RicoS321

I'd like to see an end to bollocks like that (and we've had several over the last few years) ever being considered a pen. When did we get to that point? It's a contact sport. If a defender beat an attacker (sliding in) to the ball, booting it out for a corner and then falling over his already outstretched leg, it wouldn't be a foul. Everyone would be congratulating the defender on a good tackle. Why does beating the keeper to the ball and deliberately falling over him make for a better sport? Again, this is the product of two decades of television fitba and its horseshite replays, and the lack of context it brings. The ref, who had a good game, was up with the play can see what happened and the context in which it happened in real time - which was a player blasting the ball away whilst falling over with the sole intention of winning a penalty. Telling them to get up and get on with it is exactly the right call. Similarly the Miovski one. A guy through on goal who only had one thing on his mind and that was to wait for a touch and try and win a penalty. Everyone in the stadium, even the most partisan of Dons fans, could see that is what he decided and tried to do and the ref saw it too - in real time, and in context of the unfolding situation. Nobody needs VAR, or endless replays to "see if there was a touch" or any other bullshit. It's a fucking contact sport Miovski, you need to be finishing those chances. With VAR (and it was going this way long before) we risk rewarding this type of behaviour and encouraging more of it. It used to be called out as diving and unsporting, but we've moved to a position where we're now saying "well everyone else does it". Exactly the type of thinking that has brought us VAR. Thankfully VAR did exactly the right thing in both instances. They knew that the referee hadn't missed something in both instances, he saw exactly what happened, and they judged that his viewing of the situation in context wasn't clearly and obviously wrong. Of course clear and obvious has no definition as OD points out. It simply moves the point of controversy onto what constitutes clear and obvious. I should add, that I know I don't speak for most people on this subject, and I'm not remotely interested in what people think should be a penalty because "that's the way things are these days" and "everyone does it". I'm interested from the perspective of what makes a sport a sport, and what is just. I also know that people buying fouls and penalties is part of the game, and I'm not stupid enough to think it will change, but I think that every football fan should have an interest in seeing unsporting behaviour removed from the game and find it weird that partisanship makes us claim for something where we know a player has deliberately manufactured the incident. The more of these incidents that go against the supposed victim the better in my opinion.

You're right, it was your fault. Clarkson was always going to come deep and it looked like Robson didn't really mind, thinking that we could fluidly switch Barron and Clarkson throughout, which we couldn't. The congestion was inevitable and it was fairly clear that it would be. What it also did was make each midfielder do twice the work on the big Hampden pitch during a period of heavy fixture congestion, and we nearly paid a price for it. The other issue is that if you try and get Clarkson to play with the discipline required in that shape (i.e. not to come deep), then it nullifies the best parts of his game. It might have been coincidence that we had a good spell of possession between Polvara coming on and McKenzie being sent off (really not enough time to validate), but Clarkson immediately became involved in the game in a good sense and I doubt the disciplined lines of four when we went to ten would have been possible with Clarkson wide right. Barron or Clarkson are the fresh legs we need to come on and win us games when one or the other is failing, or McGrath is struggling (Clarkson can play the forward midfield role in a 4-2-3-1 on his own very well if we need to keep him and Barron on). It's harsh on Barron, but not as harsh as having him start in a poor setup and playing crap for 60 minutes. We've got two fantastic young players who we can rotate in and out without much loss of ability, it's exactly the type of squad rotation we've been crying out for. As an aside to Panda's aside, I genuinely didn't give a fuck whether their goal was offside or not by the time it was disallowed. Three and a half minutes to draw lines? It was a good goal, deserved and a result of poor defending (nobody claimed for offside so it wasn't like it was a deliberate trap), that should have stood. Offside by a shoulder has never been a thing in the history of fitba, it's absolute garbage. The shitey fake panto of winding up the opposition when they get their goal disallowed is cringey as fuck, and I was basically waiting for our goal to be disallowed for a foul in the build up. It reeks of pish.

Just back. Nearly blew it with that team selection, but got away with it. Absolutely zero need to take Barron back into the side, and completely upset the balance of the midfield. We were all over the shop until Polvara came on and just did the simple thing of holding position, exactly as he has done each time he's played. Barron is a fantastic player, but him and Clarkson are interchangeable in that setup, not mutual. We don't need to have all our best players on the pitch at once in order to have the best team, it was really naive. If it hadn't been for the shoulder offside nonsense, we'd have deservedly been going home losers. We started to come into it after the sub and then the shape pretty much remained after the yellow. Miovski is just immense, brilliant first touch and finish. No real standouts today, maybe Rubezic and McGrath. Great result and hopefully something we can learn from. Fair play to Robson for doing the right thing in bringing on Polvara, and not Duk or some other nonsense. Probably should have happened sooner, but he'd backed himself into a corner with the initial selection a little. Reckon we should have enough to beat hearts in the final.

It's extremely difficult, and was always going to be so. MacDonald has been unlucky with the timing of his injury and also the signed defenders being of similar stature and style as him, which is why he isn't replacing Rubezic. There's also the desire not to break up a defence and play them into a unit, coupled with the fact that defenders usually cover less ground. Secondly, we're simply not spending enough, and in volume, to guarantee that our second tier players are better than average SPFL. Especially when you take into account failures in the transfer window. Realistically, making four changes to our team takes us to the level of Kilmarnock or someone.

Aye, I meant shitey for driving from the north, but it's the better side in all other ways. I guess it doesn't really matter where I park either way. It's only the Hibs. Edit: any idea what sort of crowd there'll be?

Is it the shitey side we're in for this one? I hadn't checked. Might have been an idea to do so before leaving.

Reckless approach to cup threads will probably cost us in my opinion.

Yep, came off their player and wrong footed him (he was a little slow to change direction perhaps). I don't see a problem in getting beaten at your near post for deflections or very good shots like the Killie one. Both were in positions where the most likely shot is right in the far bottom corner, and if the keeper goes too close to his near post then it's a relatively easy shot to the far post. As long as it has to be a good shot to beat him basically. I think the near post thing is overstated, as if it's in some way fine to get beaten at the far post. It's a classic pundit cliché!

We were up until the changes. Nothing too worrying there I wouldn't have said.

Jinxed it.

Yep, he's an attacking midfielder that does his best work close to the main striker. Yassss. Duk.

Brilliant. McGrath been excellent

Ref has been good! Good sub by Robson, they were starting to make space in our midfield.

He's a good solid manager, like McInnes. I like him, but I don't think he'll be what we're looking for. Regardless, Robson now on an unbeaten 45 minute run, so we're sorted.

Assuming we'll make a triple sub with 18 minutes to go, just to make a point.

That's okay though. Buying the strikers made complete sense given we generally play a two. The fact that they've turned out to be not good enough is part of the lottery of the transfer market (although I would say that the lack of variety in those strikers is poor). The worst thing we've done this season is to try and play Duk into form. Fantastic second goal from Dons legend Nicky Devlin. He's ace. Such a no brainer of a signing and already had more assists and goals than McRorie last season. Great half. Miovski, McKenzie, Shinnie, Clarkson, McGrath and Devlin been good, with no poor performers. We're first to every ball and passing it on the actual playing surface. Motherwell look gash. The ref has let the game flow.

Turned on a bit late, but in plenty of time to see the goal. Great ball in from Devlin. Well done McGrath. Deserved. Clarkson passing look good and the setup looks better. Basically going with the proven successful 5-4-1, but pushing the two wide players forward into a 3-4-2-1 it looks like (much like Scotland often play). It's a good solid setup and brings out the best of McGrath and Polvara.

He'll be in charge of Robson, so telling him to fuck off wouldn't be a great idea. That's the whole point, he sits above the [inexperienced] manager. I don't think you'll ever get the strong and experienced assistant manager (I'm sure there are some examples), because if they were that strong then they'd be the one in charge. If a manager can't explain himself to a person who hasn't played or managed in the game, then he simply isn't good enough at his job. It's a sounding board, a devil's advocate. Questioning doesn't have to - and shouldn't - take the form of criticism (and egos should be put to the side), it's a way of throwing things back at the manager so that he can work out where he's gone wrong and how to change things. To make him question himself and introduce new ideas. More importantly, it works as a store of all the previous errors, so that the same mistakes don't get repeated. I imagine Robson goes through the videos with the players during the week and points out to them where he thinks they've failed in implementing his plan. The same can be done with the manager (and other coaches), going through the game with the director of football and discussing the decisions made and the impact of them. It's just a simple form of documenting and getting things out without the manager having to retain it all and shoulder all the responsibility. This may already be happening of course, but the last three managers suggest otherwise (or they're not doing it right).

When I was talking affordability, it was with regard to the fact that you have to sign them and fire them, and then do the same 2 years later on repeat. A director of football only has responsibility for a few people and it would be a role that suits quite a lot of people. It doesn't have to be a former footballer or manager either, just someone who understands the game and is a deep enough thinker that they can prod the manager with the right questions to make them stop and think about what they're doing. Properly challenge them on strategy, formation, any square pegs and squad balance (before and after signings).

They will have, but half of those are probably now employed elsewhere because they were successful or turned out to be shite after all.

In fairness, I don't think we do have a good squad. We've probably got a good first eleven. Maybe another 2-3. Then we're not very good at all. The balance is absolutely atrocious too, meaning change isn't that easy. That's to be expected with such a large turnover of course, and we've had a full strength team to choose from on numerous occasions. I expect that it won't be long until we hear how much we've missed big Shayden.

That's the issue I was getting at. I don't think it is the model Cormack backs, hence getting rid of McInnes. As @wokinginashearerwonderland mentions, we've got all the building blocks in place, but for a system that involves a good director of football above an up and coming young coach (unlike Agnew, who is answerable to Robson). Robson and Glass were in their first roles, with Goodwin still relatively inexperienced. Cormack has always talked about succession planning and not ripping up everything and starting again each time we get a manager, which I agree with, but that means Gunn has a really important role and the evidence of the last three appointments (Gunn wasn't dof for all those) suggests that he's either not intimately involved in the football side (save for transfers perhaps), or he's not really helping. All three young managers have struggled with basic errors and repeated errors. McInnes had those, but we're usually borne out of pragmatism and caution and he got results. I see no reason why we can't treat our managers like we do our players. Take on inexperienced guys with a view to building their reputation and experience and sell on. That's, de facto, what we're doing with the three Cormack appointments. By not providing them a complete platform though, we're effectively ruining their careers before they've started. Had Goodwin not, inexplicably, got the utd job he'd have been looking at a long spell in mid table championship. Glass is now walking in Memphis and Robson will be taking on Inverurie if he gets binned. That's not a record to be proud of. Whether any of them recognise it or not, they need help from above and to be continually challenged to really think about what they're doing and why. All three got stuck in a rut of doing the same thing week after week. Almost like they're paralysed in a state of indecision. The alternative is, of course, the experienced manager. That costs serious money and is limited to the guys that are available at the time of sacking/new appointment. Personally, I prefer the young manager with experienced help. Cormack seems to want the inexperienced manager without the help, which doesn't seem to be working. I think we're largely in agreement though.

Agreed. He'll be given another window. In my opinion, we shouldn't be getting rid of any manager until we've tried every last thing to make it work. I don't know much about Gunn at all, but his move into director of football was a strange one, and it's apparent over the last few years that we're lacking someone with good footballing knowledge in the club, that sits above Robson and is a permanent member of staff.

I think that is wishful thinking. A manager's position is so volatile that they can never really plan to be available. You can certainly look at managers, of course, but if they are with a club and go on a run of defeats then they don't look so promising, or if they're not with a club, then it's very unlikely they'll still be available when the time is right (unless they're shite and nobody wants them). If they do well then they're maybe out with our budget. That said, I do think we had a manager lined up when Goodwin was appointed, it's just that it was Goodwin. I am almost certain we'd had a close watch on him since the Glass appointment. I don't think utd will give him back though.

Steven McLean would come cheap.