RicoS321

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.

I'm not going. Was hoping to get to Helsinki but can't make that either. I'll go to the knockout rounds. Hopefully Robson will contact Martindale this week to get a crash course in shitfesting. Failing that, he could get him to deliver a truck of happy pills for those that make the trip. Take the heat off the players.

Yes, it was. What was key about that match? Shinnie was missing. In order for Clarkson to play his direct, quick passing he needs the left to right space. That requires the two Flood-like midfielders doing their thing. Breaking up play, being first to everything and feeding off the second balls from the direct punts. Just as Barron couldn't be that second Flood in the last game, McGrath couldn't be yesterday (and neither can Polvara). We're banging our heads against a brick wall though, and it seems that nobody at the club is asking the fucking obvious.

I'm aware of that, that's why I'm wondering why he's making such basic errors? There are plenty of very good footballers who don't actually understand tactics and struggle to articulate and pass on what it was that made them good. We'll not know, because nobody actually asks managers pertinent tactical questions, deciding instead to focus on gossip and speculation. For what its worth, I believe Robson does understand, as evidenced by him immediately switching Ramadani's role and making Clarkson a number six with an emphasis on playing it forward quickly for the runs of Miovski. It's completely inexplicable that he's continuing to try the same tactic without Ramadani there, trying to force McGrath to play a game he can't, putting huge physical pressure on Shinnie and expecting Barron to do the same role that Clarkson is failing in this season (because Ramadani isn't there). He seems, without evidence, to believe that by continuing to do the same thing, the players will somehow learn physical attributes that they don't have. The change to a 4-3-3 was also ridiculous as that, too, doesn't play to the strengths of our midfield and appears to be a tactic designed to allow all our number nines to get game time, rather than to play to their abilities. It's not up to me to give Robson a break, he's heading towards what could be the end of his management career before it has even started (see Glass). I would hate to see that. It has nothing to do with number of games either, he's not correcting rudimentary errors and hasn't recognised that the key to his 3-5-2 success is missing. Really, really simple stuff that we (including Robson) watched Goodwin get wrong throughout his tenure. Most of my criticism still lies with the club though. Robson is a young manager who may just be too close to things to gain perspective (a bit like a 100mph young midfielder learning their trade). I think he's said himself that he needs people that can come in and challenge him, and it's unforgivable - given the events of the last few seasons - that that doesn't exist. We've got an entire recruitment team looking for players for a 3-5-2, and seemingly nobody sought to question why McGrath was being brought in to replace Ramadani (I made the stupid assumption that the scouts had seen enough of him to suggest he could be converted), nobody thought to ask him what plans B and C were and if having four midfielders with the same deficiency, and three strikers that play a remarkably similar role was a good strategy. Once again, we seem to be letting a manager hang himself out to dry without anyone at the club asking the basic questions (I believe Robson would happily accept challenge and advice). If we're going for the inexperienced Robson (and I still think we should), then we need somebody to manage the manager. A devil's advocate reading back every move he makes and forces him to stop, think and understand everything he's doing. It's fairly clear that's not happening. The errors he is making are of his own doing and he's not being helped. If I was to adopt your stance of saying "give him time", "only five games", it would be to ignore all the warning signs (big, massive alarm bells). It isn't a time based issue, he could keep doing what he's doing for years and have zero success.

I'm glad I didn't catch any of this one. An away loss at tynecastle isn't the worst result, but I suspect there is a lot more to it, as has been the case in every game so far this season. This season was always going to be a bit pot luck with the signings, but I assumed Robson would at least give himself a fighting chance. He doesn't appear to be doing that. There seems to be, once again, structural and strategic issues. I assumed recruitment was a joint thing. To me that means people raising serious questions. That's asking what our plan b is, and if we've got players that can play in those roles. We start with a 3-5-2, for which we have a completely unsuitable midfield. We finish with a 4-3-3 with an unsuitable front line. Are we just buying players and not players for positions? Does Robson think a midfielder is just a midfielder and a forward just a forward and that there's no nuance between roles? I assumed he'd have taken stock in the international break and accepted that the players in the squad aren't the required fit for what he's asking and we'd see a plan C. I don't see how we turn it around without a change in strategy. I don't see how Robson can't spot this.

That sounds plausible. Maybe even Atlanta B will take him. He's a good all round player whose level is just a bit below where we're at. The only way I can see him having a future here is if he really goes to town on his fitness and becomes a lot more aggressive. Like Morris, for me, he doesn't seem to have significantly improved from last season, which suggests there's probably a limit to his capabilities, which means he won't be good enough for us. I'd probably have him as slightly less serviceable than McKenzie.

It does seem to have Atlanta written all over it. He's 23 and isn't really anywhere near it. I don't think he'll prove anything in the next three years.

New three year deal for Dante. This is the best news we've had since Connor McLennan extended his stay with us under McInnes.

Nah, it's England, he'll get sent off at a crucial moment and they'll get knocked out. Six months later he'll be getting done for sexual assault.

Ah well, not unsurprising, a step too far. Zero shots on target, one goal is a good stat. Nobody died, which was the main thing. Bellingham is probably the best English player I've ever seen. They've had some good strikers over the years, but I don't remember a properly world class player for them. He's very good.

Not sure I'd have gone with the same side. We've seen with the Dons this season the extra recovery time required. Can't afford any injuries. Need our best side for actual games of fitba.

It's the SFA, it's always about money. We're in the top group in the nation's league, we'll have plenty opportunity to play against big sides. It just doesn't need to be done in the middle of an important qualifying campaign. Meaningless friendlies are just that, they don't really tell you anything. That's what the nation's league was supposed to prevent. England, especially, is a distraction that our players could do with out. For some reason, plenty of Scotland fans will hold it up as some sort of massive and important game, when it isn't. Lose, and we'll be going into our most important game in years on a slight low. Win and it will just be seen as a meaningless friendly where England weren't trying. Friendlies have always set fans expectations too high and do little for any team. Look at our preseasons every year - which are all about fitness - we're world beaters after thrashing Turra, or a disjointed mess destined for relegation after losing to some pish English side. You never learn anything about a side, and more often than not when you go into competitive fixtures the results are completely the opposite of set expectations.

Decent performance. All very much a formality against a poor side. Really takes the pressure off, and we should be looking to win the group now. Keep it tight against Spain and restrict them to one goal. Can't help but think that the money spinning unnecessary friendlies are a real hindrance to the manager and players. When you've got an unmatched level of confidence there really is no need to be risking that against two good teams during qualifying.

Bit quiet on this one. Foregone conclusion....

It did work as a two with Clarkson in front (hearts at pittodrie under Goodwin springs to mind). That only happened a couple of times. Barron needs to be facing the play, so when he was moved further forward, with Ramadani on his own behind, he struggled. He can either play the number six with two in front (but we don't have the two in front), or in a two sitting with one in front (Clarkson or McGrath). Anything else he turns pish as he doesn't have the athleticism as you suggest and ends up getting lost. At the moment, Robson is almost exclusively playing two midfielders in front and expecting them to be hyper fit and get up and down the pitch. I'm certain it'll lead to injury soon.

We've definitely got the back four, and I'd argue that if Barron and Shinnie were sitting in a two in front, we can work with that.

We didn't change recruitment team, just one guy. I'd assume that processes don't get thrown out the window from one to the next. I think the club have to take collective responsibility for the failed window. Players will be shite, and others not, that's fine. We shouldn't be missing out positions that are integral to our system though and none of the players we signed could pretend to be a Ramadani replacement. That said, we knew that at least two weeks ago and Robson has done nothing to mitigate the problem. He's got time, now, to work this out in training and deliver a new system that suits the signings or converts one of the existing squad into something different. It really has very little to do with players being just in the door or any of the other excuses. In fact, that just shows a complete misunderstanding of the issue. I'm assuming Robson isn't going with that line in private, and I'm very much hoping that there's someone in a position of authority that can call that out for the bollocks it is.

That'd certainly be the sensible approach (playing a four). It doesn't seem like Robson's taking note though does it? With two weeks until our next fixture, do you reckon Robson will be trying to coach us in a four and play to our strengths, or stubbornly coaching the art of the shoehorn in order to maintain his system?

There's always one signing that you never see anything, or little, of. Roberts last season springs to mind (although there were a number of contenders). I'm guessing that Dadia and Williams might fall into that. He's been deemed not good enough to displace Morris at wing back, so he's clearly not setting the heather alight in training. Duncan, for me, doesn't really fit into our setup at all (I acutally think he'd be best suited to being the central player behind the striker in a 4-2-3-1). He doesn't have the physical attributes of Ramadani anymore than Polvara does. Ramadani wasn't a defensive midfielder, he was basically like a less aggressive version of Shinnie, going from box to box, disrupting play and occasionally doing something good with the ball too. Fitness, workrate and determination were his key attributes. Devlin, perhaps even Hayes, are the closest we've got to those attributes in the squad. If we're not going to try either of those two (and I'm not really suggesting we should), then Robson urgently needs to change system.

I don't think we'd have signed the Danish lad if Williams was any good. I doubt we'll see him.

They completely tore us apart, we were a mess. If we'd scored any of our chances, they'd simply have walked up, politely asked the defence if they could move aside, and then belted in another couple. The chances we created were a really shite smokescreen for atrocious organisation and zero game plan. We didn't deserve anything from the game at all. Remember our first couple of home games under Goodwin when we beat St Mirren and someone else (Livi maybe?)? Where everyone came away saying "fucking hell, we could have been four down before they went down to ten and we eventually tanked them?". That exact approach is what Robson chose against Hacken.

Goodwin played Ramadani as a sitting midfielder with Clarkson and another ahead in a 3-1-4-2. When he played Ramadani in a two (with Barron) with Clarkson in front we were generally good. Being Goodwin, he didn't repeat his successes. He regularly played a flat three against better teams. Clarkson has shown on numerous occasions that he can play the 10 role. Whether he's playing 6 or 10 (he needs to be in the one, because his left and right movement is key), the important thing is that there are two other players doing the dirty work. Last season we had just Ramadani, when Goodwin was here, this season we've repeated the mistake with just Shinnie. Clarkson is basically a Kenny McLean type, he can play behind the strikers or the midfield, his thing being lightening quick passing and vision. Robson has switched him between the two positions already in games this season. Edit: to be honest, it's so important to Clarkson's game and thus our team, that I'd even consider putting Devlin into the other Shinnie role to see if he can do a job. I thought Barron did well enough against Hibs (we got much worse when he went off), but he suffers from the same problems as Clarkson.

Who in the world is arguing that we deserved more from Hacken?

What in the world is this? You were doing well(ish) until you suggested Polvara. A 4-1-2-1-2? That's definitely not a thing. Not even Craig Levein would attempt that. Just keep it simple with a 4-2-3-1. Play Miovski and apologise to the other three for having wasted their time. Shinnie and Barron sitting, Clarkson in front. If you want to get defensive, then play McGrath in one of the wide spots in the three, otherwise it's Duncan and a lamppost. Tell Duk to come back when he's finished giving the ball away in our own half.