RicoS321

Scandalously, I'd say. Four years of not learning our lesson on giving a manager carte blanche (after saying that we were doing the exact opposite). It's a serious lesson in shite squad building.

This squad isn't the best

That did look like a change in system tonight. Nilsen did appear to be deeper than Polvara and Armstrong. Could just have been the angle on the telly. It did look suspiciously like a 4-1-4-1 though. Clarkson would have been perfect for the role that Nilsen played, but it'll now be the last and only time he tries it.

Bilalovic looks like he might be worth a shot. Karlsson wasn't terrible. Knoester decent. I'm assuming Clarkson has just given up because he keeps getting dropped for players that are significantly shiter than him. We're basically ruining our best player so that we can remain faithful to Nilsen and bedding in crap new players.

Palaversa has been dogshite every time he's played this season. It's like he's pregnant or something, as he seems unable to run. The key there was Nisbet and Gueye. Nisbet can only play when someone is occupying the other defenders. Also, Morris, of course.

A vast improvement though

He's not. Dicks about in the wrong positions, offers nothing. Weak as pish Aouchiche isn't very good.

Milanovic isn't very good.

That's got to be a yellow for sapsford?

Whatever you do, don't take on Yengi...

Christ. Game over. Very easy. Nice corner.

It doesn't count if you can't see it? RedTV down.

Inverted wingers remember. They don't actually play in the wing. Utd player with a worse challenge than Devlin's. Yellow absolutely fine.

That's absolutely insane for what was clearly an accident. Anyway, Gyamfi all over the shop so far.

Looks like a 4-1-4-1

Mental. Devlin suspended maybe? Also, is there a place to watch tonight's game? Not the B team Edit: fawa all good

@Panda having a laugh I expect

Disgusting use of language. You should be ashamed. It has two "f"s.

I'm going to suggest the same team every week until Thelin proves me wrong by selecting it. Same goalie and back four as Saturday. Nilsen and Shinnie sitting. Karlsson, Nisbet and Keskinen, with Lazetic in front. Anything else will lose us the game.

That's what they want you to think

Whatever we think of Donald Trump, it's fantastic that him and JFK have now cured autism. Great job guys.

I was at peace with him going until I realised that both Ambrose and Yengi were staying.

I was actually going to offer to use my account for your tickets until I read the bit about it having to be the same person travelling, as I won't be going. Understandable, I guess, but a bit shite. I remember the days when you could just turn up pished on the day and put on your best foreign accent and get into the home end.

Yes, I agree with you both. There's guys back there that are pretty much doing fuck all. I'd always have one up, just to occupy a defender. Motherwell had everyone back at our corners too, and it allowed all our players to be within 35 yards of their goal. I'm guessing it's something that has been heavily researched and the consensus is that you are worse off with players upfield that are hard to hit on the break or something. I think we should break protocol and chuck three forward. They didn't cause us much bother on the corners, they were quite loopy and a couple too close to the keeper. We just look like everything causes us problems in the box. It was sort of my point though, it's fairly easy to throw a ball in, but it's whether it's meaningful or not, and if there's no pace on it, your basically working on the lottery that it might get knocked down and somebody wins the second ball. I personally think there's a lot to be said for that, but I suspect that players like Karlsson and Clarkson take a bit of pride in their corner taking abilities. When Karlsson did beat the first man, his corner had a high chance of being converted, with Devlin very unlucky, because he belted it in. If you think about what the player is actually trying to do, it's no surprise they all get it wrong so regularly. They're trying to fire a ball in, so that it goes just out of reach of the front man, but not so high that it goes above everyone and long, with enough pace that the attacker just has to direct it. Even going for the back post, you're trying to land it perfectly in a 2x2 metre spot, just out of reach of the goalie, but not too deep that it goes over everyone and out for a goal kick. All from 30+ yards, at Pittodrie, making it easily as difficult as a free kick. Hitting the man at the near post is equivalent to hitting the wall in a free kick, with over hitting the corner the equivalent of hitting it over the bar. That happens with the majority of free kicks.

If only we could have known.... We've gone from saying that refereeing decisions even themselves out over a season, to saying that VAR decisions even themselves out over the season. It's ludicrous when you look at it that way. What is ludicrous is that there are still people saying "it isn't VAR that's the issue, it's the people using it", and "it's good, but it just needs to be used for clear and obvious errors". Even after several years, with evidence worldwide, they still don't seem to understand what it is. Me and my mate were discussing the BBC article about the errors too. We couldn't work out whether it was terrible journalism, or just the BBC being too weak to challenge the status quo, but in an article discussing four errors in a weekend, they never said how many were correct, or give a proportion. Any other other news story, the headline would be "80% decisions incorrect" or whatever, but they seem wary of presenting it in a bad light, or as the failure that it has been. Not just the BBC, but absolutely nobody is going into it in any depth whatsoever either. Of the four decisions that VAR intervened in, were any of them clear-cut? Would anyone have actually given a fuck about them in the aftermath? Would anyone have cared that Devlin wasn't sent off? It's the level of interference in the most trivial of things (because once you introduce VAR, it can only be the case). Genuinely, nobody gives a fuck about 90% of the calls. The overwhelming majority are calls that you can see why they were given, or weren't, and could be described as soft or otherwise. That part doesn't get talked about though. The insipid interviews with Collum only seek to validate the technology, which is why they are actually harmful. He never gets asked about calls that were let go, versus ones that weren't (because the ones that were let go aren't classed as VAR calls, despite being the case). He never gets called up on the fact that one incident has two possible outcomes depending on how the referee calls it. For instance, if the referee had given handball against Shankland, VAR wouldn't have overturned, but they let it go because he didn't (the opposite being the non foul on the goalie in the same game). The whole question of whether to re-referee a game or not, in itself, proves that the technology isn't fit for purpose, and never can be. It's a logical fallacy in and of itself. What should have happened was that the money was spent on training and communication. We should have asked the BBC to take the lead in its highlights programmes to present refereeing in a better light, always trying to look at why a referee might have given a decision based on the angle etc. Also, make sure to weigh up a ref's call with a striker missing a chance or a defender being out of position to show that games are won and lost on a culmination of points. I'm certain that the BBC would have been open to it, especially if they got communication from the refs. Less so the paid channels, but they'd probably fall into line for something as trivial as most Scottish football games (because they only cover the scum anyway), and they'd keep their screaming hysteria for the scum game. Rule changes such as only speaking to captains should have been in place before VAR, but also campaigns, led by players, to show refs respect, and paint a wider understanding of their fallibility. Beaton didn't have a worse game than most of our players yesterday for example. Even in the Falkirk game, where the ref was honking, Aouchiche and Keskinen were worse. It's rare that the refs are the worst player on the park, and they should be treated as players in the game, because fundamentally that's what they are.