Super_Ally

It is a terrible analogy and as you're a smart guy I refuse to believe that you think it's a good one. Unsure how it strengthens your argument.

Missed this thread. PM andrew_2010. He might be interested.

He's not though really, is he. He's employed to achieve the best results he can for the national team. That's a pretty daft example though isn't it? If I treated a client like that, they wouldn't come back. It matters not a jot to Levein if the press don't come back. I dont think he's doing a good job. He doesn't do himself any favours at times. But I don't see the point in that question. Goading the manager to confirm what we already know. If he had said yes I fucked up would everyone think what a brilliant journalist Tanner is for getting him to admit that and what a fantastic manner Levein had with the press? No. It was just a fan masquerading as a journalist taking a shot at his tactics for the Czech game, which all already know were wrong. The question serves no useful purpose to anyone as far as I can say. If this one fan you talked of got his answer would it make him sleep any better at night? Would it help him understand managerial decisions any better? Would it broaden his understanding of the game? Would it change the fact that manger got it wrong and that that perhaps led to our defeat?

So all he has to say is aye I got it wro ng. My mistake, we should get Tanner a Pullitzer or whatever the top journalsim award is. It seems to me it's just about bullying him into admitting something we all already know, so I stand by what I say. Adds nothing of value, is a waste of time and does not help our future aspirations. Pointless. Shall we ensure the press bully every manager into looking stupid when hindsight shows their tactics were maybe wroing? Answering that question is clearly not about helping the fans understand anything but about belittling the manager.

When we've had days of such questions I would say questions pertaining merely to the most recent game are more valid. We all know he made a mistake with Miller. Does getting him to say so change anything.

I'm convinced that if Walter told an interviewer not to keep asking the same question in slightly different words we would all be backing him. For those who say Smith would not, though, have walked out should also accept that the press would most likely show him more respect and not ask the same question 3 times when being asked not too and when the game it refers to has already been done to death. I still, also, don't accept that it was a useful, valid or worthwhile question. Just trying to make the manager look silly and get him to admit a mistake. What does that achieve?

What test?

Anyone else read that as Brown blows bhoys?

In effect Tanner was saying "Levein you're a dick for not picking Miller on Friday". I don't think we need to hear any more about that. We all know and agree. And to be fair there's a fair chance the Czech's still would've beaten us. Levein got it wrong. Continuing to hound him about it doesn't achieve anything.

Fair point. Two way street though.

Bassa. Perhaps if my post had been a bit longer and more thought out I might have got a bite.

Neither have I. I just don't see his job as pandering to the press. Nor do I think that Tanner's question sounds particularly clever, insightful or useful. Levein, or any manager in fact, should perhaps be held accountable in some way or at least show respect to the fans. That to me, does not mean showing the press any respect. Particularly a collection of our press who appear to show him very little. And I don't even like Levein all that much to be honest.

Yes, I'm afraid your friend is correct.

I liked the way Levein said yesterday or the day before that he picks the team he thinks can secure the required result and if it annoys the press so what. Good for him. He'd been saying for days that he no longer wanted to talk about friday's game. Tanner's question was pointless and adds nothing. Journalism is a piss easy job if that's all you have to do, point out the obvious and often times in hindsight. Where do I sign up to get well paid to watch football and then be a rude cock to managers. Granted Levein fucked up hard on Friday ( I didn't have to suffer either game as I had to work) but for how long does he have to answer questions about it. Also gets on my tits the way journos ask the same daft question with slightly different words. Fuck tanner and fuck the rest of the press. Whilst Levein has a lot of faults I like the fact that he doesn't think he owes the press anything.

Aye, what I was too lazy to type.

Not read any further than "Rangers minded". An attempt at muddying the issue of "celtic minded". We all know what that is. There is not sinister meaning behind rangers minded that I am aware of.

You might say that Rangers fans aren't being targeted directly, but a large cross-section of society associated strongly with our club* are and is quite clearly linked to the agenda of certain individuals and media outlets in Scotland. Too try and deny it seems a bit daft to me. *I don't really consider myself religious so therefore not Protestant, but a large number do.

I'm not sure that's quite true. Taking man and ball is maybe more praised here than abroad, but then there should be nothing wrong with that. As a generalisation though I don't believe those in Scottish football praise taking the man if not the ball. An easy cliche or throw away line but I don't agree.

I thought the club were refuting this. Not even sure which of their superstar summer signings he is anyway.

You're right, Hutton was a whipping boy. But that says more about or fans and in particular the online community than it does about Hutton or his performances. It took a large percentage of fans until about March to recognise he was playing well, when he'd been outstanding since about Novemeber. Many of our fans are slow to admit their mistakes. Not a dig at you btw. My argument at the time is the same as now. A so called poor Hutton (he wasn't at his best but was still ok) was better than what Bardsley offered. This was aptly highlighted when watching one of the Europ qualifiers when the oppositions tactic was to hit diagonal balls on top of Bardsley all day to take advantage of his lack of height. The taller Hutton would've been more able to nullify that tactic.

I disagree. That "poor" Hutton was still better than Bardsley and Hutton's excellent form began before Smith arrived. PLG hurt his recovery from injury. Ranks alongside other daft decisions like buying and playing the french keeper when he already had a better one.

Says more about PLG than Hutton.

The fact that he has acted properly and with dignity in respect to debating with PLGsarmy is hardly an admission of some sort of guilt here. Christine has also been challenged plenty on this forum and come up wanting so how his conversations with her favour the RST and not his side of the argument I do not know.

Was stated at some point during the programme last night, early on but I can't remember if it was pre-kick off or in the first half. Admittedly I haven't checked the veracity of the claim though.

Ha ha. Brilliant.