Was technically good but not the fittest lad. Think injuries got to him.

That's why I stopped posting there. It was an assualt on the senses!

Sweet-Lovin' Man - The Magnetic Fields

Optician lad? That's sad, seemed a decent sort.

It'll stop being funny after Gray's final game in charge when they lose against us.

Getting a bit tedious this winning pish. Terrible day out. We struggled to create much in the first half, they pressed us well and created the better chances. Mitov kept us in it with a great save again after Molloy made a real arse of it (he was otherwise really good in that half). Once again, though, the manager just sorts it all out. Devlin clearly told to get as far up the pitch as possible and that gave Keskinen and then Morris the space to do damage. We roasted them in that first fifteen minutes, and each sub that came on once again offered something to the team (Ambrose wasn't really up to much, but worked hard). Shinnie excellent again. The back four were great, they're going to make errors, but everything is building from them, and quickly too. Palaversa struggled a lot in the first half but came into it in the second and did okay. Clarkson was good and was always looking for the killer pass, it's frustrating to hear people criticising him when his game relies on taking the gamble with very difficult first time balls. Duk never really settled in the game but was okay. Keskinen was okay too and significantly better when Devlin pushed forward. Both Duk and Keskinen could make better decisions. Morris, Besuijen and Nisbet all came on and played really well. Nisbet was determined to score a goal.

Yes it was a side issue, that's exactly what your quote is saying and exactly what I've been saying. People think a side issue has been given too much airtime, I think a side issue has been given too much airtime. That happens in two. The first is when "progressive" politicians include buzzwords in every single policy and discussion. The second is when people say glib things like: Trying to provoke a response (not necessarily in your case of course) and dragging all and sundry into a discussion that the overwhelming majority neither understand or genuinely care about. The result being another thing to fight over. Women's prison rights are a minor side issue that have received zero coverage around election time in my lifetime, until trans.

Take your anti-heat rhetoric somewhere else, bigot. As someone who produces heat on a regular basis, I find your call for patience and love offensive.

Battle of the benches in the championship telly game tonight, with Niall McGinn at home to Alfie Bavidge.

Well you've spectacularly managed to miss my point, but fair enough, I'll respond. First, I couldn't give a fuck whether the democrats were elected or not, so I'd like to hope they weren't taking their campaign as seriously as I was. I don't think people who care about the issue are bigots, nor did I suggest that anywhere, I don't think the majority care at all, they simply get dragged into the "debate" by the press, social media and their respective sides of said debate. It's contrived, entirely. Because it's a side issue that has been elevated to the moon by weirdos - whipped up hysteria. You might be genuine in caring, it may be important to you or a family member, but the majority have simply been dragged along and forced to pick a side. Point 1: well, yes, that was my point Point 2: the issues that are more important than women getting raped in prison by men disguised as women are every other issue that regularly effects women in prison for the very reason that those things actually happen (I'm sure you can point to a single incident, perhaps two or three even). I'm also not getting irate about the lack of defence against bear attacks in women's prisons. It's a minor issue, which any competent government or private prison company should be able to deal with. The volume of men changing gender before committing a crime to go to prison and rape someone is manageable. Or if it isn't, then there is a lot worse happening in our prisons that we can't cope with. But let's be clear here, I'm not saying that I spend any time claiming to give a shite about issues that affect female prisoners, I absolutely don't. Just as I don't believe that the majority of people who suddenly feel strongly about men in women's prisons don't either. The point wasn't about me, nor about you. Because the people I talk to who suddenly seem to care about this issue are friends, family and colleagues who I absolutely know had zero interest in female prisoners before the crap-rags, talkshows and (to a lesser extent, because they don't have the reach) the opposing Green party weirdos decided to whip up a culture war. Point 3: you've basically provided more detail. Good work. I'm not quite sure what you mean by male supremacy movement, and I know that my kids aren't being indoctrinated in school (well, they are, but in something far more insidious), but otherwise I agree with your point - a side issue that has been elevated, as I said (obviously not a side issue for those with gender dysphoria, and their families, but everyone else). Point 4: I agree with your position on gender, but I choose not to elevate it to anything beyond the side issue that it is. I don't care. There is no virtue signalling from me, because I'm not even taking a position, which I thought was fairly clear. I don't need a bureaucracy to tell me what gender is, and neither do most normal people. Just as I don't fall foul of "can't say anything these days", because I generally say what I like, and nobody really has a problem. To be honest, I'm surprised that anyone is genuinely surprised that the post modern system we live in wants to dictate what we do and don't believe is real. I live in the fucking suburbs, reality was stripped from my life a long time ago.

I have. He's an uninspiring loser, as are all politicians. Lacking in imagination, wisdom, love, integrity and authenticity. I get that you're a republican voter, nothing wrong with that, but I wouldn't start holding a candle to these fuckwits. That's no different to those that hold Sanders or Corbyn or Churchill as a shining beacon. The system doesn't allow for anyone who you'd actually want as a leader, to lead. Hence why Jesus never joined the Roman Tory party under Augustus. Vance is still willing to support genocide when it suits, to take money from billionaires in turn for policy and lick the boots of a pathetic man-child narcissist in Trump for his own personal gain. Playing the system means you're automatically not fit to lead that system. Or, actually, you're automatically fit to lead that system. In fact, he's a perfect fit. Hopefully, one day soon, the majority will see it for what it is and stop engaging with it. It's a system designed to fail anyway, and its failings are beyond the control and vision of guys like Trump and Vance (or else they wouldn't be there).

Why? What do you do on your holidays?