Moses Supposes

Will I delete my post on the grounds that it doesn't qualify as an unpopular opinion?

Friends was just an endless recycling of a single unfunny joke: 1. Cutesy bird says something. 2. Dopey guy misunderstands, says something stupid. 3. Dopey bird misunderstands misunderstanding, says something even more stupid. 4. Cutesy bird looks confused. 5. Canned laughter with lots of hoots and cheers. 6. Moses Supposes reaches for remote.

It's a fair question. And, of course, I don't remember it all by any means -- and I'm evidently a little older than you as I was at secondary school. It was a highly complex set of events and I have to acknowledge that my position on MacLeod and on the whole sorry affair as it is now has been completely coloured by what actually happened in Argentina and what came out in the wash after. MacLeod wasn't the only culprit but he was the principal one if only because he was swept up by the whole thing and just didn't have the facility to control events when they got out of hand. However, as someone else said this is a photography thread so I will close with a pic of Ally in happier times.

Very well. Then, just for the record I will state I believe it was perfectly reasonable for MacLeod to talk about the strength of his squad. It was not perfectly reasonable to bum them up as potential world champions and at the same time indulge the players, media (not that they needed much encouraging) and much of the nation in a feeding frenzy of unrealistic expectations and general nonsense that preceded the campaign rather than getting those players focused and tempered for the task ahead.

I'm not really. I was just trying to lighten it up. I guess it could be argued all three of them underachieved with decent squads. Ferguson was unlucky. Stein very unlucky. MacLeod was just inept. The outcomes of football games are often determined by fine margins. Ferguson's team got one point from three games but never once did his teams plunge to the depths of performance that MacLeod's outfits did against Peru and Iran. But you knew that.

And they did it without making a complete c**t of themselves -- just goes to show what's possible when you're not a clown.

Those two goals, against N Ireland and Wales, were Johnstone's only goals for Scotland in 14 games. I don't understand your second sentence. My actual point is I don't think Johnstone should have been selected ahead of Andy Gray who had been pulling up trees in England for several seasons -- I would have had no problem with him being omitted. Gray was sharper, quicker and more mobile than Johnstone. MacLeod picked the wrong man. MacLeod said on more than one occasion he expected Scotland to win "at least a medal". In other words no lower than third place and probably better. He was not joking when he said it. The line about retaining it may have been said tongue in cheek but it was redolent of the general wha's like us nonsense that was inflamed by MacLeod and his friends in the Scottish media at the time. Can you imagine Jock Stein, Jim McLean or Alex Ferguson talking about medals? I agree, Scotland had lots of top players. They under-performed. They were badly prepared, undercooked, wrongly set up, shambolic in the first two games and ill-disciplined . In other words, they were badly managed. I think clown is fair.

Somebody else said that about McQueen. We can bandy details -- for instance, IMHO Johnstone was never an international class player (even McLeod seemed to recognise this giving Harper some pitch time in Argentina and big Derek not a minute) -- but was is beyond question is McLeod was a clown and the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time. McLeod was talking about winning and retaining trophy at one stage. If that is not grossly inflated I don't know what is.

That's enough World Cup songs -- Ed.

Johnston was dropped for disciplinary reasons but was worth a spot. Gray was past his best -- never scored 30 goals for Everton in his life. The others you mention were no better than those picked.

Still, we had some great World Cup songs.

Which was absolutely typical of the utterly shambolic wha's like us approach to the whole project.

Thanks. I confess some of my details are a little clouded by the passing of time, although I remember very distinctly McQueen getting on the plane using crutches.

The manager was a clown. He was actually handed gift-wrapped a set of highly talented and high-achieving players, but he didn't have a clue how to select a squad never mind a team. Among his many baffling decisions was leaving the prolific scoring Andy Gray out of the squad and taking Joe Harper and Derek Johnstone instead, choosing Gordon McQueen who was recovering from a broken leg and actually boarded the plane for Argentina on crutches and persisting with Masson and Rioch when it had been obvious for a some time they had lost form. Coupled with his utterly baffling selections was a grossly inflated sense of both his and the team's actual abilities. He spent most of his time talking nonsense to journalists and making increasingly ridiculous statements about Scotland's prospects of success in the finals and beyond!

I was just about to post the same. There can be no other reason.

What in the name of f**k could work like you don't need the money ever mean? That's not even as good as wrong.

The dog looks really fierce.

Man's got a point.

But that budget makes all the difference. Rangers are signing players from the bargain basement. They are reliant on loans, rejects and make-weights. Not one of their players would get close to a starting place in a tier 2 EPL team never mind tier 1. They are competing for players with English Championship teams. All hardly surprising as they are reliant on ticket sales as a main source of income.

Other than number of supporters Rangers' claim to be swimming with the big boys is entirely spurious.

Compared to the level in which Gerrard has operated managing Rangers is no big thing. He probably has to convince himself it's on the same level as Frank Lampard at Derby County.

It seems the photo shows a Thistle player called John Flanagan (as suggested by 7-2) playing at Firhill in 1967. Thistle's change strip in the 1960s was navy blue. So, why this outfit? Who is the opposition? Intriguing.

I think it was suck rather than shag, but exactly what he does with his fat thumb in the privacy of his own home I'm sure is entirely becoming of his august office.