RicoS321

Ah well, not unsurprising, a step too far. Zero shots on target, one goal is a good stat. Nobody died, which was the main thing. Bellingham is probably the best English player I've ever seen. They've had some good strikers over the years, but I don't remember a properly world class player for them. He's very good.

Not sure I'd have gone with the same side. We've seen with the Dons this season the extra recovery time required. Can't afford any injuries. Need our best side for actual games of fitba.

It's the SFA, it's always about money. We're in the top group in the nation's league, we'll have plenty opportunity to play against big sides. It just doesn't need to be done in the middle of an important qualifying campaign. Meaningless friendlies are just that, they don't really tell you anything. That's what the nation's league was supposed to prevent. England, especially, is a distraction that our players could do with out. For some reason, plenty of Scotland fans will hold it up as some sort of massive and important game, when it isn't. Lose, and we'll be going into our most important game in years on a slight low. Win and it will just be seen as a meaningless friendly where England weren't trying. Friendlies have always set fans expectations too high and do little for any team. Look at our preseasons every year - which are all about fitness - we're world beaters after thrashing Turra, or a disjointed mess destined for relegation after losing to some pish English side. You never learn anything about a side, and more often than not when you go into competitive fixtures the results are completely the opposite of set expectations.

Decent performance. All very much a formality against a poor side. Really takes the pressure off, and we should be looking to win the group now. Keep it tight against Spain and restrict them to one goal. Can't help but think that the money spinning unnecessary friendlies are a real hindrance to the manager and players. When you've got an unmatched level of confidence there really is no need to be risking that against two good teams during qualifying.

Bit quiet on this one. Foregone conclusion....

It did work as a two with Clarkson in front (hearts at pittodrie under Goodwin springs to mind). That only happened a couple of times. Barron needs to be facing the play, so when he was moved further forward, with Ramadani on his own behind, he struggled. He can either play the number six with two in front (but we don't have the two in front), or in a two sitting with one in front (Clarkson or McGrath). Anything else he turns pish as he doesn't have the athleticism as you suggest and ends up getting lost. At the moment, Robson is almost exclusively playing two midfielders in front and expecting them to be hyper fit and get up and down the pitch. I'm certain it'll lead to injury soon.

We've definitely got the back four, and I'd argue that if Barron and Shinnie were sitting in a two in front, we can work with that.

We didn't change recruitment team, just one guy. I'd assume that processes don't get thrown out the window from one to the next. I think the club have to take collective responsibility for the failed window. Players will be shite, and others not, that's fine. We shouldn't be missing out positions that are integral to our system though and none of the players we signed could pretend to be a Ramadani replacement. That said, we knew that at least two weeks ago and Robson has done nothing to mitigate the problem. He's got time, now, to work this out in training and deliver a new system that suits the signings or converts one of the existing squad into something different. It really has very little to do with players being just in the door or any of the other excuses. In fact, that just shows a complete misunderstanding of the issue. I'm assuming Robson isn't going with that line in private, and I'm very much hoping that there's someone in a position of authority that can call that out for the bollocks it is.

That'd certainly be the sensible approach (playing a four). It doesn't seem like Robson's taking note though does it? With two weeks until our next fixture, do you reckon Robson will be trying to coach us in a four and play to our strengths, or stubbornly coaching the art of the shoehorn in order to maintain his system?

There's always one signing that you never see anything, or little, of. Roberts last season springs to mind (although there were a number of contenders). I'm guessing that Dadia and Williams might fall into that. He's been deemed not good enough to displace Morris at wing back, so he's clearly not setting the heather alight in training. Duncan, for me, doesn't really fit into our setup at all (I acutally think he'd be best suited to being the central player behind the striker in a 4-2-3-1). He doesn't have the physical attributes of Ramadani anymore than Polvara does. Ramadani wasn't a defensive midfielder, he was basically like a less aggressive version of Shinnie, going from box to box, disrupting play and occasionally doing something good with the ball too. Fitness, workrate and determination were his key attributes. Devlin, perhaps even Hayes, are the closest we've got to those attributes in the squad. If we're not going to try either of those two (and I'm not really suggesting we should), then Robson urgently needs to change system.

I don't think we'd have signed the Danish lad if Williams was any good. I doubt we'll see him.

They completely tore us apart, we were a mess. If we'd scored any of our chances, they'd simply have walked up, politely asked the defence if they could move aside, and then belted in another couple. The chances we created were a really shite smokescreen for atrocious organisation and zero game plan. We didn't deserve anything from the game at all. Remember our first couple of home games under Goodwin when we beat St Mirren and someone else (Livi maybe?)? Where everyone came away saying "fucking hell, we could have been four down before they went down to ten and we eventually tanked them?". That exact approach is what Robson chose against Hacken.

Goodwin played Ramadani as a sitting midfielder with Clarkson and another ahead in a 3-1-4-2. When he played Ramadani in a two (with Barron) with Clarkson in front we were generally good. Being Goodwin, he didn't repeat his successes. He regularly played a flat three against better teams. Clarkson has shown on numerous occasions that he can play the 10 role. Whether he's playing 6 or 10 (he needs to be in the one, because his left and right movement is key), the important thing is that there are two other players doing the dirty work. Last season we had just Ramadani, when Goodwin was here, this season we've repeated the mistake with just Shinnie. Clarkson is basically a Kenny McLean type, he can play behind the strikers or the midfield, his thing being lightening quick passing and vision. Robson has switched him between the two positions already in games this season. Edit: to be honest, it's so important to Clarkson's game and thus our team, that I'd even consider putting Devlin into the other Shinnie role to see if he can do a job. I thought Barron did well enough against Hibs (we got much worse when he went off), but he suffers from the same problems as Clarkson.

Who in the world is arguing that we deserved more from Hacken?

What in the world is this? You were doing well(ish) until you suggested Polvara. A 4-1-2-1-2? That's definitely not a thing. Not even Craig Levein would attempt that. Just keep it simple with a 4-2-3-1. Play Miovski and apologise to the other three for having wasted their time. Shinnie and Barron sitting, Clarkson in front. If you want to get defensive, then play McGrath in one of the wide spots in the three, otherwise it's Duncan and a lamppost. Tell Duk to come back when he's finished giving the ball away in our own half.

Aye, that was bad on the eyes, and I think I got sunburn. Both teams looked like they had played a midweek fixture, a very jaded performance from both sets of players. The conference league is going to be an absolute disaster for us, we're nowhere near it as a squad. We'll be even worse with injuries. Another disorganised performance, with a setup that doesn't work. Persisted with the number six role, with Barron sitting behind Shinnie and McGrath. Barron was okay (one stupid attempt at a turn aside), Shinnie worked his arse off and McGrath okay. However, it's clear to everyone that we need to play a two behind with one in front. I can only assume Robson thinks that Ramadani is still actually there. It's utterly inexplicable otherwise. Duk should have been hooked after thirty minutes, and certainly after another pathetic dive in the second half. Disgraceful performance. Jensen was decent enough today, but his lack of height is an issue. McGarry wasn't great. Rubezic going off at half time tells us all we need to know about the Serbian Ash. Morris was Morris again, and the other subs were just as clueless as others have mentioned (a 4-3-3 with three number nines is a first for me). Gueye wasn't what I expected at all, he's just exactly the same as Miovski and Sokler (but at least he looks different). He's not that tall, not that fast and looks like he might play on the shoulder. Doesn't look like what we need at all, and have a feeling Robson might just try and shoehorn him in out wide or like he did today. Anyway, we were always going to be in the hands of the transfer gods this season. It's frustrating that we've got the wrong types of player in rather than the players being terrible, it feels like that shouldn't happen.

No idea what will happen today. The team looked knackered at the end on Thursday. Midfield is the conundrum, I've got no idea what the best three is. Clarkson was completely spent by the end of the game, so I'd be inclined to play him in the number ten position where he'll not use as much energy. I think we're at real risk of injuries in midfield with the continued setup and expectation. If McGrath is fit enough, maybe try him alongside Shinnie again or let Polvara step in, or play McGrath in number ten and give Clarkson a rest. Personally, I'd switch to a 4-2-3-1 and let the wide players play as wide players. Conserve energy by the letting the two sit in front.

No he isn't. Taylor under McInnes (especially second spell) was better than anything we've seen from Rubezic to date. He is very similar to Taylor in his first few games for us so far. Positionally suspect, meaning he dives in when he shouldn't and terrible with the ball. We turned Taylor into a very serviceable SPFL defender. We will more than likely do the same with a Rubezic once he's in a settled position. He has enough attributes to make him a decent player. I didn't get a good view of the penalty, but he was too far off the man initially and allowed him to run at him. It looked to me like he dived in to prevent the player getting a shot and I'm surprised he wasn't sent off. In his defence, it was late in a game that we were chasing and everyone was out of position, so I wouldn't read much into the incident - I don't think it'll be indicative of him as a player either way.

Looks familiar....

You think we should ask him accomodation advice or which bars are cheapest?

Definitely this. I think Rubezic will be fine if played correctly and consistently, I'm just a little concerned that Robson doesn't see it. He's moved Rubezic central a few times this season already. The point about him only being 23 is an interesting one. I guess our signings, in defence, are usually expected to be up to speed when we get them (Scales wasn't quite last season, although that might have just been a Goodwin thing). If experience was an issue, and I think you and Panda are right, then it's all the more bewildering that Rubezic hasn't been given a consistent run. It's really frustrating that we get pumped in Europe when seemingly not playing out best setup. Anyway, the new guy doesn't really solve the problem unless he can either play centrally, or we're intending resting Rubezic regularly. In my mind, him being here makes it even more likely that we persist with Rubezic centrally! It could work if Robson allows Rubezic to be ahead of the other two , but I don't think he will. Rubezic's biggest issue is that his peripheral awareness is pish (which is why he also seems best at kicking it the way he's facing) and he doesn't cover left and right very well. Anyway, it was an interesting window. I've heard numerous people suggest that it was a good window because we got thirteen players in. Certainly there is credit due to the recruitment staff for an impressive quantity. However, by only having one number eight (and Robson wedded to one formation), all the good work risks being completely undone. No matter how good the other signings are, they won't make up for a missing midfield. We tried bypassing it the other night and that didn't work. I'm struggling to think how we get round the issue in a 3-5-2. I guess we play 3-4-1-2 with two sitting. I always think that's better in a back four (4-2-3-1). The question is who the two sitting are. Out of the options, I'd probably try and play Barron into some form there. He's been good in a two before, I'm not convinced that the others ever have. There's no way on earth that we're competing successfully in three competitions with that midfield though unless we move a player from another position or we intend killing Shinnie through exhaustion.

That was a fairly stupid thing for Goodwin to say. I hope Robson doesn't repeat those words. Everything points to us having to do a fair bit in January in order not to have to do the same again next summer. If we can get seven out of the thirteen to be decent, that'd be an achievement.

With only Rubezic, MacDonald, Williams, Dadia, Milne and Devlin that could play there, I was concerned we were a bit light in the right centre defence role.

This is worth its own response, as I think we heavily differ here. Their early goal was coming way before it happened. I mentioned to the lad next to me that Robson needed to change something before we lose a goal. Our approach was niave in the extreme and Robson couldn't see it. The reason I said it "was Goodwin last night" was because we saw this exact same thing in our match against the Huns at Ibrox under him. We went a goal up from Miovski, and he continued to play 3-1-4-2 football with Ramadani in front of the defence. He called it attacking football when everyone could see it was just stupid tactics that left us too exposed, with no view to changing it. It was playing to the luck of the gods, and that was what was on display last night. We weren't exposed after the goal, we were exposed throughout the entire game. That we created some great chances was only to be expected, yet it took a dive in the box from a player that was going nowhere to even get us a goal. After that, we didn't calmly take possession of the game and work them around waiting for an opening as we did over there, we just went kamikaze and deservedly lost another. If we'd taken our chances last night, it would have papered over the cracks of an extremely naïve performance. On another day it might have gone for us, but that's because some days you get a lot of luck, it wasn't earned last night. Not through lack of effort on the part of the players.

I didn't say that I didn't want us in Europe, I said the conference. I like a European run, but it should be earned. The runs under McInnes and calderwood to an extent, were earned on merit and it was easy to see where we were and where we needed to improve. Had we qualified under McInnes it would have been merited and we'd have had a squad capable of being there by default. Had hearts beaten paok, which they didn't because they weren't good enough, it'd have been a good barometer of whether or not they were ready. That's what the qualifying rounds give you, and there's good reason for them. Those are the rounds that we have the squad to compete in and where we are as a club right now. We are completely overstretching ourselves by being in a tournament we don't have the squad for (unless the new big lad is fucking amazing) yet, and I think that will have a knock on effect well into next season. It's simply a question of timing. When we're ready to compete in the conference then we should, otherwise I believe there's a strong chance it'll lead to the undeserved sacking of our young manager and the slaughtering of his young team. Essentially we're coming at it from the same angle. I sit at pittodrie every week and I know the current expectations of the fans, and I think that we're on a hiding to nothing. In terms of criticism of Robson, it's all constructive. Nobody is "eating themselves" or any other such thing. Nor is anyone calling for the manager to be sacked. There is no hysteria or overreaction from anyone on here, I'm confused as to why you think there is, just simple pointing out of flaws in the setup and approach to games. All constructive (apart from my criticism of Morris with respect to him being removed from the planet) and balanced. All heavily caveated with the fact that there is significant turnover and lack of fitness. It's like your projecting things you've heard elsewhere, or perhaps you're misreading the tone of my comments. Which is fine, that's what forums are for.