Derek McInnes

[afc1903mad]

There are a few that suggest Lennon, but that would be a backward step in my opinion.
What has he achieved outside of Celtic where he had the funds?
He’s constantly been behind Aberdeen and regularly defeated by McInnes, despite being lauded for recruiting better than us.

[blowupsheep]

There are a few that suggest Lennon, but that would be a backward step in my opinion.
What has he achieved outside of Celtic where he had the funds?
He’s constantly been behind Aberdeen and regularly defeated by McInnes, despite being lauded for recruiting better than us.

Like I said pal, Lennon would be my suggestion I don't really know if it is the correct one but it is one that I think is worth considering. (opinions and all that malarkey)
Do you agree on the similarities between the tenure of McInnes and the tenure of Calderwood?
We decided it was time to move the dons on to the next level and thanked JC for steadying the ship and we moved on. Sadly (very sadly) McGhee and then Craig Brown took us right back to where we were before Jimmy came on board and we needed somebody to do a calderwood job all over again. Enter Derek McInnes and he has done just that got us back to where we were under Calderwoods leadership.
He cant take us any further so there hangs the question who is the right man to do it, my punt would be Lennon who would yours be?

SF

[afc1903mad]

Like I said pal, Lennon would be my suggestion I don't really know if it is the correct one but it is one that I think is worth considering. (opinions and all that malarkey)
Do you agree on the similarities between the tenure of McInnes and the tenure of Calderwood?
We decided it was time to move the dons on to the next level and thanked JC for steadying the ship and we moved on. Sadly (very sadly) McGhee and then Craig Brown took us right back to where we were before Jimmy came on board and we needed somebody to do a calderwood job all over again. Enter Derek McInnes and he has done just that got us back to where we were under Calderwoods leadership.
He cant take us any further so there hangs the question who is the right man to do it, my punt would be Lennon who would yours be?

SF

If you are likening the McInness era to the Calderwood era, then isn’t that an example of change for change sake and the risks for doing so.
I don’t get the clamour for Lennon. He’s a welt of a manager.
No point in being up for the cheeks games and failing to do it in others, languishing mid table. That’s pre-Calderwoodesque.
You want to go back to that? Raising our game against the cheeks but failin to be consistent. That’s what Lennon is achieving.

[Don_Corleone]

It's bizarre that on the back of winning 9 out of 10 games or something like that, that after a narrow defeat to the best team in the country whose budget is far bigger than ours and generally speaking whose players are far better than ours, everyone on here is clamouring for McInnes to get punted.

Everyone's gutted that we lost, but I don't think anyone could say the players weren't up for it. I also don't think anyone could say we didn't try and attack - we played 2 up front against them - pretty much nobody else does that. I also would disagree with those who say McInnes got the tactics wrong - we did a good job of nullifying their threat for the most part (which is a ***** component of a game plan against a superior team - which they are whether we want to admit it or not) and we did cause them problems at times. The reason we lost was due to momentary lapses in concentration - against other teams you get away with it - against Celtic you don't.

Those calling for McInnes' head fail to come up with viable options for a replacement. Steve Clarke is a great manager, but highly unlikely to come to AFC. Neil Lennon can certainly fire his teams up for big games, but what use is that if you don't win the other matches?

The question isn't simply, has McInnes taken us as far as he can... the question is two-fold - has McInnes taken us as high as he can and is there a realistic replacement who could take us further? The answer to the first part may be "yes", but if the answer to the second part is "no" we should stick with him.

If we beat Livi on Saturday we'll still be within touching distance of the top of the league come the new year and have already been to a cup final. Surely if we'd been offered that at the start of the season we'd have taken it?

[afc1903mad]

It's bizarre that on the back of winning 9 out of 10 games or something like that, that after a narrow defeat to the best team in the country whose budget is far bigger than ours and generally speaking whose players are far better than ours, everyone on here is clamouring for McInnes to get punted.

Everyone's gutted that we lost, but I don't think anyone could say the players weren't up for it. I also don't think anyone could say we didn't try and attack - we played 2 up front against them - pretty much nobody else does that. I also would disagree with those who say McInnes got the tactics wrong - we did a good job of nullifying their threat for the most part (which is a ***** component of a game plan against a superior team - which they are whether we want to admit it or not) and we did cause them problems at times. The reason we lost was due to momentary lapses in concentration - against other teams you get away with it - against Celtic you don't.

Those calling for McInnes' head fail to come up with viable options for a replacement. Steve Clarke is a great manager, but highly unlikely to come to AFC. Neil Lennon can certainly fire his teams up for big games, but what use is that if you don't win the other matches?

The question isn't simply, has McInnes taken us as far as he can... the question is two-fold - has McInnes taken us as high as he can and is there a realistic replacement who could take us further? The answer to the first part may be "yes", but if the answer to the second part is "no" we should stick with him.

If we beat Livi on Saturday we'll still be within touching distance of the top of the league come the new year and have already been to a cup final. Surely if we'd been offered that at the start of the season we'd have taken it?

Excellent post Don.
Well said.

[afc1903mad]

It's bizarre that on the back of winning 9 out of 10 games or something like that, that after a narrow defeat to the best team in the country whose budget is far bigger than ours and generally speaking whose players are far better than ours, everyone on here is clamouring for McInnes to get punted.

On the first paragraph, I think some on here were waiting for a defeat to have the opportunity to lambast McInnes.
Some were teeing it up before the game.

We’re not 9 from 10 though to be fair, we’re 9 wins from the last 13 games, 2 of which were defeats to Celtic.
I’m confident of a win at Livi, despite their strong Home record.

[Don_Corleone]

We’re not 9 from 10 though to be fair, we’re 9 wins from the last 13 games, 2 of which were defeats to Celtic.
I’m confident of a win at Livi, despite their strong Home record.

Couldn't quite remember the exact stats, but it's been a very good run of form. Hopefully we can get a win at Livi to round off the year and come back strong after the break with one or two new signings to bolster the team. Given the slow start we had to the season, to reach the half way point having reached a cup final and only a few points off the top of the league, isn't the disaster some people seem to think it is!

[NaeMairNeeps]

It's bizarre that on the back of winning 9 out of 10 games or something like that, that after a narrow defeat to the best team in the country whose budget is far bigger than ours and generally speaking whose players are far better than ours, everyone on here is clamouring for McInnes to get punted.

Everyone's gutted that we lost, but I don't think anyone could say the players weren't up for it. I also don't think anyone could say we didn't try and attack - we played 2 up front against them - pretty much nobody else does that. I also would disagree with those who say McInnes got the tactics wrong - we did a good job of nullifying their threat for the most part (which is a ***** component of a game plan against a superior team - which they are whether we want to admit it or not) and we did cause them problems at times. The reason we lost was due to momentary lapses in concentration - against other teams you get away with it - against Celtic you don't.

Those calling for McInnes' head fail to come up with viable options for a replacement. Steve Clarke is a great manager, but highly unlikely to come to AFC. Neil Lennon can certainly fire his teams up for big games, but what use is that if you don't win the other matches?

The question isn't simply, has McInnes taken us as far as he can... the question is two-fold - has McInnes taken us as high as he can and is there a realistic replacement who could take us further? The answer to the first part may be "yes", but if the answer to the second part is "no" we should stick with him.

If we beat Livi on Saturday we'll still be within touching distance of the top of the league come the new year and have already been to a cup final. Surely if we'd been offered that at the start of the season we'd have taken it?

^^^ .... 100%

[BogBrush1903]

It's bizarre that on the back of winning 9 out of 10 games or something like that, that after a narrow defeat to the best team in the country whose budget is far bigger than ours and generally speaking whose players are far better than ours, everyone on here is clamouring for McInnes to get punted.

Everyone's gutted that we lost, but I don't think anyone could say the players weren't up for it. I also don't think anyone could say we didn't try and attack - we played 2 up front against them - pretty much nobody else does that. I also would disagree with those who say McInnes got the tactics wrong - we did a good job of nullifying their threat for the most part (which is a ***** component of a game plan against a superior team - which they are whether we want to admit it or not) and we did cause them problems at times. The reason we lost was due to momentary lapses in concentration - against other teams you get away with it - against Celtic you don't.

Those calling for McInnes' head fail to come up with viable options for a replacement. Steve Clarke is a great manager, but highly unlikely to come to AFC. Neil Lennon can certainly fire his teams up for big games, but what use is that if you don't win the other matches?

The question isn't simply, has McInnes taken us as far as he can... the question is two-fold - has McInnes taken us as high as he can and is there a realistic replacement who could take us further? The answer to the first part may be "yes", but if the answer to the second part is "no" we should stick with him.

If we beat Livi on Saturday we'll still be within touching distance of the top of the league come the new year and have already been to a cup final. Surely if we'd been offered that at the start of the season we'd have taken it?

I do enjoy reading your posts Don, always well thought out but I disagree on a couple of points with this one...

To say we played with two up front is slightly disingenuous. Both May and Cosgrove played and for the latter part of the first half we even played them as a front two, although May's role was actually to drop on Brown during the opening period. It was working well, Celtic looked riddled with doubt and we were able to expose their weaknesses in the centre of defence by merely allowing Boyata time on the ball. Therefore, it seemed natural that we should attempt to continue that pattern in the second half but the conservative McInnes was tinkering at half-time and we ended up on the back foot. He lost his nerve tactically. Had we played two advanced I think we could have gave them a lot of questions to answer in the second-half.

Thus the "momentary lapses of concentration" were always going to happen in the second half. To set-up the way McInnes did in the second-half basically nullified us as forward going force and he put trust in a porous, weak Aberdeen defence. Is it wise to require Shay Logan, Andrew Considine and Dom Ball (and even McKenna) to remain fully focused for 45 minutes against a reasonable attack?

Both teams were weakest in defence (especially through the middle) and he should've attempted to exploit that more, but instead we had to rely onto debatable penalty decisions. When we attacked once 4-2 down, we scored...

If McInnes can't learn from his mistakes then he's taken us as far as he can. It's simply not acceptable just to hope to dig out a result against Celtic. He needs to use them as a benchmark and then find a way to beat them. To date, he's shown that he's incapable. We must measure ourselves against Celtic.

McInnes won't be sacked but I plead for him to do the honourable thing and stand down in the summer before things start to go tits up

[Don_Corleone]

I do enjoy reading your posts Don, always well thought out but I disagree on a couple of points with this one...

To say we played with two up front is slightly disingenuous. Both May and Cosgrove played and for the latter part of the first half we even played them as a front two, although May's role was actually to drop on Brown during the opening period. It was working well, Celtic looked riddled with doubt and we were able to expose their weaknesses in the centre of defence by merely allowing Boyata time on the ball. Therefore, it seemed natural that we should attempt to continue that pattern in the second half but the conservative McInnes was tinkering at half-time and we ended up on the back foot. He lost his nerve tactically. Had we played two advanced I think we could have gave them a lot of questions to answer in the second-half.

Thus the "momentary lapses of concentration" were always going to happen in the second half. To set-up the way McInnes did in the second-half basically nullified us as forward going force and he put trust in a porous, weak Aberdeen defence. Is it wise to require Shay Logan, Andrew Considine and Dom Ball (and even McKenna) to remain fully focused for 45 minutes against a reasonable attack?

Both teams were weakest in defence (especially through the middle) and he should've attempted to exploit that more, but instead we had to rely onto debatable penalty decisions. When we attacked once 4-2 down, we scored...

If McInnes can't learn from his mistakes then he's taken us as far as he can. It's simply not acceptable just to hope to dig out a result against Celtic. He needs to use them as a benchmark and then find a way to beat them. To date, he's shown that he's incapable. We must measure ourselves against Celtic.

McInnes won't be sacked but I plead for him to do the honourable thing and stand down in the summer before things start to go tits up

Glad someone enjoys reading them! haha

I can see your points - we played 2 strikers would probably have been a better way to phrase it, rather than 2 up front - yes, May was dropping deeper to sit on Brown when Celtic had possession, which as I said elsewhere, I thought was a sensible, logical tactic. I suppose he probably used a lot of energy doing that though and even when we were in possession he likely had one eye on Brown rather than being fully focussed on attacking.

I also agree that it would have been absolutely incredible if every player had managed to maintain 100% concentration for the full 90 mins. You get away with lapses against other teams, but not Celtic. We were punished, as we usually are against them.

I have bemoaned McInnes' approach against Celtic in the past, particularly a year or two ago, but have felt that in the last year we've gone into the games with a bit more belief and fight about us - the players aren't overawed.

I thought things were starting to go pear shaped at the beginning of this season, but things have turned around and we've got back into a level of consistency again, churning out the wins. I'm not ashamed to say that I like McInnes and the work he's done at the club - I do wonder whether he's maybe taken us as far as he can, but at the same time I also wonder whether anyone else would take us further. That's the big risk. He knows how to churn out wins consistently against pretty much everyone bar Celtic. Someone like Neil Lennon might have marginally better stats against Celtic, but has far worse stats against everyone else. Steve Clarke is probably the one who can provide the best of both worlds but I don't see him being a realistic target if McInnes did leave in the next year or so.