RicoS321

It would have been a pretty impressive prediction that not only foresaw the points deficit, but that they'd also get knocked out of the league cup allowing them to bring a fixture forward, that's for sure. I predicted it, I just didn't want to say anything.

They haven't got a bad squad by any stretch, and it wouldn't surprise me if they got a lift from just binning their manager.

Nooooooooooo

I had to think about that for a second. I swapped ends at halftime.

Moderators: please delete all hearts chat until after our game against them. They've got a great young manager who should definitely be given at least three more games to turn it round.

Very much looked that way from where I was sitting behind the goals. I think he basically missed.

Well, that was as expected, completely dominant and another win! MacKenzie probably MOTM, his link up with McGrath is top notch. Back two solid again and we generally strolled it. A few things worth noting though. Nisbet wasn't amazing, and missed an absolute sitter, but he was better than Sokler who was poor again. Gueye out wide didn't really work. Keskinen was poor when he came on, terrible decision making, constantly running into trouble and not quick enough to get away from his man. However, he was playing on the opposite side, switching with McGrath, which hopefully is an experiment we don't repeat as it managed to bring out the worst in McGrath, Keskinen, Devlin and MacKenzie - quite a feat. Weirdly, we also inverted Shinnie and Palaversa (who was good today, moving the ball well) too, with both playing on their wrong foot. Obviously, it was a comfortable win in first gear, so it's difficult to read too much into it. There were plenty of positives, as well as a few questions that we'll hopefully answer in the coming fixtures.

You're right. He was clearly a leader for the Tims and Scotland, and us for 2-3 months. I just wouldn't think of him when discussing leaders of the Dons, because of his overall time here. Had he managed a full season of the standard he first set, then I'd definitely be thinking differently. Paul Hartley was a definite leader on the pitch, dragging us through his first few games (hat trick included), but I wouldn't think of him either.

Aye, that makes sense. Hopefully they'll get to have both of them together to talk about it the next round.

I didn't say lack of respect, I said the same level of respect. When he first joined, Brown was pointing around, getting players to be where he wanted to them (exactly like Nilsen), and shouting at people when we lost goals. By the end he was very much playing his own game and his head was down when we lost goals. We were heading towards relegation and nobody was looking to Brown for answers. He'd lost influence, especially with guys like Ferguson who were pulling more weight than Brown - he was offering them nothing (in my opinion, Brown was completely the wrong choice at that point in Ferguson's career when he was clearly needing to take on more responsibility himself, but no long term damage, and besides the point!). Goodwin didn't pick him, the evidence is there. I have no doubt it wasn't entirely due to performances, I don't think I said it was, but it was clear that he wanted Brown to be just a player that he could play or drop on his own terms, as opposed to the undroppable coach that Glass had made him. It was clear to everyone that it was the end for Brown at the Dons. He was never good enough at that stage to be the first name(s) on the teamsheet that we built a team around. I think most were glad when Barron came into the side instead. The injury I was referring to was after the hearts game, where he disappeared and then retired. Perhaps it was the club that made it sound like he was injured, maybe he was genuinely, I don't really care. Again, I'm not saying he was terrible, I'm simply saying he's not the guy I'd think of when discussing leaders at the Dons (neither is Bisconti). We've had far better. Nilsen is not the player Brown was at 32, but he'll hopefully complete two seasons of good, solid performances in the mode of which he has started. It's a little unfair on Brown to be talking of Nilsen as better, because we have the full picture with Brown and only a snapshot of what Nilsen might be.

Mental. I assume they've just taken the Motherwell TV commentary team? Was it not on premier last night?

I'm not rewriting history, I said he wasn't going to get a game under Goodwin, which was fairly clearly the case, whether it was because of scorched earth or because he was no longer able (given he retired straight away suggests both). You said "except he was getting a game under Goodwin", which is surely the most egregious rewriting of history this century. You can refuse to believe all you like, but history is full of older players - in fact, it's the norm - who are good enough early season and then struggle later when it becomes too much for them. Hartley and obvious example. Considine in his last six months at St Johnstone a recent one. Robson, Hayes etc etc. (although Hayes never really played much of a role the whole season). The signs were there with Brown well before his injury too. He was beginning to wander in games and it was clear that his teammates didn't have the respect for him that he'd earned earlier, arguing back etc. He was clearly fading. Again, it was all very predictable, pretty much all my Tim mates said that we'd be very lucky to get a season out of him; that they'd noticed his slowing down over the previous season.

He wasn't getting a game under Goodwin, he played once versus Hearts (I think), where he was garbage, before getting "injured" and never seen again. Goodwin didn't really have a choice in fairness, it was fairly clear that he could no longer perform even at the Dons level. Even McGeoch was playing better than him. It could have been because of his position draining the last of what he had out of him, as you suggest, but it really looked like his heart wasn't in it, save for some performances against the Hun where he seemed to be more interested in his own battle against them as a Tim (which benefitted us greatly in those fixtures). In terms of a leader, I mean someone that can raise the standards of those around them, generally through leading by example. Brown did that for a very limited period in a similar vein to Hartley or Bisconti. Robson had a greater impact as a leader, as had many others. The argument I was making was that he wasn't any better than Bisconti, and not someone I'd have brought up when discussing the lack of leaders due to his fleeting time here and lack of impact on any of those around him. The most frustrating thing about the Brown situation is was that it was all rather predictable. He wasn't what we needed at the time and didn't fit into Glass' system. He was here for his personality, which was bizarre. You could well be right about him being in a team with Shinnie.

Come on, that's pushing it. Brown wasn't going to get a game under Goodwin, correctly, as he'd been honking for months. He had become a liability, because he was assistant manager and Glass didn't have the ability to drop him. Ferguson and McCrorie were also played out of position. McCrorie especially. Brown's performances had no bearing on theirs McRorie was moved from midfield to make way for Brown. Ferguson was played in midfield. But you're right, Brown's performances generally had no bearing on theirs because he was no longer the leader he previously was. A few years before that, and he'd have been brilliant for Ferguson's game (not that it has suffered by any stretch!), but Ferguson didn't need Brown by that point, which is why he had so little impact beyond a handful of games that you mention. Well, no, the debate was that you thought that it was harsh on Scott Brown to say that there wasn't a real leader since Bisconti, and I argued that neither were really much of a leader outside a handful of games for the Dons, and that Shinnie, Severin, Heikkinen were all on a different level. Even Robson was more of a sustained leader for us. But yes, you're right, there is nothing so far that Nilsen has done that Brown hadn't. If he keeps playing well beyond October, then he'll likely have breached that high-water mark. I assume the initial suggestion was based on that assumption.

I think you're going to have to accept that it didn't really work out for brown with us, he had flashes of his former self, once or twice, but he was generally off it, hence why he retired straight after. Being 36 was absolutely the problem, for the same reason we won't be describing 36 year old Shinnie or Nilsen as leaders, we'd be describing them as liabilities, despite their previous excellence. Part of being a good leader is leading by example, and Brown wasn't up to that for the most part. Weird that you mention Ojo, who played wide left, and don't mention Lewis Ferguson, Ross McRorie etc, whose games were not benefitted from an ageing midfielder not keeping up with the pace. I think it's fair to say that they didn't get a Scott Brown that they could learn from, in the same way that likes of MacGregor did at the Tims. They could have probably gleaned something from the first couple of months he was here, but beyond that I expect it was tipping towards resentment. That's not a criticism of Brown, it's very difficult for a player to know when to retire (Hartley was in exactly the same position previously). The ridiculous situation of him being assistant and playing every week was Glass' doing. He wasn't terrible for us, just nowhere near the likes of Shinnie etc.

Actually, I'd put Scott Brown in exactly the category of Bisconti. And Paul Hartley, and Arnason. Guys that came here and did a job for a few games before becoming a liability. Severin, Heikkinen and Shinnie were all better leaders than the former, either through leadership or setting an example.

It's a 17:30 kick off.

That'll be the Rastafarian in him that Willie Miller spotted.

Yep, he was very much the type of manager you'd expect from the old board.

You're probably right, I think it's about keeping confidence up as much as sharpness. I'm very glad we didn't do more business in the window for this very reason, and would have been happy to see at least another out. Even with the smallish squad, very few are missing out. I don't like five subs, I think it gives games the air of a friendly. It is allowing Thelin to give more guys minutes in games, although I'd argue it's been to the detriment of performance, with things descending into confusion and a lack of shape. The difficulty for Palaversa, MacDonald and Milne is that they're in positions that I think Thelin will regard as vital. Areas where you build partnerships between a pair, like central midfield and defence. The idea being that the more you play as a pair, the stronger that unit becomes. It's less of a thing up front, and especially our up front where the players tend to link with several others individually rather than as a pair. That's just the way we play of course, when I was a lad there was always a front two (big lad and fast lad), with the midfield of secondary importance. There appears to be more link between Gueye and McGrath, than Sokler or Nisbet, which is fine.

I think that if we're four or five up in the ninetieth minute, we should take on Ambrose. The rest of the team should huddle over by the tunnel and when the whistle goes, sprint down the tunnel and out of the ground, leaving Ambrose to go home with Spartans.

The Jackson 3 doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

I think it's just a quality issue. His touch isn't brilliant, and his decision making and use of the ball when he gets possession isn't always good. He isn't great with his back to goal, he likes facing the defence. I'd put him in the level of someone like Bruce Anderson, a decent backup. I wouldn't be surprised to see him having a season or two of a purple patch in his career (because of his good movement and pace), and he's definitely capable of the occasional brilliant finish, which might make you think he's better than he really is. As it's a quality issue though, I don't think he's ever going to develop into a good number nine for us unfortunately. The best thing you can do with guys like Sokler, is to keep the instruction very simple, and get him to keep doing the same things (we can this in Thelin's improvements in Morris). For me, that'd be playing on the shoulder of the last man, making space by running into the channels and pressing high. Concentrate on those things and try not to worry too much about what anyone else is doing. One of the things that is noticeable is the difficulty he's had forming any sort of relationship with Gueye. Gueye is very unpredictable in his movement, and focuses his play on McGrath and linking back the way, as opposed to Miovski who was very quick to turn and play in his partner (a caveat to that would be the flick-ons that Gueye regularly wins, but they don't seem to go anywhere). Sokler's game is far more suited to Clarkson in behind him. Nisbet didn't really seem to form an understanding with Gueye either, but was noticeably better with his back to goal than Sokler.

This For a country full of gun nuts, they're fairly shite at the aiming part.

We had fifteen points at Christmas last year. Fully expect us to be on thirty by the end of October. Anything less would be hugely disappointing.