djchapsticks

Certainly was something to it given the tweets between Langfield and Mark Ridgers on Monday.

If he scores the goal that stops Sevco going up and sends us up instead, I agree. Other than that, nah.

He is but he is also a central midfielder. And if there's one position we aren't looking to strengthen...

I'm sure if it did he'd have another tasty wee claim in!

I don't think so. As I was thinking earlier, a plethora of young players took pelters a few years back for lacking ambitions when they joined new Rangers instead of moving their career on. Hibs is not a step up for McGinn, as a young lad who has played his entire career in the top league, it represents a backwards step for him.

f**k him. He will be getting abused relentlessly at St. Mirren Park.

Right, c'mon to f**k. It's August in two days. They're taking the piss now.

Thing is, they will have already registered 25 bodies for this coming round and if they let anyone leave just now they cant add anyone in their place. If they get through they can re-register other players so I wouldn't think it's too big an issue.

Regardless they were still guys who were a few years past their best. I've no Doubt Miller would get us 5 or 6 goals over the season like those guys did. But he isn't where we should be focused.

You can file Lee Miller directly in the Jim Hamilton, Dennis Wyness, Eddie Annand, Craig Dargo file of strikers who may have been a good signing 5 years ago but whose best days are clearly gone. Steer well clear.

That's nice. But the source he's speaking of is Langfield's dad, not a cousin.

Fair enough with your concerns about Langfield. He really does have a good clean sheet ratio though. I wouldn't think you'd be 10 years and 300 games at a club the size of Aberdeen if you didn't at least have something about you. As bad as he is at everything you've mentioned, I've seen enough of him down the years to suggest he is (or at least was) better than what we currently have in all the attributes you listed aside from the near post thing.

Very good. Hopefully a natural pacy wide man for the left and a centre-half and we're good to go.

I stand corrected. Big Martin got 5 (or maybe 4) in a 7-0 win against them about 12 or 13 years ago as well.

Martin Cameron mate.

Everything. It's got absolutely everything to do with it, he defended badly, made a mistake, his hand ended up in the place his body should have been and instead of clearing it with his body, did so with his elbow. The fact that you don't seem to grasp that slightly worries me and makes me wonder why I'm even bothering to debate it.

So he was in fact covering the post correctly by allowing Thompson's header to sneak between his body and the post he was supposed to be on? Thanks for clearing that up.

OK. I'll say this one last time as you're clearly not getting the jist. His hand didn't need to f**king be on the post. If he was actually covering the post correctly, he wouldn't have been an entire arms length away from it when the header went in and would have been able to clear it with his chest or head. Therefore, by making this mistake (and that's what it was) he's denied a clear goalscoring opportunity by handballing it on the line. Penalty and a red card.

And I answered. Clearly and concisely that yes, if your hand is in that position then it's most certainly deliberate.

See if you want an answer, you have to give someone the chance to answer. Not claim some sort of daft hollow victory when no-one replies within 3 minutes.

Well, hand at elbow height when the rest of your body is a full arms length away from the post you're supposed to be defending. Risking the possibility of allowing the ball to strike your hand or arm in the box when it's fully outstrectched and away from your body....I'd say it is intentional, yes.

You don't *need* to stand with your hand on the post, so there's nothing natural about it. Just like you don't *need* to protect your bollocks when in a wall. The difference here though (and it's a biggie) is that the second example is permitted as you are allowed to protect yourself from injury.

Some of the Thompson comments are pretty shite. Yes he's older, yes he's lost another yard from the pace which was never really there to begin with but he's a huge influence on the team and fans. He doesn't need to be mobile if the delivery to him is good and looking at some of our corners yesterday, we certainly look stronger in that department. Will he manage 90 minutes week-in week-out? No. To even ask this of him is poor in itself. Will he even playing every week? Again, no. His body (and he'll probably admit to this himself) can't and won't withstand the rigours of 2 or 3 matches a week. That being said, he was involved in most of our good stuff yesterday and save for a blatant handball on the line, would have scored an absolute pearler of a header. It will be interesting to say the least if the 'he's finished' mob will be quite so critical if he comes up with the goods at Cappielow in a few weeks.

Behave. It's as deliberate as you'll ever see. There's no need whatsoever for his arm to be on that post while he's defending a corner.

Goodwin or Kelly for me, simply because I feel it's harder for a captain to influence a match from up top or in goals. I'd usually go with a centre half or centre mid as the skipper. I've not complaints about Thommo being skipper though, he's clearly a huge character and someone young players would look up to but for me, Jim is just everything you want in a skipper and a dying breed in that there is no primadonna tendencies about him. His moment yesterday when he made an arse of the pass from a throw in and could laugh at himself and with the crowd summed him up and shows why we still need him at the club.