Dons vs Well

[manc_don]

1 hour ago, Reekie_Red said:

Hmmmm. Bisconti was a real hard-man, who won the red army over with the accuracy in his aggressive tackling. But he was no leader, and often went AWOL in the big games against the Old Firm. Remember also  he was playing alongside Darren Young - of course he's gonna look good next to that pish 

Also think it’s doing seve a bit of a disservice 

[Panda]

15 hours ago, manc_don said:

Also think it’s doing seve a bit of a disservice 

And Scott Brown.

Whatever you think of him or that team, he started the season well personally and was man of the match in a few games. And don't think you can say he wasn't a leader.

If Goodwin wasn't so keen on his scorched earth policy we could have had a midfield of Brown and Shinnie, and essentially have what we have now with Nilsen/Shinnie.

[RicoS321]

34 minutes ago, Panda said:

And Scott Brown.

Whatever you think of him or that team, he started the season well personally and was man of the match in a few games. And don't think you can say he wasn't a leader.

If Goodwin wasn't so keen on his scorched earth policy we could have had a midfield of Brown and Shinnie, and essentially have what we have now with Nilsen/Shinnie.

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. 

[Panda]

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

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. 

But how did Brown become a liability? Overplayed? Having to do the work of two or three players because he had people like Funso Ojo around him? 

Was Brown not a victim of being in a poor team, and also being 36? Do you think even a younger Nilsen would have thrived in that team? 

I think Brown did well but was overplayed in that wrong role/position. I think you stick that version of Scott Brown in our current team and he'd be doing just as well as Nilsen is.

[RicoS321]

1 hour ago, Panda said:

But how did Brown become a liability? Overplayed? Having to do the work of two or three players because he had people like Funso Ojo around him? 

Was Brown not a victim of being in a poor team, and also being 36? Do you think even a younger Nilsen would have thrived in that team? 

I think Brown did well but was overplayed in that wrong role/position. I think you stick that version of Scott Brown in our current team and he'd be doing just as well as Nilsen is.

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. 

[Panda]

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

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.

No I don't have to accept your rewriting of history.

He was very good for the first part of the season, far more than "flashes of his former self once or twice". Hacken home, Hibs home, Hearts home, Rangers home and away are fine in particular that stand out.

He retired because he left Aberdeen, there were very little options for him if he wished to pursue his coaching career while still playing at the top.

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

 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.

Ferguson and McCrorie were also played out of position. McCrorie especially. Brown's performances had no bearing on theirs.

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

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.

You're just making things up now.

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

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. 

Well no-one is near Shinnie. But the debate was Nilsen/Brown.

As impressive as Nilsen has been so far, I don't see anything I wasn't seeing in Scott Brown three years ago, except that Nilsen has better players around him in a more organised team.

[RicoS321]

2 hours ago, Panda said:

He retired because he left Aberdeen, there were very little options for him if he wished to pursue his coaching career while still playing at the top.

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. 

 

2 hours ago, Panda said:

4 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

 

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. 

 

2 hours ago, Panda said:

Well no-one is near Shinnie. But the debate was Nilsen/Brown.

As impressive as Nilsen has been so far, I don't see anything I wasn't seeing in Scott Brown three years ago, except that Nilsen has better players around him in a more organised team

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. 

[tlg1903]

 I don't think the Nilsen Brown comparison is particularly valid aside from the fact they played the same position for us, they are very different players.    Brown adapted to playing as a holding midfielder, with reasonable success, as his legs went and that was before he even signed for us.   Before that he was ridiculously effective box to box shithouse after starting out life playing a wider role at hibs.  Nilsen has always been a holding midfielder by the look of him, he really gets the role and is far more effective in it than Scott Brown ever was for any club.  He see's and executes passes that Brown could never conceive in the first place and despite his lack of pace he always seems to be in the right place at the right time.   Fwiw I thought Brown wasn't awful in red......  I wasn't devastated when he left though. Despite his age he wasn't a terrible holding midfielder at this level by any stretch and his presence on the park was effective at times. For me the biggest problem with Scott Brown was it was just a bit too much about Scott Brown both in his demeanour and the press sycophancy which he lapped up, especially when there was hun involvement.   Nilsen doesn't seem to have that ego about him, he's all about the team and add in his already notable leadership qualities I would say Nilsen is a better leader on the park than Brown and far more effective in position regardless of the standard of team mate available to either.

[Panda]

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

Come on, that's pushing it. Brown wasn't going to get a game under Goodwin, correctly, as he'd been honking for months.

Except he was getting a game under Goodwin..

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

He had become a liability, because he was assistant manager and Glass didn't have the ability to drop him. 

He didn't need dropped, he needed a position change. I remember arguing he should have been playing as a holding midfielder with McCrorie and Ferguson playing around him, which is similar to Nilsen having Shinnie and Clarkson around him.

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

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. 
 

When you say "leader" what are you actually meaning, because I think we're arguing two different meanings here.

[Panda]

1 hour ago, tlg1903 said:

 I don't think the Nilsen Brown comparison is particularly valid aside from the fact they played the same position for us, they are very different players.  

They didn't play the same position at Aberdeen though, that's my point.

My point is that Brown SHOULD have been playing the position Nilsen was. He was actually playing as a box-to-box midfielder about five years after he lost that ability to do it.

At Celtic he played as more of a holding midfielder because he had Callum McGregor as his Graeme Shinnie. The Brown/McGregor partnership is essentially what we have now with Nilsen/Shinnie.

1 hour ago, tlg1903 said:

Nilsen has always been a holding midfielder by the look of him, he really gets the role and is far more effective in it than Scott Brown ever was for any club. 

Come on mate, I'm all for club bias here, but suggesting Nilsen is a better holding midfielder than Scott Brown "ever was for any club" based on 10 games is outrageously parochial.

1 hour ago, tlg1903 said:

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, tlg1903 said:

He see's and executes passes that Brown could never conceive in the first place and despite his lack of pace he always seems to be in the right place at the right time.

Again, we're rewriting history here. Brown at one point - at the age of 31 so not far off Nilsen's age - had the best passing stats in the Champions League.

Even at Aberdeen one of the big things that impressed me was his passing. I always remember one moment, in a game v St Johnstone, where he played a brilliant outside the foot pass from deep to Austin Samuels (remember him), took out about four St Johnstone players, and sent Samuels clean through on goal. Samuel's effort was so bad I think he hit it out for a throw in.

1 hour ago, tlg1903 said:

 

  Nilsen doesn't seem to have that ego about him, he's all about the team and add in his already notable leadership qualities I would say Nilsen is a better leader on the park than Brown and far more effective in position regardless of the standard of team mate available to either.

Again, I'm not wanting to make this a Nilsen v Brown thing, but Nilsen has played 10 games.

We're talking about leadership and players being a liability. Nilsen arrived at Aberdeen with a reputation for getting himself suspended.

Nilsen has made an impressive start, he may well go on to have a fine Aberdeen career and I certainly hope it's more successful than Brown's was at Aberdeen.

But I maintain that Brown was a lot better at Aberdeen than some of you are giving him credit for, and a better leader than given credit for too. 

[dons8321]

6 hours ago, Panda said:

They didn't play the same position at Aberdeen though, that's my point.

My point is that Brown SHOULD have been playing the position Nilsen was. He was actually playing as a box-to-box midfielder about five years after he lost that ability to do it.

At Celtic he played as more of a holding midfielder because he had Callum McGregor as his Graeme Shinnie. The Brown/McGregor partnership is essentially what we have now with Nilsen/Shinnie.

Come on mate, I'm all for club bias here, but suggesting Nilsen is a better holding midfielder than Scott Brown "ever was for any club" based on 10 games is outrageously parochial.

Again, we're rewriting history here. Brown at one point - at the age of 31 so not far off Nilsen's age - had the best passing stats in the Champions League.

Even at Aberdeen one of the big things that impressed me was his passing. I always remember one moment, in a game v St Johnstone, where he played a brilliant outside the foot pass from deep to Austin Samuels (remember him), took out about four St Johnstone players, and sent Samuels clean through on goal. Samuel's effort was so bad I think he hit it out for a throw in.

Again, I'm not wanting to make this a Nilsen v Brown thing, but Nilsen has played 10 games.

We're talking about leadership and players being a liability. Nilsen arrived at Aberdeen with a reputation for getting himself suspended.

Nilsen has made an impressive start, he may well go on to have a fine Aberdeen career and I certainly hope it's more successful than Brown's was at Aberdeen.

But I maintain that Brown was a lot better at Aberdeen than some of you are giving him credit for, and a better leader than given credit for too. 

In such troubling times of strife and discord, behold the soothing calm of the humble Venn diagram :

Perhaps you could adapt this Venn diagram to show us midfielders/age/passing ability!

 

[RicoS321]

7 hours ago, Panda said:

Except he was getting a game under Goodwin..

He didn't need dropped, he needed a position change. I remember arguing he should have been playing as a holding midfielder with McCrorie and Ferguson playing around him, which is similar to Nilsen having Shinnie and Clarkson around him.

When you say "leader" what are you actually meaning, because I think we're arguing two different meanings here.

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.

[Panda]

33 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

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.

Again, we're rewriting history here.

He did his hamstring against St Johnstone before Goodwin had taken charge, which meant he missed the next two games, then made his comeback from injury against Hearts where he clearly wasn't fit.

Goodwin's scorched earth policy was why he left, not because he wasn't good enough. This was the same Goodwin who didn't want to play Ramirez either.

33 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

Goodwin didn't really have a choice in fairness, it was fairly clear that he could no longer perform even at the Dons level.

Again, I refuse to believe he was more than capable in the first half of the season, but by February had lost it.

He was 36, recoveries from injuries take longer, he was playing out of position in a poor team and the season was becoming a slog. 

[RicoS321]

6 minutes ago, Panda said:

Again, we're rewriting history here.

He did his hamstring against St Johnstone before Goodwin had taken charge, which meant he missed the next two games, then made his comeback from injury against Hearts where he clearly wasn't fit.

Goodwin's scorched earth policy was why he left, not because he wasn't good enough. This was the same Goodwin who didn't want to play Ramirez either.

Again, I refuse to believe he was more than capable in the first half of the season, but by February had lost it.

He was 36, recoveries from injuries take longer, he was playing out of position in a poor team and the season was becoming a slog. 

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.

[Panda]

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

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).

He left because Goodwin told him he wouldn't get doing any coaching, not that he wasn't going to play.

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

 

 

You said "except he was getting a game under Goodwin", which is surely the most egregious rewriting of history this century. 
 

Because you said Goodwin just wasn't going to pick him, were the truth was he was injured. You then suggested this was a made up injury to hide Goodwin not picking him, despite him being injured before Goodwin arrived.

1 hour ago, RicoS321 said:

 

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. 

I don't remember any of this at all. This is the first I've ever read of any lack of respect from his teammates.

[tlg1903]

10 hours ago, Panda said:

They didn't play the same position at Aberdeen though, that's my point.

My point is that Brown SHOULD have been playing the position Nilsen was. He was actually playing as a box-to-box midfielder about five years after he lost that ability to do it.

At Celtic he played as more of a holding midfielder because he had Callum McGregor as his Graeme Shinnie. The Brown/McGregor partnership is essentially what we have now with Nilsen/Shinnie.

 

I'll be kind and say that's not my recollection, brown absolutely did play as a holding midfielder for us.  Not to say he didn't occasionally get forward in games but he wasn't playing as a B2B.  

 

10 hours ago, Panda said:

 

Come on mate, I'm all for club bias here, but suggesting Nilsen is a better holding midfielder than Scott Brown "ever was for any club" based on 10 games is outrageously parochial.

 

Player who has played the one position all his career is better in position than someone who has played it for a few years shocker.  It seems fairly obvious to me from watching him that Nilsen understands the position far better than brown and I would have said this after watching him play fewer games than 10.  Who knows though, maybe I'm being hasty  and my opinion is tinged with favouritism...... or maybe I'm not and just a better judge of player than you are.  Time will tell I suppose.

 I'm curious though, where's the tipping point for you ?  15 games?  20? 40? How many games does TLG need to watch for Panda to respect my opinion on this more?  It's not like I didn't watch Scott Browns career with great interest given how important he was to the national team.  

 

10 hours ago, Panda said:

 

Again, we're rewriting history here. Brown at one point - at the age of 31 so not far off Nilsen's age - had the best passing stats in the Champions League.

Even at Aberdeen one of the big things that impressed me was his passing. I always remember one moment, in a game v St Johnstone, where he played a brilliant outside the foot pass from deep to Austin Samuels (remember him), took out about four St Johnstone players, and sent Samuels clean through on goal. Samuel's effort was so bad I think he hit it out for a throw in.

 

Och, miniskirts.  You know you get marked as successfully completing a pass to someone 2 yards away right? That stat on it's own tells you very little other than he didn't give the ball away very much, that's hardly the same as what I was talking about.  Given Brown was hardly renowned for his forward passing ability and the level being played at most of those CL passes would have been back/sideward passes.   In comparison Nilsens reading of the game and how he applies that to his forward passing ability was one of the first things I noticed about him.  He makes really smart distribution decisions and that is not something I have ever thought about Scott Brown over his entire career, his were far more simple.  I would also add Nilsen is a much better first time passer than Brown and it's a keystone to Nilsens game imo. Combined with his positional awareness that's what makes him such an effective player in the role to my eye.  

 

11 hours ago, Panda said:

 

Again, I'm not wanting to make this a Nilsen v Brown thing

And that's my point, they shouldn't be compared as they were/are very different players regardless of whereabouts on the pitch they were playing.

[dons8321]

4 minutes ago, tlg1903 said:

...or maybe I'm not and just a better judge of player than you are.  Time will tell I suppose.

 

Well, that'll open Pandara's box.   As regards your statement about passing, Stefan Gartenmann had the most completed passes for us last season - a totally meaningless statistic.

[tlg1903]

10 minutes ago, dons8321 said:

Well, that'll open Pandara's box.   As regards your statement about passing, Stefan Gartenmann had the most completed passes for us last season - a totally meaningless statistic.

It really wasn't meant to though on re-reading it does come across a wee bit wide. It was meant far more tongue in cheek than that fwiw. 

[Panda]

16 minutes ago, tlg1903 said:

I'll be kind and say that's not my recollection, brown absolutely did play as a holding midfielder for us.  Not to say he didn't occasionally get forward in games but he wasn't playing as a B2B.  

Brown would pop up everywhere. He definitely covered more ground than Nilsen.

He may have been on the team sheet as a holding midfielder but that's not how he played.

16 minutes ago, tlg1903 said:

Player who has played the one position all his career is better in position than someone who has played it for a few years shocker.

How closely did you follow Nilsen's career before he joined Aberdeen?

16 minutes ago, tlg1903 said:

 

  Who knows though, maybe I'm being hasty  and my opinion is tinged with favouritism...... or maybe I'm not and just a better judge of player than you are.  Time will tell I suppose.

Time will tell what? That a 32 year old on a three year contract might prove to be better for Aberdeen than a 36 year old who played in a poor team and didn't finish the season?

Or that Nilsen is/was a better player than Brown? Because that would be a silly statement to make considering Brown played at a far higher level than Nilsen. 

16 minutes ago, tlg1903 said:

 I'm curious though, where's the tipping point for you ?  15 games?  20? 40? How many games does TLG need to watch for Panda to respect my opinion on this more? 

It's not about respecting your opinion, it's that deciding after 10 games that Nilsen is a better holding midfielder than Scott Brown "ever was for any club" is ridiculous.

 

[RicoS321]

44 minutes ago, Panda said:

He left because Goodwin told him he wouldn't get doing any coaching, not that he wasn't going to play.

Because you said Goodwin just wasn't going to pick him, were the truth was he was injured. You then suggested this was a made up injury to hide Goodwin not picking him, despite him being injured before Goodwin arrived.

I don't remember any of this at all. This is the first I've ever read of any lack of respect from his teammates.

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.

[Panda]

50 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

Goodwin didn't pick him, the evidence is there.

He didn't pick a fit Scott Brown for one game, Rangers away.

50 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

 

 

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.

I agree with the last line. I just don't agree with the assertion he wasn't a leader at all. He was no Anthony Stewart, let's put it that way.

50 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

 

 

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.

This we can agree on  

[RicoS321]

1 hour ago, Panda said:

I agree with the last line. I just don't agree with the assertion he wasn't a leader at all. He was no Anthony Stewart, let's put it that way.

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.

[Reekie_Red]

I think Browns biggest problem was he was such an iconic player for the Victims, many Dons fans couldn't see past that. The continual tit-for-tat with Shay Logan was too of mind for me when he signed.

 

But he proved in patches that he was still a very high quality player, and seemed to hold quite a bit more respect for aberdeen than I ever thought he would. 

 

Goodwin refusing to have Brown on his coaching squad was ultimately what ended his aberdeen career 

[RicoS321]

On 14/09/2024 at 20:54, RicoS321 said:

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. 

Big questions need to be asked. Not sure this manager is up to it.

[OxfordDon]

On 30/10/2024 at 23:20, RicoS321 said:

Big questions need to be asked. Not sure this manager is up to it.

Agreed, it's barely November and he's dropped two points already, we deserve better