RicoS321

I assume you've reported the UFO sighting?

Exactly, comparing him to another big black guy just because he's big and black, rather than his footballing attributes, it's pretty disgraceful. Hopefully he doesn't turn out to be the next Calvin Zola.

Nah, I think you're right. McLean continues to play further back to this day.

He's only 27

I like McGrath, he's a technically gifted footballer (although so is Dean Campbell). He could be of an age where he's learning to dominate opponents and get the best out of his obvious attributes, but he's certainly not done so to date. From what I've seen of him, exertion seems to be his limitation, but if he's ready to focus and work on getting up and down the pitch, he could be a fantastic signing. We need a number eight to replace Ramadani unless we're getting a really good number ten (McGrath doesn't currently fall in that category, perhaps the Croatian lad did). If he can get his finger out, there's nothing stopping him doing that. Ramadani converted well to a number eight at around the same age, so perhaps McGrath might. He's cheap and a known quantity, good for the squad.

That's a euphemism for: he's pish.

I think he's just pish. We're bound to get one or three duds (Dudia). Hopefully we're now taking the approach of just quietly pretending that they never happened.

It's 3 or 4 players away from being decent. A centre midfielder could transform into a good side. We know how it is with transfers. Personally, I'd have met the asking price for Scales a few weeks ago given the money we're taking in. Maybe McGarry might be amazing. Or Or Dadia. It's the way it goes though, transfers are difficult to complete in a timely manner. Who knows how many we've missed out on and how close they were. We could already be down to the dregs.

Sounds like you're being overly dramatic

It does and it doesn't. There are obviously some that are too small to reach the extremities of the goals (like the loanee at Aberdeen last season), but I suspect they are in the minority. The height of the England goalie is about 5ft8 according to the internet, which is enough to reach a crossbar. She was good because of the way she spread herself as well as overall agility etc. Given that goals weren't exactly flying in, it's clear that any disadvantage in stature is offset by power/accuracy of shooting, so I'm not convinced there's a requirement to decrease goal size or anything. The biggest factor seems to be the professionalism of the leagues in the various countries, much as it was back in the 70s-90s (and earlier) in the mens game. You see it within leagues too, where in Scotland, the top few professional sides are streets ahead of the others. Goalkeeping is the one specialism that highlights this the most I think (although overall fitness is also a big factor), and that is clear when you play/watch men's amateur football too. The lack of dedicated coaching leads to a lot of concentration and rudimentary errors that are significantly rarer in the men's professional game these days. The problem with that approach is that goalies need to be good footballers these days. Given the likelihood of any player actually making it in the game, it seems to me that every player should be tested and coached in goals, much the same as any other position. In theory, you shouldn't really define any player positionally until they've been playing for a good number of years. I think it's around 8-9 they start playing with goalies in Aberdeen/shire boys/girls football, before that they're encouraged to just play. I think that at about aged 10 they allocate a goalie and they continue there until they give up or whatever. That does seem short-sighted. Although it does seem to work, as we're not short on goalies in the game. I wonder how it works in other countries? I wonder if, for example, Roos was just a generic footballer up until a certain age? They were mentioning goalkeepers' abilities with the ball on the radio at the weekend (discussing the Tims of course), and mentioned something about some goalie (De Gea maybe?) coming through the Ajax system so being a good footballer, so perhaps they do things differently over there. Either way, I'm guessing the approach will be fast-tracked through the women's game, and they'll go straight to the current training methods.

Yep, she's decent. As are most of the established country's goalies. It's likely just a question of numbers. For example, in Scotland there are only a few professional teams and probably six keepers between them. It's also probably only the first generation of professional keepers here too. Over the last 5-6 years that will have improved and I suspect intakes will be significantly higher and coaching will become more ubiquitous too (Aberdeen have a dedicated goalie coach now for example).

Name's on the trophy Edit: so let's see if you heathens stick to just one thread when we get to the final.

Always takes the game to the Tims. Well known for it.

Big Marley haunting the Tims.

I've been to quite a few women's games and it's good to watch. The keepers are often the only difference - a significant one - between the teams. An even game can be turned into a rout just by virtue of one team having a terrible keeper. The Dons had a Celtic keeper on loan for a few games last season to cover for absence and she couldn't reach the crossbar or kick it as far as the halfway line. She was lobbed twice on her line in a game the Dons would otherwise have won. I suspect it's because it's a part-time sport for most, if you look back at world cup games involving developing nations there would always be a wild goalie or three that would be the biggest difference, but the professional men's game has largely ironed that out. It's rare that it's only a keeper that effects a particular game, and usually because of an outstanding performance or unusually honking one. Maybe it'll improve in the coming decade.

Yep, you're probably right. I was assuming that Hayes wouldn't need a run out, but as OD says, Duncan was struggling. Maybe Devlin can play left back.

Hayes was on the bench last night, surely he'll be available? Morris appears to have zero left foot whatsoever, if it was in front of a very good left centre half it'd be okay, but would be far too risky given our current performance levels. Personally, I'd just drop him for Devlin and have Rubezic play right of MacDonald. If Hayes isn't fit, then Duncan it is (he did well defensively against the Tims). I'd rather we remained reasonably solid first away from home, and I don't think Morris adds anything in that regard, so leave him as an impact sub if the need arises. Midfield is possibly a bigger headache. I think that away from home we should sit with two and Clarkson in front. Polvara doesn't have the legs of Ramadani to sit further forward.

We do need better than him, that's not in doubt. My point is that it's a lot harder for a good cross to come in when your starting position is much further back against a deep lying defence. You can either throw it in early (which Duncan tried all night and only got in one good cross), or take on your man. The problem with starting so deep is that when you take on your man the left centre back (or left back in a four) just comes out to narrow the angle, which blocks the lofted square ball into the box. You've either got another player to take on, a cut back if it's on, or batter the ball across. The latter almost always gets cut out for a corner, which happened to Morris several times last night. Morris stood a couple of balls up to the back post last night that nobody got near too. The point is that the mythical good cross is extremely rare in modern football (probably only two or three in any given game from both wings combined). It's one thing that fans seem to latch onto as if it's really simple and should be happening every single time a player gets out wide. The other often mentioned one is corners beating the front man, yet you turn on any level, whether it's Modric, Messi or Mackie, it very regularly doesn't beat the front man (I saw it numerous times in the last world cup final for instance). Good crosses require the player crossing getting the ball nice and early, before the defence is set, or for a player to make that space on his own, drawing players out that would otherwise block the cross. Both rely on good movement from the front man to which Miovski is good at (Duk not so much). I watched part of the Hun game the other night, and they've probably got the two best crossers of the ball in our league in Tavernier and Barisic and they probably got two between them, both from deep and very difficult to execute (think Tavernier scored from a Barisic cross). The rest were dealt with by a defence that was deep enough to header clear. Morris isn't good enough for numerous reasons, but accurate crossing is a difficult skill that is about a lot more than simply lumping it in (what Duncan was doing). Morris took responsibility last night (and to an extent against the Tims), it is very easy just to throw the ball in from deep and pretend that's you done your job. The improvements he needs to implement are his awareness, concentration and coming inside on his wrong foot (and shooting!). Crossing will generally be a numbers game for him, as it used to be for Hayes back in his day (he'd get nine shite ones before setting up a goal).

That was ropey at times. Thought Duncan was poor tonight and a bit of a worry ahead of Thursday. The defence in general looked shaky, Devlin aside. Rubezic was way off it before going off, MacDonald much better although may have been at fault for the goal (couldn't tell). Clarkson was good in the advanced role again. Really not sure what our best eleven is, nor what formation. Miovski probably motm tonight, his movement excellent throughout and he scored a goal. Morris did well again, it's easy to criticise his final ball but playing wingback makes it much harder and often deflection for a corner is the best you can hope for.

Okay first half. Fairly dominated things in possession with no real good chances. Beautiful finish from Miovski after great play by Devlin. Those two and Morris have been the stand outs. We're using Morris early and it's paying off because of his pace. I think he'd struggle to replicate that against top flight teams given his deepish starting position. Would like to see Duncan move inside and Polvara off. Polvara been okay but it's getting a little congested. I think Duncan could get further forward. No young lads on the bench unfortunately, so it'd have to be Hayes. If MacDonald gets some minutes, it'll be interesting to see who comes off. Might give us an idea of the potential defence for Thursday and onwards. Would be harsh on Devlin to make way and also harsh on Morris if Devlin moves to wingback too. Edit: Duk been poor. Maybe give Sokler a half.

I didn't say that. But (either of us) wanting Aberdeen to win has no bearing on Aberdeen winning. Evidence has shown us over the last thirty years that weakening of the scum is the single biggest factor in winning trophies. Evidence also shows that any domestic win procured on the back of European prize funds is completely lacking in merit, shallow and vacuous anti-sport. So long as we buy into the myth that the embiggening of one, two or four Scottish teams to the detriment of the sport then we are forever destined to lick the scraps of the two cheeks, or worse, become the third cheek of a radioactive, toxic triopoly. I'm not criticising you here, just responding to the "world's problems" (which I realise was not entirely serious) point. I'm a complete irrational hypocrite when it comes down to it, but I like to at least acknowledge the issues.

And by supporting that, you (not you individually, you/me have zero influence) ensure that Aberdeen's chances are limited. I guess that's the mirror of today's middle class - thus summing up the world's problems.

It doesn't actually. The problem is with the existing setup, the coefficient is just a rancid mechanism used by weirdos to try to garner support for that system. As Aberdeen fans, we've been gaslit for nearly three decades by the whole "you've got to support Scottish teams in Europe, think about the coefficient" as if it's some sort of rising tide that lifts all boats. It's absolute fucking bullshit, and just because Aberdeen are now a beneficiary doesn't make it less so. It'd be a net benefit for Scottish football to have no automatic conference qualification under the existing setup, just as it is for there to be no champions league qualification. There is zero benefit to all other teams in Scotland from Aberdeen, hearts and Hibs doing well, and they should - correctly - be hoping for our demise. There is no unified Scottish football, and it's extremely disingenuous to suggest. Aberdeen fans wanting other teams to do well is purely out of self interest, and that sums up the world's problems.

The rosenborg lot are garbage. Expect another couple fae Hertz.

Oh well, he was a great keeper for us.