Jump to content

MrWorldwideJr

Gold Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Excellent

About MrWorldwideJr

  • Rank
    Sunday League Sub

Profile Information

  • My Team
    Aberdeen

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. To be fair 'we're' not really talking about this in May. One poster who has clearly been set on the conclusion of 'there was no need for a lockdown' since about March is talking about it. Its been very obvious from their posts over this whole period that they were going to come to the same conclusion regardless of what actually happened.
  2. Imagine being so arrogant that you think people not agreeing with your terrible ideas on improving Scottish football means that they hate Scottish football. Anyone who seriously believes that putting colt teams into tier 4 would have a noticeable impact on the quality of the national team or would draw crowds of 20,000 - 30,000 as you claimed in your other thread is completely clueless. We don't hate Scottish football, you just don't know what you're talking about.
  3. There seems to be a group of people like you who are under the impression that because we are in the middle of a pandemic we shouldn't be allowed to think or talk about anything else. As if talking about trivial things means we don't get that this is a serious. That isn't what talking about sport means at all. Nobody is under any illusions that this situation is serious or that restrictions are going to last for a long time. Sport is a distraction from the shit parts of life, for many people a very important distraction, a way to have fun for a few hours a week. That doesn't change just because the shit thing that its distracting us from has gotten worse. Of course I'm worried about my health and the health of my family. Of course I'm concerned about whether my job will still exist in six months time. Does that mean that I've stopped caring about football? Of course not. When this is all over I'm still going to be interested in who is in the Premiership, who won the league this year, what the format is going to be. So what's the problem with spending some time talking and reading about it now? Its possible to care about multiple things at the same time.
  4. This post just proves my point. None of the things you are saying are actual arguments, its just buzzwords. Explain to me why the current structure is unproductive. Explain why regionalising instead would be more productive. Explain why your change is required in order for more emphasis to be placed on facilities, coaching and development. Explain why regionalising earlier will improve the football league structure, what will be better for supporters of, say, Stirling Albion if they are playing regionally instead of nationally? Explain why it would be more attractive to sponsors. You don't do any of this, you just say it would be so as it is obvious, but it isn't. As for 'bringing up the national team argument again' - you are the one who has pushed this as the main thrust of your argument for pages and pages. If you want to change your tune now then fair enough but don't act as if its weird that people are refuting something that until recently was the main point of your argument.
  5. Its not at all no. I haven't seen you make a single argument more complex than 'Croatia/Belgium/whoever else regionalise at tier 3 and got to the world cup final so we need to regionalise at tier 3 too'. That isn't evidence based. Its forcing a correlation where you have absolutely no evidence that the two are linked because you want it to be true. Come back with actual evidence that regionalising early in any way correlates to a more succesful national team, to more youth players from the lower tiers ending up in the national team. Come back with some sort of explanation of where all the money you think clubs will save by playing in a regional set up is coming from and demonstrate that it won't just be cancelled out by lower sponsorship/prize money/gates. Until then your argument remains an irrational failure to understand that correlation doesn't equal causation and that you don't actually have any real evidence from other countries that proves the same thing would work in Scotland.
  6. And your solution to this is appointing the famously innovative and forward thinking Gordon Strachan?
  7. I think this might be your issue tbh. Not one person on this thread is treating him as the 'messiah' or anything close to that. Pretty much every regular poster on this thread this season has had regular criticisms and complaints about him. The only 'over the score' comments here have been yours ramping up how much you think he has failed every time you post, you started off quite reasonable but trying to downplay winning trophies and regularly finishing second is a bit silly. People calling you out on this doesn't equal being part of the 'McInnes can do no wrong' brigade.
  8. Out of interest, who do you want to replace him? There are some managers doing such a disastrous job (McLeish with Scotland for example) that you just need to sack them and then worry about who their replacement is afterwards. Its pretty obvious that McInnes is not an example of this and if we're going to get rid it should be with a clear plan of who we are going to replace him with, someone who will be a clear improvement. Who do you think we could realistically attract to the role who would fit the bill?
  9. What's their average wage though?
  10. It only looks like it isn't a big gulf (although I would argue that halving your earnings is a pretty big gulf in any case) because you've compared his potential earnings over 18 months at Rangers to his earnings over 6 months at Southampton and then assumed that in that scenario he doesn't earn any money for the next year. In reality if he stays at Southampton for 6 months he will then leave and sign for another club (and if that club is in England will likely make quite a bit more than 12k per week) so the real gulf in earnings over those 18 months is quite a bit larger than you are making out.
  11. Regardless of whether you call it a 5-3-2 or a 3-5-2 it doesn't change my point given that I was replying to a poster describing it as a 3-5-2. Plenty of teams use this formation in world football at the moment so it seems odd to describe McLeish as a dinosaur for using it, what seems dinosaur-ish about it is that he appears to have taken a formation that is popular in world football at the moment and decided to use it without any clear idea of how to make it work for us.
  12. Well obviously. I don't think anyone was arguing that Scotland are somehow mythically cursed to be unable to play 3-5-2 ever regardless of the players available. What they were arguing is that the current crop of players aren't best suited to it and that a different formation might be a better solution for the current squad. Bringing up a bunch of long since retired players who were suited to playing 3-5-2 is pretty irrelevant in that context, the fact that Tom Boyd was known as a full back doesn't really bring us any closer to working out what to do with Tierney and Robertson.
  13. That's one extra group game per team but three extra group games per group. That increases the total number of group matches from 48 (which is the same as currently) to 96. Which, assuming that FIFA aren't on board with playing matches at the same time since it would damage viewing figures, increases the length of the tournament by about a week.
  14. We looked a far better team in the second half of qualifying when we brought in a bunch of fresh faces than in the first half where we by and large persisted with the team which failed to get us to Euro 2016. That to me demonstrates that simply persisting with a core of players for the sake of continuity and building up international experience doesn't really work. It was far preferable for Strachan to fail spectacularly at creating continuity and improve the team than persist with the same players because we've decided that that's the way to do it. The likes of Armstrong and Griffiths immediately looked far more effective despite limited caps when they came in from the start against Slovenia and in the games after that than their more experienced predecessors had looked in the first four games of the campaign. I think we often over complicate what other countries do to get success in the belief all we need to do is find that magic bullet (play the same team for years at a time/have a core of players from the same club/play in a specific style) to start qualifying for things. To me, the thing that all these overachieving countries have in common is that they find a manager who will by and large pick the best players available to them, man manage them to get the best out of them, generate a great team spirit and play tactics which suit the players and the opposition. I've been watching Scotland since 2002 and there is only one qualifying campaign during that time where I can say I think we had all of those things and that was the one where we ended up in the same group as France and Italy. Finding that manager is obviously the difficult part but I'd really rather we didn't try to stick to a philosophy such as the one proposed in the mistaken belief that its the main reason for other country's successes.
×
×
  • Create New...