Jump to content

 

 

Rousseau

  • Posts

    18,310
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    168

Posts posted by Rousseau

  1. 42 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

    Is the modern 'full back' more important as a defender or as an attacker? Opine. Or discuss, if you wish.

     

    (Note that a midfield general,  from Ajaccio FC, then in France's Second Division, observed that attack is the best form of defence. He went on to conquer Europe, thereafter, with what was styled Boneyball.)

     

     

    I'd go full VL-statto-nerd and say both: one rampaging forward, the other inverting. 

  2. 1 hour ago, CammyF said:

    I'm not though. 

     

    Bassey is a fantastic example of the development model we require. Worth noting, he was written off (what age was he) by the majority of Rangers fans, then stormed into the team, played brilliantly and sold for a huge profit. 

     

    If Tav goes, a £6M fee is wonderful business. He has contributed immensely to our club, hardly missed a game and will make us a profit. 

     

    Ridvan may develop into a great player, but he has hardly shown any glimpses of being continually outstanding (ala Bassey).

     

    The initial outlay means we would need to sell for £5M to show any decent profit. Keeping him and playing him, in the hope he does improve sufficiently could trigger some of the add-ons, meaning we would need to sell him for £8-£10M.

     

    He just doesn't look like a £8-£10M player (neither does Dessers) but nobody can argue that Dessers contribution in under 10 months is far better than Ridvans in what, 2 years?

     

    In my opinion neither fit the trading model we are aspiring to and neither should be here long term. 

    Bassey is a good example. Taverneir is still not a good example, even if he does make a profit. Good business, absolutely, but we need to be selling them earlier. 

     

    Ridvan cost us £3.4m (add-ons take it to £5m).

     

    Is that the criteria? "Continually outstanding"? Bassey was a bombscare at the start - and that was after a year of not starting a game - so he wouldn't count. Bassey needed time to develop.

     

    (He was older than Ridvan when he was written off... 👀

     

    (Dessers was never worth £5m. I said so at the time. Terrible business. That doesn't mean we can't get use out of him.)

     

    Ridvan does fit the model. Your - or my - opinion of him is irrelevant in that regard. 

  3. 42 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

    I never really understood why people listen to the radio.  Either annoying presenters or adverts get in the way of music.

     

    Plenty of other ways to find new artists/material.

    You don't necessarily listen to music on the radio.

  4. 16 hours ago, CammyF said:

    £6M for a player we signed for £250,000 and who has captained with distinction would be hard to turn down. It's exactly the trading model we require.

     

    Ridvan is the exact opposite - paid a high fee for him, he's failed to deliver and we will be hard pushed to break-even. 

     

    I understand that players require time before a judgement is made, but try telling that to the likes of Dessers, Sima, et al who were written off instantly, and some, like Dessers is still being written off even though he has contributed more and been here less time than someone like Ridvan and who are lauded for mediocrity. 

     

    Weirdly, the fans in our support who continue to write the likes of Dessers off are the ones who tend to laud over Ridvan. 

    You're missing the development aspect of the player trading model, but yes, definitely. (Technically that's true for Tavernier, but in theory we should be selling them a lot sooner than 32.)

     

    I don't see the point in writing off any player. It's something I don't do. I always look at their skill-sets and look at how we can best utilise them - even someone like Lammers. 

     

    However, I can understand - even if I don't agree with it - someone writing off a 29-year-old, but I can't understand writing off a 22-year-old (who cost a lot less than the 29-year-old). 

  5. 24 minutes ago, CammyF said:

    The potential issue with keeping him around is he doesn't play (I hope we are signing a better left back) and or worse, keeps getting injured and we'll never recoup the outlay, nevermind make a profit. 

     

    If there is interest in Ridvan from Turkey and its £3M or higher, I think we need to take it.

     

    Regarding Tav, there are rumours that 2 or 3 Saudi teams are looking to bid for him. Reported fee of £6M which would be hard to turn down for a player of his age.

     

    Whether he'd fancy life in Saudi is another matter entirely, as from what I've heard he is really settled here.

    That's true for any backup. 

     

    I'd still take any money we get over what we paid. 

     

    I'd take that for Taverneir. I'm sure he could put up with a season or two in Saudi for the money. 

  6. 9 minutes ago, CammyF said:

    I think the major frustration for me is the fee we paid for him (that's not his fault), I was expecting a player who'd burst into the team and outperform Barisic.

     

    Facts / stats show that's not been the case and he has spent more time injured (or settling in?) than he has playing.

     

    His performances have improved recently, then dipped against Benfica which was probably a mix of the quality of opposition and the fact Ridvan looked mentally and physically gone. 

     

    In all honesty, we'll struggle to make much of a profit on him and I'd sell for "break-even".

     

    However as said previously, with Barisic going at the end of the season, it's unlikely we'll sign 2 left backs as money / replacements required elsewhere (unless we pick up a loan or our of contract player).

    Especially if the increasing rumours of Tav leaving are true. But that's a separate discussion for another thread. 

    It's certainly a source of frustration. 

     

    It was £3.5m (outwith the extras which won't have been met), iirc. At 22 we can still keep him around - at worst, as a back-up - for another couple of years and still do OK out of the deal, IMO. 

     

    You can't just drop that Taverneir bombshell and leave it there! Where has this come from? I haven't seen anything. 

  7. 2 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

    Has anyone even heard anything about the extent of Ridvan's injury?

    Seems to be a lot of posters jumping to rather pessimistic conclusions.  

    I was just going to ask that. 

     

    I've just seen an article suggesting 7–10 days. 

     

    That's nothing at all or a Rossitter situation!

  8. 1 hour ago, Tannochsidebear said:

    He should certainly be on more than 1 goal and 1 assist given the way we play and the level of opponents we face. Perhaps I want too much from him, like maybe just once every 10 corners he gets it past the first man, or that he can actually tackle  in a defensive position or prevent a cross from coming in. You know, old school full back stuff before all this xA nonsense was being used to try to prove that a player everyone can see is sub-standard is actually almost standard in one of 100 categories. The facts are that despite improving hugely, he still is miles short of being good enough IMO. I would try to make a profit on him in the summer, he is clearly desirable elsewhere, but I don’t see him moving anywhere so he will continue to get my full support during matches, and my honest assessment on Gersnet.

    You specifically brought up assists. I just took it to its logical conclusion. 

     

    There was actually a fuller discusson above about his all-round stats and qualities. 

     

    The sarcasm is unnecessary. 

     

    I think it's absolute madness to punt a player because he's not the finished article at 22-years-old. Not only does he still have plenty of scope to improve, it is also terrible management. 

     

    We should be punting the aging players and keeping those with youth and potential. 

     

    (Saying that, if someone came in to give us a profit on him, I'd take it. I'd take that with every player.) 

  9. 1 hour ago, Tannochsidebear said:

    I must admit I am surprised he has been fit for this long, I thought he had only managed a handful of games between injuries. Looking at your link, 1 goal and 1 assist in about 13 games worth of minutes between league and scottish cup since Xmas reinforces my thoughts that he is nowhere near good enough, and we must look to replace this summer or next winter at the latest. While I am pleased to see he has certainly improved his overall play and doesn't give the ball away as much as he used to, he is still fairly poor defensively IMO and not providing enough goals/assists offensively. He has now had the run of games and settling in period so there are no more excuses, he just isn't what we need. However he is very well thought of back in Kebab-land so hopefully we can make some money from him, as he was bloody expensive for such a limited player so hopefully that value has increased over his time with us, winning trophies and playing high profile games in Europe will certainly do that on highlights reels.

    How many assists do you think a full-back should be providing? Are you thinking he should be putting up Tavernier numbers? 

     

    Take Trent Alexander-Arnold, who I think we can agree is the most creative FB in the PL; He has 7 assists from 34 games, which is around 0.20 per 90. If we extrapolate that to the 13 games Ridvan has played, you would be looking at around 2–3 assists. 

     

    I would also argue Ridvan assist output is better because his xA is around 3.5. If our forwards were any good he'd be sitting at 3–4 assists. He is creating the chances. 

     

    TAA also has two goals. 

     

    Moreover, Ridvan is only 22. Do you not think players can improve? 

     

    I think it's worth keeping him for another year or two, and if the injury record continues, then sell. 

     

    Punting him – and any player – because he's not exactly what you want at this exact moment is madness. 

     

    The sensible thing to do is replace the aging Barisic and keep Ridvan.

  10. He’s only gone and done it again. Mark Blyth, born in Dundee but now professor of international economics at the prestigious Brown University in the United States – the man who was wooed by the Scottish government to join its economic advisory council in 2021 in the obvious hope he would lend credibility (and maybe a touch of stardust) to its case for secession – has eviscerated the economic arguments for splitting from the UK.

     

    As a quick recap, not long before Blyth took up his role formally advising the Scottish government, video emerged of him criticising the economic case for a Scottish exit from the UK on the basis it would be ‘the biggest Brexit in history’.

     

    ‘It’s [the UK] been together for over 300 years, so if pulling apart 30 years of economic integration with Europe is going to hurt, 300 is going to hurt a lot,’ he said.

     

    What was meant to be a PR triumph for the SNP completely backfired. Blyth no longer advises the Scottish government. But perhaps because he has previously signalled his backing for secession despite being so honest and open about the downsides, the professor remains something of a darling of the nationalist movement.

     

    Fast forward to this weekend and a video interview with Blyth from his US home was the star attraction at the ‘Scotonomics Festival of Economics’, a conference organised by separatists aiming to boost the economic case for secession. It was incredible. With his record for saying it like it is, you might have expected Blyth to drop the odd truth bomb here and there. Instead, he turned up with a 10-megaton truth nuke.

     

    Let’s start with his repeating his warning that a Scottish exit from the UK will be like Brexit on steroids. ‘You can’t really say that Brexit is the worst thing ever and then commit the biggest Brexit of all time. Which is literally what this is,’ said Blyth.

     

    He went on to say Scots have to think sensibly about what being independent really means:

     

    *‘At the end of the day, as a small, open economy, which you then would be, you need to balance your imports and your exports over the long term or everyone thinks your currency is shite, and at that point they dump it, prefer payments in British pounds, and then you get a run on your foreign exchange, and you get a mini Argentina on your hands. So just because you’re independent, you can print bits of money, doesn’t mean anything if you don’t have things to back it up.’*

     

    The SNP’s currency plan is for an independent Scotland to start off unofficially using sterling before moving to adopt a new Scottish currency as quickly as is feasible. Some nationalist supporters, including the organisers of the event, view the creation of a Scottish currency as the key to successfully cutting away. This is because they subscribe to modern monetary theory (MMT), which posits that countries in control of their own currency essentially do not have to worry about budget constraints so long as they keep inflation under control.

     

    The MMTers also favour a newly independent Scotland refusing to accept a share of UK government debt. This is also something the SNP has hinted at using as a threat to provide the Scotland side with leverage in separation negotiations.

     

    It is safe to say Blyth is not a fan of MMT or this approach to national debt. ‘MMT is closed economy Keynesianism. That’s all it is, and you don’t live in closed economies,’ he said, adding that if MMT applies anywhere it can only apply in the US, with its uniquely dominant economy that effectively gives it a form of insulation. ‘You’ll just get poor as shit,’ was his final analysis. 

     

    He also added that a newly independent Scotland, effectively starting life by defaulting on its debt while launching a new currency, will have zero credibility in financial markets.

     

    Then there was the argument often put by First Minister Humza Yousaf that cutting away from the UK will recreate Scotland as the rich Nordic-like nation it naturally should be. ‘Scotland, particularly in nationalist circles, loves to say that Scotland is a small open economy like the Nordic economies. That’s a bit like saying I’m a supermodel because I also have legs,’ said Blyth. Ouch, as they say.

     

    A few other Blyth zingers were:

     

    On currency again: ‘The entirety of currency is confidence. Confidence is not given by nationalist fiat.’

     

    On the argument that becoming independent will improve energy security: ‘Your energy infrastructure is owned by asset managers… so how you going to improve that when you don’t even own it and you’ve no capacity to buy it. I mean I don’t do fantasy economics. I’m too old for this.’

     

    On debt again: ‘If you think you’re starting off with a default, you’re dead already.’

     

    Blyth, the author of anti-austerity book Angrynomics, was no doubt asked to be interviewed for the conference to provide the proceedings with a bit of star quality. He gave us much more than that. His honesty on the economic costs of independence is to be applauded. If only his audience of committed nationalists could be so open to reality.

     

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-snps-star-economist-eviscerates-the-case-for-independence/

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.