RicoS321

If we didn't get beaten by Darvel, Goodwin would still be in a job and we'd have been beaten by Falkirk.

Hearts are very clinical, with some good individual players and a manager that knows how to get points at any cost. Our midfield was weak until we changed things against utd, so I wouldn't be starting with the same team. I'd go a back three with either Scales or McKenzie (or both if Pollock injured). Coulson in on the left wing back role and McRorie on the right. Three in the midfield with Clarkson pushed forward rather than backwards and a front two to keep Duk away from defensive duties, which will be absolutely critical against a side which scores every second chance they get. I think that if we start the way we did against utd we'll be two goals down in the first 30 minutes.

You're right, but yet I think we know what he meant? Golf is viewed in majors and football management how a manager succeeds in England, basically. If Mourinho turned up at Everton, they'd see it as a shite appointment and call him a dinosaur. I think what WIASW was suggesting was that managers don't become bad overnight, yet they are often portrayed as such. The example of Hartley is a good one, because there is probably enough to suggest that he is a decent manager (possibly as much evidence as Goodwin, or even Gerrard to be slightly more controversial!), yet his successes are quickly forgotten as he fails at Hartlepool. Hartley is probably a good enough manager for the SPFL, I'd say, but he's not likely to get anything close to that now and yet he's a manager with more experience and more understanding of the game. He's simply failed as much as any other manager. It's a weird system.

But managers aren't players, so it's not a valid comparison. They're not responsible for other people's mindset. You're right though, it's nonsenical. If Mourinho came to the Dons it'd be viewed as the potential second coming (Ferguson being the first). Any claims to dinosaurism would be rubbished and they'd switch back to his past successes and experiences. If he went to Everton, it'd be as you suggest. Similarly when there's talk of managing "big clubs" as a useful factor in guaging a manager too, as if the traits of being a good manager are diluted or augmented based on club size. It must have some impact on the way players respond to a manager too though. The term "dinosaur" is largely a nebulous concept (would McInnes now be regarded such?), but it wouldn't surprise me to find that players buy into it and have a pre-defined view of a manager before he even steps in the door. None of us really know what a manager is like before he's at our club if we're honest, and I suspect that via the coaching badges and such, the overwhelming majority are a fairly homogenous bunch who have little to no impact on the team they're managing at any given time (player recruitment and timing likely have far more weight). There will be the 1% of gems that can consisitently have a side punch way beyond its budget (Martindale the only one up here), but they would be very difficult to pick out once all the other factors have been removed. I remember reading an article about Paul Sturrock not being given due credit as a manager when he was one of only two (I think it was two, Wenger was another) managers who consistently had his teams placed above budget. Every other manager was as expected or worse when averaged out over a few seasons. If we can find a guy that's done above average in a couple of roles within our budget, perhaps in a league that has players that could fit in the SPFL but relatively untapped resource, then that might work for us. I think it'll be about luck though, as it was when Milne was at the helm.

I think that instead of the English match of the day pish that they insist on showing in Scotland, they should just show a montage of Lineker's face after every England tournament exit. Some decent techno to accompany.

Absolutely. Although to say that Strachan's view of McGhee wasn't massively, massively skewed due to their friendship would be lacking in credibility. To the point of blindness (McGhee wasn't even on the merry-go-round by that point, he'd been kicked off well before). However, Strachan as Scotland manager came across as a guy that would do what he wanted with no real care for the consequences - like he was incapable of self reflection. The type of guy who might think: "well Dundee are going down anyway, might as well take the opportunity to help out a mate", rather than: "I am going to do everything possible to stop Dundee getting relegated". Which is how a lot of us approach life, so it's not a major criticism of Strachan. I guess we're maybe just not used to seeing that laid back approach in football, where it's normal in other business as you point out. Glass is a great comparison though. I think the difference is that Glass was up and coming, McGhee was down and dying.

They're just craven as fuck with "powerful" people, people in their own circles I suppose, as the BBC always has been. It's a very similar case to that of Ghislaine Maxwell, where they contacted her friends and family to defend her. It's a very much a case of Bruce defending a person because of who they are. The most frustrating thing is that she didn't do he homework. She would have known that they were likely to be discussing Stanley Johnson - or Sir Stanley Johnson - and should have been in top of the full accusation which was that he broke his wife's nose and also that he had hit her many times. The lady who called him a wife beater should also have known, but she probably didn't expect to be challenged. Bruce was correct to intervene, of course, but the correct thing to say was: this refers to an allegation by Stanley Johnson's wife that she had her nose broken by him and that he had hit her many times. If you must allow an "other side", then it is suffixed with: "an accusation that has not been denied.". I obviously don't watch the rancid shite show, but I have seen the clips and it appears she is reading from a script (she looks down) or notes. That suggests a degree of preparedness. You wonder to the extent that producers, editors and BBC lawyers and hierarchy have been involved in coming to that position. They have certainly only defended her since, rather than admit their clear guilt.

I think it was a fair comment, Robson has discussed how he spoke to Agnew, the evidence points to the club trusting Robson's judgement and him having the maturity to accept he needed help. The club will have perhaps insisted he get an experienced assistant, but the likelihood of them having thought about who is minimal. The usual authority offered a manager is for them to choose an assistant - the role itself has that authority - so in normal times it wouldn't be within anyone else's jurisdiction, so no list would have been drawn up in expectation. The overwhelming evidence for mark McGhee being appointed at Dundee points to his friendship with Strachan. Dundee fans were raging that there was no selection process, he was effectively coronated the moment mcpake left. Again, he mentioned his relationship with Strachan in interviews, I don't think it was a secret. Even Ross County went through a process when appointing Yogi as interim. That McGhee was largely finished as a manager was no secret either, I don't think you'll find a Dundee fan who doesn't believe that this was nepotism, and the club made no attempt to suggest otherwise either. It's not unusual in football either, and sometimes works. I would be too. I think we'll get someone we don't know much about. I don't think Robson will hang around much after that. He was skipped over for Glass' assistant by Brown despite being a full-time coach within the club for a number of years. To be skipped over again, for a guy with ambitions to manage, would probably be too much. Unless Cormack can convince him that if he does his "apprenticeship", he'll be promoted after the new guy comes in, is hugely successful before being head-hunted by the Tims the day before we play a final game of the season league decider against them.

If Robson is being given until summer, then he needs to be given the job permanently. Take another few weeks to see how it goes if necessary. If we're not considering Robson then we need to move now before he establishes a winning side. The longer he's allowed to settle in with the side and the fans, the harder it will be for the new guy. We've got the small matter of eight new players to replace the loanees too. That needs some movement on the precontract front if possible. It certainly doesn't need a new guy rocking up in June.

I agreed with myself last week that 45 points would be enough. I think that'll still be the case. I don't see both the two below us getting more than eight points. I think we could scrape two wins and a draw.

Back to the Japanese Spaniard again it seems. Even the rumour mill can't be arsed with it anymore.

It's fair to say that his spell with the Dons hasn't been the greatest success. Never looked good enough. Away on loan back to the US. Good luck to him.

He has got six months managerial experience, and he played in a friendly against us once. Nothing wrong with him applying I guess, but he should maybe consider doing some time in the lower leagues of Scotland or England before deciding he's good enough for the dons. Although, Gerrard had less coaching experience when he joined the scum. I guess there are certain types of player that are assumed to be coaches before they've even picked up their badges, probably unfairly. Either way, Robson would be a better choice than Yorke.

Yep, previously he was only mentally in Aberdeen.

I agree. I think that comes with money. The Tims undoubtedly play attractive football most of the time whilst playing teams that sit in. They've got guys like Turnbull on their bench. The question is what is the amount of cash you need to spend to get the level of player that can do that consistently? Clarkson is one, he can make those defence splitting passes that get around the problem of defences sitting in. We'd need at least one more of those. Plus a midfielder that can score goals like Lewis Ferguson, and one that can win everything in midfield. Wingers that can not only hit the line and get a cross in, but are capable of 10 goals per season too. A number nine that scores every week. We had all those under McInnes and managed 76 points and scored seven goals in a couple of games. Yet many suggested that football wasn't entertaining. Maybe they weren't. We certainly didn't have the squad depth to play entertaining football every single week.

I'd be happy with Robson, but for me it'd require a complete change in strategy, either publicly or tacitly. It was clear, to me, that the style adopted by both Glass and Goodwin was being pushed as part of the strategy from above, and likely agreed upon at interview/selection time. I don't think Robson is doing anything particularly thoughtful or difficult, just applying basic principles that McInnes was good at, as is Neilson at Hearts. I haven't seen Gorter play a single short goal kick yet as an example. There is no attempt to play [mythical] attractive and exciting football, but simply to setup in a way that reduces the chance of losing goals whilst relying on players who are better than their equivalents in other teams to score goals. Good enough for me. The strategy, however, doesn't allow for this and will require a manager who can go a step further and bring in a high intensity, passing style that plays "attractive" football whilst getting results. I'm not convinced that is possible within our budget, as players like Shinnie, Ramadani, MacDonald, McRorie, Mackenzie and others aren't capable of playing that way. Not to mention the dregs who aren't even getting a game at the moment - most signed by our new recruitment team - suggesting that even if we get a capable manager, we don't have the other elements (which I believe come with money rather than some elusive data capturing exercise). If the intention is to bring in a manager to implement this strategy then it is imperative that it begins before the end of the season, so notions that Robson should be here until end of season (something I originally thought might be okay) are unworkable if we're serious about this strategy. Unless there's some sort of pre contract type agreement, which would be unusual, where the new guy has input from afar before joining in the summer. There could be a compromise approach of course, where any manager is allowed to play a conservative, results approach, and slowly move to the new style over time as personnel allows. A pragmatic approach, and one that should have been implemented when McInnes was here. Were never going to have a squad that allows for continuous attractive football against every team. One or two players missing and pragmatic no-lose football has to take priority. The same should apply to when we just have a summer of poor recruitment. No manager is getting Ross McRorie, for example, to play free flowing beautiful fitba. Nor Shinnie or Ramadani. Trying to dictate that rather than playing to the strengths of the players themselves is a little perverse, but that's effectively what our chairman has been insisting on through his managers over the last few years. Hopefully, with the new CEO, we get to a place where the manager is allowed to do what he does, but there is regular reviewing and challenging to ensure that we don't get in a rut of crap football like we did under McInnes - that the aim is always to play entertaining football, but a few months of pragmatism is completely acceptable because of squad limitations.

Lovely finish Watkins

Lovely goal from McRorie, who's also been pish all game! What's with the immediate sitting in after both goals? We changed to a back three before we scored allowing Duk to push up, but after both goals he's been pulled back into a weird 5-4-1 thing.

Fair play to Robson. He changed it up about five seconds before the goal, with Duk going further up.

What a fucking finish. Pish all game, then that. Amazing.

Interesting half. They started well and we're unlucky not to be in front. We got back into it and it's been tight from that point on. Duk wasted out wide, and terrible defensively (positionally). Duncan and McRorie not linking up particularly well either, it's like their not quite sure what the other is about to do. Fletcher has been a handful for the two centre backs, but they've come back into it fairly strongly. I think the shape isn't quite working but I don't see any changes at halftime.

Great to see Duncan rewarded with another start too. Would have been incredibly harsh to drop Mackenzie, and it's great to see the same team two weeks in a row.

Yes there is.

You can't just write a list and then not use it. Blatant ecocide.

Fantastic news. Looks a great player. Probably not got the legs for 90 minutes yet, he doesn't seem to be able to get up and down as well as others, but hopefully he'll get lots of minutes before the season is out. Thought he might end up leaving for nothing. Would like to see him given a chance on the left to see what he can do there too.