Dullard Bluteau Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 On 13/10/2017 at 15:16, forameus said: Three paragraphs this time - remarkable restraint from everyone's favourite introverted shortbread tin Suggest you pay more attention to your own team, they are heading for the trap door, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason King Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 On 14/10/2017 at 10:55, Monkey Tennis said: He didn't say anything about the players being "not qualified". He goes a bit nuts on that subject, but as he says, you're entitled to see things differently. His latest post actually made plenty of sense though. Attacking him for things he didn't say is rather silly. He said "not Scottish", if you are eligible you are deemed Scottish ergo Strachan didn't do what he said. Better luck next time old thing, pip pip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dullard Bluteau Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, Jason King said: He said "not Scottish", if you are eligible you are deemed Scottish ergo Strachan didn't do what he said. Better luck next time old thing, pip pip. If you are born in England you are English, nothing wrong with that in the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forameus Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 38 minutes ago, Dullard Bluteau said: Suggest you pay more attention to your own team, they are heading for the trap door, lol. Ooft. You've really got me there, right where it hurts. No, wait, I think I'm ok. Thistle may well get relegated, but at least I'm not a hilariously bitter wee man like you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 36 minutes ago, Dullard Bluteau said: If you are born in England you are English, nothing wrong with that in the least. Is Shaun Maloney Malaysian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forameus Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said: Is Shaun Maloney Malaysian? Disnae count, he's no English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 2 hours ago, Jason King said: He said "not Scottish", if you are eligible you are deemed Scottish ergo Strachan didn't do what he said. Better luck next time old thing, pip pip. Yes, but he was drawing a distinction between those "deemed Scottish" and those who might otherwise be sensibly considered Scottish. I don't especially agree with him on the subject, but it's an absolutely valid viewpoint and your attack on him misfired. I'll not require any luck here, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.A.F.C Posted October 16, 2017 Author Share Posted October 16, 2017 Let's see how McLeish gets on this time without a batch of good players given to him on a plate like Vogts did. hes utter dogshit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father Ted Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 All the countries are at it these days. Costa isn't Spanish. The French, Germans, Italians and many more exploit the nationality rules. We would be daft not too but as long as they are better than what we have. These people that moan about it, are in the dark ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 10 hours ago, D.A.F.C said: Let's see how McLeish gets on this time without a batch of good players given to him on a plate like Vogts did. hes utter dogshit McLeish is done as a manager and no one in their right mind should want him now, but overall our squad is better now than it was then. You really are desperate to give the credit for anything positive to Berti Vogts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dullard Bluteau Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 10 hours ago, Father Ted said: All the countries are at it these days. Costa isn't Spanish. The French, Germans, Italians and many more exploit the nationality rules. We would be daft not too but as long as they are better than what we have. These people that moan about it, are in the dark ages. Costa is Brazilian and was roundly booed during the last WC for changing sides. He is, however, better than every one of the English players we have poached. Puskas and Di Stefano were not Spanish either but both played for Spain. That's their business, but some players eh ! In those days (Francos Spain) politics played a large part. France tend to recruit from their African colonies and normally players resident and playing in France, that's also their choice. Germany have had a few "ringers" (all of them great players, mind) and all living and playing in Germany. Even the so-called Polish players ( Silesians) were brought up, lived and played entire careers in Germany. Ive not been aware of Italy poaching players but if they have, its up to them. I would be pretty certain that whoever they picked would be at least familiar to Italian fans. We, on the other hand have taken players only from England. Now with the best will in the world, even the best of the English players are found to be completely out of their depth the minute they take the field against any of the decent countries. They were even made to look poor against Slovakia and Slovenia recently, albeit they won both games. They have - admittedly in their own opinion - one of the best leagues in the world, but all the best players are not English ! So yet we decide to take second rate players who cant get a game for an already second rate international team. Anyway, I`m never going to convince those who approve of non Scots representing our country, but surely at least my position - one which was the usual one until a generation ago - is entitled to a bit of consideration. Oh, and I am neither small, bitter or eat shortbread . My real football interest is quite high at present and yes, I realise not all the Saints players are Scottish, before you ask. That doesn't bother me in the least. They play for the jersey ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forameus Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, Dullard Bluteau said: Costa is Brazilian and was roundly booed during the last WC for changing sides. He is, however, better than every one of the English players we have poached. Puskas and Di Stefano were not Spanish either but both played for Spain. That's their business, but some players eh ! In those days (Francos Spain) politics played a large part. France tend to recruit from their African colonies and normally players resident and playing in France, that's also their choice. Germany have had a few "ringers" (all of them great players, mind) and all living and playing in Germany. Even the so-called Polish players ( Silesians) were brought up, lived and played entire careers in Germany. Ive not been aware of Italy poaching players but if they have, its up to them. I would be pretty certain that whoever they picked would be at least familiar to Italian fans. So, again, you've not got a problem with it because they're a) good players and b) not English? On a), we're picking the best players we have available, and some of them fail your narrow-minded selection criteria, so not really an issue, and on b), well you've got a history of that. I don't agree with the original poster you're quoting by the way, as our situations aren't comparable. 9 minutes ago, Dullard Bluteau said: We, on the other hand have taken players only from England. Probably because that's where a lot of players that are eligible to play for us are. We also picked Oliver Burke when he played in Germany, or does he not count? If we had this enclave of eligible Scots players who were good enough playing in the Middle East, they'd be playing for us too. Jack Harper was always mentioned a while back despite having been raised in the US. I'm not really sure what your point is here. Apart from just hating England. But anyway, away from all that, your core point appears to be that the players you believe are morally ineligible are shit. So...where are these swathes of pyoor-honest-Scotsmen-so-they-ur that are markedly and demonstrably better than the completely eligible ones that don't meet your particular selection criteria? From the last squad, I count only James Morrison, Liam Cooper and Matt Phillips that weren't born in Scotland. If you go down the route of whether they speak like a Scot (which I seem to remember was one of your other laughable criteria) then you can add Ikechi Anya in there (despite being born in Castlemilk). In previous squads, you've got Tom Cairney and Matt Ritchie. I may have forgotten some (I've only gone to wiki) but if not then there's five. Five. Meaning of the 23 he called up, and adding Cairney and Ritchie to make it 25, 20% of our squad were "Scottish". Taking them in turn... Phillips - was largely shite after a decent first game against Lithuania. Are there demonstrably better wingers out there that would play the way he was supposed to play? Ritchie - ended up injured, but again, not sure there's any players as good as him to pick Cooper - we need center backs, and there isn't exactly a queue forming of options there. I personally would have Liam Lindsay there as a young prospect, but they're not really comparable given Cooper is 26. One of them is captain of Leeds though, and the other is battling relegation with Barnsley. Cooper is the better option. Are there any Scottish players better? Cairney - you tell me, to be honest, I know very little about him. Morrison - if you say there's a better player than him that isn't being called up, you're lying. Looking at these players, I'd split them into two groups. The only tenuous point you have lies in the first group - Phillips, Ritchie and Morrison. All three of them had little in the way of links to the country. Phillips and Morrison represented England at most youth levels, and Morrison even said that he chose Scotland because his chances "would be limited for England". But, as I've said, they're better options, and they wouldn't be there if they didn't want to play for us. Ritchie seemed like the most tenuous link to Scotland, but his Scottish father makes him closer than the Granny Rule examples of Phillips and Morrison. And when he scored for us against Poland, after being a very important player in the tail-end of the campaign, I defy anyone to say that didn't mean a lot to him. He's also a better player than alternatives. Then there's a second group - Cairney and Cooper. Both of them represented Scotland at various youth levels. The former was highlighted as a future star for England, described as a "huge asset for the England National Team" by the then Hull City captain. He said his loyalties lay with Scotland though. What a b*****d. And as a final point, there seems to be some assumption that players are "settling" for us. That may well be true, and probably is in some cases, but it's an incredibly lazy conclusion to jump to. There will be players eligible for us through the non-traditional means that will get more of a kick of playing for us than people born here. It's cliched nonsense to suggest that being born here suddenly makes you rabid for the opportunity, and that the opposite leaves you cold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salvo Montalbano Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Kids are learning in a different way than just reading text books. Books are on the road out in learning. Absolute rubbish. Monkey Tennis beat me to it but the onky reason textbooks are seen as being on the way out is because schools can't afford new ones. The vast majority of teachers in a TES article said they want more textbooks, not fewer. Why make up your own material which takes time and effort when there's a ready made alternative? Anyway, on performance schools and the like - my school isn't listed as a performance school but two periods a week 1st and 2nd year pupils of both sexes are removed from regular classes and given football coaching by an SFA coach. It's some sort of "school of football" thing that seems separate to Performance Schools and I wonder how widespread it is. What was a bit strange was that the pupils were removed from what I'd call "Important" subjects such as Science and Maths rather than say Art or Drama (with no offence meant to those subjects) but I guess this was die to the availability or otherwise of the SFA coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 I decided to look more closely at the claim that McLeish was handed a batch of good players due to Berti Vogts blooding them, and the obvious implication from D.A.F.C that he only achieved good results because he was in the right place at the right time to benefit from Vogts giving players experience in the first place a few years earlier. McLeish was Scotland manager for 10 games, including two friendlies. The number of caps players won under him is as follows, with the manager who gave them their debuts in brackets: Craig Gordon - 10 (Vogts) Stephen McManus - 10 (Smith) David Weir - 9 (Brown) Barry Ferguson - 8 (Brown) Kris Boyd - 8 (Smith) Scott Brown - 7 (Smith) Lee McCulloch - 7 (Vogts) Shaun Maloney - 7 (Smith) Darren Fletcher - 7 (Vogts) Graham Alexander - 6 (Vogts) Alan Hutton - 6 (McLeish) Gary Naysmith - 6 (Brown) Paul Hartley - 6 (Smith) Kenny Miller - 6 (Brown) James McFadden - 6 (Vogts) Garry O'Connor - 6 (Vogts) Gary Teale - 5 (Smith) Craig Beattie - 5 (Smith) Stephen Pearson - 4 (Vogts) Gary Caldwell - 2 (Vogts) Jay McEveley - 2 (McLeish) Christian Dailly - 2 (Brown) Charlie Adam - 2 (McLeish) Allan McGregor - 1 (McLeish) Graeme Murty - 1 (Vogts) Russell Anderson - 1 (Vogts) Barry Robson - 1 (McLeish) Steven Naismith - 1 (McLeish) So 28 players were capped by Alex McLeish. 10 were given their debuts by Berti Vogts, 7 by Walter Smith, 6 by McLeish and 5 by Craig Brown. Okay, more players did get their first cap under Vogts than any other manager, but it's hardly a wild discrepancy. If you were seriously going to argue that Vogts deserves the credit for that campaign as it was achieved with his squad, you'd expect more than half of them to have came from him, but that's not the case. Considering that McLeish had his year in charge three years after Vogts' two year spell ended, you'd expect several players to have been given their first caps by Vogts - it simply makes sense that players around the 25-28 age bracket in 2007 would have been getting their first caps from 2002-04. If you examine it by number of appearances to differentiate the importance of players rather than giving equal weight to players with 10 caps and players with 1 (Craig Gordon appeared in every minute of every competitive game whereas Allan McGregor got 45 minutes in a friendly so obviously that's not comparing like for like) it works out as Vogts - 50; Smith - 48; Brown - 31; McLeish - 11. There's a difference of two appearances between players given debuts by Vogts and Smith - Vogts was barely more responsible for blooding the spine of that team than Smith was. McManus, Brown, Hartley, Maloney and Boyd came from Smith, Weir, Ferguson, Miller and Naysmith came from Brown, Hutton from McLeish. What's more, when the discussion of Brown's failure to prepare for a transition and Vogts being landed with a bad situation as a result was had on the Strachan thread the other day, there was widespread agreement that you couldn't give Brown credit for giving players like Kenny Miller, Scott Severin, Gavin Rae and Stevie Crawford who went on to feature more frequently under Vogts their first caps, because they hadn't featured enough and were still inexperienced when Vogts was forced to rely on them. It was also argued that the fact Brown had picked other players like Barry Nicholson, Gary Holt and Dougie Freedman who were still available to Vogts also shouldn't count in his favour because they weren't good enough to continue getting caps anyway. Those are both entirely reasonable arguments which I broadly agree with, but if you're going to hold them against Brown to defend Vogts, you have to judge Vogts by the same standard and look at the players he gave debuts to who were still featuring under Smith and McLeish. Lee McCulloch only got one cap under Vogts, and that was coming on as a sub in the 85th minute. Craig Gordon and Gary Caldwell each had four caps when Vogts left, Russell Anderson had five, Stephen Pearson had two, Garry O'Connor and Graeme Murty also had just one. If you're holding Vogts to that same standard as we hold Brown to for bringing players through, then really the only players you can truly credit him for bringing through are Darren Fletcher (13 caps) and James McFadden (18 caps), as they were the only players he handed over with a decent amount of experience who were also good enough to keep their place in the squad. Bringing those two through is obviously a good thing, but at the same time it's hardly like he was plucking unknown youngsters from nowhere in a masterstroke no one saw coming: he'd have been getting howls of derision if he failed to pick McFadden or Fletcher regularly with the former tearing the SPL apart and the latter establishing himself as a first team regular at Manchester United. Of course, you can reasonably argue that Vogts does deserve the credit for the likes of Gordon and Caldwell too, but if you do that then criticise Craig Brown for not passing enough young players over you're having your cake and eating it. The reality is that like every other argument in defence of Berti Vogts, the claim that McLeish's results were down to players Vogts brought through collapses under the slightest bit of scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dullard Bluteau Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 1 hour ago, forameus said: So, again, you've not got a problem with it because they're a) good players and b) not English? On a), we're picking the best players we have available, and some of them fail your narrow-minded selection criteria, so not really an issue, and on b), well you've got a history of that. I don't agree with the original poster you're quoting by the way, as our situations aren't comparable. Probably because that's where a lot of players that are eligible to play for us are. We also picked Oliver Burke when he played in Germany, or does he not count? If we had this enclave of eligible Scots players who were good enough playing in the Middle East, they'd be playing for us too. Jack Harper was always mentioned a while back despite having been raised in the US. I'm not really sure what your point is here. Apart from just hating England. But anyway, away from all that, your core point appears to be that the players you believe are morally ineligible are shit. So...where are these swathes of pyoor-honest-Scotsmen-so-they-ur that are markedly and demonstrably better than the completely eligible ones that don't meet your particular selection criteria? From the last squad, I count only James Morrison, Liam Cooper and Matt Phillips that weren't born in Scotland. If you go down the route of whether they speak like a Scot (which I seem to remember was one of your other laughable criteria) then you can add Ikechi Anya in there (despite being born in Castlemilk). In previous squads, you've got Tom Cairney and Matt Ritchie. I may have forgotten some (I've only gone to wiki) but if not then there's five. Five. Meaning of the 23 he called up, and adding Cairney and Ritchie to make it 25, 20% of our squad were "Scottish". Taking them in turn... Phillips - was largely shite after a decent first game against Lithuania. Are there demonstrably better wingers out there that would play the way he was supposed to play? Ritchie - ended up injured, but again, not sure there's any players as good as him to pick Cooper - we need center backs, and there isn't exactly a queue forming of options there. I personally would have Liam Lindsay there as a young prospect, but they're not really comparable given Cooper is 26. One of them is captain of Leeds though, and the other is battling relegation with Barnsley. Cooper is the better option. Are there any Scottish players better? Cairney - you tell me, to be honest, I know very little about him. Morrison - if you say there's a better player than him that isn't being called up, you're lying. Looking at these players, I'd split them into two groups. The only tenuous point you have lies in the first group - Phillips, Ritchie and Morrison. All three of them had little in the way of links to the country. Phillips and Morrison represented England at most youth levels, and Morrison even said that he chose Scotland because his chances "would be limited for England". But, as I've said, they're better options, and they wouldn't be there if they didn't want to play for us. Ritchie seemed like the most tenuous link to Scotland, but his Scottish father makes him closer than the Granny Rule examples of Phillips and Morrison. And when he scored for us against Poland, after being a very important player in the tail-end of the campaign, I defy anyone to say that didn't mean a lot to him. He's also a better player than alternatives. Then there's a second group - Cairney and Cooper. Both of them represented Scotland at various youth levels. The former was highlighted as a future star for England, described as a "huge asset for the England National Team" by the then Hull City captain. He said his loyalties lay with Scotland though. What a b*****d. And as a final point, there seems to be some assumption that players are "settling" for us. That may well be true, and probably is in some cases, but it's an incredibly lazy conclusion to jump to. There will be players eligible for us through the non-traditional means that will get more of a kick of playing for us than people born here. It's cliched nonsense to suggest that being born here suddenly makes you rabid for the opportunity, and that the opposite leaves you cold. Lol, what a load of utter nonsense. Go and have a lie down, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forameus Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, Dullard Bluteau said: Lol, what a load of utter nonsense. Go and have a lie down, lol. So absolutely no answers to any of the valid questions I put to you? That says a lot Just stick to being an absolute seething roaster, you're better at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northboy Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 7 hours ago, Dunning1874 said: McLeish is done as a manager and no one in their right mind should want him now, but overall our squad is better now than it was then. Agreed, McLeish is just one place above Moyes on my list. After Scotland he did win the League Cup at Birmingham but got relegated in the same season and since then has had short and unsuccessful spells at Villa, Forest, Genk and Zamalek. You wouldn't pick a player with that kind of form so why pick a manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoonTon Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 A big irony about Vogts reign was that he capped so many players but somehow managed to overlook many of the players who would go on to be important under Smith and McLeish. We could really do with players like Gordon, Faddy, and Fletcher coming through at the moment. I'm not sure how that could somehow be painted as a bad time to be Scotland manager (compared to what has come in the last decade, at least). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dullard Bluteau Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 On 17/10/2017 at 12:00, forameus said: So absolutely no answers to any of the valid questions I put to you? That says a lot Just stick to being an absolute seething roaster, you're better at it. Resorting to abuse confirms you have run out of argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forameus Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, Dullard Bluteau said: Resorting to abuse confirms you have run out of argument. An argument suggests you actually had some counterpoints, but you didn't offer any. Gave you the opportunity to actually put forward some alternatives, but you shat it. So...aye. Fancy another shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.