The Famous Aberdeen - European Tour 2021/22

[Bogbrush1903]

1 hour ago, kingjoey said:

That’s one of the strangest things you’ve ever posted. Marley Watkins was only with us between August and late November last season but was arguably our best player throughout the whole season. Would you say the same thing if we signed James Maddison?

I didn't see Marley Watkins in the flesh last season, and I can't remember him from ICT so I won't pass judgement on him other than to say that I'm not as enthused by the signing as some.

If he's as good as you say then fantastic.

I'm not sure what you mean regarding Maddison? Watkins is clearly not at the level of Maddison though, so it wouldn't be comparable regarding him returning to Pittodrie.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Bogbrush1903

[tarapoa]

2 minutes ago, Bogbrush1903 said:

I didn't see Marley Watkins in the flesh last season, and I can't remember him from ICT so I won't pass judgement on him other than to say that I'm not as enthused by the signing as some.

If he's as good as you say then fantastic.

I'm not sure what you mean regarding Maddison? 

It's forgotten in the midst of the dying embers of the McInnes era - but the team played some good stuff between mid August and October last season. Watkins made it stick, and Hedges and Rat #2 forged a telepathic understanding, backed up by a functioning unit with the likes of Ferguson, McCrorie, Hayes all contributing.

Somewhere between Hayes being injured before the Celtic SF, Watkins being crocked by Brown, Cosgrove/Main getting back in the side, Rat#2 being injured then sold, the Scotland U-21 Covid thing and then eventually Hedges getting injured too - the whole thing disintegrated.

Watkins was a key player - and I do recall him being effective for Inverness too, particularly in their Scottish Cup winning season.

 

[DMCs]

12 minutes ago, 10menwent2mow said:

Eh, no they aren't. Have the same coefficient as LASK and a significantly higher one than Rijeka. Qarabag have narrowly missed being in Pot 1 for the Group stages. They have consistently made group stages despite Azerbaijan being 26th in the country coefficient. Personally I think they'd have pumped Rangers and Celtic over two legs. Hopefully one of them finish 3rd and drop down the Conference league and have to face them. 

Yes, they are. Going based on seeding is daft especially when Qarabag are Champions most seasons so enter the Champions path thereby getting easier draws etc. Rijeka have a higher ELO ranking and more money than Qarabag.

You got good draws this season and ultimately you should have qualified. I find it strange that you don't seem to have standards for your team.

[gannonball]

Aberdeen seemed to go to absolute shit when Watkins left, if they managed to keep him for the season I would have said Aberdeen could have got 3rd and Mcinnes would have got till the end of the season at least.

[Rodhull]

Don't seem to have standards for your team meaning why won't you accept my "just because" reasoning for why Aberdeen should beat a team ranked and seeded much higher than them.

Ok then.

 

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Sevco were knocked out by a team with less players on the pitch than them and then scraped past 1 (one) - 0 on aggregate against a team with only 10 players for the majority of the two games.

Not sure what they are getting their knickers in a twist about.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Melanius Mullarkey

[tarapoa]

Sevco were knocked out by a Swedish team.

Swedish teams?  Hold my beer

[DMCs]

7 minutes ago, Rodhull said:

Don't seem to have standards for your team meaning why won't you accept my "just because" reasoning for why Aberdeen should beat a team ranked and seeded much higher than them.

Ok then.

How are you ever supposed to improve your ranking if you don't ever actually beat anyone seeded? Especially when you got Qarabag who you have more money than when you could have got Spurs who have about 20x times your revenue.

[tarapoa]

12 minutes ago, DMCs said:

How are you ever supposed to improve your ranking if you don't ever actually beat anyone seeded? Especially when you got Qarabag who you have more money than when you could have got Spurs who have about 20x times your revenue.

Having seen all our European games in recent times, it did seem beforehand that Qarabag maybe offered us a good chance to get group stage football.  They looked functional at home last week, but there were warning signs that the poor pitch actually hampered them far more than us.

Last night I can honestly say that the slickness and precision of their passing and movement was a joy to watch - other than the fact we were on the receiving end - and they looked better than all the other sides we've gone out to - Rijeka (second time), Apollon Limassol, Maribor, Sociedad, Kairat, Burnley, Sporting Lisbon.

I think some of that was due to Glass/Cormack's desire to play an open game and getting caught with our pants down and making it really easy for them. For all McInnes was criticised for pragmatic football, we were always in these ties under him (except for Rijeka second time round). Last night was very much a mirror of the recent Scotland v Croatia scenario for me - big build up then a complete lesson, training match, whatever you want to call a total gubbing.   

Qarabag may never get through the groups, but they are there in the first place for a reason - they won 3-0 at Legia Warsaw last season and away in Israel earlier this time round. They are very well coached.

 

Edited August 27, 2021 by tarapoa

[10menwent2mow]

21 minutes ago, DMCs said:

Yes, they are. Going based on seeding is daft especially when Qarabag are Champions most seasons so enter the Champions path thereby getting easier draws etc. Rijeka have a higher ELO ranking and more money than Qarabag.

You got good draws this season and ultimately you should have qualified. I find it strange that you don't seem to have standards for your team.

So we shouldn't go by seeding or past European achievement, just by your say so? I agree Qarabag were a good draw considering other teams we could've faced, in much the same way that Rangers were evidently a good draw for Malmo, however that does not mean we have a divine right to beat them. We were second favourites for the away match according to the bookies and were second favourites to qualify after losing 1-0 over there. 

 

[Rodhull]

11 minutes ago, DMCs said:

How are you ever supposed to improve your ranking if you don't ever actually beat anyone seeded? Especially when you got Qarabag who you have more money than when you could have got Spurs who have about 20x times your revenue.

Wanting something to happen and it actually happening are very different things.

Just like by you continually insisting Aberdeen have more money than them you want it to sound like you know what you're talking about but your repeated trolling in this and various other threads gives your real motives away.

[10menwent2mow]

14 minutes ago, DMCs said:

How are you ever supposed to improve your ranking if you don't ever actually beat anyone seeded? 

Eh we have. Our coefficient has gone up from 4.313, which was the Scottish minimum, in 2014/15 which saw us unseeded in qr2 against Groningen, who we beat by the way. This made us miss being seeded for Qr 3 by one spot. In 15/16 we beat seeded Rijeka. In 16/17 we beat seeded Ventspils. 

Should we qualify for Europe next season, our coefficient will be 9.000. We are the only Scottish team with a coefficient higher than the Scottish minimum other than rangers and Celtic. This would see us seeded in Conf Lge Q3 which is better than where we were, being unseeded in Europa q2 when we started. Ok the progression has been slow but progression it is and consistently qualifying for Europe and doing relatively well has aided that progression. 

[Dons_1988]

You know when a fishing trip is convincing? When you commit over half a day to it. 

[Game of throw-ins]

Qarabag is a far richer club than Aberdeen.  Azeribajani football is largely funded by money pumped in by big corporations, not turnover.  Tens of millions have been invested, by far the biggest beneficiary being Qarabag who have dominated their league. 

We were hoping to reach European group stage because it would have transformed our finances.  Qarabag have just reached the group stages for the 8th time in a row, collecting big cash payouts every time. Think about how much distance we'd put between ourselves and , say, Heart or Hibs wth that kind of bonanza. The previous seven times it was at a higher level than the Conference League.  We're not remotely in the same ball parks as them financially, in the rankings, or in terms of European pedigree. 

I happen to think naivety contributed to our defeat last night, we should have known we couldn't just go toe to toe on a football basis with such a technically superior team.  But there's a very high degree of probability we'd have been beaten no matter how we approached the game, because in the end better players are better players.

[kingjoey]

2 hours ago, Bogbrush1903 said:

I didn't see Marley Watkins in the flesh last season, and I can't remember him from ICT so I won't pass judgement on him other than to say that I'm not as enthused by the signing as some.

If he's as good as you say then fantastic.

I'm not sure what you mean regarding Maddison? Watkins is clearly not at the level of Maddison though, so it wouldn't be comparable regarding him returning to Pittodrie.

You were implying that Watkins is bad move because he's a "McInnes signing". So I was enquiring whether James Maddison would be a bad player to get because he is a "McInnes signing." Also, apart from the 300 at the Kilmarnock match, nobody saw Watkins in the flesh. I think you can get an idea of how good he was for us by watching our matches on TV, tablet, phone, etc.

[Binos]

22 hours ago, Bob Mahelp said:

That's so optimistic it's bordering on just noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. 

There's only one side going to score goals in the second half me thinks. We should be 5-0 down already. 

We don't have bad players, actually most of our players are pretty decent footballers. What we don't have.....and this is the age old Scottish problem here.....are players that are sharp of thought, or intelligent enough in the footballing sense to cope and adapt to what's going on around them. 

 

That means they are shite 

[Bogbrush1903]

2 hours ago, kingjoey said:

You were implying that Watkins is bad move because he's a "McInnes signing". So I was enquiring whether James Maddison would be a bad player to get because he is a "McInnes signing." Also, apart from the 300 at the Kilmarnock match, nobody saw Watkins in the flesh. I think you can get an idea of how good he was for us by watching our matches on TV, tablet, phone, etc.

Marley Watkins played 13 games for us. If you want to think he's amazing based on 13 games then that's just great. I want to see him play for us now under our new manager and some new teammates before I pass judgement.

My point about McInnes is nothing to do with Marley Watkins skills as a player. I just think it's odd that new regime would go after a player brought in by the old regime the season before.

For the record, apart from the winner against Sevco, I didn't think Maddison was one of our better loan signings.

[kingjoey]

9 minutes ago, Bogbrush1903 said:

Marley Watkins played 13 games for us. If you want to think he's amazing based on 13 games then that's just great. I want to see him play for us now under our new manager and some new teammates before I pass judgement.

My point about McInnes is nothing to do with Marley Watkins skills as a player. I just think it's odd that new regime would go after a player brought in by the old regime the season before.

For the record, apart from the winner against Sevco, I didn't think Maddison was one of our better loan signings.

The new regime went after a player brought in by the old regime the season before, because he is a class act. I would have thought that a player who was probably our player of the season for only playing 13 games before getting injured, would have been someone that an Aberdeen fan would have been delighted to see returning.

I didn’t ask you if you thought that James Maddison was one of our better loan signings, I asked if you thought he would be a bad signing now seeing as he was a McInnes signing, which you appear to dislike.

[Bogbrush1903]

1 hour ago, kingjoey said:

The new regime went after a player brought in by the old regime the season before, because he is a class act. I would have thought that a player who was probably our player of the season for only playing 13 games before getting injured, would have been someone that an Aberdeen fan would have been delighted to see returning.

I didn’t ask you if you thought that James Maddison was one of our better loan signings, I asked if you thought he would be a bad signing now seeing as he was a McInnes signing, which you appear to dislike.

I'm neither up nor down about Marley Watkins signing.

Jonny Hayes was great player for us during a considerably longer spell than 13 games. I was neither up nor down about Hayes returning too.

What can I say? If Marley Watkins turns into a great signing then I'll be just as delighted as you.

Presently, however, I'm not particularly enthused but nor am I particularly depressed about the prospect of Watkins playing for Aberdeen again.

I'm opinion-less on Marley Watkins at present.

 

[kingjoey]

On 27/08/2021 at 01:04, Bogbrush1903 said:

Derek McInnes will be laughing his head off tonight. It was just exactly the same Euro campaign as he had, go through a couple of rounds and then whimper out. And to top it off, we sign the same player he brought in last season.

I wouldn’t call that being opinion-less on Marley Watkins.