RicoS321

You don't, in any meaningful sense. Even though we do have options to do just that. Simply shunt everyone across one clockwise (starting at Devlin) and switch to a four at the back, taking McGrath or Clarkson off for a right winger in a 4-4-2. We've not tried it with a mixture of Duncan, Hayes, Morris and Besuijen all available, so I don't see it happening with another winger. His go to seems to be a front three, and now that we have a settled defence, his preference seems to be a 3-4-3 as plan B. We've got four strikers, including a misfiring one, to keep happy. I don't see us doing much that rocks that in January and expect a midfielder in the door. Although that could change if he eventually uses the ones we've got properly. The biggest thing for me this window is that up until this thread I thought we'd signed Dadia rather than just loaned him. That news is like a new signing in itself.

Jesus. We haven't even put Dadia to rest. Give us time to grieve.

The game's been moved to the Friday night due to the annual reindeer conference being held in Helsinki on the Thursday. Which is live on sky.

Ahh, had forgotten about the second seed thing. The players also have to play for their places at the tournament too, of course. To be honest, I trust Clarke will get them up for the games.

Yep, it also takes the pressure off for the Georgia and Norway games and turns them into a bit of a friendly. They've barely put a foot wrong in the campaign, I think we deserved a chance to go for that top spot. I was actually surprised that there wasn't more made of it on Thursday to be honest. It was fleetingly mentioned in the commentary, but it seemed like our target prior to the Spain game was simply qualifying rather than winning the group. There seemed to be a lot of annoyance at the decision to chalk off our goal, but very little focus on why it was so bad for us. It was almost like there was still a lack of belief (among the general punditry) that we could win the final two games to win the group. Almost a relief that we don't have to go through it I suppose, which I thought we'd moved on from. They all seem to be stuck in the mindset that Scotland will strive to fuck it up at the death, which I think this group of players deserves better than.

Fantastic. Although still a little gutted that we're not playing for top spot. A draw would have been nice.

I'm not suggesting that we should, of course, just that the stadiums might be better. Ibrox is far better than Hampden for actually watching football, especially in the ends. The Tim dome also. If we could knock both of those down and sell the land, then we could do up Hampden.

Couldn't agree more.

It has been a complete failure in my opinion. It's frustrating, because in Scotland we had ample opportunity to watch it fail in England (and elsewhere) first. It's such a huge change to the game that match-going fans weren't asked their opinion on too. Although I'm almost certain that enough people would have voted for it because of nebulous ideas such as "being left behind", "progress" and "refs in Europe". I don't even like it when we get a VAR decision in our favour, it just feels wrong most of the time. I think it's because they've made up new reasons for fouls (handball and having your cock offside) and then VAR gives us fouls for those new rules. Those are the majority of instances, with a handful - per season - of correcting poor ref calls added in. Unfortunately it's not an experiment either, it's now fully embedded and can't be overturned (ironic, given its purpose). Like everything in our technologically religious world, the answer to shite tech is bureaucracy or more shite tech. Some clever fucker once said something about the most progressive way to progress being to go backward, or some shit. I'm guessing that they were referring to social media, or TV or whatever, but it's applicable here. We marched into a technology without questioning what it would do. We didn't say: "is the purpose of offside really to chalk off goals where a player is only a foot off?". We couldn't even come up with a definition of clear and obvious. The next step will be to amend the rules or make the technology faster, rather than to go back and ask why.

The ref signalled for a foul, but then about twenty minutes later, VAR released offside footage. It could be a case of the ref getting his signals wrong, but I wouldn't rule out him going to VAR without having a clear understanding of what he was looking for. I'd like Scotland to press for the audio to be released. It's a decision that will likely see Spain top the group. Another case of VAR ruining a great moment. The margins for offside are pathetic. There's absolutely no way that even the Spanish media would be repeating that goal back and forth to decide whether Hendry's foot was on or off (prior to VAR I mean). It ruins the enjoyment of the game. They either need to ditch VAR or change the offside rule to something that doesn't result in two minute delays and goals being disallowed for toes being offside. There really weren't that many outrageous offside decisions prior to VAR that has made this abomination worth it. Similarly handball. Basically 90% of VAR interventions. In short, though, as per the specifications laid out in the rules, the goal was correctly disallowed, but there is huge confusion because the ref signalled incorrectly. He was fucking awful all night, and worse than anything I've seen in Scotland this season.

I take it back. We really don't want foreign refs in our game. What an inept fucker.

Is it? Not convinced like. Apparently there is to be some minor improvements, but nothing exciting. I expect that they'll be putting up signs for Rangers and Celtic home ends, and painting them in their respective colours.

Clarkson is struggling because of the formation. He wouldn't be if Robson would shift him to number ten, just as he did against County. What worked against County would almost certainly work against St Johnstone. We, correctly, changed formation against the Hun and Frankfurt. We absolutely do have a solution. It's called playing the players in positions that bring out their best attributes. This Clarkson or McGrath in number ten, Barron, Polvara and Shinnie sitting. It has a 100% record of working when we've tried it this season. At what point does one of McGrath, Polvara or Clarkson acquire the fitness, pace and stamina to play a box to box midfielder? They don't. Just as they wouldn't become 6ft4 defenders either. Time is not the issue here. Nor is lack of effort, they know exactly what they're being asked to do, they just can't do it. Robson said that he took Shinnie off at the weekend because he was concerned that he might get injured. I made that point more than a fortnight ago, that if Shinnie continued to be expected to do the work of 1.5 players then he'll get injured. The evidence is piled sky high that what I'm saying is correct. It's not because I'm some tactical genius either, I just happen to have eyes. I don't believe that you think that McGrath will turn into a different player. I don't even think Robson believes it, he's just being stubborn and dogmatic. The strange thing is that Robson watched this very scenario happening under Goodwin last season. Goodwin insisted on playing Ramadani in front of the defence, taking the ball from the centre backs and trying to play the Clarkson/Barron number six role. He persisted until he got binned, Robson spotted it within a couple of games and changed it. Goodwin also had a couple of games where he changed it and it worked, before reverting to type. Maybe it's a curse.

I've seen plenty of instances when people know more than guys who do the job 24/7, anyone who does a bit of DIY and gets an incompetent trades person round will tell you! In the real world, it's quite common, so it seems likely that it might be applicable to football too. After all, we're not discussing coaching here, of which Robson has lots of experience, we're talking about tactics and formation. These are open to anyone who watches the game, it's free information, and the qualification for understanding tactics is watching lots of live football and understanding what you're seeing. There's nothing I'm saying about Robson's tactics that is incorrect (or, should I say, nobody is arguing directly with what I'm saying about tactics). Your argument seems to be that I shouldn't question the manager's tactics, because he knows better, without telling me which part of what I'm saying is incorrect. That's the equivalent of saying "you're a fucking tactic", and belting me round the lug (which would be a fair response)! You're not really engaging with the debate, but shutting it down. I'm being very balanced in my criticism and have highlighted the same issues since the beginning of the season, and also given huge credit when its due. In terms of experimentation, you're missing the point. He's experimenting, long term, with a specific player or players (he's tried Polvara and Clarkson there too), in order to try and force them into a role, and has had zero success after three months of consistent attempts. That's a lot different to trying something for a few weeks and then experimenting with a different strategy when it fails because players aren't adapting - that's the kind of experiment we want to see, and we did see and it worked. The problem was that he tried an experiment against County, it worked, and he ignored the results. That's just bad science! There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he'll eventually settle back on what works and we'll begin to get results again. In my opinion, it should have been fairly intuitive that we didn't have the midfield players to play the same as last season, but I completely understand him wanting to give it a go. However, that should have been a short experiment, abandoned for the betterment of the team when it was clear that it was asking too much of them (and having a knock on effect on others like Shinnie). We're probably 5 points (being generous here) off of where we should be because of Robson's long term persistence with a setup that hasn't worked in a single game yet. One point with his preferred setup is fairly damning I'd say.

For clarity, at no point am I suggesting that we get rid of Robson, and nor have I ever suggested that, just in case that wasn't clear. My experience is having watched lots and lots of football in person (and played), and I know the difference between things not going to plan, and an incorrect plan, which is the key factor here. Robson's tactics are very clear, it's obvious what he's trying to do. It wasn't like Shinnie or McGrath were wandering out of position, they were doing as instructed. The evidence for this is in every game since Robson took over, he's doing the same thing. I think McGrath is a good player, and I'm certainly not blaming him. He is, however, an attacking midfielder who doesn't go box to box (he could probably play no 6 too, he's Kenny McLean essentially). I thought/was hoping I'd missed something (I've seen a decent amount of him at both St Mirren and Utd) when we first signed him and that maybe Robson had identified that he could replace Ramadani, but it's very clear that he's not that type of player. It's not a case of giving someone time here, your mistaken, it's simply identifying his attributes. We're not giving Polvara time in the right wing position, because it's clear that he'll never be a winger. Comparatively speaking, Miller became a defender overnight. He certainly didn't get a season in the Dons team to turn him from a striker, because that would be silly, it's not a great example. A better equivalent might be the attempt to turn Magennis into a fullback, which was ridiculous (although fun). Or trying to turn Nicky Maynard into a footballer. There is no real need to be experimenting during the season. Furthermore, Robson recognised the problem and changed it for Ross County at home, before quickly reverting to type. The problem with the experiment is that it's very clear that it's causing the dip in performance of Clarkson, who was the main benificiary of the Ramadani and Shinnie partnership last season (Duk too). Duk is causing his own dip as you say. You're correct that he's building something, and that it needs time, but what we're witnessing is formation dogma (he's not building a formation, he's building a squad). It's just stupid. If you don't have the correct players, then you tweak the formation to play to the strengths of the ones that are there until you can get the correct players in. You can change system during a season (as we've proved). There's nothing amazing about the setup he's trying that make it worthwhile, it's not entertaining and not innovative, it's only objectively good if it gets results, and I don't think we've got a single result this season playing with Sunday's setup - unless we include the point against Livi. I'm really hoping it's just stubborness rather than incompetence.

It's nothing to do with time, it's simply that he's trying to do exactly the same thing despite the fact that it's failing because the thing he's trying to do suits less players than it doesn't. Time doesn't make McGrath a hard working number 8, nor Clarkson. You say that we first need to see a style of play, but this is it. His style of play is centred around the number six taking the ball from the defence and going direct, with the two midfielders winning the second balls and quickly "recycling". He's been doing it since January. It hasn't worked this season because Ramadani isn't here. Our successes this season have all come when we've done something different (the RC home game had Barron and Shinnie sitting with one ahead - McGrath then Clarkson). We passed the ball through them and that had the knock on effect of bringing Duk into the game. So we already have the answer to who plays where if we're building through the midfield, it's just that isn't Robson's style. His style hasn't worked yet this season because the players don't have the correct attributes to do it (not something that can be taught in a season). He can either keep throwing away points until January by persisting until we get someone in that does have the correct attributes, or he can change it. I have been very quick to praise Robson when he gets it right, and I think it's correct to be critical when he reverts back to his previously failed plan. I find it bizarre that he didn't just stick with what worked. It's a weird form of dogma to have - an ideological belief in a particular formation. It's almost like he sees himself still on the pitch and the number six role would have been something he'd have thrived in with his passing ability, and so he's desperate to see it succeed. I recognise that's a fair bit of a leap on my part, but I struggle to think of any reason for such wilful blindness. Specifically yesterday, though, it was interesting to watch it in action. Shinnie was far too far forward and when the defenders were inevitably easily winning the long balls, they were getting distance on the headers that just sailed past Shinnie and McGrath. That meant they were both coming from behind the play to win back the ball and thus expending a lot more energy and often isolating Barron. Shinnie, especially, needs to be facing the way he's supposed to be heading and driving forward and the game just largely bypassed McGrath, who is just out of his depth in that role. There was basically a compounding of errors which, with a busy fixture list, was the last thing we needed. Edit: to add, it possibly isn't glaringly obvious watching it on TV, and it possibly isn't glaringly obvious watching it two feet from the edge of the park in the dugout (I've never understand why managers insist on such a pish view of a fitba game). I watch from the RDL, so it's very easy to see the layout of the team and what they are or aren't achieving with it. Those higher up with a side on view would also see it. I'm assuming that Robson has someone in the main stand relaying back to him their thoughts (like Austin MacPhee does for Scotland for example)?

No, not the actual shirt number! He plays Clarkson or Barron in a "number six" role (he's mentioned it a few times), essentially taking the ball from the defence and shifting it quickly to attack. It suits a creative passer, and requires good movement in the forward two (50% of them do this well). It also requires two hard working players in front picking up the loose direct balls that don't make it (50% of them do this well). It hasn't worked since Ramadani left, and isn't likely to. We're basically playing a 3-3-2-2 or 3-1-4-2.

You mean Robson doesn't? Once again today he insisted on the number six with two ahead. Whilst Barron is perfectly capable of playing that, McGrath can't do the forward role and, in turn, Shinnie then gets missed out too. Bringing out a positive in one player to the detriment of two others makes zero sense. As it hasn't every game this season. It's fucking ridiculous that he's persisting with it still. There were too many players off it today: Shinnie, McGrath, Devlin, Jensen, and especially Duk. The subs improved things but it was still very hit and hope and frenetic. I thought Clarkson and Polvara did alright when they came on. I don't think Robson's go-to 4-3-3 works at all and I'd like to see us try 4-2-3-1 with Duncan and perhaps Besuijen wide when we're chasing it. I feel sorry for Hayes who's being asked to play wing back, which is an unforgiving role if you're not as comfortable going beyond players as you used to be (not that Devlin, McKenzie or Duncan do much of that from those positions either).

It's been proven every time we've tried it this season that it doesn't work, regardless of who we're playing. Clarkson doesn't play well in a two and neither does McGrath. Clarkson sitting on his own would require two that cover the ground in front like Shinnie and Ramadani. Options are two from Shinnie, Polvara and Barron sitting with one of Clarkson in front. Or the flat four or 2-2 we can play against better teams. If we replace Ramadani in January then we can reconsider the two ahead of Clarkson or Barron. However, that was never about strength in attack, it was about protecting Clarkson so he could make the passes and going direct in the knowledge that we were winning every second ball high up the pitch. The wings are where we have the real option to play higher up the pitch or not though, and guys like McKenzie at home against Helsinki is not the right call.

Aye, in conditions like these you need folk that are piling in to the challenges. It's what the spectators come to see. Not Clarkson fairying around with his fancy passing.

Or have the manager understand that playing him alongside Clarkson in a two, or further forward, will require him to use twice as much energy, so don't do it.

Has pittodrie ever had a game cancelled due to rain? Storms maybe, and snow/ice obviously, but I can't remember a rain cancellation. Usually pretty good for drainage.

You mean like he did at Ibrox? It was a lot to ask to be as intense in two consecutive games, and when your manager doesn't recognise that and plays two number tens alongside you, it really doesn't help. He's been asked to do far too much this season already, and it was the same last night. Shinnie is meant to break the game up, be aggressive I'm the tackle, win the ball back and generally spur the team on. Someone else has to do the pretty stuff, as Barron did when he came on. If you're expecting more from Shinnie then it's no surprise that you don't get the hype. Next you'll be questioning the fuss around Devlin, despite the fact that he's not completed a single seventy yard cross field pass or even connected with a bicycle kick.

That was honking tonight. Looked very tired and the game was crying out for subs (multiple, early). They dominated for about twenty minutes before they got their goal. Robson is so frustrating. There was simply no need to be playing Clarkson in that two behind McGrath, he's wasted there, as evidenced every single time it's been tried (fine as part of a four in a 5-4-1 before anyone mentions). Barron didn't play a huge role against the Hun, so get him in and let McGrath (best I've seen him tonight probably) and Clarkson be interchangeable for the ten role. It's criminal that he can't see it. Ironically, as soon as we took Barron on we preceded to push both Shinnie and McGrath forward and let Barron play the number six role that Clarkson thrives in. Duk was terrible tonight and I can't believe he lasted ninety minutes. Lazy, reactive football and offering zero outlet whatsoever. Probably one of his worst games for us and should have been hooked at the same time as Clarkson. Throwing himself to the ground constantly wore thin about six months ago. He takes so much from the team when he's not on it just by being there - his unpredictability is more of a hindrance for his teammates than it is the opposition. Of course, the fans will see the times that he tanks back to make a challenge (usually quite reckless and usually a result of him losing the ball) and think that he's putting in a shift, but then the next three time he just lets the player go, so the others have to have a constant eye on him. It's clear when he's off it, so just remove in and keep him fresh for the weekend game. Miovski and McGrath probably the two that performed well tonight and Barron when he came on. Fantastic finish from Miovski after a lovely flick on from their player (the only way we were scoring).

I got to the pub in nae time. Through denburn, avoided market street which was horrendous for some reason.