RicoS321

I meant that he's a known quantity in terms of his style and what you get from him. He's a goalscorer, akin to someone like Kris Boyd. He's not going to suddenly develop another string to his bow, and he's playing at the highest level he's ever reached and ever will reach (he wasn't there with utd and obviously coming off the bench for us was the pinnacle), which is only now good enough for the international squad. That level is low end international level, good enough to be a backup striker, which is what he is - deservedly. I think that Clarke will be comfortable explaining to Shankland what his role is in the squad and when he's likely to be used. He might walk away, but it's not nonsense. Jacob Brown plays in the premiership and barely gets a look in and could also walk away. That's what happens with fringe players that aren't at the level of the rest. However Shankland is 28 and might get the opportunity to go to a European championships, so I doubt we'll see him pulling out.

It is, but he's also probably a fairly decent manager. Twice at Morecambe and now three times at County, I think we know where his next gig will be.

Wow, that last statement wouldn't look out of place in the daily mail comments! Anyway, I can see why Shankland didn't start. He's decent, but only in the last couple of years has he got anywhere near the physical presence for international level and maintained it. He's not a target man like Dykes and nor will he do the running like Adams, taking it in the channels and so on. I suspect that this was Brown's opportunity to show what he can do, and he failed for the most part. Clarke will be concerned that if Adams doesn't make it (gets injured I mean) then we don't have someone to do the shift against better opposition, and probably hoped that Brown would at least manage that (he sort of did for a spell at the beginning of the second half). Shankland is very much a known quantity, Clarke will have felt that he probably doesn't have much to prove. His role will only be coming on as a sub when we're chasing games or to play against poorer opponents in qualifying, where we can afford the luxury of a goalscorer. Ten minutes to get a goal is exactly what Shankland can and should expect, and it's a fairly vital role. Clarke is loyal to the guys in his squad, but I think he'll do the right thing and leave Brown at home, leaving the door open for Shankland (assuming Nisbet isn't doing the business down the road). It'll be interesting to see how loyal he remains though, as I think there's a few players in that squad who've been brilliant servants, but could easily be left at home without little noticeable effect. We're going to need guys that can provide a spark and offer something different when we're struggling against the big teams, and I'm not sure that Shankland will manage that, as well as some of the others on display last night: McLean, Armstrong, Brown, Jack. I'd like to see us take a gamble on Doak like we did with Gilmour at least, and maybe one other young player that might take us beyond next qualifying. I see Clarke as being more in the Craig Brown mould in that regard, and I expect he'll remain loyal to the guys who qualified (although injuries will obviously allow him some movement).

Good to see shankland getting his massive coupon on the equaliser. Really upped his game with the diets over the last couple of seasons and deserves to be in the squad. They were a fucking disgrace though, as was the ref. That wasn't football they were playing.

You're right, I apologise. That is the view of the sports department from the outside. Of course, that's not particular to all of the sports department, or probably even the majority. The work done on the Hun case was from a news reporter, and the overwhelming take on it by the outward facing radio staff was that we need to move on and the world needs a strong rangers (apart from Jim traynor originally). The overwhelming majority of coverage on the radio goes to two teams. Two teams dominate the premiership and Scottish football web pages (unless someone has been sacked). At present, there isn't an article discussing the cup final allocation from the angle of fairness on the BBC website (with Off the Ball being the main dissenting voice). I've never seen an article challenging fairness and meritocracy in the Scottish game on the website. By that, I mean one that isn't "embedded" in the conclusion before it even starts (it's just the way it is, nothing can be done). Outwardly, the BBC's position is one of status quo. I have no doubt it looks, and is, different on the inside. I've worked for oil companies for twenty five years, completely aware of the effects of climate change, I know what it's like to be carried along by systemic forces.

He would just release a statement, at which point they keep going with it. Utilise the less craven BBC departments (remember the ones who actually did the outing of the Hun, quickly swept under the carpet and hung out to dry by the sports department?) to go properly after it. Remind him who televises the championship, who pays for the radio coverage. Of course they have clout over Doncaster, they just choose not to use it. The reason they choose not to use it is because nobody at the BBC sports department (nobody important anyway!) actually believes that things like the ticket allocation is unjust. They believe that the SPFL is a meritocracy. They believe that there is nothing wrong with the status quo in Scottish football. Which is also why they take their Tim banning just like they took their Hun one. In return, giving them 7,080% more airtime than any other clubs combined, further exacerbating the unfairness. Becoming more obsequious rather than less. Which is a shame.

I'm pretty certain the BBC (and it has to be the BBC, as it's the only impartial provider*) has enough clout to force Doncaster to do interviews. They could do a proper in-depth piece on the unfairness of it and force his hand. Mention that he refuses interviews regularly on sportsound and basically out the fucker at every opportunity. There is no real need for the BBC to be as toothless as it is. *Because fairness isn't something they need to be impartial on. There doesn't need to be someone from the Huns involved as it's not a direct criticism of them.

With four tickets available for each person on the database, it wouldn't actually surprise me if they were able to get tickets. All it takes is one Hun to have been signed up for previous games and they can take a few.

That's a good response. It's a shame nobody in our media will ask for an interview with Doncaster about the allocation and really press him on it, and the overall fairness in our game, lack of sporting integrity and the message this gives. If this type of thing affected the scum, we'd be hearing about it for weeks.

Sounds like a real shite way to do it. A danger of Huns being in our end?

Just to let you guys know that you can go online and order your tickets now that I've got mine.

Very true. The inconsistency only occurs when you don't mention upper kirkgate or marischal college. So we've ruled out littlejohns then as it was right hand side going uphill from Dode st in the other direction. Are we talking pre bon accord centre? On the right hand side going uphill from back wynd you have St Nicholas Kirk, then st Nicholas centre then the car park and the toilets. There wasn't much else prior to the new buildings from memory. St Nicholas was 1985, I don't remember what was there before either. Unless you were eating in Dixon's?

Yep, that's right. Thank god for your missionary work, the world is a much safer place these days. On the left if you're going from art gallery to marischal college. I assumed "going uphill form George Street" meant that direction. Given that the end of George Street is the bon accord centre, it's kind of in a dip, so uphill could refer to marischal college direction or art gallery direction. We'll let @Madbadteacher off for his inconcise description, given his last memories were of radars, which closed about thirty years ago.

No, it isn't a hypothetical argument, we see the players every single week and know their abilities and their best positions (yes, plural, it doesn't undermine the argument in any way whatsoever), and we have multiple instances of them playing together. Polvara did offer something different against Hibs, it was almost immediate. He maintained position higher up the park, which meant that we didn't have "three players all dropping deep" and basically followed his man without drifting after we went down to ten. I would suggest looking at a heat map of the two, but the sending off makes it a little unfair. You could see the static line of four against PAOK too, it was extraordinarily disciplined. A 5-2-2-1 isn't really a recognisable formation as we've seen, it has to be a 3-4-2-1, with emphasis on the fullbacks being a little bit higher. It's the catch 22 with playing against a better side. You aim to play a 5-2-2-1 or 3-4-2-1, but one or both of the forward players gets dragged backwards to mark their attacking player and it permanently becomes a four. Tiredness also plays a part there (see Hibs). If the fullbacks drop deeper into a 5-2-2-1 then you're left with massive gaps that a good team exploits. In Polvara, and Duncan to a lesser extent, you've got someone who will maintain the discipline and patience in either role, Clarkson only really advantages you in the forward position and is a liability backwards for the reasons you state. It's basically a tiring and thankless job, donkey work suited to a poorer player. That's the name of the game against the Tims away unfortunately. I absolutely think we should try the 3-4-2-1 against poorer opposition (I said it after Frankfurt away), with Devlin and McKenzie able to close the gaps, but that will put an end to Duk and Miovski as a two and leave nothing for Sokler and Gueye (which I'm comfortable with). Against the Tims, and especially with our fixture list, having Barron or Clarkson (it'll be the former today I expect) is a far greater asset than having them in a stultifying role out wide.

No, my argument is that it's been tried and hasn't worked. Because it has been on numerous occasions as I keep saying. Clarkson excelled in the number six role last season, that was his best position. He also played very well under Goodwin in number ten (ahead of Barron a couple of times, as I've said, it'll work well in a 4-2-3-1 at the expense of McGrath). He's also played well in a sitting pair alongside Shinnie (see Hibs latterly). I don't know what his best position of the three is, but I know he's very good in all of those so it makes no odds. I also don't need to specifically see him play in every role to know that he's not suited to it, based on the style of player (most arguments are over where Clarkson can't play, rather than can). It's fairly simple stuff really, I'm not being obtuse. You select a style that you want to play and pick players to play in that style. For a 5-4-1 against good opposition, you want a right sided midfielder that holds his position, is disciplined and will get forward when the attack requires. That's not Clarkson, he's not that disciplined and nor do you want to turn him into that type of cautious player. I've suggested two setups that I think could accommodate Clarkson and Barron, with reasons (and reasons why wouldn't test that against the Tims). You've suggested the right midfield role that Duncan played against PAOK, with no real explanation as to what Clarkson offers in that role. Nor can you explain why it so spectacularly failed against Hibs (until Barron got canned), where you yourself suggested that Clarkson was coming to deep for the ball, which is what I've pointed out numerous times. The 5-4-1, right midfield position nullifies all Clarkson's best attributes and amplifies his worst ones.

There was no overlapping fullback apart from the goal! It was a very disciplined four. That's why I said that the 3-4-2-1 against poorer sides would be a good chance to play all of them together (poorer than the Tims and not at Hampden, and also sacrificing any remaining hope of Duk and Miovski as a two). Duncan was almost always receiving the ball high up the park with nobody in front of him, he was basically taking a touch and playing it backwards. By that point, against Hibs, Clarkson had already dropped deep, further congesting the midfield, as that's what he does. McRorie is in no way similar to Barron or Clarkson. Both clearly excel in one or more areas of the pitch. It's completely disingenuous to say that we don't know their best positions, we do (I do, and so does Robson and I expect most Dons fans). Barron is a central midfielder that moves the ball on quickly and has good vision. He can play sitting in a two or a one. He's a bit lost further up the pitch and struggles when asked to press high in a two with one behind. Clarkson is also a central midfielder that moves the ball on quickly and has great vision. He can play sitting in a two or a one (better than Barron in a one, where he excels, but requires two chasers in front). Going forward, he can also play in front of two sitting midfielders in either a one or two, but can't play the Shinnie/Ramadani role of chasing it high up the pitch with one in behind. He is better suited to being the one, whether deep or high up the pitch as his side to side movement is excellent and he thrives in the space. When playing as a two he tends to drift vertically, especially if starting further forward. He always wants to be on the ball rather than create the space for others to be on it (as does Barron, and we're better for it). These two guys aren't utility players like McRorie, and we shouldn't be trying to make them be either. They're far more talented than McRorie and should be cultivated in their best positions. Guys like Duncan and Polvara just need minutes on the football pitch at this level to develop their confidence and strength. That shouldn't be sacrificed either to accommodate a player out of position. The evidence for the above is seeing them play every week. There's a reason that they don't play together often (Goodwin tried it several times). We can see the way they play around other players being asked to play similar roles, it's ridiculous to suggest that they need to be played several times together to prove that their styles don't compliment. It's just an unnecessary experiment. Neither brings anything to the other's game. The 3-4-2-1 is certainly worth a try against poorer opposition or when chasing a game though.

You did suggest that. You suggested playing Clarkson in the role Duncan played against PAOK. It amounts to the same thing. Trialling it again against the Tims would also be a bit silly. I'm completely failing to see what you think Clarkson adds to our team playing a disciplined right midfield role in a 5-4-1. In my opinion, it either nullifies his best attributes or leads to disarray as he drifts towards playing to his strengths by sacrificing position - that is clearly backed up by the Hibs game (as well as many under Goodwin in a slightly different setup). Against teams that aren't the Tims, we can have the luxury of attempting a 4-2-3-1, or even a 3-4-2-1 and accommodate Clarkson, Barron, Shinnie and McGrath in the latter. However, the 3-4-2-1 quickly changes to a disciplined 5-4-1 against better teams as we've seen, with Clarkson shifted right. In games like those, a fresh Clarkson (or Barron) coming off the bench is a much better option than him doing - at best - a marginally better job than Polvara or Duncan. Against Hibs, we ended up having to take Polvara off the bench. Not in order to get a performing side to be better, or for fresh legs, but to correct a very obvious imbalance. Clarkson and Barron are particular types of player, just like Ramadani was. I don't think there's anything wrong with identifying a formation that you think will work and then identifying a style/type of player that will suit that. I'm curious as to why you think Clarkson's style is suited to right midfield in a 5-4-1?

That's clearly ridiculous though, in a team sport. You don't just throw all your best players on and hope that it works. We've been trying to accommodate players all season instead of playing our best eleven as a team. Duncan wasn't amazing last night, but he occupied a position and held that position, just like Polvara did against Hibs. The only way you accommodate Clarkson and Barron (that I've seen working) is in a 4-2-3-1, with Barron and Shinnie sitting and Clarkson in behind Miovski. However, that comes at the expense of McGrath, which none of us would likely go for at present, and it's also not a formation to be playing against a good team away. What happens otherwise was perfectly illustrated in the Hibs game (and multiple times when Goodwin tried to play Barron out of position). Clarkson played out wide, tiring himself out and having zero impact on the game, dropping deep and getting in Barron's way unsettling the shape of the entire midfield in an attempt to get involved and do what he does best. As soon as we switched it, the balance was regained and Clarkson suddenly finds his passing ability and ball retention, bringing Shinnie to life at the same time (who was also getting absolutely knackered chasing the game). When Clarkson or Barron are out of position, they lose all the qualities that make them the players they are. By playing Clarkson out wide right, you're not actually getting Clarkson, you're getting a significantly worse player - one who doesn't bring the discipline required to the role (and nor should he). Luckily he can interchange with both Barron and McGrath (depending on McGrath's role) and all three are going to get plenty of minutes between them. It's weird, we always seem to want a better squad, but then when we get that we also want our best players playing every single week rather than rotate. I feel sorry for Robson, as a new coach, it's something we haven't had in such a blatant manner in such an important position before (see Duk and Miovski too). I think the reason that we didn't see Clarkson last night was specifically for that rotation purpose, and we'll see Barron drop to the bench. That's good management in my opinion. Miovski will be an interesting one. He looked a little tentative when he came on last night. Keen to chase in a straight line, but didn't really challenge for anything or put his body into anything. I was half expecting to see him go down with a recurrence, but hopefully he was just being cautious. Duk did very well, especially his positional discipline (and goal, obviously), but Miovski is definitely the guy you want at the Tim dome.

It was probably Chelsea fans

In fairness to craigan, it sounded like he was supporting us and getting nervous that we might lose a stupid goal. He does talk as if he was Baresi himself, a bit like listening to Gerd Muller (Cowan) on Red TV.

It was great that TNT Sports sent McInnes and McCoist over to cover our game though. A valuable asset to our game.

Great performance, really disciplined. Robson got it spot on tonight with the line up and changes.

I've no idea what happened last night, but there's no way that was a sending off. It is possible to stand on people in a fast paced game of fitba. McGrath goes in at a weird angle and the guy accidentally stand on him. VAR should be binned either way of course.

Check your messages. Apologies, didn't notice the reply.

Got one! Just missed the goal of course.