RicoS321

What does that actually mean though? He captained ICT to a cup before/as we signed him. He was a fantastic player in this league and had us finishing second on numerous occasions. He's about six times better than McRorie. It's a really good signing.

I don't think Kennedy was bad, but he wouldn't go beyond the fullback, which caused us problems, especially with Duk doing the same on the other side. He managed to take his man on several times, but the defence was always in shape and ready for the cross. I don't think their crossing was particularly bad, it's just that they allowed the defence back in and completely narrowed the margins in terms of our player getting on the end of it. At one point in the second half we had two on three in the box when Duk got it out wide, and by the time he crossed it was eight on three. Duncan is far more direct and will make the run beyond the fullback to receive the ball (as Hayes did a couple of times), ready to get an early cross in. That said, we may want to leave that as an option from the bench too.

I meant credit to Goodwin for trying a 4-2-3-1, mainly for the four at the back, but having someone behind Miovski helps him. I think it was a decent shape, that he should stick with for a while and try and fit the players into it. I agree entirely about Ramirez, but for the opening period he did well enough, he tracks back too. It is almost like Goodwin wants him to fail, so he plays him in an unfamiliar position then takes him off. Duk was left of the three today, not no 10, he was okay, but took far too long to make a pass. Being one of two seems to be most suited to him, and as a no 10 is fine if we have that solid(ish) two in the centre of midfield. Against decent opponents, I don't think he can play 10 though. He switches off too often and doesn't track his man. Agree about Barron and Clarkson, but Clarkson and Barron is fine if Clarkson is pushed into number ten* (in fact, it's how I think we should be setting up against the stronger teams and away from home). As a pairing it is one or the other with Ramadani, and I think Barron should be given the opportunity personally. Clarkson wasn't that great today. Hayes has never really been a good sub in my opinion. He goes 100mph for the first couple of runs and then runs out of steam. He's more than fit enough to play ninety minutes, but he seems completely incapable of pacing himself off the bench. It's weird. Again, I agree about picking a formation. Your last sentence sums it up, he changes both formation and personnel too often (at the same time) and doesn't really seem to understand the consequences. Pick a shape and then take players in and out of that. If you're forced to change shape in a game, make it a subtle change of one less up front, or an extra defender, not going from a 3-4-1-2 to a 5-4-1 or throwing five up front. *Edit: when Barron and Clarkson have played together this season, it's almost always been as a line of three, or both ahead of Ramadani, which is why it has rarely worked

That was rank. Didn't deserve the win. Interesting setup in a 4-2-3-1, credit to Goodwin for attempting something different. McRorie played well at right back and Stewart and Scales coped fine in a four (for now!). Ramirez clearly not going to be given the opportunity to play as a number nine, and he did okay for a bit in the first half as a number ten, but it does seem like Goodwin is hanging him out to dry by playing him out of position. Kennedy did okay, but between him and Duk, the ball was just taking an age to get into the box, and we were almost always outnumbered by at least two when the ball came in. Clarkson was poor in the number eight role and I think Barron should have been on earlier for Miovski with Ramirez and Clarkson both pushing forward one (and Clarkson off for Besuijen if he continued to struggle). Duk was tired by the time he was pushed up on his own and the Duncan sub was just a waste of time given how late it was, his direct running would have resulted in the ball coming across far quicker. Overall, they played like a team short on confidence and Goodwin's ability to change things during a game has to be called out again.

Not sure, I'm not on first name terms with Celtic managers.

Joanna's? Is that a thing?

A back four doesn't give us an additional body in midfield though. We played a back three against killie, with five in midfield, Coulson and Kennedy as wing backs. It was actually a 3-1-4-2, which we've played successfully at home prior to Barron coming back. It very much does not suit Barron, and we should have played the 3-4-1-2, which allows him to get more of the ball, keeps us tight and would have allowed Duncan the freedom that Clarkson was given. If we're going four at the back, then for me it has to be a 4-2-3-1, rather than a 4-4-2. If we have Stewart at the back and Kennedy or Richardson at fullback, then we need two players sitting to protect. I don't even know if that'll be enough! Stewart is a real dilemma, and I think we should just persist with the back three until we get a proper centre back (McRorie isn't the answer either, he was honking in the past couple of games) in January. Stewart is okay as the centre of a three. It's the best of a bad situation probably. I'd like to see us with the same setup as against the Hun, a 3-4-1-2. I think Duncan should be given another chance behind the strikers, as I think having Barron close to him confused matters. Hayes on the left and Kennedy probably deserves another chance on the right. Ramirez has to come in for Miovski and keep Duk there to see how they get on together. Worryingly, the back three of McKenzie, Scales and McRorie didn't work, with Scales in particular looking ropey. That could just have been the conditions though, adding to the plastic turf difficulties. I'd be happy to give that another shot. Lewis should get his opportunity.

Her last words were "that's some hit min" as she watched Matty Kennedy's free kick fly into the net last night.

His last words were "that's some hit min" as he watched Matty Kennedy's free kick fly into the net last night.

Ajax are a terrible example. They are the equivalent of Celtic. You can't just implement a style, you need players with the capability to perform it. "Big Ange", would not be able to play the way Celtic play with a team with Aberdeen's budget. He can't even get Celtic to play the way Celtic play when in Europe, because it's a style that is relative to the league you play in and the quality of player. Stewart isn't good enough at passing out of defence, even with time on the ball. When we're applying the pressure, we always have to worry about the slow guy at the back who's going to get turned inside out on the break. We didn't buy him to spend 80 minutes defending his own box, but that's most certainly his best attribute, and what his game is entirely suited to. That's why he was such a bad signing, and why we had to switch to a back three to accommodate him.

You're right. We should probably try and get it switched to pittodrie

Jebus. Brown was a fucking awful signing who just needed the slight tip into retirement. He was getting danced around for fun. You absolutely could not have an assistant manager forced upon you. That would just be weird. He's not the type of guy that sits quietly in the dressing room and there'd be a huge potential for him to undermine the manager. You're right about other leaders, but in fairness I think that's what he thought he was getting in Stewart. With Hayes, Ramadani, McRorie, Roos, there's a decent amount of experience. The problem that Brown and Stewart have in terms of leadership on the park, is that you have to be performing in order to back it up.

When I say 50%, I meant that was normal, not that we actually managed it! By success, I just mean players that don't make us any worse. In terms of saleable assets, maybe one a season and two if we're lucky. Our strategy appears to be "data" over scouting. To spread out net further and work in tandem with Atlanta. That recruitment does the leg work and identifies targets which Goodwin gets final say or veto over. All okay in theory. However, Stewart appears to have been someone Goodwin had prior interest in, so there are still times when a manager can identify a player. What happens in that instance, I'm not sure, but it's worrying. McInnes would regularly identify a guy he'd played against once as the basis for signing, and I hoped we were beyond that now. In my opinion, Goodwin should be allowed to recommend a player in the same way as any other scout would. At that point, they're churned through the process with strengths and weaknesses identified, with the opportunity for recruitment to veto. Either that didn't happen in Stewart's case, or somehow the glaringly obvious issues of pace, pace on the turn and time required on the ball weren't highlighted in the data. I'm hoping that there is some sort of learning process in place where we monitor our players actual stats to allow for comparison in future signings. Whatever Stewart's pace over ten yards is, or number of unenforced misplaced passes, for example, should see them vetoed. It'll be interesting to see, over time, how the more widespread recruitment policy goes, with data replacing actual scouting. The examples in England so far, that you highlight, are worrying. None have eclipsed anything that we've seen with traditional scouting over the years, although I'm wondering if it's a mix of both still in England. It's easier to use England as a benchmark as that's where we've traditionally got players from. You'd expect that if our new recruitment process was working, we'd see improvement there too. It's 100% failure on English signings so far! The most concerning aspect is that we appear to have shut off the safe signing with SPFL experience route. That is a huge issue for me, especially in a summer where we had such a turnover. Not every signing has to be the next big thing, and we risk an inconsistent team by trying to make that true. Devlin from Livingston, for example (just an example, I don't know enough about the lad if I'm honest, or his contract situation), would have been an easy safe bet for right back. Aggressive and hard working and ten times better than Richardson. Just enough reliability to keep things ticking over. Cormack seems to be very much in the "foreign=automatically good" line of thinking (like a lot of fans), without any real evidence to back that up. We've not unearthed a Ferguson yet, nor a Shinnie, McLean or even Cosgrove. However, the important thing is that recruitment keeps its process in place, with emphasis on signing players for the club and not the manager, who is just a temporary fixture.

I'm not sure a good manager would have had us coasting in third with this team. We have some serious personnel issues. We were destined to be inconsistent. I think it's important to separate the money spent from the manager's performance. If Goodwin had got lucky with a couple more recruits we could have been cruising, but it wouldn't make Goodwin a better manager (or vice versa). His tactical ineptitude can be taken on its own merit of course, and I agree with you that it's been lacking many times this season. There are some fundamental problems at the club. I think it's vital that Cormack doesn't think he can just throw some money at signings and believe he's done his bit, and we can all just blame the manager. In terms of giving him money, I disagree completely. I think we (Cormack) need to stop thinking in terms of giving managers money. The whole recruitment system was changed, I'm assuming, with this in mind. There are players that aren't good enough to be in the squad who need dealt with, and positions that need to be filled. That doesn't change with the manager. A new manager won't take five minutes off of Stewart's pace over ten yards for example. It's the club that is signing players for the club's money. The manager has a role to play, of course, but the power should remain with the recruitment team in the main, and that should transcend the manager. We simply can't afford to waste another window. The single biggest disaster when getting rid of McInnes is that we halted recruitment in the January (and then followed it up by not getting the recruitment team in before Glass had sat down in front of championship manager with a red wine). Missing a window sets you back at least another one, and set us back three. We should have the confidence in our recruitment team to deliver a 50% return on signings, meaning we should have at least one less worry in the summer.

Somebody has stolen your "not"

Giving a manager one window to sign ten players isn't backing him massively though. Backing him would be allowing him to build a team. There are some serious cracks appearing that suggest that might not be a good idea. I just hate to see this suggestion that because money he should be coasting in third, it's not fair. You can't just buy success in a single season, just ask the Huns. We should be expecting inconsistency in a new team, and the expectation should have been made clear by our chairman at the beginning of the season. If we were to punt Goodwin - for tactical ineptitude - a new manager should be backed over a few windows. It's important to separate the two. The club are in the position they are in due to Cormack.

I'm beginning to think that Jim just doesn't understand tactics. So many errors in there. Then just to throw on strikers like it doesn't matter. That's fucking amateur. The thing about that type of sub is that there's no way that it's rehearsed. There's no plan that they go through in training that says that if we're chasing the game and needing two goals, we throw on all strikers. They were just getting in each others way, all trying to do everything on their own. Well done Kennedy, some goal.

We spent four weeks practicing eight at the back discipline. We almost got one point because of it don't you know.

Shocker. Shite management. How long before Duk gets caught out and we lose another?

Yep, back to some of the earlier season performances, against utd and Hibs spring to mind. We had a settled midfield two with Barron and Ramadani being decent as a pairing and beginning to understand each other. His first thought is to equate attacking with lots of players advanced, so puts Ramadani back in to the holding role with Barron and Duncan in front - completely nullifying Barron. Rather than change it when it was obvious we were going to lose a goal he waits until they score. By that point, our confidence is completely shot and theirs is the opposite. Coulson had done nothing to deserve a start, and should probably have been subbed sooner. The 3-1-4-2 doesn't work if Kennedy doesn't attack. I'm not sure which drugs he took before the St Mirren game, but he should be downing them at half-time. Duncan will be the one that's sacrificed on the back of all this of course. Ramirez on for Miovski and anyone for Kennedy. Need to get to grips with their dangerous young winger, no 5. Edit: McRorie too, Jesus Christ he needs to find a position he can actually play for ninety minutes.

I thought mentioning of him was banned?

In fairness, we don't need long term planning for every position (in fact, it's probably safe to say that long term planning doesn't exist in fitba), a couple of years is absolutely fine. Stewart is 30, Long 32, not much difference. I think it's good that we're at least looking for a right sided defender. A bit of experience to replace Stewart's experience is useful too, although experience is largely irrelevant if you're pish as we know.

I thought he looked terrible. Like a poor man's Greg Stewart. Edit: I didn't answer your question! He's still injured. I think he'll be quietly shifted on at the end of the season. Maybe get a couple of games in April/May once we've secured top of the bottom six.

And it's Stewart's, not Stewarts. Some people are just stupid.

Yep, it's not brilliant. The problem that we've had is inconsistency. If we'd just been like Hibs, mainly shite but occasionally good, Goodwin would be in a far better position. There should have been no expectation on Goodwin this season, and Cormack should have been very clear about that. It's completely unrealistic to expect any manager to build a consistent team from where we started in the summer (just as it was for Glass). Our major problems are with personnel. That has resulted in trying to shoehorn formations onto players rather than the opposite. He's consistently having to choose between two bad options, as we don't have the option to really mix things up. Put McRorie into midfield and watch Stewart and Richardson fuck us up from the back. McRorie at the back and watch us be overrun in midfield. Miovski on his own and he's anonymous. Duk alongside him and the midfield have to work twice as hard. Richardson or Kennedy at fullback. And so on (all laid on top of a chairman insisting on attacking fitba, playing out from the back etc). It all stems from not having numbers carried forward from one window to the next. We're a good couple of windows away from sorting that, given a successful return of 50% on signings. Cormack should have addressed that at the beginning of the season (he should have stressed it under Glass, instead of hanging him out to dry) and insisted that it was a transition season to rebuild the squad under new recruitment practices. It should have been reiterated by management at every step, after good games as well as bad. The summer investment, for me, means absolutely nothing. Recruitment at any level of investment is still an uncertainty, but it's almost always helped by having a semblance of a team to fall back on. Thon Hun-scouse fucker couldn't overhaul the Dons in a couple of years of massive investment, because we had an established side.