Dons - huns - Wed

[RicoS321]

Gleeson is nowhere as bad a footballer as a lot of our support make out. In fact he may well possess the best footballing brain of anyone at the club.

 

There is absolutely zero evidence to back up that claim. There is significant evidence to show that this isn't the case.

 

Even if there was, a footballing brain is entirely useless if that brain can't instruct the rest of its body to perform the required actions.

 

I've got a better footballing brain than Gleeson, but I'm just shite at fitba.

[OxfordDon]

an upbeat, optimistic, (and handsome) dandy

 

The passing of the years has eroded any slight claim I may have had to these - the first two do fleetingly reappear on occasion, but the 3rd is long gone without some major advances in medical science.

 

Sad to say I switched the game off at 2-0, glad to see now that we did manage to get something out of it, but that first half hour was shocking.

[KennyFuckinPowers]

are you gleesons agent kenny ?

 

I pimp him out enough I suppose.

 

I just think that there is an experienced player there who definitely has ability and as Ten Caat alluded too, has a decent brain. He kept it simple and ticked along nicely. He's struggled with fitness clearly, but he hadn't played a lot before joining us and the pace of the game is a lot different up here, he would have adapted had he been given the game time. Maybe he has a poor attitude, or maybe he's suffering mentally again, as he almost quit the game several years ago, can't quite remember the exact reason but apparantly he was struggling mentally.

 

Gary Rowett said he "[didn't] think there [was] a better passing defensive midfielder in the division."

 

Karl Robinson - Gleeson was in tears afterwards, and Robinson said that the criticism he had received during the season for an apparent attitude problem was misplaced. According to the manager, his "[looking] like he's moody, doesn't care and only does it for himself" is a misperception; "he gets wrapped up the fact that he cares so much – sometimes he shows it in the wrong way."

 

Mick McCarthy - said Gleeson was "a mile above anyone else in terms of getting it and passing it."

 

All well and good these previous Managers clearly rating him, I stand by the point I made about being given an opportunity, there is clearly a Player there, I think he would have been a key player if he had been given a fair shot, but for various reasons, he has not, be his attitude, his fitness or perhaps something mentally.

 

 

 

[LA-Don]

Apparently Robbie Keane was there watching Sam Cosgrove yesterday. As I commented during the game, thought he was awful first half, fouling everything that moved and lucky to stay on the park. Very surprised he lasted 90 mins and showed little or nothing. Good way to prevent him being sold!

[rocket_scientist]

I remember one (the second being the goal), but I haven't watched back. You'd have seen the replays, so you'll be right. I guess I'm saying I'd have expected 5-6 good chances with the amount of space we'd given them and at least three goals.

 

Twice, nothing to do with either goal, Morelos was put through where he should've made it a clear one-on-one. The first he was sluggish to get going but did get a shot off towards Lewis's left post but the second, he didn't even get it anywhere near under control, it eventually bouncing off his shins. They certainly did have enough chances to make three goals but their top scorer had an off-night, a real mare actually.

 

 

Well only one team made tactical changes and that was AFC. If you'd been at the game, I think you'd have been able to appreciate the massive difference it made and how blatantly obvious it was (and should have been before the game).

 

You say that McInnes made a tactical change which made a "massive difference" and which was "blatantly obvious". I'm saying that it can't have been as blatantly obvious as you say if I, and the commentators, totally missed it. Make the distinction; I'm not saying that you're wrong but I am disputing that it was as obvious as you say. For clarification, what exactly was this change you speak of and when did he make it?

 

 

They were taken by surprise by our goal and by our start to the second half. There's no way they came back out after half time to manage that game, we just played with a lot of intensity until we scored. That's not to say the huns weren't fairly formidable in the opening 30 minutes, they were, but that was hugely aided by our setup and the significant level of space they were given and that hun team can't maintain that level of performance for long spells of the game either. 

 

They weren't the only ones who were surprised by the goals. You were surprised by the first, as was I, as was anyone who watched the game, whether in person or on TV. It came out of nothing, as I said, because until that point, we hadn't done a damn thing and their keeper had zero to do.

 

Now we need to talk in a different realm and to explore an angle that is normally invisible to "men of the earth", to the granite-headed ancestors of ours (assuming you're of NE stock), fishermen and farmers being concerned only in the tangible and lacking the imagination and the intellect to explore subjects such as art or the mind, anything that they consider intangible and therefore "not real".

 

Performance in sport, including football, is heavily dependent on mindset, confidence and attitude. Some of us believe that it is the most important aspect.

 

In golf for example, some of us have concluded that putting is mostly mental. A look at the first table of stats I pulled up shows that for the 2019 season, the best two putters between 15 & 20 feet included Adam Scott and they holed 30% of putts made from this distance (29.93% and 29.73% to be exact). Double major winner Zach Jonson - himself with a great reputation for putting - holed less than half as many, 14.85% between these distances. Other major winners Bubba Watson (13.68%) and Phil Mickelson (13.48%, himself a very strong putter generally) were well off the pace and worst of all, at the bottom of the table was Sergio Garcia, another major winner at a paltry 8.00% which is holing almost a QUARTER of the times that the best did. We can look at any distance table fir any year we care to look at going back decades and we will see the same massive gulf between the best, the average and the worst.

 

The intelligent question to be asking is why? It isn't purely technical or mechanical i.e. what they do, how they hold the putter and how they hit it. Similarly in football, when examining momentum shifts, last night being the most stark example I've seen in ages, it isn't so simple that "we stood off them and let them play, then we got in their faces and that's why we won the last hour 2-0". They played with fear and consequence after the fluke 1st AFC goal. It became apparent to them at HT that it wasn't actually 3 points won yet. They lost their sharpness, they weren't as intense and they deserved to drop points as a result. Unless we can even see, let alone acknowledge the role of the mind in what happened last night, we will continue to talk a different language. The one I'm talking about doesn't ask you to take a Rupert Sheldrake-like leap of faith into morphic resonances etc. but it does include the power of the "collective mind" that occurs in team sports, itself an invisible aspect to most in the NE.

 

 

It's depressing that AFC have allowed it. The huns are now spending 4 times our wages, with the Tims 6 times. We'll be back to the same points difference (between them and the rest) as had the last time the wage differential was at that level. There's a very obvious correlation. Not to say it's not impossible to overcome, just very very difficult. The question is, should the points gap between us and those behind us be bigger given our budget gap? I don't think it's enough of a gap to have the same impact at our level, but we should always be finishing third.

 

You remind me of Dom Sullivan and them doing cartwheels for getting a draw in Glasgow. That was 40 years ago. It disgusted SAF then and it disgusts me now... because the power of the mind is something you fail to appreciate.

[Ten Caat]

 

Even if there was, a footballing brain is entirely useless if that brain can't instruct the rest of its body to perform the required actions.

 

 

Which was exactly the point I was making. Well sort of. In his case the body isn't fit enough to act on the brain's instructions.

[RicoS321]

You say that McInnes made a tactical change which made a "massive difference" and which was "blatantly obvious". I'm saying that it can't have been as blatantly obvious as you say if I, and the commentators, totally missed it. Make the distinction; I'm not saying that you're wrong but I am disputing that it was as obvious as you say. For clarification, what exactly was this change you speak of and when did he make it?

 

I detailed it further up the thread (Gallagher forward central from the wing, Ferguson deep, Leigh wide from centre, Considine less narrow). I can't comment about the TV experience, but it was incredibly obvious to anyone at the game. The reason why the commentators probably didn't see it (apart from their absolute incompetence) is because they're not there to watch AFC. I find it difficult to spot opposition tactical changes when watching AFC as I'm concentrating on what AFC are doing rather than the opponent. I have to make a mental note of who is playing where and often I don't recognise who players are which doesn't help. Or the commentator was just playing to his hun audience. Either way, it's not acceptable for a pundit for missing the changes.

 

.....The intelligent question to be asking is why? It isn't purely technical or mechanical i.e. what they do, how they hold the putter and how they hit it. Similarly in football, when examining momentum shifts, last night being the most stark example I've seen in ages, it isn't so simple that "we stood off them and let them play, then we got in their faces and that's why we won the last hour 2-0". They played with fear and consequence after the fluke 1st AFC goal. It became apparent to them at HT that it wasn't actually 3 points won yet. They lost their sharpness, they weren't as intense and they deserved to drop points as a result. Unless we can even see, let alone acknowledge the role of the mind in what happened last night, we will continue to talk a different language. The one I'm talking about doesn't ask you to take a Rupert Sheldrake-like leap of faith into morphic resonances etc. but it does include the power of the "collective mind" that occurs in team sports, itself an invisible aspect to most in the NE.

 

I accept that. But surely Aberdeen's "collective mind" in last night's game when they came out after half time was significantly improved by the fact that they were playing in a system that played to each player's strengths rather than the initial setup that played to their weaknesses? Mindset is obviously a significant factor, but that can be hugely affected by what you're asked to do. Using your golf analogy, McInnes basically gave Gallagher a new putting stance before he went on the pitch and it affected his mindset.

 

You remind me of Dom Sullivan and them doing cartwheels for getting a draw in Glasgow. That was 40 years ago. It disgusted SAF then and it disgusts me now... because the power of the mind is something you fail to appreciate.

 

You misunderstand completely. I'm not the AFC manager. It has no bearing on AFC what I think. I'm talking about AFC in their existing form with their existing manager.

[rocket_scientist]

I detailed it further up the thread (Gallagher forward central from the wing, Ferguson deep, Leigh wide from centre, Considine less narrow). I can't comment about the TV experience, but it was incredibly obvious to anyone at the game.

 

I only asked two questions. You failed to answer half of them.

 

WHEN did this tactical masterstroke get deployed?

 

[RicoS321]

I only asked two questions. You failed to answer half of them.

 

WHEN did this tactical masterstroke get deployed?

 

Apologies, thought I'd stated earlier. Just after they scored the second. Should never have taken that long

[A llad insane]

 

 

Had a bet on it but shat it and cashed out with 20 to go as couldn't see us holding on.

 

Draw a decent point all things considered, but a few alarming performances tonight - McKenna in particular.

 

 

McKenna was superb 2nd half.

[A llad insane]

Talk about a game of two halfs, 1st we were terrible & never got going, tbh we could have been 3 or 4 down before Gallagher scored. 2nd half we were much improved & could & should have scored 3 ourselves, Sam in paticular should have scored.

    Does it really need a rollicking at half time to fire them up ?

Thought Gallagher, Ferguson, Taylor,McKenna & Leigh all very good after ht.  Only one who really disappointed me last night with apparent lack of effort was James Wilson

 

They play a pretty decent, fast pace game, but once we started attacking them, they didnt look too clever. Defo rattled them.

[rocket_scientist]

Apologies, thought I'd stated earlier. Just after they scored the second. Should never have taken that long

 

So 15 SPFL games in and 0-2 down at home, McInnes finally works out that 3 or 4 players are better deployed in a totally different role than the one he started the game in?

 

I don't buy that. It's all too convenient to attribute great tactical nous to our manager. The evidence of seven seasons doesn't support this view. Rangers shat the bed. Simple.

[RicoS321]

So 15 SPFL games in and 0-2 down at home, McInnes finally works out that 3 or 4 players are better deployed in a totally different role than the one he started the game in?

 

Not really, they've all played in those positions before, it's just that against poorer teams McInnes tends to dick each player about shifting them into different positions. Gallagher being the most obvious of course, I even mentioned it after the at mirren game. He should only ever be played centrally and high up the pitch.

 

I don't buy that. It's all too convenient to attribute great tactical nous to our manager. The evidence of seven seasons doesn't support this view. Rangers shat the bed. Simple.

 

I'm not attributing great tactical nous to our manager, I'm saying that it should have been bloody obvious from the st mirren game (and before) that Gallagher was a liability out wide and it would have an impact on considine too and that Leigh and vyner couldn't make up the core of our midfield. It wasn't tactical genius I was suggesting, it was relief. The hun might have shat the bed, but they only did so because we made the specific changes we did. If we'd remained the same, or brought on McLennan and main for Wilson and Gallagher we'd have lost that game. There are plenty of changes that wouldn't have worked and, for me, only a couple that would have allowed us to get back in the game. McInnes got it/guessed right. I was surprised and relieved. Hopefully he'll take that and build on it.

[rocket_scientist]

I'm not attributing great tactical nous to our manager.

 

McInnes got it/guessed right.

 

I think we can be guilty of reading more into things that are actually there. If Cosgrove's attempt had deflected anywhere other than on a plate for Considine, if Lewis had got it wrong and the free kick came off the inside of his glove and into the net, if Tavernier had done better at his free kicks, if the ref had given a penalty when the contact on madre mattress was clearly on the line, we would've lost that game. Then nobody would be arguing that McInnes got it right or got lucky and guessed it right.

 

Tactics and formations are important, of course they are but it's not a deep black art. It's actually very simple, just play people in the positions where they are best at and where they are most comfortable which by Considine's own admission in his interview, is NOT left back. What you're telling me is that McInnes is still unsure as to what his best XI is and is still experimenting, almost on a weekly basis, the same as what that brain dead cunt Calderwood used to do. Wilson would have been best not playing yesterday and somehow, McInnes thought THIS was the game to play him in!

 

The danger of bumming up the manager, possibly for doing the obvious and rectifying his own fuck ups, is that he gets a pass. Under this charlatan midget, it will never improve so get the cunt te fuck.

[RicoS321]

I think we can be guilty of reading more into things that are actually there. If Cosgrove's attempt had deflected anywhere other than on a plate for Considine, if Lewis had got it wrong and the free kick came off the inside of his glove and into the net, if Tavernier had done better at his free kicks, if the ref had given a penalty when the contact on madre mattress was clearly on the line, we would've lost that game. Then nobody would be arguing that McInnes got it right or got lucky and guessed it right.

 

That's a very biased set of circumstances. If Cosgrove hadn't missed a sitter, if Lewis had held or palmed Morelos shot etc. The reality is that we battled very hard to get back in the game and deserved any breaks we got.

 

 

Tactics and formations are important, of course they are but it's not a deep black art. It's actually very simple, just play people in the positions where they are best at and where they are most comfortable which by Considine's own admission in his interview, is NOT left back. What you're telling me is that McInnes is still unsure as to what his best XI is and is still experimenting, almost on a weekly basis, the same as what that brain dead cunt Calderwood used to do.

 

But that's ridiculous. We had to play at least one player out of position given the injuries in midfield. Considine at left back was absolutely the right choice and that was backed up by his excellent performance. If everyone was fit then obviously Leigh is first choice, but that wasn't the case. You've chosen the one difficult decision he actually got right last night. I agree that he doesn't yet know his best team, but we've had significant injuries in both midfield and defence already this season. I suspect nobody is certain whether Ojo or Bryson are first eleven players yet but I would think that is the intention. The majority of the team is probably settled enough otherwise. The wide players are the exception, but that's not unusual.

 

Wilson would have been best not playing yesterday and somehow, McInnes thought THIS was the game to play him in!

 

Agreed. I think he's hoping that Wilson will pull something out of nowhere and will rise to the occasion. He's a charlatan in my opinion and shouldn't have been signed.

 

The danger of bumming up the manager, possibly for doing the obvious and rectifying his own fuck ups, is that he gets a pass. Under this charlatan midget, it will never improve so get the cunt te fuck.

 

I'll give him credit when he's due credit. Look back through what I've written, it's all heavily caveated. You seem to be suggesting that I'm labelling McInnes as the next fergie which I'm clearly not.

[rocket_scientist]

I will always give credit when it's due, even to those I can't stand. I just think you're over-egging the "tactical masterstroke" and it's impact on the outcome whilst ignoring the shambles that he set out in the first half.

 

There probably wasn't any other option than Considine at LB last night. I mentioned him simply in the context of playing people where they are most comfortable most of the time and to make the point that tactics and formations are usually more simple than complex.

 

I'm happy to agree to disagree on our respective interpretations of that game. I just find it tragic that our once-loved football club had large sections of empty spaces for a game against them and it is my opinion that the manager's incompetence is the main reason for this.

[KennyFuckinPowers]

They are fairly highlighting this decision against Ferguson, the Morelos tackle that should have been a Penalty I mean. I actually thought the wanker dived, certainly if there was contact, it was minimal. It's a part of Ferguson's game that he needs to nip in the bud though, he gives away far too many lazy, tired fouls. Having said that though, he really impressed me 2nd Half last night, he got far more involved whereas in the 1st Half he was genuinely dreadful, like everyone else to be fair.

 

Back to the original point though, by fuck they're foaming at the mouth that it wasn't given eh, BBC Sport Scotland have their own little segment on the website if you go look, Boyd last night was almost in tears that it wasn't given, the Highlights reel from last night showed the incident 3 or 4 times yet didn't show Cosgrove's header. Fuck them.

[RicoS321]

I will always give credit when it's due, even to those I can't stand. I just think you're over-egging the "tactical masterstroke" and it's impact on the outcome whilst ignoring the shambles that he set out in the first half.

 

I'm clearly not ignoring that though. I've mentioned it in every post. You're not reading what I've written (which is fair enough!).

 

 

I'm happy to agree to disagree on our respective interpretations of that game. I just find it tragic that our once-loved football club had large sections of empty spaces for a game against them and it is my opinion that the manager's incompetence is the main reason for this.

 

We've had some of the best attendances in years during McInnes' time, but I do agree that his tactics of grinding out wins and managing games over a number of years whilst recruiting poorly is having - and will continue to have - a negative effect on crowds.

[rocket_scientist]

I'm clearly not ignoring that though. I've mentioned it in every post. You're not reading what I've written (which is fair enough!).

 

I can assure you that I did read every word. It would be disingenuous not to. I said that I was happy to agree to disagree. It appears you still want to argue. Ok then.

 

Your very first post - before you started taking my post apart, every... single... point... - alerted us to a "change in approach" which they had no answer to: -

 

I agree, although I do wonder if the change in approach during the game also took them by surprise and they had no answer to it. By luck for us, more than design of course.

 

And you then explained it: -

 

It would have been difficult to see on the telly, but when we moved to a 4-1-4-1, Vyner was clearly asked to permanently sit in the gap between their midfield and Morelos, meaning that he was a lot less of the ball as the pass wasn't on.

 

You were very strong in your argument that McInnes had made a tactical change and again you repeated that it took them by surprise: -

 

Well only one team made tactical changes and that was AFC. If you'd been at the game, I think you'd have been able to appreciate the massive difference it made and how blatantly obvious it was (and should have been before the game)

 

When I pointed out that it wasn't blatantly obvious, you forgot about your earlier position re Vyner: -

 

I detailed it further up the thread (Gallagher forward central from the wing, Ferguson deep, Leigh wide from centre, Considine less narrow).

 

So the tactical masterstroke that you claim McInnes pulled off which took them by surprise and won us the last hour 2-0, I'm not sure that you're clear on what it actually was.

 

Whatever it was that you claim "took them by surprise", I say you're over-egging as a determinant of the overall outcome. That's all.

 

 

 

 

[RicoS321]

Whatever it was that you claim "took them by surprise", I say you're over-egging as a determinant of the overall outcome. That's all.

 

The evidence of us being utter shite and suddenly not being utter shite immediately after that changes backs me up. The evidence of you not knowing that changes were made suggests you weren't really watching it or the view from the TV angle wasn't in your favour. I think I would have taken the word of someone who was at the game. The changes were clear as day if you ask anyone that was there. The BBC report probably sums it up:

 

"Aberdeen boss Derek McInnes changed shape and his team played with far greater intensity, forcing Rangers to move the ball quicker and quicker, which hastened mistakes and disrupted their rhythm."

[rocket_scientist]

It's strange that your account of what this amazing piece of management and tactical change actually was, wasn't consistent in your posting. It's also strange that nobody on any other AFC football forum saw either of your two accounts of what the tactical masterstroke was. Am I allowed to have an opinion? You seemed determined to pull mine apart when I expressed my opinion that it was a strange game and had the audacity to question how influential the masterstroke actually was. If it was that easy, we would be competing for the title, if one tactical change can get us beating Rangers 2-0. Calm down min.

[Panda]

 

McKenna was superb 2nd half.

 

He was absolutely shocking in the first though.

 

Logan, Gallagher, even Wilson, you half expect them to be poor. McKenna is a who you hope to rely on and yet he chucks it all too easily. He's also a guy who - lets be honest here - we're relying on to net us a big transfer fee either in January or summer.

 

 

[RicoS321]

It's strange that your account of what this amazing piece of management and tactical change actually was, wasn't consistent in your posting. It's also strange that nobody on any other AFC football forum saw either of your two accounts of what the tactical masterstroke was. Am I allowed to have an opinion? You seemed determined to pull mine apart when I expressed my opinion that it was a strange game and had the audacity to question how influential the masterstroke actually was. If it was that easy, we would be competing for the title, if one tactical change can get us beating Rangers 2-0. Calm down min.

 

I was perfectly consistent in my posting. You're completely entitled to your opinion, but if you ignore my reading and the BBC's reading of it, then it's difficult to gain much from your responses. If your argument was solely that you'd seen the changes that were made but didn't think that they had an impact then I'd be happy to agree to disagree, but you seem to be suggesting that the changes didn't even take place, which I find strange. In that case it doesn't really become about opinion, you're just incorrect.

[rocket_scientist]

I was perfectly consistent in my posting. You're completely entitled to your opinion, but if you ignore my reading and the BBC's reading of it, then it's difficult to gain much from your responses. If your argument was solely that you'd seen the changes that were made but didn't think that they had an impact then I'd be happy to agree to disagree, but you seem to be suggesting that the changes didn't even take place, which I find strange. In that case it doesn't really become about opinion, you're just incorrect.

 

Now it's you who hasn't been reading properly. This isn't the transference that occurs where a weak argument resorts to accusing the accuser of the same weakness that the accused himself got accused of, its fact: -

 

You say that McInnes made a tactical change which made a "massive difference" and which was "blatantly obvious". I'm saying that it can't have been as blatantly obvious as you say if I, and the commentators, totally missed it. Make the distinction; I'm not saying that you're wrong but I am disputing that it was as obvious as you say. For clarification, what exactly was this change you speak of and when did he make it?

 

I was very clear when I cautioned you to "make the distinction". This is based on previous. Most people don't like to be challenged, you possibly more than most. We got there in the end. Agreed to disagree... or more accurately, tangential language and thinking differences (and pride, remember what Marcellus said about pride) leading to total misunderstanding. Love and Peace. And McInnes oot.

[manc_don]

Mckenna is no where near as good as he was pre injury. I hope he improves, but he's been considerably lacklustre for the past year or so. Odd game he's done what I'd expect, second half he did but first he was embarrassingly bad. No one I know who isn't a dons fan rates him in the slightest. Definitely need to be getting as much as we can for him imo.