calscot 0 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 You seem very ignorant about the guy. Look him up and you'll find he was a striker who won a world record of U21 caps while in that position and did not change to defence until he was about 22. Does that not make it his "natural position"? Surely even the most churlish of people would admit that that is evidence he has some striker credentials? It's obvious to me it's YOU who classes him a striker. After all Fleck is 17, Lafferty was 20 when he signed, Davis was 21 and you seem to have their natural positions set in stone... You might have heard it all but you've understood bugger all. Try listening instead of just hearing. Anyway, the fact is the guy can obviously play upfront at a push and SuperAlly has given a pretty feasible explanation for Walter's decision. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,186 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 The last page of this thread has been a good read... Yesterday's performance is certainly worthy of debate and I'm enjoying people keeping their criticism constructive. We must do that if the club is to improve. Anything else will only put the club on the defensive again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted May 31, 2009 Author Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) You seem very ignorant about the guy. Look him up and you'll find he was a striker who won a world record of U21 caps while in that position and did not change to defence until he was about 22. Does that not make it his "natural position"? Surely even the most churlish of people would admit that that is evidence he has some striker credentials? It's obvious to me it's YOU who classes him a striker. After all Fleck is 17, Lafferty was 20 when he signed, Davis was 21 and you seem to have their natural positions set in stone... You might have heard it all but you've understood bugger all. Try listening instead of just hearing. Anyway, the fact is the guy can obviously play upfront at a push and SuperAlly has given a pretty feasible explanation for Walter's decision. Don't treat me like a 4 year old. Don't talk down to me. Dailly hasn't played in his "natrual position" since he was 22. What age is he now? It's been a few seasons since he last played that role. I class Dailly as a defender, like 99.9% of all Rangers fans. You're the exception. If we asked Dailly what his "natural position" was I bet he wouldn't say a striker. Edited May 31, 2009 by Gazza_8 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,186 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Playing Dailly there yesterday was bizarre. Fair enough, bring the lad on (one last hurrah and all that) but stick him at right back, push Whittaker into midfield and play either Novo or Naismith in their genuine natural position up front. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Playing Dailly there yesterday was bizarre. Fair enough, bring the lad on (one last hurrah and all that) but stick him at right back, push Whittaker into midfield and play either Novo or Naismith in their genuine natural position up front. In a game where we are hanging on and about the only positive was the defence and your only two substitute options are Dailly and a kid do you not think it made sense to put the utility player on further up the field where he would be less likely to cost us the game as he got upto speed with the match. It can often take players a short time to settle into a game. IF we disrupted the one part of our team functioning reasonably well it could have backfired spectacularly. I've also seen people say Lafferty look tired, though I wouldn't necessarily use this arguement myself as I just thought he was poor all game (would haee to watch again), but perhaps Lafferty had to come off? Sure it was a bizarre sub, but is it worth lambasting the manager for it when it was merely a time-wasting sub and he didn't have any other options. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,186 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I'm not lambasting him - I just found it bizarre. Lafferty was very poor for the most part but I'm sure he could have survived the last 5 mins. To be fair to Dailly he actually did OK up front (created one chance and had a shot also) so Smith (as usual) can say the sub worked. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I'm not lambasting him - I just found it bizarre. Lafferty was very poor for the most part but I'm sure he could have survived the last 5 mins. To be fair to Dailly he actually did OK up front (created one chance and had a shot also) so Smith (as usual) can say the sub worked. I didn't mean yourself, just generally. I don't agree with it, I wouldn't pick Dailly for my bench. I can however see the reasoning for it, and I guess you are correct in that it did work. He played like Sebo upfront! :fish: And we saw the game out. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I don't think Lafferty looked tired the whole game, but he needs to look at some new tricks when taking on a man. Yogi obviously had his team well versed on how to defend against our players, that's all there is to it. Lafferty was struggling to go past men & Miller wasn't any better, but it wasn't because they were any more tired than the Falkirk players. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I don't think Lafferty looked tired the whole game, but he needs to look at some new tricks when taking on a man. Yogi obviously had his team well versed on how to defend against our players, that's all there is to it. Lafferty was struggling to go past men & Miller wasn't any better, but it wasn't because they were any more tired than the Falkirk players. Sorry, what I had written above obviously didn't come across well. I was saying i've seen a number of other fans say Lafferty was struggling at the end of the game due to tiredness. Whereas I thought he was poor the entire match so didn't necessarily notice if he tired later on. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Sorry, what I had written above obviously didn't come across well. I was saying i've seen a number of other fans say Lafferty was struggling at the end of the game due to tiredness. Whereas I thought he was poor the entire match so didn't necessarily notice if he tired later on. No, what you said came across fine, but I wasn't replying to you directly S_A, I was making a general reply to the thread. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.