Match Thread Aberdeen 4 - 1 St Mirren

[don corleone]

I thought I would start this one since we won last time I did. I think we'll win. I'm going for 3-0,in hope rather than expectation. 

[afc1903mad]

11 minutes ago, don corleone said:

I thought I would start this one since we won last time I did. I think we'll win. I'm going for 3-0,in hope rather than expectation. 

I hope we get a 3-0 win but I think that is a tad too optimistic even for me

St Mirren have a good organised side, so I'm expecting it to be a close one. I think we'll win by 1 goal. Probably 2-1 as despite our defence improving, we have struggled to have clean sheets so to get two in a row would be a decent indicator that we have improved from earlier in the season

[Reed or deed]

Would like to think we have a fair chance of winning this. All about putting the ball in the back of the net and if we can do that based on the chances we are creating, we will win.

 

[muttonhumper]

I said 2-0 for the Lavvy game, so, on a roll, going for 2-0 again for this cunt.

Ramirez to get back on the goal trail at an untropical Pittodrie.

 

[BonnieDon]

Same feelings towards this game as I did going into the Livi game on Wednesday.

It's high time Glass started proving his credentials. It's all very well beating a poor Livingston side on Wednesday at home but he has to follow that up with further wins consistently.

 

[sheepcrooky]

2-0 for me as well. Apart from our young full backs, I think Wednesday’s starting XI is about our best. 
 

Hopefully Hedges who was limping when subbed is okay, and he produces another good performance rather than the 1 in 4 he tends to. 
 

It’ll still be Baltic. 

[RedArmyFakshun]

JET must start.   The enigma is on fire

[sheepcrooky]

3 minutes ago, RedArmyFakshun said:

JET must start.   The enigma is on fire

A bit early to start drinking sir. 

[aberdeen1970]

4 minutes ago, RedArmyFakshun said:

JET must start.   The enigma is on fire

The Jet thing is an interesting one. 

Gave us a focal point and a target further forward to free up Hedges, Watkins and Ramirez a bit more. Good to have an extra body up that end of the pitch too.  The benefit of a back four. 

With a back 3 and 2 full backs as wing backs you end up sacrificing an attacking player. 

Let's see how we get on with a back 4 against a better team than Livingston 

 

[sooth_stander]

24 minutes ago, muttonhumper said:

I said 2-0 for the Lavvy game, so, on a roll, going for 2-0 again for this cunt.

Ramirez to get back on the goal trail at an untropical Pittodrie.

 

It’s going to be tropical compared to Wednesday night……

[sooth_stander]

Just now, aberdeen1970 said:

The Jet thing is an interesting one. 

Gave us a focal point and a target further forward to free up Hedges, Watkins and Ramirez a bit more. Good to have an extra body up that end of the pitch too.  The benefit of a back four. 

With a back 3 and 2 full backs as wing backs you end up sacrificing an attacking player. 

Let's see how we get on with a back 4 against a better team than Livingston 

 

With JET, the only way I can see to successfully deploy him is “up top” and through the middle with runners playing off him, which would mean no place for Ramirez. And he needs to learn to lay the ball off far quicker, one touch if he can manage it.

In spells both versus Celtic and Livvie, it looked like Ramirez was being deployed in a deeper role

[aberdeen1970]

2 minutes ago, sooth_stander said:

With JET, the only way I can see to successfully deploy him is “up top” and through the middle with runners playing off him, which would mean no place for Ramirez. And he needs to learn to lay the ball off far quicker, one touch if he can manage it.

In spells both versus Celtic and Livvie, it looked like Ramirez was being deployed in a deeper role

Aye I'd rather we had someone else in the Jet role but retain the 4 attackers.  But who?  Maybe in January.... 

Ideally I'd rather we played a back 4 because a back 3 bores me to tears. 

But we'd need to get the back 4 working better than it was earlier in the season. 

[Ten Caat]

8 minutes ago, aberdeen1970 said:

Aye I'd rather we had someone else in the Jet role but retain the 4 attackers.  But who?  Maybe in January.... 

Ideally I'd rather we played a back 4 because a back 3 bores me to tears. 

But we'd need to get the back 4 working better than it was earlier in the season. 

The back 4 didn't work earlier in the season because Ramsay and MacKenzie would both bomb forward simultaneously leaving acres of space behind them for our central defenders to cover/the opposition to exploit.

I've no idea if this was either their youthful inexperience taking over or whether it was a definite instruction by Glass to do so but whatever it was it cost us dearly on a few occasions.

[aberdeen1970]

4 minutes ago, Ten Caat said:

The back 4 didn't work earlier in the season because Ramsay and MacKenzie would both bomb forward simultaneously leaving acres of space behind them for our central defenders to cover/the opposition to exploit.

I've no idea if this was either their youthful inexperience taking over or whether it was a definite instruction by Glass to do so but whatever it was it cost us dearly on a few occasions.

Aye I know TC but a back 3 just bores me to tears and feels unnecessary for a team like us in this league who have a decent budget. Surely we can get by with two centre backs rather than three most of the time? 

[thurso]

47 minutes ago, RedArmyFakshun said:

JET must start.   The enigma is on fire

You can’t call him that in this day and age 

 

13 minutes ago, aberdeen1970 said:

Aye I know TC but a back 3 just bores me to tears and feels unnecessary for a team like us in this league who have a decent budget. Surely we can get by with two centre backs rather than three most of the time? 

It’s not having 3 at the back that bores you it’s the players playing it. Some teams play 3 at the back snd it can be entertaining as it’s still just 11 v 11 until someone gets sent off 

[aberdeen1970]

3 minutes ago, thurso said:

You can’t call him that in this day and age 

 

It’s not having 3 at the back that bores you it’s the players playing it. Some teams play 3 at the back snd it can be entertaining as it’s still just 11 v 11 until someone gets sent off 

Aye the really good teams can make a back three entertaining sometimes. 

But with most average teams it just ends up with centre backs passing sideways among themselves rather than moving the ball through the midfield. And there's nothing duller than watching your average centre backs passing the ball sideways. 

[Andy_123]

6 minutes ago, aberdeen1970 said:

Aye the really good teams can make a back three entertaining sometimes. 

But with most average teams it just ends up with centre backs passing sideways among themselves rather than moving the ball through the midfield. And there's nothing duller than watching your average centre backs passing the ball sideways. 

Doesn't matter what formation we play, at times we struggle badly to move through midfield because Ferguson and Brown drop so deep to take the ball off the defenders (sometimes both at the same time). Both were dropping deeper than the entire back line to take the ball a few times v the other night ffs what is the point in that? It leaves a huge hole in the middle of the pitch and no pass forward to be made. Ferguson especially shouldn't be playing that deep, he's far more effective getting stuck in further forward.

 

[aberdeen1970]

1 minute ago, Andy_123 said:

Doesn't matter what formation we play, at times we struggle badly to move through midfield because Ferguson and Brown drop so deep to take the ball off the defenders (sometimes both at the same time). Both were dropping deeper than the entire back line to take the ball a few times v the other night ffs what is the point in that? It leaves a huge hole in the middle of the pitch and no pass forward to be made. Ferguson especially shouldn't be playing that deep, he's far more effective getting stuck in further forward.

 

Aye. That's why I liked having Jet in the team as it gave us another player up top.  Not because it was Jet specifically, it was just refreshing to have a 4th player up that end to link with the midfield. 

But Livi were poor. Would be interesting to see if we can make it work against better sides. 

[afc1903mad]

30 minutes ago, Andy_123 said:

Doesn't matter what formation we play, at times we struggle badly to move through midfield because Ferguson and Brown drop so deep to take the ball off the defenders (sometimes both at the same time). Both were dropping deeper than the entire back line to take the ball a few times v the other night ffs what is the point in that? It leaves a huge hole in the middle of the pitch and no pass forward to be made. Ferguson especially shouldn't be playing that deep, he's far more effective getting stuck in further forward.

 

Would need to look it back, but can seem to recall doing that also released the full backs to go forward (Hayes and Ojo) to allow potential overloads on the wings.

Worked well for the first as it ended up with JET passing to Ramirez (both inside the centre circle) who then slipped it down the wing to a free Hedges on the counter

[Robin Askwith]

2-0 Aberdeen and a bit of festive cheer this week amongst the fans, rather than the whinging faced folk greeting cause we narrowly got beat fae Celtic last weekend 

[Granite95]

Hopefully more of the same, going to hope for 2-0 although can see St Mirren being stuffy and hard to break down.

Ramirez and Hayes goals

[Andy_123]

1 hour ago, thurso said:

It’s not having 3 at the back that bores you it’s the players playing it. Some teams play 3 at the back snd it can be entertaining as it’s still just 11 v 11 until someone gets sent off 

Steve Holland: In-possession principles, attacking with a f | The Coaches' Voice Academy (coachesvoice.com)

This is Chelsea's old assistant explaining how their 3 at the back formation worked the year they won the title. Obviously a different level to us, but interesting to hear how they made it work while we can't quite seem to make it work as well. 

[jamiesd]

2-0 for me and the same 11 starting should be able to do the job

 

[WesthillWanderersFC]

0-0 or 1-1 

[Dynamo]

Home win. Not going on the coupon though.

[shooftahmooftah]

1 hour ago, Robin Askwith said:

2-0 Aberdeen and a bit of festive cheer this week amongst the fans, rather than the whinging faced folk greeting cause we narrowly got beat fae Celtic last weekend 

What do you expect when an ex Celtic player gives the game away. Hee  Haw Hayes. 

 

[NEM]

2-1 the reds and the dandy don charge up the league continues

[Zeus]

3-0 us. 

 

[ELLON RED]

The most incompetent referee (if you could call him a ref) in the country -  Collum for this one.

 

Expecting the worst yet again from him.

[Jazzer08]

2-0. Bates to score again.