RicoS321

A decent chauffeur would have sneaked Goodwin out in his boot, instead of making him walk across Easter road.

That sounds like something you already know the answer to. Yes. No wins in three.

Yes, I think he asked Jim to help with his shoe laces once.

It'll be interesting to see if the pressure to play entertaining football had any effect on the way he sets up teams. I expect we'll see little passing out from the back, and a concentration on keeping things tight, whilst hoofing to Fletcher. Could easily work out well for Goodwin. I'm surprised they allowed him to take thon gormless laddy with him as number two though.

One thing's for sure, he'll quickly sort out that leaky defence. That's the easy part.

Asghar follows fox out the door at utd. Paving the way for a Levein, Lennon masterclass.

Expect there'll be a big home turnout if Levein rocks up with his free flowing fitba.

In fairness, it sounds like he chucked it some time ago.

I'm guessing that the reason Lennon has been in about the radio shows is that he got a heads up about this one being available. Would be a good appointment for them, it's not like they've been hurt by former Hibs managers recently. Hopefully they won't have anyone in place by the weekend.

Agree with most of that. Duk had some brilliant moments - that back heel in the first half was insane - but out wide he just holds the team back in my opinion. Everything gets slowed down and he rarely produces anything at the end of the move. Similarly, Duncan on the right (the goal aside) was quite ineffective due to the inverted wingers pish. McRorie has an abundance of energy with no direction and I suspect he is difficult to play ahead of. MacDonald would be a fantastic signing if we can get him and McKenzie was very good as you say. Good to see Shinnie getting stuck in to his brother too. This feels very much like a cautious McInnes side, with caution and structure very much the priority and attacking football second. I'm fine with that, but it'd take a fair turnaround from the chairman to accept I expect.

The problem with that is two of our players don't play particularly well as two parts of a three! Maybe a four?

You bloody post-modernists will say that anything looks like anything. Is nothing sacred anymore? Can't even draw a 4-3-3 these days without it being being gender fluidised into a 4-1-4-1 or a 4-1-2-2-1. There'll be kids seeing this filth online and going home to tell their parents that they're no longer a midfielder, but a false 8.

That's not even a formation. It's bad enough that 4-4-2 is no longer the only formation, you don't have to go bringing in 4-1-2-2-1s (why didn't you play it safe with a 4-1-4-1?). For me, I'd just play Clarkson ahead of the two (I know Robson won't) and keep it simple in a 4-2-3-1. However, I guess the point was that it seemed on this thread that we were all fairly confident in a switch to a four occurring. Much as I like the idea, I just don't see him dropping one of Duk or Miovski (at home, specifically) to accommodate it. I was hoping someone would come up with a setup that included both, had a back four, and didn't include a compromise worse than Coulson at wing back! I just don't see a setup that is better than a 3-5-2 if we're playing the two guys up front. That's why I think Robson will stick with the three at the back.

It's not really the defence that's the issue though, it's what you do ahead of them. Who do we play and in what formation?

Sorry, I shouldn't have asked what the reasoning would be, I do know the advantages and disadvantages! I meant was there anything in particular that happened during the Tim game that made the three, which worked against Motherwell, redundant? In relation to us, specifically. Of the three you mention, none would feature in moving to a four. Duk would almost certainly be given a wide spot in a 4-2-3-1, and a 4-4-2 would likely see us overrun in midfield. Personally, I'd like to see us drop one of the forwards and play a 4-2-3-1, but I think that leads nowhere if Duk is shoehorned in out wide.

I didn't see the Celtic game, but what would be the reasoning behind changing from that? Worked reasonably well at home in the last game, and got round the issue of having no good fullbacks. Switching Coulson in for Hayes would be beneficial, and that leaves Kennedy as the weak link, who could be swapped with a lamppost or McRorie (if McKenzie was okay at left centre back). Three at the back wouldn't be my preference all things considered, but our personnel limitations, the insistence on playing two strikers and Robson's preference for Clarkson as a number six would suggest it's our best setup. I think anything that results in Duk out wide is a disaster.

No, but is Scales?

Why has he shaped his face and hairline like a hearts badge? Bit of an insult to the 'well fans.

Milne went and got Brown, that's correct. I'm struggling to see an equivalent. I've no idea how Cormack recruits for his own business, but everything he's done so far suggests that he's not looking for the type of manager you suggest. The requirements he would put on a manager means that the likes of Robinson or someone would automatically struggle. McInnes is a better manager than most in the SPFL and he couldn't perform adequately under Cormack. The likes of Goodwin and Glass were happy to attempt to play to Cormack's tune as they were up and coming young managers. The club strategy would have to completely change if we're going for the boring reliable candidate and nothing suggests Cormack has reached that point yet. In other words, I'm not over complicating things, the club is. There are simply no candidates in Scotland (or Scottish managers) that fit the bill as far as I can see. The bill being something prescribed by Cormack of course.

In fairness, when he used his heart for previous appointments, it's clear that there was an underlying issue. Once he's had his bypass surgery he should be fine to use his heart over head again for the next appointment. I sort of know what you mean, but I think that limits the pool significantly. There is zero outstanding candidates in the available category. Any manager is going to come with a level of uncertainty, where track record and interview is what we're going on. There simply isn't the available scouting on managers. Given that over half our team has zero experience of the game up here, I'm not convinced that the manager needs to either. Certainly not to the extent that it will make a difference. We should have enough knowledge at the club to bridge that gap. That's the thing, you absolutely wouldn't and neither would the fans. The problem, of course, is that success can't be measured until much later. It's the reason why guys like Lennon should be a non starter and, to an extent, Strachan too.

Fuck it, just get the Japanese Spaniard in for the Livi game.

I thought he took on Hibs?

And the answer to that question is: c) who gives a fuck.

I didn't watch the game, but just looked back at the highlights, and I don't think it was a handball (as per the rules). It definitely wasn't a red card either way, as the ball hits off his body and then onto his hand, so if it hadn't hit his hand it would have dropped fairly harmlessly to one of their covering players as the sting had already been taken out of the (exceptionally pish) shot. For me, it would have been a clear and obvious error if a red had been given, but not the other way around. I could understand a ref giving a foul in real time, and possibly even a red depending on how he'd interpreted it in real time. But the fact it hits his body first, for me, looks the right call.

Are most of our players more familiar with a back four? Shinnie is, the rest I've no idea about. I could cope with Scales left back if so. I don't imagine Pollock or MacDonald will be dropped (although I didn't see the Tims game), and that doesn't leave many options if he wants to fit Scales back in.