shankland again

[ayrshire_don74]

not coached properly, but then dm couldnt coach a dog to meat , so he improves, an opportunity arises as a freebie , and  not interested, some on here say he has found his level , what is curtis mains level ? the charlatan wilson ? , add may to

to this you have 1.5m -2m on transfer wages on shite .. 

 

 

[Tyrant]

Main and Wilson being shite is a separate issue. Shankland isn't the answer. And I say that fully aware that there's a likelihood that he's developed somewhat since leaving us. Shankland was not and is still not good enough for us. Getting a borderline offside goal against San Marino is the worst Scottish national side era of all time changes nothing.

[Panda]

Wasn't just McInnes coaching Shankland - there's a whole team of coaches at Aberdeen. That and he was also sent out on loan four times and had the chance to work under Jim Duffy and Jack Ross. Shankland himself admits his attitude was wrong and only after leaving Aberdeen did he sort himself out.

 

McInnes (and his team) has done a pretty decent job of coaching and developing Sam Cosgrove. I'd back Cosgrove to score for fun in the Championship and to net at least one against San Marino.

[rocket_scientist]

McInnes (and his team) has done a pretty decent job of coaching and developing Sam Cosgrove. I'd back Cosgrove to score for fun in the Championship and to net at least one against San Marino.

 

Are you therefore saying that McInnes (and his team) are good coaches?

 

And do you consider Cosgrove a good enough footballer for a successful AFC?

 

[Ten Caat]

Still don't think Shankland would be any good in our side playing the system we do under McInnes (and that is even presuming he could usurp Cosgrove for the starting place).

 

I've long said the only SPL side where Shankland would be guaranteed to flourish is sevco, where they play a system guaranteed to set him up with plenty of chances in the box. However he would be 3rd choice at absolute best there right now. Hibs might also be somewhere that his game could flourish but they've been so shite up till now it would be difficult to say for sure. Everywhere else (including Celtic) look to their main striker to be more than just an out and out goalscorer.

 

His goalscoring exploits will no doubt attract some attention from south of the border although for sure the clubs down there will also take into account the (shite) level of opposition he is facing week in week out. Scoring against a country who's  total population is around  the same as that of Dumfries won't really make anyone sit up and notice either. But at a million or so he could be a realistic punt for a lower level Championship club. And I think Sunderland were interested prior to him signing for United (his alleged wages at United are more than a good number of our first team squad are getting).

 

Good luck to the loon whatever happens. But a return to us I very much doubt would ever be on the cards

 

[rocket_scientist]

What system does McInnes play?

 

And what system do Sevco play?

 

Isn't the whole point to provide "plenty of chances in the box"?

 

[ayrshire_don74]

point missed a bit .. apart from rockets .. he is of an answer

than curtis main

[Panda]

Are you therefore saying that McInnes (and his team) are good coaches?

 

And do you consider Cosgrove a good enough footballer for a successful AFC?

 

The accusation was Shankland wasn't coached properly and that McInnes can't coach anyone.

 

Whether you rate Cosgrove or not, he clearly has improved since working with McInnes. If he couldn't coach anyone I doubt so many players would be keen to work with him. So yes, I think he is a good coach.

 

Your second question is a completely different debate. But in the context of the thread, I'd argue Cosgrove is a better player than Shankland.

[rocket_scientist]

The accusation was Shankland wasn't coached properly and that McInnes can't coach anyone.

 

Whether you rate Cosgrove or not, he clearly has improved since working with McInnes. If he couldn't coach anyone I doubt so many players would be keen to work with him. So yes, I think he is a good coach.

 

Your second question is a completely different debate. But in the context of the thread, I'd argue Cosgrove is a better player than Shankland.

 

Ok, you reckon he's a good coach. I don't know either way as I've not seen him in action.

 

He is the manager however. Good coaching is one of the manager's responsibilities of course, one which they get assistance for from their hand-picked specialists.

 

So the bigger question would be; do you consider McInnes to be a good manager?

[TheDeeDon]

All I can add is that the lad left us and went on to improve himself as a footballer and has made a bit of a name for himself. He admits himself he let himself down whilst here.

 

I doubt no matter how hard he had tried that he would have made a name for himself with us due to how we play with one striker up front.

 

Bruce Anderson is possibly more like Shankland in that he is a finisher and who I suspect will have to leave if he wants to play football as how we play doesn't suit his style. You know you are doomed when your manager prefers to start Curtis Main up front ahead of you alongside Sam.

[RicoS321]

In terms of ayrshire's main point, there's definitely something there although I wouldn't use Shankland as the example (he was poorer than Cammy Smith at the time). I've said for years that our squad players are the issue here. Guys like Main, Storey etc. are simply no better than the young players coming through. We're taking the easy approach of going out and buying a player to fill the squad rather than the riskier approach of allowing youth to play. It's a fine line I suppose. In my opinion we're seeing that Campbell isn't quite there yet when given a run in the team but I'm extremely glad that we're not seeing a seasoned pro like Gleeson in there in his place as it's throwing good wages after bad. When you look at our striking options, it should have been three strikers only in the squad and that should have been Cosgrove, Wilson (I think Wilson is pap) and Anderson. In an injury crisis, you simply move McGinn in there and act in January if necessary. There is zero benefit from having Curtis Main on a football pitch. The Main signing reeks of bad management and bad planning. We could have picked up 100 Curtis Main's late in the window if we really thought the squad was still light.

 

Two things I think need to be highlighted. The first is that we haven't had a better backup striker than Josh Magennis under McInnes - we haven't been able to improve on that. That's not a compliment to Josher.

 

The second is that McInnes needs to understand that we - the fans - need to see evidence of our youngsters failing. I'm not convinced that Anderson is good enough, but I want to see that he isn't. It needs to be AFC strategy to play these guys for extended periods within games to the extent that they are experienced enough to play the role of - at very, very worst - Curtis Main. Main brings nothing to AFC, Storey brought nothing, Tansey, Maynard, Taylor, Halford etc etc. This straddles the good times and the bad times, I was saying the same when we were winning 7-0 (more so, in fact). The strategy has to be less Mains and Taylors and more youth. At worst, if we're finding that someone like Campbell is struggling in a game, then we shove Gallagher in there and get on with it. If Anderson is struggling, then shift Wilson, Hedges or McGinn in field and hook him. But set up our squad so that these guys are the next line of defence (midfield or attack) when we get one or two injuries. Most importantly, tell the fans that is what you're doing. Be honest about it and you'll get far less flack if it goes wrong. It isn't even a fucking risk to be honest, do we really need Cosgrove, Wilson and Main ahead of Anderson? 

[wee toon red]

In terms of ayrshire's main point, there's definitely something there although I wouldn't use Shankland as the example (he was poorer than Cammy Smith at the time). I've said for years that our squad players are the issue here. Guys like Main, Storey etc. are simply no better than the young players coming through. We're taking the easy approach of going out and buying a player to fill the squad rather than the riskier approach of allowing youth to play. It's a fine line I suppose. In my opinion we're seeing that Campbell isn't quite there yet when given a run in the team but I'm extremely glad that we're not seeing a seasoned pro like Gleeson in there in his place as it's throwing good wages after bad. When you look at our striking options, it should have been three strikers only in the squad and that should have been Cosgrove, Wilson (I think Wilson is pap) and Anderson. In an injury crisis, you simply move McGinn in there and act in January if necessary. There is zero benefit from having Curtis Main on a football pitch. The Main signing reeks of bad management and bad planning. We could have picked up 100 Curtis Main's late in the window if we really thought the squad was still light.

 

Two things I think need to be highlighted. The first is that we haven't had a better backup striker than Josh Magennis under McInnes - we haven't been able to improve on that. That's not a compliment to Josher.

 

The second is that McInnes needs to understand that we - the fans - need to see evidence of our youngsters failing. I'm not convinced that Anderson is good enough, but I want to see that he isn't. It needs to be AFC strategy to play these guys for extended periods within games to the extent that they are experienced enough to play the role of - at very, very worst - Curtis Main. Main brings nothing to AFC, Storey brought nothing, Tansey, Maynard, Taylor, Halford etc etc. This straddles the good times and the bad times, I was saying the same when we were winning 7-0 (more so, in fact). The strategy has to be less Mains and Taylors and more youth. At worst, if we're finding that someone like Campbell is struggling in a game, then we shove Gallagher in there and get on with it. If Anderson is struggling, then shift Wilson, Hedges or McGinn in field and hook him. But set up our squad so that these guys are the next line of defence (midfield or attack) when we get one or two injuries. Most importantly, tell the fans that is what you're doing. Be honest about it and you'll get far less flack if it goes wrong. It isn't even a fucking risk to be honest, do we really need Cosgrove, Wilson and Main ahead of Anderson?

 

A very good post. Unfortunately the short-term nature of football, from the boardroom to the terraces, means it would be a brave club that took that route. And unfortunately we’re not a brave club.

[RicoS321]

A very good post. Unfortunately the short-term nature of football, from the boardroom to the terraces, means it would be a brave club that took that route. And unfortunately we’re not a brave club.

 

I think the problem for AFC is we're probably deemed "above" that approach. Motherwell, Hamilton etc blood their youngsters through necessity and with out having to think about it. We can afford not to have to.

 

All it needs is for the club to explain it to the fans, to actually connect with the fans not in the guise of sales. Whether they do it via McInnes' annual fan meetings (previously Black and Gold, I assume it's now DNA?) or some other mechanism is fine. Just explain that we're going for an experienced first 16, with youth supplementing other areas. Ask for understanding of the policy and patience with the young players when they're introduced. If we have no youths coming through (such as centre half this season) then we supplement via the loan system.

 

Current squad of 19 non-youth players is:

 

Lewis,

Cerny,

Leigh,

McKenna,

Considine,

Devlin,

Taylor,

Vyner,

Logan,

Bryson,

Ferguson,

Ojo,

Gleeson,

Gallagher,

McGinn,

Hedges,

Wilson,

Cosgrove,

Main

 

My definition of youth is a player that hasn't broken through yet. That makes Wright still a youth player and McLennan, Campbell, Anderson and Ross.

 

I'd advocate taking Main, Taylor, Gleeson out of that squad leaving only one injury covered by a senior player in each position before we reach the youth backup. That's not exactly radical given Gleeson hasn't played, Taylor played 20 minutes and all three being gash regardless. With existing injury and performance levels we'd have seen a good few minutes for Anderson and perhaps even Ramsay getting minutes in defence on top of Campbell's extended run.

[Ten Caat]

I think Anderson has struggled for game time because the "plan" for this season was to see if Wright was or wasn't going to make it with us. As such, he was always going to be behind Cosgrove, Wilson and Wright for a starting place (Main I can only presume was brought in to provide "muscular" cover for Cosgrove in the event Cosgrove suffered an injury or if his stellar 6 months last season proved to be a fluke). Of course that went tits up pretty much straight away when Wright shattered his cruciate....for what it is worth I don't think he would have made it with us anyway.

 

Anderson should be now filling the place that Wright would have taken in games this season. I realise that Anderson is a couple of years younger but at 20 really cant be described as a true "youngster" any more. However if Wilson cannot get any significant game time....even when the squad was down to the bare bones (and when he did get thrown in managed to injure himself ana)…….then it seems clear that Mcinnes for whatever reason has gone down a certain road and that striker wise, Cosgrove is clear first choice (no shit Sherlock) and that Main is the back up option ( )

 

That being the case, Anderson was always going to struggle to even make matchday squads. He seemed to do okat Dunfermline on loan last season so I cannot fathom why we didn't seek to get him out on loan to a club playing at a slightly higher level than Dunfermline....maybe a St Mirren or the likes (of course we might have tried that and found no one wanted him...we will never know). What is certain is that he isn't going to improve playing reserve team football now, even if the quality of opponent has increased this season. I've seen supporters who claim to know the loon comment that he has no intention of signing a contract extension when his current one runs out as he knows he won't get a chance under McInnes. Seems fair comment. I'm also with Rico in that I suspect he wouldn't prove to be quite good enough to make it with us long term, but right now......I'd sure as fuck rather see him getting the game time that Main has been getting. He certainly couldn't prove to be any worse.

 

 

 

[LA-Don]

I think Anderson has struggled for game time because the "plan" for this season was to see if Wright was or wasn't going to make it with us. As such, he was always going to be behind Cosgrove, Wilson and Wright for a starting place (Main I can only presume was brought in to provide "muscular" cover for Cosgrove in the event Cosgrove suffered an injury or if his stellar 6 months last season proved to be a fluke). Of course that went tits up pretty much straight away when Wright shattered his cruciate....for what it is worth I don't think he would have made it with us anyway.

 

Anderson should be now filling the place that Wright would have taken in games this season. I realise that Anderson is a couple of years younger but at 20 really cant be described as a true "youngster" any more. However if Wilson cannot get any significant game time....even when the squad was down to the bare bones (and when he did get thrown in managed to injure himself ana)…….then it seems clear that Mcinnes for whatever reason has gone down a certain road and that striker wise, Cosgrove is clear first choice (no shit Sherlock) and that Main is the back up option ( )

 

That being the case, Anderson was always going to struggle to even make matchday squads. He seemed to do okat Dunfermline on loan last season so I cannot fathom why we didn't seek to get him out on loan to a club playing at a slightly higher level than Dunfermline....maybe a St Mirren or the likes (of course we might have tried that and found no one wanted him...we will never know). What is certain is that he isn't going to improve playing reserve team football now, even if the quality of opponent has increased this season. I've seen supporters who claim to know the loon comment that he has no intention of signing a contract extension when his current one runs out as he knows he won't get a chance under McInnes. Seems fair comment. I'm also with Rico in that I suspect he wouldn't prove to be quite good enough to make it with us long term, but right now......I'd sure as fuck rather see him getting the game time that Main has been getting. He certainly couldn't prove to be any worse.

 

Your last part is key for me. When was the last time we had an experienced bench player come in and make a positive difference? How often does this happen? For 2-3 years now I'd say blooding youth would have been just as effective if not better.

[DantheDon]

I've seen supporters who claim to know the loon comment that he has no intention of signing a contract extension when his current one runs out as he knows he won't get a chance under McInnes.

 

I have to admit this is the thing that frustrates me most about McInnes. Whether this is true or not the young players are not stupid they can see that there is a lack of first team opportunitys.

 

No doubt he has blooded young players over the last few seasons a bit more, but he still seems to be afraid of doing it in certain positions. I dont understand why this is either as the youngsters have done well when they come in usually.

 

The last player to come off the bench and turn a game around... how about Bruce Anderson vs Kilmarnock.