calscot

That must be annoying for Falkirk...

Not exclusively no, and I didn't say you said that, but you did say "the odd player over that age". So I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It comes across kind of like the Tims defending their sectarianism as their team wasn't exclusively Catholic. You're not abusive at all, are you? As I've said before, I'm pretty respectful until someone comes in with derogatory remarks which you always seem to do, then the kid gloves come off. However, I'm not surprised you are struggling to make sense of it as you're views tend to be very entrenched. Try a bit of objectivity and applying lateral thinking, and if you're right you will be able to tell me why it's nonsense, which you have failed to do. You're being a bit like John Cleese in the Argument Sketch here. I'm not sure often how often that is true as I recall debunking it before, but it was much less two seasons ago and no-one was happy. I can see how that is undesirable but madness is a bit strong. And by "average" do you mean the "mean", the "median" or the "mode". The mean can be overly skewed by outliers like Davy Weir, Jig and the odd 16 year old so you probably need to do a more rigorous statistical analysis. Just replacing a 40 year old Weir with an 18 year old would bring our mean age down by 2 years. Doesn't mean the team would be improved and I think a lot of players developed playing next to him. But then I'm more interested in how the team is in the points league rather than winning the average age table. It's an indicator that there is a lack of balance but not something to artificially mess with as a priority. For me as the mainstream age range of players is about 18 to 34, I think the average should be somewhere in the middle at about 26, but as I say it shouldn't be the main aim or hard and fast rule. A winning formula is a lot more complex than that. I agree we have too many older pros who are not giving us much, but then you're ignoring where we've been for the last few years and picking up the best young talent that will ensure successive promotions has not been something that is easy to do. When you're dumpster diving for free stuff, you go for the best quality you can find in a load of unwanted crap, and can hardly do much choosing. Trouble is the best quality stuff for free is usually by it's sell by date. You're logic doesn't quite follow - a lack of money means we can't afford the best players in their early to mid 20's and expecting a high proportion of our youngsters to automatically be able to be part of what needs to be the best team in the country is more than a bit hopeful - you just have to look at the likes of Hutton and Crawford. Maybe in the long term we can do this, but we're still dumpster diving at the moment. Isn't that what we've been doing - eg Templeton? Didn't you go on about subtle abuse? I think you should read it again without the "I disagree with you as a rule" mentality, and it might become a bit less bizarre. It's about taking things to their natural conclusion without which you can't judge the sustainability of your proposals.

I forgot to reply with quote: My post is very relevant to that and it seems to be the way all these discussions go, so possibly pre-empting it a bit. Yes, we need to bleed youngsters in, I've always agreed with that. And when the senior players are not performing, they should get more of a chance as inexperience plus massive motivation is better than loads of experience and a can't be bothered attitude. What I don't agree with is flooding teams with youngsters as that is potentially really bad for the game as my previous post explains. A balance for me would be a couple of youngsters between 17 and 20, a few in their early 20's who have a lot of talent to be developed, a few in their late twenties, pretty much at their peak, and a couple of classy players in their early 30's that have been in our team for several seasons and are almost a fixture of the club. I don't advocate bringing in new 30 plus year olds unless they are very special like say Gascoigne (although we now talking about an equivalent at our much lower standing). I would prefer to rotate the youngsters to stop burnout meaning about 6 or so a season are given a decent chance and gain experience, and depending on how well they are coping, possibly replace them for the bigger games where a level head is necessary.

As pointed out before, if every club fills their team with players under a certain age - say 25, then there will be a situation where the majority of players will have to retire at 25 or whatever age is artificially introduced, as there will be too few places for anyone but the best. Makes a short career even shorter (imagine if we choose 21) and a lot of talent would be lost to the game for fear of not having a career to finance them for life. I'm also wondering if such a vast lack of experience in football will have a negative impact on the quality on show. Are the U21 leagues ever as good as the proper leagues? If they are better, then why don't people go watch that instead? Is the Olympic competition better than the World Cup? I don't see it as sustainable when you look at the big picture. There are also ageism laws to get round if you try to make this a policy. Can you imagine even telling a player, "You've been a great player for the last few seasons but you've turned 25 so we'll have to let you go as we already have a couple of slightly better overage players." Imagine it was applied to other professions, like our own? Even in football I think it would start with a load of PFA strikes. Really can't see what good it would do, and more likely to make the game worse than it already is. I've said all this before but it continually comes up without any addressing of the consequences and I really can't see the "balance".

I would give the guy the benefit of the doubt about deliberate but in a game I would expect a sending off and penalty. If it was like rugby a goal would be given. However, the officials missed it and that happens in game after game. That lot have had a lot more in their favour and they get lawyers in to defend their players when they are obviously guilty. I agree with Gordon Smith that we need to introduce two challenges a game that are referred to the TV replay judge. (And if you win the challenge you don't lose it.) The higher levels of the game can easily afford it and the amount of money that a bad decision could cost a club is disproportionate. Forget it in the lower leagues and amateur stuff, but the top leagues and cups should be allowed to decide if they want it and it should be compulsory in UEFA competitions and internationals. I've been saying something like this for many years. The question I'm sometimes asked by the likes of the Tims, who just don't get fairness, is what if your team lose games because of the technology, and my answer is always, I have no problem losing a game fair and square. I do have a problem with losing unfairly, but as long as that unfairness is consistent, I'll take the smooth with the rough - ie if we win by a bad decision, I'll be a bit embarrassed but happy to keep the points or the place in the next round as things usually tend to even out over time. I do believe if the game was a lot fairer and rules applied more consistently we'd actually be a more successful club - thinking about the likes of Marseilles and our game congestion for the UEFA final and SPL finish, and much more. We seem to get treated unfairly at pretty crucial times. I also believe Celtic would be much worse off as they have manipulated so much into their favour from which they have benefited from and which will never even out.

Got to agree. If you complain like that over a decision against you, you have no integrity unless you concede games you won or drew where a decision went for you.

The trouble with football is that the sport is disappearing up its financial arse. Maybe it's Bosman that's burst the dam that kept it a real sport rather than who's got most money. UEFA actually used to have many rules to inlcuding the 3 foreigner restriction, to try to prevent single clubs buying up all the best players. Although it sounds like a great thing, it kills the game in a competitive sense and devalues the World Cup. Since the EC ruling, they seem to have given in to the larger clubs and have now created a continent of inequality that has taken hope away from many, many clubs and put quite a few out of business. There is so much they could have done to stem the tide but the threat of a breakaway has rendered them impotent. Because football is a professional team sport, it is susceptible to being dominated by not who has the best sporting ideals, but just who has the most money, which sucks all of the real game out of it. I now see the EPL as a Mickey Mouse league - as a parallel to what they call ours, as it's a league like Disney Land where everything looks wonderful and fairytale like but it's just an expensive façade and completely fake. It has absolutely no interest to me, and the situation is made worse with teams like Chelsea and Man City spending the ill gotten gains of foreign billionaires to achieve success over clubs working on normal earnings. There is no heart or history there, as they could be any club the owners chose on a whim - Fulham just drew in the wrong rich guy and Blackburn's sugar daddy got bored - and out muscled financially. There is a certain spreading of wealth in the EPL but it's obviously not working to even things up and it's also creating a situation where even the top sides in smaller European countries with large supports, just can't compete even with the English also rans. In Scotland we can't really talk as we've had the OF dominance pretty much as long as anyone can remember, but we're suffering now and European glory is but a pipe dream for us all. We probably hurt more as we're used to success in a way 99% of other clubs aren't. With all the whining about the state of the Rangers team on the park, you have to wonder how the fans of the 40 other Scottish teams have got by for the last 100 years. So now we have to decide whether to improve our own game in some way to make our domestic competitions interesting and compelling, or do the rugby thing and put all our eggs in two baskets in the hope of competing in a European arena. The problem is that we don't have enough eggs to make a difference. We should have demanded a British league as part of the No vote as apart from the missed opportunity of perhaps starting in the bottom leagues of England instead of Division 3, there doesn't seem to be light at the end of the tunnel. But in the end people have to decide what they want football to be all about - why should one team win and not another - should it be because the club are better at getting a lot more income, or due to some sporting philosophy or drive for excellence in skill and fitness? At the moment is all about the money and Scotland doesn't have much, and we've handicapped ourselves further by victimising our top club and alienating a large percentage of the Scottish fan base who may never return.

No, I stop talking to a nutter who keeps ranting and raving about personal stuff about me. You're asking me because you're the sort of nutter who thinks he knows things about people he couldn't possibly know. I have no idea how specifying the games I've been to makes the slightest difference and I'm not going to pander to your neurotic demands - it's not as I've been boasting about going to every second home game plus some away games - but if someone did, how would anyone know whether it was true? Very strange request, and my whereabouts at certain dates is not information I'm going to give to some nut job on the Internet, just because he demands it. No shit Sherlock - I already told you I try to get to one game every year or two. But again you're just boring the tits off of everyone with this weird shit. What difference does it make? You say you go half the time even though you don't enjoy it, and you can't even assess how the team are playing. Deflection from that is why you started this strange pissing contest which you just can't drop. If we can get back to the thread, the point is that Celtic are acting like twats again after buggering up a treble, the winning of which should have been a piece of piss for them; most people are finding it funny, and you've thrown the toys out the pram as you like to bum up Celtic and put down Rangers and go ape shit when someone disagrees with you.

I remember four of five years ago we started a thread on referee decisions as we seemed to be getting a lot of bad ones against us while they seemed to be benefiting from a number of bad decisions. We were really trying to be objective and giving the benefit of the doubt quite often but it was still looking exceptionally weighted against us. We didn't go crazy and blame the refs although we know their hysteria does seem to affect the refereeing. It just seemed like a run of bad luck for us - which meant they could in no way say the referees were against them... As if! Their hysteria about "h*n" refs was a cacophony once again.

You just can't stop being a bit strange can you? What relevance is there for which specific games I've been to? Are you still deflecting? Maybe you want to list all yours but I'm not actually interested - and I don't think I'd believe you anyway. I really don't believe you could possibly go to Ibrox - unless it's the away end. Your anti-Rangers and pro-Celtic diatribe would get you into all sorts of trouble. You actually come across as more of a Chelsea fan (I've seen you talk about your "beloved Chelsea" but never "beloved Rangers"), but even there I doubt you go to many games at Stamford Bridge which would make you a hypocrite once again. BTW I've been to one Chelsea game in the last five years too - not that that is relevant either, and I can't be bothered specifying which one. And so you're admitting you'd rather do something else these days than watch Rangers games, eh? But again, I really can't see the relevance at all to the topic of your sycophancy to Celtic and your animosity towards Rangers. It seems to be pure deflection. No you're not. You can try to find a quote, but I assure it's not there - you twisted something I said and I've explained my preference many, many times, so it can't even be a misunderstanding. I don't think you'll want me to find all those explanations as it'll show you up as a bit of a weirdo. But in the end, what kind of sane person believes they can win an argument with someone they don't know on the Internet about their own preferences? It's just nuts. Ironically you originally brought this whole thing up as I caught you out making derogatory comments on a game where we played not so bad. You said it was "same old rubbish". I watched it as the first game in a month, and thought it was ok - which I stated in reply that this would mean that all the previous "rubbish" games must have been the standard I saw. Everyone else said, "massive improvement" which showed you probably didn't actually watch the game but couldn't help getting stuck into the team anyway. It's funny you keep bringing this up as you've actually said time and again you'd actually rather watch an EPL game than Rangers when you have access to both. You seem to watch a lot of Celtic too and are usually complimentary. I'd prefer to watch a Rangers league game over any other match including the CL final - would you? How about one with Chelsea in it? Put Rangers vs Hamilton against Chelsea vs Barcelona with the choice of only one, and I'm sure we'll be watching different matches. It's obvious you definately don't have as much of a preference towards Rangers as I have so please desist from your lies. Isn't your own view in this very thread that it is hypocritical to mock those in higher league than you? I take you are a manager in a higher league than those two were? Or are you just a hypocrite? You have been caught out once again. What????? You went to great lengths to insult my opinion that the team have potential to improve under a better manager than McCoist. I even pointed out how weird it was that you were arguing against something where logically, the worse you think McCoist is the more potential the team had. Your answer in the end was that you always disagree with me, which pretty much saying that your opinion is defined by mine no matter what it is, which is incredibly weak. What?????? Are you suffering from amnesia? The evidence was all in the thread at the time and there is no doubt you were arguing against me... But like I said at the time, you are so busy arguing your agenda, that you don't even understand the implications of what *you're* saying, which is why you contradict yourself all the time and do some kind of backfill to change the meaning of what you said. This is why you always lose the argument and so you resort to defamation. No it absolutely hasn't. You said no-one could be worse than Ally, then Ally leaves and we get worse - which is in accordance with my opinion that he's about average. How in hell were YOU proven right? You said our players couldn't improve under another manager and wouldn't likely make the play-offs - they seem to have done under McCall which is in accordance with my opinion which you also disagreed with. How were you right there? Hmm, megalomania? If you're a Rangers fans, why are you so unfriendly to Rangers? I don't think it's something I could realistically be accused of.

That IS the Celtic minded view, so I'm not surprised you subscribe to it. Most Rangers fans tend to see it as being mugged and then given the boot while we were down. Rangers as an entity, didn't actually do that much wrong and when you compare it to soft loans and preferential land agreements, then there is another club you defend who should have been punished far more than us - and didn't they do an EBT too? I really don't get the "all our own doing" bit. Rangers fans are pretty innocent. Like almost all Rangers fans, I'll admit to having schadenfreude when it comes to Celtic and will laugh at all their misfortunes, and it goes beyond mere rivalry - I've explained it all in an analogy in another post. You're just not very like most Rangers fans.

Yes, but SBS is obviously hurting.

Yes, a few. I come up to visit once a year and try to get to a game. I really doubt you have a season ticket to both Ibrox and Samford Bridge so I don't know how you can respect your own opinion. In fact I think I asked you before about your attendance to games and you deflected instead of actually answering. It was very strange at the time. Sorry, but you think wrong. Again. I also can't see how my preferences are relevant to your repeated sycophancy for Celtic and overly critical stance on Rangers. Yes, you were right, it couldn't get worse than Ally - oh wait! Yes, you were right, Ally ruined the players and they couldn't possibly improve under McCall - oh wait! Yes, I defend Ally against your extreme, whacky and mostly contradictory views where you pretty much find some way to blame all bad news on Ally. You know, maybe you should try something like cycling, where you really have to work hard to prove yourself against others, and there's no place to hide for bullshitters. You might build some character.

I doubt we would have kicked them out the league and so there is no chance of swapping boots. You're basically saying - if we were like them we would be like them. But most of us are nothing like them to start with. For the Chelsea fans on here who not surprisingly, don't quite get Rangers position, here's an analogy: You are tripped up by a combination of your own negligence and someone out to get you, and fall on the ground and injure yourself - but you could recover in a year or two. However, then your arch Nemesis, who is as guilty of negligence as you are but get's away with it, comes along laughing and puts the boot into you which puts your recovery back a couple of years. He continues mocking you mercilessly while having an easy time of it with you out of the picture. You then have many other setbacks due to your weak state but start to recover - not quite as quickly as expected. You then see you enemy trip themselves up and hurt themselves. Is it hypocritical to laugh at them just because you're still using crutches? I'm sure all the Rangers fans on here already understand this.

Ah so you DO give a damn what I say then? Or are you just very confused with reality as always?

Tim sympathiser strikes again. We should stop slagging Celtic, more important Rangers bashing to do on here... Can I point out the hypocrisy where people laugh at, say McCoist or McDowall, when they themselves haven't even attained their coaching badges - do they look foolish? One big difference is that it's Celtic who pretty much put us out of the SPL. Nobody's stopping anyone becoming coach.

As horrendously flawed as the current system is, I can't think of one that would be more attractive, bar going back to a 10 team league.

So here's the EPL for its 10 game rolling form with a 5 point moving average:

PS I can quickly add other analysis, for example, we can smooth out the spikiness by applying a five point moving average:

Should be bigger now.

Just for comparison, he's the EPL.

I know there's some who don't understand graphs and/or don't like them, so feel free to ignore. This is a graph of the rolling 8 game form of the SC teams plotting percentage of points attained against the game number - not dates. I chose 8 as both McDowall and McCall have been in charge for 8 games. McCoist had 17 which is just over half. It seems not too bad a number for a 10 team league - 9 would be better. Of course the first seven games don't give valid data as it's less than 8 games but it's there for completeness. I've shaded the valid McCoist games in blue, McDowall in red and McCall in orange. Really only the last data point for McDowall and McCall is completely valid for them as it's the only one where all 8 games were under their command. If you count the number of lines above ours at any point you can see what placing we are compared to the other sides for the equivalent 8 games at that time - like a virtual table for the 8 games. You can see we're currently 3rd equal with Hibs behind Hearts and QotS under McCall. McCoist was consistently second until the last couple of games where he dropped to third and then third equal, and McDowall ended up fifth equal. You can see a dramatic loss of form when Ally resigned and a slow recovery under McCall. You can also see Hearts consistency till they won the league and Hibs improving a lot with time and then losing form in the last month. Falkirk and QotS are next most competitive teams with Raith popping up now an again and also Dumbarton having a couple of good spells. The graph is just presentation of true data and so is not biased one way or the other, and the only quibble can be the number of games to measure over, and I've explained the reasoning for 8 above. How it is interpreted is up to the viewer. Hopefully a few people will be interested. I've written this in HTML5 and it gets the data by copying and pasting the results from the BBC website. So it will work for any league they give results for - all the results can be chosen or just copy between any dates that are interesting. If anyone wants a graph for a different league, let me know.

No need to organise it. Just pretend.

The whole split just doesn't work with one big club. You can end up with three clubs getting just one big home attendance, three clubs who don't make the cut getting two, and the odd time a top six one gets three, with the rest getting two, apart from Celtic, who get none. The whole point was that all clubs were guaranteed three big home games and the top six ones got four. So now it's all uneven and doesn't really reward the top 5 after Celtic. Complete shambles.

I think food will always be over-priced in stadiums to maximise revenue. They have a captive market and on the limit on how much they can sell - so can't reduce the price and increase numbers of sales. Contracting out will always make this worse as the contractors are only interested in maximising profit and don't have to worry about affecting repeat business.