Exploding the myths

[Super_Ally 0]

You should be proud of the backslapping thanks you collected for that cheap shot. You now if it wasn't for some of the members you find so hard to tolerate, this forum might turn into one big self-congratulation and you really would be the smartest, most insightful girl on the block.

 

It made me laugh. I often hit that wee button instead of quoting someone and saying lol.

 

When you post something funny or interesting i'll do the same. :devil:

[craig 5,199]

Stay cool bud, nothing happening here. New Vanguardbears forum opens in 30 minutes and that's where I'll be found for the next while at least. I guess you'll have to be in charge of the happy children all by yourself.

 

 

Cool as I could be in the current circumstance my man. Just wanted to head things off at the pass.

 

I enjoy the heated debate (although I prefer it when we are winning.....) but we should all be respectful.

[Zappa 0]

You should be proud of the backslapping thanks you collected for that cheap shot.

 

Now THAT is fresh. 117 thanks in 72 posts, mostly involving taking cheap shots at Walter Smith & David Murray. Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that envy is talking here, I honestly think the 'thanks' & 'groans' forum feature is BS despite having been taking part in it. Hypocritical, I know.

 

Sorry for going OT, feel free to delete my comments again uber mods.

[Frankie 8,151]

Can we all stop the playground off-topic jibes...?

 

Its getting rather tedious. Accept some of us will disagree on some issues but don't forget we're all on the same side.

 

This is the last time I'm going to log in here and post polite generic warnings.

[calscot 0]

We have a two horse race because the other teams in the league have even less resources than the OF. Fact. What is the relevance of your statement in the context of me pointing out that both teams are poor ? Are you saying that, merely because they hold the top two positions that they are not ? Surely an intelligent bloke like yourself calscot is not using such a flawed argument in your defence ? The position in the table does not necessarily reflect the quality of the team nor where it should stand in comparison to its previous teams that may have finished lower in the league.

 

The point I'm trying to make if you give it a chance is that the OF have pretty much always had far more resources than the rest. That hasn't stopped the OF being worse than other teams from time to time as the league position in certain years show.

 

So how do you measure how good you are? It's all pretty relative and you can only compare yourself to the teams in your league. There are obviously certain environmental factors that you can't get away from and the general standard of the league from one year to the next will usually be shaped by the environment.

 

For example, big factors in the late 80's were Rangers deciding to reflect more financial muscle at a time when English football was in decline and banned from Europe. Rangers had the biggest gates in the UK which was where the majority of income came from. We also had very successful pools and our merchandising was the most lucrative.

 

At the moment we've got a environment where we have little money compared to the big leagues in Europe and even have to compete with the Championship for players.

 

It's feast and famine and we've gone from attracting top players in Europe to a much lower level.

 

So in this environment, why should we be much better than Celtic? We've got similar finances and restrictions. We're both shopping in the SPL and championship, often interested in the same players.

 

So if they are shit in some comparison to other years or leagues, what exactly can we do to be any better?

 

If we're ALL shit, doesn't that suggest something which seems to me to be obvious? A scientist usually compares results to a control group - well isn't our control group the bunch of teams with no money in the SPL that mostly play your above average Scottish players of the day?

 

In the SPL we have TEN shit teams and we can't finish as the best of a piss-poor bunch. Was the standard higher in 2006 when we finished 3rd ? Quite possibly. Sure it is subjective but how else do we measure ? Because, for sure, using simple facts like "we are 2nd this year but finished 3rd in 2006" is by no means a good example of whether we are better or worse. It is all relative.

 

We are finishing the best two but the top spot is between us and them and you only have to look at last season to see we are so close that a bit of luck or virtual cheating can make the difference.

 

The standard wasn't any higher when we finished 3rd, we were basically far worse than we are now and that's another of my points. Our worst team ever was probably PLG's.

 

What metrics do you want use to measure how bad we are? The norm and easiest to use are league position, points gaps and points totals. Using those metrics we're at worst a mediocre Rangers team.

 

Just saying we're shit is just an angry, subject viewpoint that is hard to justify with any measurable evidence and has no constructive purpose but blind us to the real issues.

 

The real issue is we have to be the best in Scotland first and foremost and we have to recognise the limitations of what we can do. We have to come up with a way of having an edge as with two nearly equal sides you're going to get similar results to tossing a coin. We have no divine right to beat Celtic every time including in extra time in a cup final.

 

Football is a big cookie that can crumble the wrong way.

 

I get the Rangers taking Celtic thing but just because they bugger up in a cup game against a smaller team, doesn't mean anything - especially when you consider we also lost to ICT from the bottom of the league.

 

You should know how it works in football. When a bigger team plays badly or without effort and the smaller team does the opposite, there is a chance of an upset. Upsets happen every year in cups around the world but it rarely affects the leagues. The closer the teams are, the more likely an upset can happen.

 

I've explained that due to our money being worth less these days in comparison to England, the gap between our players and the smaller teams will be less. We used to have better players than Man U, now we're about the level of something like Wolves. Just because we spend as much more money than SPL teams does not mean we can keep the gap the same.

 

We're spending lots of money on far lesser players. A relatively high price tag does not make a player any better than he is. There is a basic level of player that the smaller teams have for pretty much free, and then you have to pay higher and higher amounts for players who are a bit better than the last. The money we are spending now, lifts our standard of player far few levels higher than it used to.

 

However, that level is still far better than say the early 80's.

 

We have to acknowledge the level and environment we are in before we can make proper judgements about how we are doing.

 

We just can't compare our teams now with those which were full of expensive top foreigners from Ajax, Milan, Lazio and Barcelona. Instead we have to gauge the state of play as it is today, or for some, it might be best to concentrate on that strange fallback - their English team.

 

You'll definitely be watching a much higher standard of player and level of football as a Chelsea fan for instance, but unfortunately you'll still have the same old problems for winning the league. It's all relative.

[craig 5,199]

I am not convinced we are disagreeing cal.

 

Re your first point, I am not saying we should be much better than them but I do contend that we have the better players and better squad but our manager simply isnt utilising them the way he should and that he isnt motivating them well enough.

 

Re your 2nd point, I most certainly accept the metrics you use but my point is that, although they are the norm, most accepted metrics, they dont tell the WHOLE story. If we finish first this season are we a better team than the one that finished 3rd in 2006 ? Not necessarily as it could be that the teams below us this year are worse than in 2006 and/or the Celtic and Hearts teams from 2006 were better teams than their counterparts of today. In fact, I dont think it is even debatable that those two teams were better in 2006. I understand your metrics and accept them, but they dont tell the whole story.

 

What metrics would I use ? Not sure but the only thing I see that would be worthwhile would be to look at our squad player for player in whichever years we wish to compare and do an individual comparison - but even then that is subjective.

 

Plus, as you say, there is more to the comparisons that merely the players - as we are seeing, unfortunately, is that finances too play a pivotal role.

[calscot 0]

I don't think we disagree much about some of the reality of the situation, but it's how we make our judgements that differ.

 

You understandably want to compare our current team with previous ones, my point is that I don't think that is fair considering we've gone from top, to a top 6, to a top 20 odd richest team in the UK.

 

I do, however, just by watching, seeing the results and the league table with points accumulated, think we are far better than 2006 and the first half of 2007.

 

We may not like the financial position and environment we are in but we have to acknowledge it or we're not going to be able to effectively deal with it.

 

I agree it's not the whole story, but we need more realistic comparisons.