Smith's future up in the air

[calscot 0]

Calscot, I see you are an advocate of Corinthianism. "ââ?¬Å?Itââ?¬â?¢s not the winning, itââ?¬â?¢s the taking part that counts"

 

I think you are contradicting yourself here for the umpteenth time. If winning is the only thing then surely the tactics we employed en route to the UEFA final were perfect - except maybe for the final (which also has the mitigation of team rested for 3 weeks v team playing 8 games in 22 days).

 

However, winning isn't the only thing or most teams would not take part. There is no black and white one shot answer.

 

You enter, you compete and you try to do your best with what you have.

 

We did our best with the unfairly labelled "anti-football" but as Smith was pilloried by his own fans for it, he hasn't repeated the same tactics again. The result - abysmal in Europe.

 

We basically didn't have the resources to compete without playing to our strengths and so when we dropped the holding tactics we were shown up for the level we are.

 

Basically the evidence shows all your thinking is completely backwards.

 

You have the choice, embarrassingly defensive and successful or embarrassingly inept and unsuccessful.

 

You seem to want to choose the latter which suggests you prefer taking part, trying to play "nicely" and being taken apart, over taking part and using all the strengths and skills you have in the best way to go as far as possible.

 

As for the CL, at the moment taking part is a much higher priority than having the unrealistic goal of winning it.

 

With the financial situation as it is, I now see Europe as a bonus and the priority is to win the SPL and hopefully qualify for the CL.

 

Kilmarnock don't think they can realistically win the SPL just by playing fancy football (just ask Falkirk) and so focus on other more attainable aims, and so should we.

[pete 2,499]

In my opinion only arogant idiots who don't understand football think anti-football exists in a way that can be defined to account for Rangers performance.

 

I've argued before that Barcelona played far more negative tactics, as well as far more tactics to remove flowing play from the game than Rangers did.

 

Evidence:

 

1. Did Rangers score? No, Barcelona played so defensively and negatively Rangers couldn't score.

 

2. Did Rangers have many chances? No, Barcelona played so defensively and negatively Rangers couldn't create chances.

 

3. Did Rangers play much open football? No, Barcelona played so defensively and negatively Rangers had no time on the ball to play open football.

 

Conversly:

 

1. Did Barcelona score? Yes.

2. Did Barcelona have chances? Yes, Rangers gave them room to play and create chances.

3. Did Barcelona play open football? Yes, Rangers gave them room to play open football.

 

The reason Rangers didn't play "good football" was NOTHING to do with Rangers tactics, it was 100% due to the negative tactics by Barcelona which limited how much Rangers could play. Barcelona defended excellently and tenaciously, closing down Rangers at every opportunity and not allowing us to play football.

 

Rangers CAN play nice football - when the opposing team gives us some space and time - the Dundee Utd game for instance.

 

So it seems to me that if "Anti-football" exists it is Barcelona who are guilty not us.

 

The reason they don't get slagged off for "Anti-football" is there is no such thing, there is only excellence at different aspects of the game.

 

Teams that don't play negative football are the ones who have plenty of scorelines where BOTH teams score 3 goals or more.

 

When Barcelona allow teams like Rangers to play open football, to create chances and score goals then they can stop being the second most hypocritical and whinging team in the world.

 

Sorry Cal that is the biggest load of tosh i have read in ages. Barcelona use the tactic of pushing up into the opponents half and challenging for the ball early. This forces lesser players who have less control of the ball to eventually punt it up the park where there is normally only one striker against 2 defenders. Normally they have the ball back with their opponents still in their own half. The danger with this tactic is that you can push your opponents back to around their own penalty area where the room is minimal and it becomes a game of hoping a mistake is made. You need to have good players to play this kind of game though as there is a mass of room behind your own defence. Scotland tried to do it to Holland a few years ago and ended up on the end of a 5-1 drubbing. Tony Mowbray is trying to play that way with Celtic but his defence and midfield are just not good enough causing them to lose goals.

Negative football? Nah sorry i agree with a lot of things you write and i may be an arrogant idiot but it is, in my mind, you who does not have a great understanding of football. It may have another name than anti football but some teams set out to defend with ten men. certainly not pro open football.

[Super_Ally 0]

Sorry Cal that is the biggest load of tosh i have read in ages. Barcelona use the tactic of pushing up into the opponents half and challenging for the ball early. This forces lesser players who have less control of the ball to eventually punt it up the park where there is normally only one striker against 2 defenders. Normally they have the ball back with their opponents still in their own half. The danger with this tactic is that you can push your opponents back to around their own penalty area where the room is minimal and it becomes a game of hoping a mistake is made. You need to have good players to play this kind of game though as there is a mass of room behind your own defence. Scotland tried to do it to Holland a few years ago and ended up on the end of a 5-1 drubbing. Tony Mowbray is trying to play that way with Celtic but his defence and midfield are just not good enough causing them to lose goals.

Negative football? Nah sorry i agree with a lot of things you write and i may be an arrogant idiot but it is, in my mind, you who does not have a great understanding of football. It may have another name than anti football but some teams set out to defend with ten men. certainly not pro open football.

 

Cal's post is somewhat tongue in cheek I believe. And it is obvious he doesn't really believe in "anti-football".

 

What he is saying is that Barcelona's tactics, which are to press the opposition high up the park and defend from the front, preventing their opponents from playing could be labelled "anti-football" as it is a good defensive strategy but also stops the opponents from playing football.

 

Frankly people who get their knickers in a twist about being good defensively just aren't all that bright imo or completely out of touch with world football.

 

Any sports man plays in the manner which affords him the best chance of success. But Walter should not do this because it's not pretty enough for some of our fans? Bullshit. And this anti-football nonsense is only heightened by all the guff about the Celtic way to play football? Celtic do not play in this mythical manner no matter how much they profess to. The goals for column would appear to confirm this.

[wabashcannonball 0]

I beleive the contradiction is all yours,.... "You have to be pragmatic. You can go out and try and beat a better side (or sides) at their own game but you'll only end up like Mowbray's WBA and now Celtic. They can crow about all the pretty football they want (even if it is mostly lies and bullshit) while my team can celebrate success and trophies."

 

What you mean is parish success in a piss poor league, me I think we should have bigger aims for such a big club, or are we only a big club in our own country. To be to the point, Rangers where more successful in Europe long before Smith ever appeared on the scene, perhaps we had a greater sense of our true worth then, rather than seeing ourselves as makeweights for European competition, we can do a lot better with the right approach a lot better.

[Frankie 8,186]

I think we should be able to do a lot better in the European arena but one has to concede the financial difference between the SPL and the marquee leagues is an important one in terms of competitiveness.

 

The difference between the Old Firm and the New Firm nowadays can be examined in a similar way.

[Super_Ally 0]

I beleive the contradiction is all yours,.... "You have to be pragmatic. You can go out and try and beat a better side (or sides) at their own game but you'll only end up like Mowbray's WBA and now Celtic. They can crow about all the pretty football they want (even if it is mostly lies and bullshit) while my team can celebrate success and trophies."

 

What you mean is parish success in a piss poor league, me I think we should have bigger aims for such a big club, or are we only a big club in our own country. To be to the point, Rangers where more successful in Europe long before Smith ever appeared on the scene, perhaps we had a greater sense of our true worth then, rather than seeing ourselves as makeweights for European competition, we can do a lot better with the right approach a lot better.

 

I'm confused. It is yourself and Cal who were discussing contradictions yet you've quoted my post to demonstrate his contradiction?

 

European football is a different beast now to even the 80s and 90s. If you think the only reason we are not as succesful (though again you appear to be unsure of precisely how we define success now; is it winning trophies or not?) and to suggest the only reason is that we don't have a "sense of our true worth" is equally as ridiculous as your other accusation I initially argued against.

 

Having an "Aberdeen" mentality does not make you a better fan.

[wabashcannonball 0]

I'm confused. It is yourself and Cal who were discussing contradictions yet you've quoted my post to demonstrate his contradiction?

 

European football is a different beast now to even the 80s and 90s. If you think the only reason we are not as succesful (though again you appear to be unsure of precisely how we define success now; is it winning trophies or not?) and to suggest the only reason is that we don't have a "sense of our true worth" is equally as ridiculous as your other accusation I initially argued against.

 

Having an "Aberdeen" mentality does not make you a better fan.

 

Apologies for the cross quote, I am trying to hoover and do a big washin at the same time as dreaming of the glory days. I am certain that winning trophies is what success brings, if you fancy the Corinthian dogma stick to amatuerism. Incidentally how do you see our true worth, perpeptual bit part players or can we become part of the star billing, I expect a lot better from the first British team to reach a European final also the first British team to win a trophy in Europe, we can improve on a two trophy haul, which puts us level with Aberdeen in that respect.

[Frankie 8,186]

wabash doing his house-keeping earlier:

 

[stewarty 1,878]

Great debate guys

 

I fall into the Calscot/ Super_Ally camp here, for the most part, but I get both sides of the argument. What I think it comes down to is money. We don't have any to invest in our team at the moment, and our ability to compete in the Champions League, even in a modest sense, dissappears. We are also hampered by societal problems with alcohol, drugs and lack of exercise the X-Box generation are famous for which means there is less home grown talent available compared to yesteryear. The net result is a manager who has to play the cards he is dealt. And right now he's playing Texas Hold-em and his hole cards are 7/2 off-suit.

[wabashcannonball 0]

wabash doing his house-keeping earlier:

 

 

The grandweans bought me a Dyson, aye it was an Animal, I don't think they realised the connatation, tache is a wee bit to light Frankie it's more Sam Elliott. :box:

 

ETA On considered reflection one word, Lyon.

Edited March 18, 2010 by wabashcannonball