RicoS321

Did he rotate? Or did he just drop Clarkson and McKenzie for a mix of poor performance and tactics? I'd have said it was the latter. I'd be inclined to keep the same team with Hayes (if fit) in for McGarry. I guess that could be classed as rotation, but it's not really. I'd say that changing out three or four players for non tactical reasons would be rotation. Say Sokler and Gueye starting. I'd agree with OD, that that level of change would be undesirable.

Why would anyone have had a soft spot for the Inverness Huns?

You're not right! Any decision can be changed. It was Collum on VAR (I think) and I think he tends toward the onfield decision, which I actually think is the way it should be. He appears to have the correct interpretation of clear and obvious. The ref had a good view of the incident and thought a yellow was good enough and he obviously thinks there wasn't enough to overturn it. The replays make it look a little worse than it was in real time in my opinion. I'd rather we saw less VAR intervention. The ref let quite a lot go today, and it made for a better game. There have been lesser tackles given red, but that shouldn't be reason to intervene here.

The best fans in the world? Surely not?

Enjoyed that today. Great to sit through a game where we're set up properly from the start, and we're not watching multiple players in roles that they can't play. Shinnie and Barron as a two with McGrath in front. Rubezic a few yards ahead of Jensen and Gartenmann. The rest takes care of itself. Even better to see that when Clarkson came on, Robson didn't revert to playing him deep and pushing the others forward, he stuck with what was working and played Clarkson where McGrath was. He just needs to stick with that for a few games. If he thinks he needs more defensive protection then Polvara in for Duk. Sorted. Only minor criticism is that I'd like to see Sokler get some minutes alongside Duk, or Gueye some minutes alongside Miovski. Those are the guys that we'll be turning to when chasing a game, but I doubt we'd throw them both on together, so it'd be nice to see if one or other could form a partnership with the main strikers. They both looked a bit knackered though, so probably not possible. Difficult to pick out the top performers today, they all did well. Miovski was probably motm ahead of Shinnie and Barron.

Aye, he looks like Gary MacDonald.

Because he's been asked to do the job of at least one and a half midfielders in those games. We're lucky he didn't pick up an injury to be honest. Ironic that when he got the most support he's had all season last night, he was taken off early. As you say, the international break would have helped, and hopefully we'll see an end to the ridiculous strategy of pretending that we have more than one box to box midfielder.

James and Alan? Sounds brutal. Yep, I mentioned going for a 3-4-2-1 last night. Shinnie and Barron sitting with Polvara and Clarkson supporting Miovski. That can change to a 3-4-1-2 to allow Duk on if we're chasing it. Clarkson regularly struggles when he's not either sitting behind or in front (see Gilmour for Scotland a few years back), because he likes the space for his side to side movement. I think that if we're experimenting then having him further up the pitch is a good idea, he's played well there before, although as a 10, behind the striker(s). It's still a little bit shoehorning like. Barron is comfortable in a two, so is fine alongside Shinnie and that would give Shinnie a well deserved break. Agree about McGrath, he's not been great. A good squad player to have, nothing more. His position is probably similar to Clarkson's more forward position and I think he should be used as cover for that role. He's not a bad signing in himself, just that he doesn't fill the role we needed. Thought McKenzie did okay despite the penalty, but maybe McGarry (who I've not been particularly impressed by either) back in for his pace going forward versus County. Duncan did okay when he came on, but I still think his best position will be through the middle when he comes of age.

Apologies, I was referring to Miovski on his wrong foot. I'm still not convinced though. Ball behind you, an awkward height, a difficult chance. He'd have had to throw himself in the air to get above it, and there wasn't a huge amount of time to react after it came over the heads and into sight.

On his wrong foot? Not convinced. Not many players around scoring one like that. Very difficult to get your foot over it at the last minute.

Think we'd have been in the Europa League of we'd adopted that setup (or similar) against Hacken.

Extra credit to Robson for tonight. That could have gone really badly, and he experimented with a new setup and made good changes at good times in the game. I think dropping Duk was the right call, and I'd probably do the same again at the weekend. Miovski on his own with the midfield (danger-man Polvara) getting close might be the right move. Thought the back three did well tonight despite the Rubezic switch off at the corner (thought Duk could have done better too, he should be positioned nearer the front post, and Clarkson should be staying on the back post). Maybe a 3-4-2-1 ala Scotland will be the one for us to go for? With apologies to the three other strikers that we bought and won't get a game.

Not to mention Hayes storming the midfield. Played themselves into contention for the real big one on Sunday.

Fucking hell. Robson going for a whole new approach to substitutions. Interesting.

Fucking koch

Earliest sub ever made by Robson?

Why would I watch that rubbish with all the new experiences being delivered by the dodgy links on the stream you sent?

Some save from Kelle like, despite the offside. Not sure about this stream OxfordDon recommended, the commentator keeps shouting "cock"!

Aye, only £30 per month.

Give him a four year deal

When you say "switch on", to which channel did you switch on?

anyone got a stream? Apparently the doubling of cost for Red TV international wasn't enough to include European fixtures.

So 5-4-1? With a very flat four. Maybe Clarkson in front of a three when in possession. Seems sensible.

I'm led to believe that it was beautiful up until the 1940s, then something happened, there were bombs involved and since then it's just an industrial estate.

I don't know. If we did, it isn't working. I think that, for most clubs, there are probably two roles there. Agnew will be the guy that offers something different to the players, so that they're not bombarded with 100% Robson. Whether that be by being a more reasonable guy, or the Knox role of being a bigger mental case. What I'm talking about is someone that sits above (and a step back from) Robson and the recruitment team and challenges the decisions that the management in those areas are making, whilst leaving them the autonomy to dig their own grave as it were. It doesn't need to be a football person, and it could even be a committee of persons. It has to be non partisan and can't be someone like Cormack, and it has to be someone in daily contact with the business (so not the FMB!). Their role should be to ask questions of Robson as if they were a layperson to make him think harder about what he's doing with the team (and the same for the recruitment guys). At the moment, for me, that would focus very much on our midfield. A break down on what each player is expected to be doing, whether they can do the role being asked and what was different previously that allowed it to work. Anyone with a young child knows that there are certain things that you just do without questioning yourself and it's only when they ask you why you're doing it and you can't explain that you realise you're doing something wrong or unnecessary. I'd be intrigued to hear Robson's description to the five year old (or layperson) of what his reasons are behind our current setup, or answers to the questions above. It feels like he's stuck in a mindset and won't budge, and that when he does budge it will be random and reactive rather than a calculated plan (see the 4-3-3), which will only be successful by luck.