Mckinlay

[periodictabledancer]

20 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

 

Course it wasn't and i didn't want him in the 1st place.

 

He fulfilled his season targets and deserves credit for it, that would mean giving the board credit for giving him the job though and that doesn't fit the narrative.

 

Lost a game the other night, time for Critchley to be sacked

or its a horrendous board appointment.

 

Thats the mindset on here.

It's not , and your hysteria doesn't make it true.  Virtually nobody is having  a go at Critchley or the board. 

[Bill Sikes]

15 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

We cannot be in this situation and still consider his appointment anything other than a poor one. That doesn't mean he also didn't do good thing and have a period of success. But at what cost?

 

£4m up so far this season thanks to him leading us into Europe.

[Bill Sikes]

1 minute ago, periodictabledancer said:

It's not , and your hysteria doesn't make it true.  Virtually nobody is having  a go at Critchley or the board. 

 

Waffle waffle waffle.

[Taffin]

Just now, Bull's-eye said:

 

£4m up so far this season thanks to him leading us into Europe.

 

And bottom of the league with an unbalanced squad full of major deficiencies where we're having to view a game in early November against St Johnstone a must win game. The good doesn't negate the bad, and vice versa, unfortunately where he took us is a complete and utter mess so on balance it's a poor appointment. It's really quite obvious that it was given how it's played out. We'll need that £4m to undo the damage.

 

You stick to coveting £ notes, I'll stick to coveting a successful football team. 

[Getintaethem]

15 minutes ago, Ricardo Quaresma said:

 

Yeah, what about the last window, though? There's people on here on record predicting we were sleepwalking into likely disaster, so it's been proven

I’d agree that the failure to bring in another striker was a poor decision, but think the blame for that lies with Naismith and Joe Savage.  We definitely invested in the squad, bringing in the likes of Spittal, Dhanda, Penrice and Taylor, so it wasn’t as if the board hadn’t provided extra funds.  We only really lost Cochrane over the summer.  I suspect they wanted to push Wilson on this season and didn’t foresee Shankland only scoring once in fifteen games.

 

  My main point stands.  The board have definitely made mistakes when it comes to the head coach, but we need to see if the changes they have made make the big difference.  In terms of providing the financial base to build a successful team, I think they’ve done that well.

[Bill Sikes]

15 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

And bottom of the league with an unbalanced squad full of major deficiencies where we're having to view a game in early November against St Johnstone a must win game. The good doesn't negate the bad, and vice versa, unfortunately where he took us is a complete and utter mess so on balance it's a poor appointment. It's really quite obvious that it was given how it's played out. We'll need that £4m to undo the damage.

 

You stick to coveting £ notes, I'll stick to coveting a successful football team. 

 

I'll stick to supporting the club.

 

Your obviously new here if your coveting a successful team.

[Rudi cant fail]

1 hour ago, Bull's-eye said:

See now we've completely eradicated Naismith's record last season.

Didn't exist, no broken away records, Hampden trips and Euro Football gifted to us.

 

Its not a new thing of course, any recent managers record is expunged if they win games.

 

Just so some can make it into a poor decision by the board.

 

Last season counts for nothing when we have declined as badly as we have.

 

stand alone, last season Naismith no doubt achieved his targets. I won’t take that away from him. His away record was exceptional
 

let’s not kid ourselves on though, Aberdeen and Hibs were extremely poor hence their bottom 6 finishes. When Aberdeen and Hibs both finish in the bottom 6, we really should be finishing third. we had relatively easy cup games prior to the semi finals we got to against a rangers side who we never laid a glove on in both games.

 

Lawrence shankland was absolutely exceptional last season too. This imo plays a massive part in Naismith downfall as this is probably one of the reasons he decided not to sign another striker. 
 

was Barry Robson a good appointment for Aberdeen?

 

fact of the matter is, Naismith was sacked as he was sending us down to the championship, with by and large the same side he finished third with last season. We now have to hope that the new manager is able to turn things around and clean up the mess Naismith has left behind. This to me suggests it was the wrong decision to appoint him as manager. 
 

no good finishing third one season and bottom the next. Nobody would be happy with a manager with those stats managing a club with the third biggest budget in the league. 
 

I know many may not agree, but that’s my tuppence-worth. 

[spacerjoe]

6 hours ago, Taffin said:

The narrative seems to be "who could possibly have seen it going so wrong under Naismith?" Which is nonsense, Naismith did amazing last year but carried a lot of good fortune but most importantly for me, when appointing a rookie there's always a really high risk that they don't have the tools to achieve when their plan A or optimal conditions evaporate. McKinlay isn't daft, he knows that too, and yet he appointed one 

 

Ranieri won the Premier League with Leicester and was fired months into the following season.

 

It happens.

 

Naismith did a great job, but clearly wasn't very well supported over the summer. Maybe he wanted it that way of course. Who knows.

 

[pettigrewsstylist]

On 31/10/2024 at 17:51, Jamboross said:

 

Do you think that's unreasonable? I'm not sure it is. 

Seems risky to me. I wonder where the budget was set for league placing prize money.

[section s heart]

7 hours ago, Gillsland jack said:

Would you not agree though that, 4-6 weeks of this change in style of football with the high press with everybody apart from the goalkeeper going flat out for 90 minutes, will potentially make most of these players fitter than they have ever been?

Hopefully we adopt some khigh p

[section s heart]

7 hours ago, Gillsland jack said:

Would you not agree though that, 4-6 weeks of this change in style of football with the high press with everybody apart from the goalkeeper going flat out for 90 minutes, will potentially make most of these players fitter than they have ever been?

 

Hopefully we play more of a high press. We did against St Mirren and Omonoia, but not really against Hibs or Killie. If Critchley detects a fitness issue, you'd like to think he'll be working on it. 

[DG_HMFC]

8 hours ago, spacerjoe said:

So you'd like us to sign a bunch of future meth heads like Hibs?

 

In any case:

 

1) I don't see how recruiting arseholes equates to success? Are Aberdeen and Celtic filled with 'Roy Keanes'?

 

2) I don't know how you know that all of our team are lovely people. Have you spent personal time with the whole squad?

 

3) I've never read anywhere that we have a policy of signing 'lovely people', let alone 'lovely people' who have no footballing ability. What is this based on?

 

We need players who are up for a fight, I get that, but that is determination and drive. Nothing to do with being a lovely person or not.

 

Ironically, the one player who has bags of these attributes is also one of our most lambasted...

 

1. I never said we should recruit arseholes. I want us to recruit the best players, and if that means signing players who have a bit of a reputation of being a ***** then so be it.

 

2. I don't see any of our players having a serious go at each other when we concede school boy goals. They are all just happy to go with the flow.

 

3. It's been well documented that we will only sign the right characters to play for Hearts. What do you think that means?

 

To be a team who are up for a fight needs leadership. Players who will grab the game by the scruff of the kneck and kick underperformers up the arse. We don't have that.

[Rudi5kaceldream1ng]

6 hours ago, periodictabledancer said:

It's not , and your hysteria doesn't make it true.  Virtually nobody is having  a go at Critchley or the board. 

Yup you're right. 

 

Given where we are in the league atm the fans have been reasonable. 

 

Another brilliant and loud away support today. 

 

I was sceptical at first but I'm happy with Critchley. A little blip midweek but happy with today's battling performance. 

 

And the board are making progressive moves which is pleasing to see. 

 

The future looks bright, we'll just require a little patience until the true results of the bloom analytics plays out. 

[soonbe110]

7 hours ago, Hashimoto said:

The same stupid decisions are still being made. Another "in-house" appointment with Fox stepping up from the B team. How is this merited, or even justified? A reward for helping us win 1 game in 11 maybe? Steading an already well holed ship?

Another one who is part of the legacy of a faltering coaching system clearly marked up to step into the top role at some time in the future.

By all means look at Critchley from a positive perspective, but let's get away from this in-house promotion nonsense. Jobs for the boys 
A clean sweep with nothing but Critchley's men in the dugout would have been a good start to clearing this shambles up. 

Doubt Critchley would have had anyone forced on him.  He will have done his homework on Fox. 

[soonbe110]

7 hours ago, JimmyCant said:

Absolutely no one thought that when we were pishing 3rd.

 

Naismiths downfall was 1. failing to recognise the shortcomings in the squad 2. A really dreadful transfer window resulted and 3. The fitness regime pre-season wasn’t fit for purpose

 

A ‘risky’ decision then became one that ultimately failed because of the above

🤷‍♂️I did, repeatedly.  And took the heat on here for my opinion. 

[soonbe110]

5 hours ago, spacerjoe said:

 

Ranieri won the Premier League with Leicester and was fired months into the following season.

 

It happens.

 

Naismith did a great job, but clearly wasn't very well supported over the summer. Maybe he wanted it that way of course. Who knows.

 

He was allowed to sign 9 players - how was he ‘clearly not well supported’? 

[hearts00]

I’m excited for a fresh start and an almost complete break from the Neilson era. By the start of next season I suspect as many as 10 new players with more leaving. 
 

I look forward to us hopefully creating a more balanced, athletic and exciting squad. 
 

 

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, hearts00 said:

I’m excited for a fresh start and an almost complete break from the Neilson era. By the start of next season I suspect as many as 10 new players with more leaving. 
 

I look forward to us hopefully creating a more balanced, athletic and exciting squad. 
 

 

Where I’m at. Just looking forward to this season ending and a fresh start. 

[spacerjoe]

3 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

He was allowed to sign 9 players - how was he ‘clearly not well supported’? 

I more meant from the perspective of having more experience around him. He made a lot of decisions this season that just smacked of inexperience, and I don't think it's any coincidence that Savage had checked out / left and things went downhill a bit.

 

A more experienced coaching team around him could also have helped.

 

However, as I mentioned, he maybe wanted it that way. To make his own choices on things like preseason etc. He might have thought after a debut season like that that he couldn't do any wrong.

 

Wasn't meant to be an excuse for him either, he needed to go.

 

[Mikey1874]

Hasn't moved to Rangers.