The Famous Aberdeen - Season 2022/23

[lubo_blaha]

I hope not.
We're 4th in the league.  We're going through the worst spell under him, but like it or not 4th represents a good season for us.  People who think otherwise just haven't grasped what our place in the financial pecking order actually means in terms of the spread of likely outcomes.  If they did they'd appreciate what an outstanding manager we've got.
I say this not because I'm a happy clapper or super loyalist, but because it's the truth.  I'm old enough to remember the Fergie era, and at times the way I feel about the club is bound up with resentment that it's come to this.  Regular 3rd or 4th finishes representing the pinnacle of success and the virtual necessity of playing "pragmatic" football to achieve even that isn't what guys from my era signed up for.  But our place in the domestic as well as the wider financial playing field was very different then.  Where we are is where we are.
I've no criticism for fans who react by saying "well f*** that, I've got better things to do with my time and money, I'm out of here".  I'm sorry to lose them, but I can't blame them.  But the guys who think the McInnes era has been one of underachievement and that we can go out and bring in an era of equivalent or greater success playing a more expansive style of football are fantasists.  It's just not happening.

Fair enough to say we can’t spend as much as Rangers and Celtic but we went into the season with the biggest playing budget we’ve ever had and we’re regularly failing to score against teams paying a fraction of that. We’ve dropped points against every team in the league apart from Killie. We’ve failed to score on thirteen occasions. We’ve scored once from open play in fourteen games. People will look at the table and say fourth is ok (or even good) but with our place in the pecking order, we’re seriously underperforming and we’d be lucky to be in the top six if it weren’t for a good spell at the start of the season.

[Game of throw-ins]

1 hour ago, highland_mechanic said:

Well I for one won't be spending £500 on a season ticket and AberDNA to watch a team that sets up to win 1-0 with a setpiece goal week after week. I've been a season ticket holder since 1995 and don't expect miracles but the entertainment is totally lacking under McInnes. I've seen more entertaining football in the Highland League than the garbage we've been producing in the last 3 months.

We are stale, boring to watch and I don't enjoy our games anymore.

I know plenty of guys who stopped going. I'm sorry the club lost their support but I can't honestly blame them.  The chances of real success are too low, the football isn't attractive enough.  Those are reasonable complaints. 

I just don't believe changing the manager can fix it. 

McInnes is a football professional, and professionals know things they don't necessarily shout from the rooftops because part of their job is to market the product and too much reality gets in the way of that.

One of those things is that, however much some fans pretend otherwise, bad results are much likelier to get you sacked than ugly football.

Another is that unless your financial position is very highly advantageous in your own league pragmatic, safety-first football will give you better results than an expansive approach.  There are good logical reasons for this, backed up by overwhelming statistical evidence. 

In modern times (last 20 or 30 years) no SPL manager outside of Rangers and Celtic has had a period of sustained success anything close to the level McInnes has achieved.  No SPL manager playing expansive football has managed anything better than a short purple patch, maximum one goodish season, before the wheels came off.   It's almost impossible to assemble the quality of squad you need to do it, and if you do you can't hold on to the players for 5 minutes.  Scott Wright had about 6 good games and he was gone.

I'm not arguing that the situation isn't shit.  In many ways it is.  Sacking a manager who's done a terrific job and taking pot luck on who else is available won't fix it.

[AFCDannyFTH]

13 minutes ago, Game of throw-ins said:

I know plenty of guys who stopped going. I'm sorry the club lost their support but I can't honestly blame them.  The chances of real success are too low, the football isn't attractive enough.  Those are reasonable complaints. 

I just don't believe changing the manager can fix it. 

McInnes is a football professional, and professionals know things they don't necessarily shout from the rooftops because part of their job is to market the product and too much reality gets in the way of that.

One of those things is that, however much some fans pretend otherwise, bad results are much likelier to get you sacked than ugly football.

Another is that unless your financial position is very highly advantageous in your own league pragmatic, safety-first football will give you better results than an expansive approach.  There are good logical reasons for this, backed up by overwhelming statistical evidence. 

In modern times (last 20 or 30 years) no SPL manager outside of Rangers and Celtic has had a period of sustained success anything close to the level McInnes has achieved.  No SPL manager playing expansive football has managed anything better than a short purple patch, maximum one goodish season, before the wheels came off.   It's almost impossible to assemble the quality of squad you need to do it, and if you do you can't hold on to the players for 5 minutes.  Scott Wright had about 6 good games and he was gone.

I'm not arguing that the situation isn't shit.  In many ways it is.  Sacking a manager who's done a terrific job and taking pot luck on who else is available won't fix it.

No SPL manager outside of Rangers and Celtic has had the same budget or wages as McInnes for a sustained period either. 

At this point where things have clearly stagnated, Keeping McInnes on for another season is just as pot luck as finding someone new. We have an enormous rebuild to come in the summer and there is no better time to bring in a fresh face who can take in his own players. 

[Rodhull]

Having that kind of non-goal scoring run we had is poor in itself but to do it two seasons in a row is pretty inexcusable given the resources available to Mcinnes. We’re certainly not in a position to take winning against anyone in the league for granted but we shouldn’t ever be going into a home game against bottom of the table Hamilton where a significant number of the support doubts our chances of even scoring a goal never mind winning.

[HarleyQuinn]

4 hours ago, Game of throw-ins said:

I hope not.

We're 4th in the league.  We're going through the worst spell under him, but like it or not 4th represents a good season for us.  People who think otherwise just haven't grasped what our place in the financial pecking order actually means in terms of the spread of likely outcomes.  If they did they'd appreciate what an outstanding manager we've got.

I say this not because I'm a happy clapper or super loyalist, but because it's the truth.  I'm old enough to remember the Fergie era, and at times the way I feel about the club is bound up with resentment that it's come to this.  Regular 3rd or 4th finishes representing the pinnacle of success and the virtual necessity of playing "pragmatic" football to achieve even that isn't what guys from my era signed up for.  But our place in the domestic as well as the wider financial playing field was very different then.  Where we are is where we are.

I've no criticism for fans who react by saying "well f*** that, I've got better things to do with my time and money, I'm out of here".  I'm sorry to lose them, but I can't blame them.  But the guys who think the McInnes era has been one of underachievement and that we can go out and bring in an era of equivalent or greater success playing a more expansive style of football are fantasists.  It's just not happening.

I myself also think McInnes is a good manager and would actually argue he's heavily under appreciated by our fans. I think he has been exceptionally unlucky with injuries, ref decisions, Covid, the forced sale of players etc that has affected the performance of the side. We'd have finished third last season had it not been cut short and we were incredibly unlucky not to finish third the season prior. This season we were cruising third up until both injuries and players missing matches due to Covid all happened at once. McInnes' connections to The Rangers doesn't help his case either. Many want him out just for that.

We currently have a financial advantage on both Edinburgh sides (particularly Hibs) and really we should be finishing 3rd as a result. Once Aberdeen move into the new stadium I fully expect Aberdeen to be finishing third every season (minimum) along with winning the occasional cup (more frequently then any other side outside the OF). There would be no excuses for not achieving that given the forecasted revenue generated by the new stadium. Aberdeen are predicating an annual turnover of up to 26 million a year. That would mean a fair financial gap between ourselves and the Edinburgh sides.

Edited March 4, 2021 by HarleyQuinn

[Game of throw-ins]

4 hours ago, lubo_blaha said:

Fair enough to say we can’t spend as much as Rangers and Celtic but we went into the season with the biggest playing budget we’ve ever had and we’re regularly failing to score against teams paying a fraction of that. We’ve dropped points against every team in the league apart from Killie. We’ve failed to score on thirteen occasions. We’ve scored once from open play in fourteen games. People will look at the table and say fourth is ok (or even good) but with our place in the pecking order, we’re seriously underperforming and we’d be lucky to be in the top six if it weren’t for a good spell at the start of the season.

The value of the 3rd biggest budget needs to be clarified.  It's not where we are in the league table of budgets that is most important, it's the size of the differentials.  The key point about Rangers and Celtic isn't that their budgets are bigger than ours, it's that they are massively bigger than ours. 

Our budget is similar to two other clubs (Hearts and Hibs).  There then follows a succession of clubs with smaller budgets than ours, but in football terms not massively smaller.  The difference between the calibre of player that Celtic can sign and retain compared to us is obvious;  the difference between the calibre of player we can sign and retain compared to, say, Motherwell, is pretty marginal.   We only need a player or two being injured, in poor form, low in confidence etc and our small advantage is quickly snuffed out.

The size of Rangers and Celtic's advantage means that they are virtually guaranteed 1st and 2nd irrespective of other variables (luck, quality of manager etc).   Look at this season where Hibs are considered to have had a very good season and Celtic a catastrophically bad one; Celtic are still 15 points clear of Hibs.

Our budget means that we should do better than smaller clubs over a long enough period of time - and we do;  but we don't have nearly enough of an advantage to virtually guarantee finishing above them season after season.  The evidence of this truth isn't hard to find.

We just need to look at history.  Let's look at the last 20 years, say - at Hearts, Aberden and Hibs, 3 clubs with the same kind of budget with Aberdeen conveniently in the middle for most of that period.  League tables show that, as we'd expect, these are the 3rd, 4th and 5th most successful clubs over the 20 year period.  But dig down and you see their advantage over smaller clubs isn't enough to guarantee higher league placings season after season, like the top 2;  in fact its not even close.

Taking out McInnes's 7 years in charge, these clubs have played 53 seasons in the past 20 years (20 each for Hibs and Hearts, 13 for non-McInnes managed Aberdeen).   That represents a pretty decent sample for measuring the advantage their budgets gave them over smaller clubs:  big enough for the effect of other variables, like pure luck and the quality of individual managers to even out.

In those 53 seasons these clubs managed 16 top 4 finishes between them.  That's about a 30% success rate.  So they failed to achieve a top 4 place around 70% of the time.  Obviously this means they very regularly finished below smaller clubs.  (Remember, we finished 8th 3 times in a row in the seasons before McInnes).

McInnes on the other hand has a 100% record of finishing top 4 (or top 3 without Rangers, which we can regard as equivalent) with most of those being top 3 (top 2 without Rangers or even, in one case, with Rangers).  The odds against repeating a success with a 30% probability 7 times in a row are huge. Using the standard formula of multiplying 30% by itself 7 times gives you a probability of around 0.02% or about 2 in 10,000.  

I know there are plenty of rough edges on this model and people could pick holes, but I still think it should be enough to leave thoughtful people in no doubt that the the myth that we've done no more than deliver on reasonable expectation in the past 7 seasons is a gazillion miles from the truth.  We've massively overachieved.

No-one's denying we've had a bad patch this season.  But there are many extenuating circumstances, and we are still on track to finish 4th.

Personally I think we'd be crazy to be considering sacking a manager with that kind of track record.  We should lose the illusion that its our budget alone, and not our manager, that has delivered consistent top 4 finishes.  What goes around comes around, and sadly the days of the bottom 6 finishes, the relegation battles etc will return.  But let's not be in a hurry to get there.

 

 

[Dons_1988]

32 minutes ago, Game of throw-ins said:

The value of the 3rd biggest budget needs to be clarified.  It's not where we are in the league table of budgets that is most important, it's the size of the differentials.  The key point about Rangers and Celtic isn't that their budgets are bigger than ours, it's that they are massively bigger than ours. 

Our budget is similar to two other clubs (Hearts and Hibs).  There then follows a succession of clubs with smaller budgets than ours, but in football terms not massively smaller.  The difference between the calibre of player that Celtic can sign and retain compared to us is obvious;  the difference between the calibre of player we can sign and retain compared to, say, Motherwell, is pretty marginal.   We only need a player or two being injured, in poor form, low in confidence etc and our small advantage is quickly snuffed out.

The size of Rangers and Celtic's advantage means that they are virtually guaranteed 1st and 2nd irrespective of other variables (luck, quality of manager etc).   Look at this season where Hibs are considered to have had a very good season and Celtic a catastrophically bad one; Celtic are still 15 points clear of Hibs.

Our budget means that we should do better than smaller clubs over a long enough period of time - and we do;  but we don't have nearly enough of an advantage to virtually guarantee finishing above them season after season.  The evidence of this truth isn't hard to find.

We just need to look at history.  Let's look at the last 20 years, say - at Hearts, Aberden and Hibs, 3 clubs with the same kind of budget with Aberdeen conveniently in the middle for most of that period.  League tables show that, as we'd expect, these are the 3rd, 4th and 5th most successful clubs over the 20 year period.  But dig down and you see their advantage over smaller clubs isn't enough to guarantee higher league placings season after season, like the top 2;  in fact its not even close.

Taking out McInnes's 7 years in charge, these clubs have played 53 seasons in the past 20 years (20 each for Hibs and Hearts, 13 for non-McInnes managed Aberdeen).   That represents a pretty decent sample for measuring the advantage their budgets gave them over smaller clubs:  big enough for the effect of other variables, like pure luck and the quality of individual managers to even out.

In those 53 seasons these clubs managed 16 top 4 finishes between them.  That's about a 30% success rate.  So they failed to achieve a top 4 place around 70% of the time.  Obviously this means they very regularly finished below smaller clubs.  (Remember, we finished 8th 3 times in a row in the seasons before McInnes).

McInnes on the other hand has a 100% record of finishing top 4 (or top 3 without Rangers, which we can regard as equivalent) with most of those being top 3 (top 2 without Rangers or even, in one case, with Rangers).  The odds against repeating a success with a 30% probability 7 times in a row are huge. Using the standard formula of multiplying 30% by itself 7 times gives you a probability of around 0.02% or about 2 in 10,000.  

I know there are plenty of rough edges on this model and people could pick holes, but I still think it should be enough to leave thoughtful people in no doubt that the the myth that we've done no more than deliver on reasonable expectation in the past 7 seasons is a gazillion miles from the truth.  We've massively overachieved.

No-one's denying we've had a bad patch this season.  But there are many extenuating circumstances, and we are still on track to finish 4th.

Personally I think we'd be crazy to be considering sacking a manager with that kind of track record.  We should lose the illusion that its our budget alone, and not our manager, that has delivered consistent top 4 finishes.  What goes around comes around, and sadly the days of the bottom 6 finishes, the relegation battles etc will return.  But let's not be in a hurry to get there.

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with everything, but I do agree with quite a few points and you make them well. 

[DrewDon]

It is such a ridiculous argument to suggest that we shouldn't replace McInnes just in case the new guy happens to do worse. There is no reason at all that the new manager should, or would, return us to the McGhee days. And, if he does, you get rid of him and get somebody else in. That wouldn't make the decision to replace McInnes the wrong one, just like McGhee being rubbish didn't mean that getting rid of Calderwood wasn't the correct decision. 

[lubo_blaha]

The value of the 3rd biggest budget needs to be clarified.  It's not where we are in the league table of budgets that is most important, it's the size of the differentials.  The key point about Rangers and Celtic isn't that their budgets are bigger than ours, it's that they are massively bigger than ours. 
Our budget is similar to two other clubs (Hearts and Hibs).  There then follows a succession of clubs with smaller budgets than ours, but in football terms not massively smaller.  The difference between the calibre of player that Celtic can sign and retain compared to us is obvious;  the difference between the calibre of player we can sign and retain compared to, say, Motherwell, is pretty marginal.   We only need a player or two being injured, in poor form, low in confidence etc and our small advantage is quickly snuffed out.
The size of Rangers and Celtic's advantage means that they are virtually guaranteed 1st and 2nd irrespective of other variables (luck, quality of manager etc).   Look at this season where Hibs are considered to have had a very good season and Celtic a catastrophically bad one; Celtic are still 15 points clear of Hibs.
Our budget means that we should do better than smaller clubs over a long enough period of time - and we do;  but we don't have nearly enough of an advantage to virtually guarantee finishing above them season after season.  The evidence of this truth isn't hard to find.
We just need to look at history.  Let's look at the last 20 years, say - at Hearts, Aberden and Hibs, 3 clubs with the same kind of budget with Aberdeen conveniently in the middle for most of that period.  League tables show that, as we'd expect, these are the 3rd, 4th and 5th most successful clubs over the 20 year period.  But dig down and you see their advantage over smaller clubs isn't enough to guarantee higher league placings season after season, like the top 2;  in fact its not even close.
Taking out McInnes's 7 years in charge, these clubs have played 53 seasons in the past 20 years (20 each for Hibs and Hearts, 13 for non-McInnes managed Aberdeen).   That represents a pretty decent sample for measuring the advantage their budgets gave them over smaller clubs:  big enough for the effect of other variables, like pure luck and the quality of individual managers to even out.
In those 53 seasons these clubs managed 16 top 4 finishes between them.  That's about a 30% success rate.  So they failed to achieve a top 4 place around 70% of the time.  Obviously this means they very regularly finished below smaller clubs.  (Remember, we finished 8th 3 times in a row in the seasons before McInnes).
McInnes on the other hand has a 100% record of finishing top 4 (or top 3 without Rangers, which we can regard as equivalent) with most of those being top 3 (top 2 without Rangers or even, in one case, with Rangers).  The odds against repeating a success with a 30% probability 7 times in a row are huge. Using the standard formula of multiplying 30% by itself 7 times gives you a probability of around 0.02% or about 2 in 10,000.  
I know there are plenty of rough edges on this model and people could pick holes, but I still think it should be enough to leave thoughtful people in no doubt that the the myth that we've done no more than deliver on reasonable expectation in the past 7 seasons is a gazillion miles from the truth.  We've massively overachieved.
No-one's denying we've had a bad patch this season.  But there are many extenuating circumstances, and we are still on track to finish 4th.
Personally I think we'd be crazy to be considering sacking a manager with that kind of track record.  We should lose the illusion that its our budget alone, and not our manager, that has delivered consistent top 4 finishes.  What goes around comes around, and sadly the days of the bottom 6 finishes, the relegation battles etc will return.  But let's not be in a hurry to get there.
 
 

I agree with a lot of the points you’ve made there. However, we do have a playing budget of at least two and in some cases three times the size of 8 teams in the league and I wouldn’t be confident in us scoring against any of them for the majority of this season, never mind beating them. Without sounding arrogant, we could go and sign almost any of the best players from these teams (in some cases we have) and yet when we play them, we rarely so much as look like scoring aside from set pieces or penalties.

McInnes has raised standards at the club and he deserves credit for that. Off the park things look better too. I’m not one of the people clambering for him to go but the football has gradually declined for a couple of years now which can no longer just be put down to a bad run of form. We’ve put ourselves in a position of relative strength as a club and I don’t think we should accept things slumping like they have done.

[DukDukGoose]

10 hours ago, DrewDon said:

It is such a ridiculous argument to suggest that we shouldn't replace McInnes just in case the new guy happens to do worse. There is no reason at all that the new manager should, or would, return us to the McGhee days. And, if he does, you get rid of him and get somebody else in. That wouldn't make the decision to replace McInnes the wrong one, just like McGhee being rubbish didn't mean that getting rid of Calderwood wasn't the correct decision. 

Aye.

The boy had a very well written piece but I don't have the time to debate it. Even if I did I'm so apathetic towards the club at the moment that I'd just lose interest in that too.

There's an obvious downwards trend at the club over the pass few years. Keeping the existing management isn't going to buck that. I'd be delighted to see him turn it around but it isn't going to happen.

I know folk who have been youth team coaches at the club over McInnes time. The general feeling is that they think he's a genuine guy, who loves the club but have always thought he was very limited tactically. He excelled at getting the correct players in most of the time and was very quick to empty those who weren't up to it. His man-management was brilliant too. I was always sceptical of that but it's pretty easy to see now IMO.

[Bogbrush1903]

16 hours ago, Game of throw-ins said:

The value of the 3rd biggest budget needs to be clarified.  It's not where we are in the league table of budgets that is most important, it's the size of the differentials.  The key point about Rangers and Celtic isn't that their budgets are bigger than ours, it's that they are massively bigger than ours. 

Our budget is similar to two other clubs (Hearts and Hibs).  There then follows a succession of clubs with smaller budgets than ours, but in football terms not massively smaller.  The difference between the calibre of player that Celtic can sign and retain compared to us is obvious;  the difference between the calibre of player we can sign and retain compared to, say, Motherwell, is pretty marginal.   We only need a player or two being injured, in poor form, low in confidence etc and our small advantage is quickly snuffed out.

The size of Rangers and Celtic's advantage means that they are virtually guaranteed 1st and 2nd irrespective of other variables (luck, quality of manager etc).   Look at this season where Hibs are considered to have had a very good season and Celtic a catastrophically bad one; Celtic are still 15 points clear of Hibs.

Our budget means that we should do better than smaller clubs over a long enough period of time - and we do;  but we don't have nearly enough of an advantage to virtually guarantee finishing above them season after season.  The evidence of this truth isn't hard to find.

We just need to look at history.  Let's look at the last 20 years, say - at Hearts, Aberden and Hibs, 3 clubs with the same kind of budget with Aberdeen conveniently in the middle for most of that period.  League tables show that, as we'd expect, these are the 3rd, 4th and 5th most successful clubs over the 20 year period.  But dig down and you see their advantage over smaller clubs isn't enough to guarantee higher league placings season after season, like the top 2;  in fact its not even close.

Taking out McInnes's 7 years in charge, these clubs have played 53 seasons in the past 20 years (20 each for Hibs and Hearts, 13 for non-McInnes managed Aberdeen).   That represents a pretty decent sample for measuring the advantage their budgets gave them over smaller clubs:  big enough for the effect of other variables, like pure luck and the quality of individual managers to even out.

In those 53 seasons these clubs managed 16 top 4 finishes between them.  That's about a 30% success rate.  So they failed to achieve a top 4 place around 70% of the time.  Obviously this means they very regularly finished below smaller clubs.  (Remember, we finished 8th 3 times in a row in the seasons before McInnes).

McInnes on the other hand has a 100% record of finishing top 4 (or top 3 without Rangers, which we can regard as equivalent) with most of those being top 3 (top 2 without Rangers or even, in one case, with Rangers).  The odds against repeating a success with a 30% probability 7 times in a row are huge. Using the standard formula of multiplying 30% by itself 7 times gives you a probability of around 0.02% or about 2 in 10,000.  

I know there are plenty of rough edges on this model and people could pick holes, but I still think it should be enough to leave thoughtful people in no doubt that the the myth that we've done no more than deliver on reasonable expectation in the past 7 seasons is a gazillion miles from the truth.  We've massively overachieved.

No-one's denying we've had a bad patch this season.  But there are many extenuating circumstances, and we are still on track to finish 4th.

Personally I think we'd be crazy to be considering sacking a manager with that kind of track record.  We should lose the illusion that its our budget alone, and not our manager, that has delivered consistent top 4 finishes.  What goes around comes around, and sadly the days of the bottom 6 finishes, the relegation battles etc will return.  But let's not be in a hurry to get there.

 

 

I'm not sure anyone has suggested that Hibs are having a particularly good season and Celtic's season is catastrophically bad when measured in relation to the previous three seasons where they've won everything and because of their failure to win 10 in a row.

To compare Aberdeen's 13 seasons prior to Derek McInnes arriving against the seven seasons under his tenure-ship is unfair. The 13 seasons prior we were consumed by a burdensome debt. The debt was cleared in 2014. During these 13 seasons other clubs, you call smaller, were outspending us and their performance improved as a result, such as Dundee and Gretna.

There is an element of truth in what you're saying. However, I don't think our budget would have been in the Top 6 of the league for much of the 2000s. In the early part of that decade we had a team of kids like Esson, McNaughton, Anderson, McGuire, Clark etc...With the disastrous appointment of McGhee in came players with no club like Ifil and Grassi. We were shopping in the bargain basements.

During those 13 seasons, the Calderwood years are probably the best comparison and with league positions, the McInnes  record is better.

However, in the eight years McInnes has been in charge at Aberdeen, never once as the modern era big six (Celtic,Sevco,Aberdeen,Hearts,Hibs and Dundee United) been in the League together and more often than not at least two of these teams have been in the Championship.

Hearts and Hibs have spent the last ten years yo-yoing between the top and second tier. That provides a hint that there's reasons why their bigger budgets aren't being reflected by League position.

But if you want to convince yourself that we're currently at the very peak of our powers then don't let me convince you otherwise. If that makes you feel happy then very good...

 

 

[DrewDon]

8 hours ago, Merkland Red said:

Aye.

The boy had a very well written piece but I don't have the time to debate it. Even if I did I'm so apathetic towards the club at the moment that I'd just lose interest in that too.

There's an obvious downwards trend at the club over the pass few years. Keeping the existing management isn't going to buck that. I'd be delighted to see him turn it around but it isn't going to happen.

I know folk who have been youth team coaches at the club over McInnes time. The general feeling is that they think he's a genuine guy, who loves the club but have always thought he was very limited tactically. He excelled at getting the correct players in most of the time and was very quick to empty those who weren't up to it. His man-management was brilliant too. I was always sceptical of that but it's pretty easy to see now IMO.

Yeah, that doesn't massively surprise me. Many of the ex-players I have heard interviewed about their time here, although they speak highly of McInnes generally, sort of hint at similar. Now, with much of the individual quality from past seasons absent, those tactical limitations are probably more exposed. 

[BucksburnDandy]

Yeah, that doesn't massively surprise me. Many of the ex-players I have heard interviewed about their time here, although they speak highly of McInnes generally, sort of hint at similar. Now, with much of the individual quality from past seasons absent, those tactical limitations are probably more exposed. 

I think this is probably a fair summation. When you hear a number of the players talk on stuff like the interviews Si "eh heh" Ferry did, they all rave about DMs man management and motivation. Several even mention his work on the opposition is superb.

They rarely mention tactics or technical coaching. I'm not having a go at DM here, he's been very good for the club. He's maybe not the best suited manager to help polish a turd in terms of guiding more limited players with his tactical nous. See what Steve Clarke did taking Kilmarnock so high in the table and regularly slapping about the Old Firm with tactical nous and limited players. Although even he couldn't get the better of old Del.

However it doesn't mean fans on social media should be as abusive as they can be. It has been hard watching recently but there was some outstanding stuff previously that should be fondly remembered if we part ways.

[Dons_1988]

I'd agree Derek is limited tactically.

He defaults to agricultural football if he doesn't believe the quality of the player on the pitch is up to it. He will always prioritise a result at all costs. You can see it from the first half of this season to now.

What we do now is back to being hard to beat, crosses into box, maximise set pieces. September/October we had a lot more freedom to play and commit men forward.

I would definitely concede that other managers may have more progressive ways of compensating for the lack of ability in the team.

[afc_blockhead]

11 hours ago, BucksburnDandy said:

I think this is probably a fair summation. When you hear a number of the players talk on stuff like the interviews Si "eh heh" Ferry did, they all rave about DMs man management and motivation. Several even mention his work on the opposition is superb.

They rarely mention tactics or technical coaching. I'm not having a go at DM here, he's been very good for the club. He's maybe not the best suited manager to help polish a turd in terms of guiding more limited players with his tactical nous. See what Steve Clarke did taking Kilmarnock so high in the table and regularly slapping about the Old Firm with tactical nous and limited players. Although even he couldn't get the better of old Del.

However it doesn't mean fans on social media should be as abusive as they can be. It has been hard watching recently but there was some outstanding stuff previously that should be fondly remembered if we part ways.

Clarkes tactics at all teams hes managed definitely come under agricultural.  Appalling football.

[resk]

On 04/03/2021 at 21:43, Game of throw-ins said:

We've massively overachieved.

 

 

That's...... nah.  I can accept someone arguing that McInnes has slightly overachieved in his eight years, but "massively"?  No, not for me.  On the other hand I also don't think it's a massive underachievement (recognising that arguing about fitba on the internet tends to lead to exaggeration of opinions).  

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

For 2 months this season, it looked like McInnes had manage to re-invent the wheel and get us ticking along as a (relatively) exciting attacking force. 

Watkins blended in perfectly, Hedges suddenly discovered form, and an injury-free Scott Wriight was improving all the time. With Ferguson and McCrorie kicking ass behind them and Hayes and Kennedy as wing backs, we managed to look dynamic. 

Then we hit a series of catastrophic events. A season ending injury for Watkins. Kennedy injured (he hasn't been the same player since he came back). An SFA f**k up meant we lost Ferguson, McCrorie and McLennan for a series of games. Forced into selling Scott Wright, and then 2 days later Hedges' season is finished as well. 

The players we were forced to use to replace them...Cosgrove, Main,  Edmondson and McLennan...were either too lazy, not good enough and/or unable to fit into the system that we want to play. 

In January and February, both Hibs and Livi were able to achieve consistency through a lack of injuries and not losing key players in the transfer window. Hibs especially did well in adding decent quality to their squad. 

We on the other hand, splintered and were forced into throwing the dice by effectively replacing our whole forward line. Even then, fate kicks us in the nuts one more time as Fraser Hornby's season ends after only a few games. 

The point I'm stumbling to make is that, yes, we've been in brutal form for 3 months, and yes, ultimately the manager has to take responsibility for the results on the park. 

But it's only fair to take into account what have been pretty awful extenuating circumstances. I can't remember a season where we've been cursed with such bad injuries to important players. 

 

 

[BucksburnDandy]

For 2 months this season, it looked like McInnes had manage to re-invent the wheel and get us ticking along as a (relatively) exciting attacking force. 
Watkins blended in perfectly, Hedges suddenly discovered form, and an injury-free Scott Wriight was improving all the time. With Ferguson and McCrorie kicking ass behind them and Hayes and Kennedy as wing backs, we managed to look dynamic. 
Then we hit a series of catastrophic events. A season ending injury for Watkins. Kennedy injured (he hasn't been the same player since he came back). An SFA f**k up meant we lost Ferguson, McCrorie and McLennan for a series of games. Forced into selling Scott Wright, and then 2 days later Hedges' season is finished as well. 
The players we were forced to use to replace them...Cosgrove, Main,  Edmondson and McLennan...were either too lazy, not good enough and/or unable to fit into the system that we want to play. 
In January and February, both Hibs and Livi were able to achieve consistency through a lack of injuries and not losing key players in the transfer window. Hibs especially did well in adding decent quality to their squad. 
We on the other hand, splintered and were forced into throwing the dice by effectively replacing our whole forward line. Even then, fate kicks us in the nuts one more time as Fraser Hornby's season ends after only a few games. 
The point I'm stumbling to make is that, yes, we've been in brutal form for 3 months, and yes, ultimately the manager has to take responsibility for the results on the park. 
But it's only fair to take into account what have been pretty awful extenuating circumstances. I can't remember a season where we've been cursed with such bad injuries to important players. 
 
 

Agree on that. If we were to hone in on one deserved criticism for the manager rather than the wild stuff from Twitter (always good to be off there loons and quines), it's being wedded to the system that we didn't quite have the personnel for due to injuries in January and February.

[coprolite]

3 hours ago, Bob Mahelp said:

For 2 months this season, it looked like McInnes had manage to re-invent the wheel and get us ticking along as a (relatively) exciting attacking force. 

Watkins blended in perfectly, Hedges suddenly discovered form, and an injury-free Scott Wriight was improving all the time. With Ferguson and McCrorie kicking ass behind them and Hayes and Kennedy as wing backs, we managed to look dynamic. 

Then we hit a series of catastrophic events. A season ending injury for Watkins. Kennedy injured (he hasn't been the same player since he came back). An SFA f**k up meant we lost Ferguson, McCrorie and McLennan for a series of games. Forced into selling Scott Wright, and then 2 days later Hedges' season is finished as well. 

The players we were forced to use to replace them...Cosgrove, Main,  Edmondson and McLennan...were either too lazy, not good enough and/or unable to fit into the system that we want to play. 

In January and February, both Hibs and Livi were able to achieve consistency through a lack of injuries and not losing key players in the transfer window. Hibs especially did well in adding decent quality to their squad. 

We on the other hand, splintered and were forced into throwing the dice by effectively replacing our whole forward line. Even then, fate kicks us in the nuts one more time as Fraser Hornby's season ends after only a few games. 

The point I'm stumbling to make is that, yes, we've been in brutal form for 3 months, and yes, ultimately the manager has to take responsibility for the results on the park. 

But it's only fair to take into account what have been pretty awful extenuating circumstances. I can't remember a season where we've been cursed with such bad injuries to important players. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, BucksburnDandy said:

3 hours ago, Bob Mahelp said:

For 2 months this season, it looked like McInnes had manage to re-invent the wheel and get us ticking along as a (relatively) exciting attacking force. 
Watkins blended in perfectly, Hedges suddenly discovered form, and an injury-free Scott Wriight was improving all the time. With Ferguson and McCrorie kicking ass behind them and Hayes and Kennedy as wing backs, we managed to look dynamic. 
Then we hit a series of catastrophic events. A season ending injury for Watkins. Kennedy injured (he hasn't been the same player since he came back). An SFA f**k up meant we lost Ferguson, McCrorie and McLennan for a series of games. Forced into selling Scott Wright, and then 2 days later Hedges' season is finished as well. 
The players we were forced to use to replace them...Cosgrove, Main,  Edmondson and McLennan...were either too lazy, not good enough and/or unable to fit into the system that we want to play. 
In January and February, both Hibs and Livi were able to achieve consistency through a lack of injuries and not losing key players in the transfer window. Hibs especially did well in adding decent quality to their squad. 
We on the other hand, splintered and were forced into throwing the dice by effectively replacing our whole forward line. Even then, fate kicks us in the nuts one more time as Fraser Hornby's season ends after only a few games. 
The point I'm stumbling to make is that, yes, we've been in brutal form for 3 months, and yes, ultimately the manager has to take responsibility for the results on the park. 
But it's only fair to take into account what have been pretty awful extenuating circumstances. I can't remember a season where we've been cursed with such bad injuries to important players. 
 
 

Agree on that. If we were to hone in on one deserved criticism for the manager rather than the wild stuff from Twitter (always good to be off there loons and quines), it's being wedded to the system that we didn't quite have the personnel for due to injuries in January and February.

I think both of these do demonstrate the lack of tactical nous that some have alluded to.  There is no plan B. Changes to the system always seem to be reactive, either because players are unavailable or because it's been obvious for weeks that it's not working. Derek seems good at recognising what's working and sticking with it but a bit lost when it's not. 

I still want him to prove the doubters wrong, but it's getting very difficult to keep the faith. 

[DukDukGoose]

3 hours ago, Bob Mahelp said:

For 2 months this season, it looked like McInnes had manage to re-invent the wheel and get us ticking along as a (relatively) exciting attacking force. 

Watkins blended in perfectly, Hedges suddenly discovered form, and an injury-free Scott Wriight was improving all the time. With Ferguson and McCrorie kicking ass behind them and Hayes and Kennedy as wing backs, we managed to look dynamic. 

Then we hit a series of catastrophic events. A season ending injury for Watkins. Kennedy injured (he hasn't been the same player since he came back). An SFA f**k up meant we lost Ferguson, McCrorie and McLennan for a series of games. Forced into selling Scott Wright, and then 2 days later Hedges' season is finished as well. 

The players we were forced to use to replace them...Cosgrove, Main,  Edmondson and McLennan...were either too lazy, not good enough and/or unable to fit into the system that we want to play. 

In January and February, both Hibs and Livi were able to achieve consistency through a lack of injuries and not losing key players in the transfer window. Hibs especially did well in adding decent quality to their squad. 

We on the other hand, splintered and were forced into throwing the dice by effectively replacing our whole forward line. Even then, fate kicks us in the nuts one more time as Fraser Hornby's season ends after only a few games. 

The point I'm stumbling to make is that, yes, we've been in brutal form for 3 months, and yes, ultimately the manager has to take responsibility for the results on the park. 

But it's only fair to take into account what have been pretty awful extenuating circumstances. I can't remember a season where we've been cursed with such bad injuries to important players. 

 

 

Whilst I agree with the bulk of it, the replacement of the forward line is on the manager. He had to bin a forward that no-one could believe we were even looking at never mind signing. Also binned a young striker who he's never really given a chance to who went on to score more goals for Hamilton himself than we've scored since he left.