RicoS321

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.

anyone got the necessary watching details? Can't find a working one

Looks like a 3-4-3, with Duncan and Duk either side of McGrath

Then the players refuse to play. Or we just continue to lie down to the scum and pretend that there's nothing physical possible on earth we can do. Forever.

They probably looked at the price of our European fixtures and realised that us Dons fans are willing to pay a fortune too. I'd love to see the club be a bit more forceful here. Put out a statement advising fans not to buy until the opportunity of parity is offered.

And so they should be. It's ridiculous that they're still being let down so badly by the rest of Scottish fitba, that they end up getting horsed in Europe.

There is a good chance we can sell out a 50:50 allocation versus the scum (especially if we get a good result against them at Pittodrie at the end of the month), and so anything less is unfair. What I expect they'll do, is sell the tickets incrementally again, and then give the Hun the remainder. However this is also unfair. At the weekend, we had the North stand, the end, but also a chunk of the South too. Both the North and South offer significantly better views of the game, and so we should be offered an equal share of the best possible tickets. I've mentioned before, but I've never understood why they don't sell Hampden tickets along the pitch, rather than by end (tradition: Huns v Tims I expect). That way both sides get a good share of the best available tickets.

No, I'm the opposite. I believe that a thread should be started for each match, but some heathen downgraded our League Cup winning run to a single thread at the beginning of the tournament, and I think that they should be forced to live with that decision for the rest of their lives. An equivalent would be a conference league thread.

Why is the answer to be consistent in the wrong direction? Just don't give the three free kicks outside the box.

But then, if Rubezic is off to spurs, who would our project be? A manager needs a shite player that they can turn into a slightly less shite player, and then give them a longer contract than they deserve, then the fans begin to feel sorry for him and at the end of the deal a few of them begin to question whether or not we should just give them another year's contract. Surely Richardson or Morris can be good to have about the place?

I would too. Morris is as good as he can get, he'll never reach the dizzying heights of a Matty Kennedy. Richardson is fast and has physical attributes that offer a huge potential for improvement. If he wasn't shite at football, obviously. He suits our setup better too, I'm surprised he wasn't offered the opportunity to be worked on instead of Morris. Edit: he's not actually started yet for Stockport! Maybe it's possible that they're both just shite.

Poor man's Pape Gueye.

A double Hun header? Should be fun.

Have St Johnstone got any strikers worth taking? They'll all be available in January when Levein joins.

Like summer, I really hope we get rid of a few. Besuijen, Dadia and the Liverpool lad need binned. You're right about Devlin, but I think Robson will see Morris as the answer. There are enough games in which we can afford an attacking wing back and give Devlin a rest. I'd like to see another left centre back to push Jensen. I don't think he's that good. I don't think he's that bad either! Baccus is a good shout. Will weaken St Mirren in the race for third! If we can get £250k for Duk, then we should consider cashing in.

He played well yesterday and it wouldn't actually surprise me. He has the physical attributes of a good defender but is lacking in experience and the confidence on the ball that comes with that. Whilst I don't think he'll ever make it at their level (and maybe not even ours), I could see why a team might take a punt on several defenders in his mould, loan them out and hope that with experience one might make the grade. It wasn't so long ago that Jack Hendry was in a similar situation at the Tim. It's clear to see that Gartenmann is a better defender for example, but he's at his peak both physically and in experience and that's our level. Again, I'm far from convinced that Rubezic will ever fulfill the potential, but there is a hint of potential, which will be enough for the scattergun approach from EPL billionaires.