And that's why WS should leave!

[bmck 117]

We wanted the league back and Walter nearly got it back last year but he has this year and he's also won us plenty of cups and been in most of if not all finals we can be in since his return. It's not great to watch sometimes but I don't know what more some fans want or expect. Gone are the days class players will come to the SPL IMO most will go down south for more money and play against better teams but won't win much. We might be lucky in signing younger players who turn out to be class players but then agin they might not.

 

this is the right attitude. there is much to pick apart in our current team, but success simply has to temper how far people are willing to go. we laugh at celtic fans for hating straching - the most succesful manager in their recent history - and we shouldn't want to do the same with walter. he has brought pros and cons, but the pros have involved us being back where we belong at the top.

[bmck 117]

I don't really believe in fixed natural positions at all and Dailly is a case in point. He can play many positions, including breezing a short sub stint as a striker. One natural position to me is a myth and I won't complain if Whittaker plays as a right back, left back or left midfield as long as he does a half decent job most of the time.

 

i think you're making too much out of the word natural. dailly was being played out of position. that he played that position over a decade ago doesn't mean he's any less being played out of position. those who complained he was being played out of position are not being inconsistent, they're right.

 

I'm sure you must get it by now...

 

not quite, i must be daft. people complained daily was being played out of position. you said they were stupid for saying this because striker was his natural position. but then you argued that there was no such thing as a natural position, all the while maintaining the point you are making is obvious.

 

dailly was played in an unusual position. though there were reasons for playing him as a striker, there were reasons for doing things another way that didn't involve playing someone out of position. playing players in position has advantages. holland's total football - everyone playing whatever position was necesary - didn't work. people have a right, and not to be told they are contradicting themselves, when they think its ridiculous to play daily as a striker.

 

but i agree with your larger point that this has to be tempered by the fact that we won, so putting more focus on that decision than the result as a whole is probably skewed, but it's not a meaningless contradictory complaint.

[calscot 0]

i think you're making too much out of the word natural. dailly was being played out of position. that he played that position over a decade ago doesn't mean he's any less being played out of position. those who complained he was being played out of position are not being inconsistent, they're right.

 

 

 

not quite, i must be daft. people complained daily was being played out of position. you said they were stupid for saying this because striker was his natural position. but then you argued that there was no such thing as a natural position, all the while maintaining the point you are making is obvious.

 

dailly was played in an unusual position. though there were reasons for playing him as a striker, there were reasons for doing things another way that didn't involve playing someone out of position. playing players in position has advantages. holland's total football - everyone playing whatever position was necesary - didn't work. people have a right, and not to be told they are contradicting themselves, when they think its ridiculous to play daily as a striker.

 

but i agree with your larger point that this has to be tempered by the fact that we won, so putting more focus on that decision than the result as a whole is probably skewed, but it's not a meaningless contradictory complaint.

 

Sorry Barry but I think you're still missing my point and I don't need to believe in a premise to point out a contradiction.

 

There is definitely a contradiction there and to me it's quite funny, but I really don't want to re-explain it again.

 

If people think it's ridiculous then maybe that's why Walter has won 8 titles and countless trophies while they haven't.

 

I've oft repeat the premise that if you are unorthodox and it works, you look like a genius, but if you are unorthodox and it fails badly, you look like a fool.

 

Right now, it's genius time for Walter. Whether he'll continue to be Mr Mensa or be next season's village idiot, time will tell.

[calscot 0]

PS I still disagree with the erroneous argument that Dailly can't play as a striker, he looked not to shoddy to me.

[Super_Ally 0]

I do think Cal's point is quite easy to fathom, but also think he's being a bit obtuse.

 

There are many fans who go absolutely tonto at players being "played out of position", yet Dailly didn't revert to his current "first choice" position til 22 and Cal is right that if the same argument applied on here was used in Dailly's case he's just played about 13 years of football "out of position".

 

However, in light of the fact that Dailly has played predominantly as a defender, it would be a pretty stubborn person not to admit that is his favoured position.

 

I do think people do get a little worked up by players being "out of position" though.

 

Look at Papac for the best example. Came as a CB, plays his best at LB and I would have nightmares with him at the back. For me he is a LB, but not according to the strict rules we seem to apply.

 

Then there are some players it's hard to define. I would say McCulloch is a LM. That's where I saw him play predominantly for Wigan and Scotland. Some argue his first position is CF. Yet this season he has shown himself capable of playing CB and defensive midfield role sweeping in front of the defense (even if he was worse than shite in the cup final it cannot be denied he did his job well v Hearts and Celtic).

 

Whittaker. What's his position? Played mostely at RB for Hibs I thought and signed as RB. Started off RM for us before playing LB. I still fancy him as a RB, but who could be developed into an attacking RM if he got experience playing there. Cal has already said he thinks his best position is RM rather than RB.

 

Novo? A Striker. Arguably plays better cutting in off the flanks.

 

Dailly playing CF when he has played largely in a defensive role (be that RB, CB or DCM) does seem a more extreme position move, but as has been noted he's doen the role before. And that is not the sign of things to come. For a start Dailly has left. Secondly, we had two outfield options on the bench. Dailly and a kid who has only played CB and only at reserve level. Smith could not risk bringing on Wilson for Boogie/Weir when the team was toiling badly in a Cup Final with a 1 goal lead.

 

Bring Dailly on at the back? Why break up the only functioning part of the team.

 

It has been suggested lafferty had to come off so arguably it was Smith's only real option.

 

As i've said elsewhere, using a time wasting sub on a forward with fresh legs to chase every out ball is less likely to back fire than bringing on a player who needs time to get up to speed with the game at the back. And it was for all of a few minutes.

 

Far too much being made of it imo.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Super_Ally
TYPO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bmck 117]

Sorry Barry but I think you're still missing my point and I don't need to believe in a premise to point out a contradiction.

 

trust me, i didn't miss your point. belief in premises is completely irrelevant to reasoning.

 

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"?

 

 

as a simple example of deduction, it could be rephrased:

 

P1 If a player plays in a position first it is their natural position

P2 Dailly was a striker first

-> Daily's natural position is a striker

 

i realise you're only arguing this to make it at least seem plausible why walter smith chose this, supporting s_a's argument. but, as an example of deduction, the argument is sound but not valid, because the first premise is flawed (or least highly contenstable).

 

you then stepped out of rationality to resort to two rhetorical arguments, one a logical fallacy (ad hominem):

 

You might have heard it all but you've understood bugger all. Try listening instead of just hearing.

 

you've implied his inability to understand your argument is based on incomprehension, when he understands your argument perfectly, but just rejects it. why? because, it seems to some people (like gazza, and i'm sure other succesful professional managers who wouldn't've made that decision) that playing an established defender as a striker is not something that should be done, and it seems ok to others (like you) because it has some justification.

 

this sort of statement:

 

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.

 

isn't an argument. gazza wasn't arguing there was NO justification for playing Dailly there, just that, irrespective of the justification, it shouldn't be done.

 

just because i understand perfectly that no player has one natural position and one only, and because some players switch positions over years, that christian dailly should be stuck up front at any given time. i know your gripe seems to be with the general, rabid, unreasoned criticism - but there's at least as much rational support for thinking such a move is a good move as thinking it's a bad move, so implying "logic" or those who listen, will necessarily think one way about the decision rather than the other is wrong

 

If people think it's ridiculous then maybe that's why Walter has won 8 titles and countless trophies while they haven't.

 

winning 8 titles makes you an excellent manager, not immune from ridiculousness. i've achieved lots of great things and am still, largely, an idiot.

 

anyway, onwards, we won the double - the most important thing!

b

Edited June 1, 2009 by bmck

[Gazza_8 233]

i've achieved lots of great things and am still, largely, an idiot.

 

Everyone will agree with that Barry.

[calscot 0]

trust me, i didn't miss your point. belief in premises is completely irrelevant to reasoning.

 

 

 

 

as a simple example of deduction, it could be rephrased:

 

P1 If a player plays in a position first it is their natural position

P2 Dailly was a striker first

-> Daily's natural position is a striker

 

 

 

 

i realise you're only arguing this to make it at least seem plausible why walter smith chose this, supporting s_a's argument. but, as an example of deduction, the argument is sound but not valid, because the first premise is flawed (or least highly contenstable).

 

Actually I wasn't trying to defend Walter from playing Dailly up front because it was his natural position. It's a bit more vice versa.

 

I'm defending Walter for playing the likes of Davis at right mid.

 

The crux of the criticism seems to be that Davis, is playing out of his natural position. My reply is that who is to say what the natural position of such a young player is and for him it could be right mid. The reply to that is where they have played well before must be their natural position.

 

Then there is the complaint of Dailly playing out of his natural position but taking the same previous argument, his natural position must be striker.

 

Obvious people don't think so as he played defender for 12 years since but then that makes a fallacy of the Davis should be playing in centre mid argument.

 

The contradiction I'm trying to show is that if Dailly's "natural" position is not set by 22 year old then why should it be that of Fleck, Lafferty or Davis?

 

To me Dailly adds to the evidence that natural position is not set in stone and that players are capable of multiple roles although for consistency tend to settle into one of them.

 

There could be a chance that Laudrup's best natural position could have been goalkeeper and maybe he would have been the best in the world between the sticks. But he ended up a position that was well suited to him - and even then he moved about. Some don't think he should have played on the wing at all.

 

However, Walter has his own ways of thinking and for the likes of Naismith, Lafferty and Fleck, it seems that he thinks that strikers should be able to play the wings as well and that it is a low pressure position to bring them into the team.

 

In his own way he's trying to nurture them into the team - which is the exact opposite of the accusations of his critics.

 

you then stepped out of rationality to resort to two rhetorical arguments, one a logical fallacy (ad hominem):

 

you've implied his inability to understand your argument is based on incomprehension,

 

 

That was based on his reply to me which didn't demonstrate an understanding or acknowledgment of what I was saying. His whole post shouted to me that he'd jumped the gun. He said he'd heard it all and I used that as a sort of pun to say he hadn't been listening.

 

I don't think that was too insensitive a reply to someone who's main argument was that I was talking bullshit and should know it.

 

His incredulity at Dailly playing a striker's role led me to believe he didn't know the man's playing history even though I'd pointed it out. Again that led me to believe he hadn't digested what I'd said. The fact he'd played that role when younger, definitely needed some acknowledge before knocking it down.

 

when he understands your argument perfectly, but just rejects it. why? because, it seems to some people (like gazza, and i'm sure other succesful professional managers who wouldn't've made that decision) that playing an established defender as a striker is not something that should be done, and it seems ok to others (like you) because it has some justification.

 

It's all about communication, many people reject things because they don't get it. To me rejecting something should contain a bit more rationale otherwise it's just empty rhetoric. "You're talking bullshit" on it's own is not a qualified response and you could slap it on after any post.

 

 

this sort of statement:

 

 

 

isn't an argument. gazza wasn't arguing there was NO justification for playing Dailly there, just that, irrespective of the justification, it shouldn't be done.

 

Sorry that confuses me semantically.

 

just because i understand perfectly that no player has one natural position and one only, and because some players switch positions over years, that christian dailly should be stuck up front at any given time. i know your gripe seems to be with the general, rabid, unreasoned criticism - but there's at least as much rational support for thinking such a move is a good move as thinking it's a bad move, so implying "logic" or those who listen, will necessarily think one way about the decision rather than the other is wrong

 

The original point I was making was more about amusing irony than anything else.

 

The listening part was in response to a pretty insulting and very generic reply that to me demonstrated precisely a lack of understanding of my point.

 

winning 8 titles makes you an excellent manager, not immune from ridiculousness. i've achieved lots of great things and am still, largely, an idiot.

 

If a manager can win 8 out of 10 titles and lose the the other two on the last day due - arguably more to bad luck than bad judgment, as well as winning a load of cups and having two of the best European runs in our history, then I think the odd ridiculous looking decision should be forgiven - more-so in the context of winning a cup final, a week after winning the title.

 

But the additional irony is that, there is no real evidence that the latter decision was in fact ridiculous, other than in the concepts of those that think they know better.

 

SA has rationalised the decision very well and the result on the pitch bore out the decision as valid - in fact to me he was one of the best strikers on the park all day.

 

The rationale of the criticism is far more primitive basically stopping at defender != striker, even though the defender spent 6 years as an international striker, was only on for about 10 minutes, and we were winning.

[Norris Cole 0]

Sounds like somebody's ready to spontaneously combust.

[Gazza_8 233]

Actually I wasn't trying to defend Walter from playing Dailly up front because it was his natural position. It's a bit more vice versa.

 

I'm defending Walter for playing the likes of Davis at right mid.

 

The crux of the criticism seems to be that Davis, is playing out of his natural position. My reply is that who is to say what the natural position of such a young player is and for him it could be right mid. The reply to that is wherethey have played well before must be their natural position.

 

Then there is the complaint of Dailly playing out of his natural position but taking the same previous argument, his natural position must be striker.

 

Obvious people don't think so as he played defender for 12 years since but then that makes a fallacy of the Davis should be playing in centre mid argument.

 

The contradiction I'm trying to show is that if Dailly's "natural" position is not set by 22 year old then why should it be that of Fleck, Lafferty or Davis?

 

To me Dailly adds to the evidence that natural position is not set in stone and that players are capable of multiple roles although for consistency tend to settle into one of them.

 

There could be a chance that Laudrup's best natural position could have been goalkeeper and maybe he would have been the best in the world between the sticks. But he ended up a position that was well suited to him - and even then he moved about. Some don't think he should have played on the wing at all.

 

However, Walter has his own ways of thinking and for the likes of Naismith, Lafferty and Fleck, it seems that he thinks that strikers should be able to play the wings as well and that it is a low pressure position to bring them into the team.

 

In his own way he's trying to nurture them into the team - which is the exact opposite of the accusations of his critics.

 

 

 

That was based on his reply to me which didn't demonstrate an understanding or acknowledgment of what I was saying. His whole post shouted to me that he'd jumped the gun. He said he'd heard it all and I used that as a sort of pun to say he hadn't been listening.

 

I don't think that was too insensitive a reply to someone who's main argument was that I was talking bullshit and should know it.

 

His incredulity at Dailly playing a striker's role led me to believe he didn't know the man's playing history even though I'd pointed it out. Again that led me to believe he hadn't digested what I'd said. The fact he'd played that role when younger, definitely needed some acknowledge before knocking it down.

 

It's all about communication, many people reject things because they don't get it. To me rejecting something should contain a bit more rationale otherwise it's just empty rhetoric. "You're talking bullshit" on it's own is not a qualified response and you could slap it on after any post.

 

Sorry that confuses me semantically.

 

The original point I was making was more about amusing irony than anything else.

 

The listening part was in response to a pretty insulting and very generic reply that to me demonstrated precisely a lack of understanding of my point.

 

If a manager can win 8 out of 10 titles and lose the the other two on the last day due - arguably more to bad luck than bad judgment, as well as winning a load of cups and having two of the best European runs in our history, then I think the odd ridiculous looking decision should be forgiven - more-so in the context of winning a cup final, a week after winning the title.

 

But the additional irony is that, there is no real evidence that the latter decision was in fact ridiculous, other than in the concepts of those that think they know better.

 

SA has rationalised the decision very well and the result on the pitch bore out the decision as valid - in fact to me he was one of the best strikers on the park all day.

 

The rationale of the criticism is far more primitive basically stopping at defender != striker, even though the defender spent 6 years as an international striker, was only on for about 10 minutes, and we were winning.

 

Jeezo!