Smith's future up in the air

[maineflyer 0]

What a nice chap you are, sometimes people can't see the wood for the trees, in the words of Shanks...ââ?¬Å?Aim for the sky and you'll reach the ceiling. Aim for the ceiling and you'll stay on the floor.ââ?¬Â

 

But if you didn't actually actually stand on the terraces when Rangers beat Bayern Munich, how could you know what "Ibrox is really jumping" actually means? If you didn't ever see Willie Henderson, how would you know what a world class Rangers winger looks like? If you'd never seen the rest of the country (bheasts excepted) openly express admiration of Rangers for what they were doing for the reputation of Scotland, how would you know what being the best really means? It's no longer fashionable to aim high, faux realism holds sway, we're 'shite, because we know we are'. Sometimes it seems to me only pedantic realism has value, or is valued, and bland gets dressed up as an excuse for aspiration.

 

We won NIAR but lost a century of precious self-assurance. Now we squabble over shite like pragmatism.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Ibrox 3rd March 1965 Facchetti and his boys, what a night what an atmosphere, we beat Inter 1-0 but went out 3-2 on aggregate, we didn't just beat them we destroyed them, they went on and won the cup, I have never experienced an atmosphere like there was that night, their keeper Sarti and Facchetti were absolutely the epitome of superstars, although we went out 3-2 on aggregate it was an honour to have stood and watched such a fantastic full blooded cup tie.

[maineflyer 0]

Ibrox 3rd March 1965 Facchetti and his boys, what a night what an atmosphere, we beat Inter 1-0 but went out 3-2 on aggregate, we didn't just beat them we destroyed them, they went on and won the cup, I have never experienced an atmosphere like there was that night, their keeper Sarti and Facchetti were absolutely the epitome of superstars, although we went out 3-2 on aggregate it was an honour to have stood and watched such a fantastic full blooded cup tie.

 

In general terms, whether we're taking about the club as a whole, the football, or the wider supporter culture, the Rangers experience seems to have attenuated over time during the last fifty years. Less self-confident, less embedded in its community, less aspirational, less ambitious, less united and less identifiable. Or so it seems to me.

[Super_Ally 0]

Barry, I don't have a problem with people having aspirations of being better. We all harbour those ambitions.

 

I have a problem with people running down Smith and the players for achieving greater success in Europe than previous teams that were more technically gifted and competed at less of a (financial disadvantage) just because the players did not play in a swashbuckling, attacking style that would infact likley have attenuated the success they managed.

 

There's expecting more and there's just being unable to deal with reality.

[pete 2,499]

To be honest we cannot blame any manager for rangers not being able to challenge the top teams these days. Sepp Blatter and his MafFIFA fixing mob have a lot to answer for. Clubs with a billion pounds in debt certainly seems like match fixing to me.

[bmck 117]

Sorry it's a bit late. It wasn't a twelve hour munch, I started studying and forgot all about it

 

So you think Hearts and Aberdeen fans should be looking to win the league?

 

Well, obviously there's looking and there's looking. But, I suppose in some real sense they should be. You have to aim for a bit more than what's probable.

 

You seem to be implying I've attempted to remove all emotion and am only looking at facts

 

No, not really. You just think excess of emotion should be moderated by facts. By slipping in imperatives like 'should' and framing people with expectations that defy facts as 'naive' you're implying, rightly or wrongly - I think it depends on the context, I'm not condemning - that there should be some strict correlation between what's really going to happen and what the fans should think is going to happen, and I'm not sure it follows.

 

- which isn't entirely true - I'm just stating the way our history is, and why expectations which confound that are not realistic.

 

And the question is whether fans - or, perhaps all fans, or even most fans - should have realistic expectations. I tend to think realism is for people in power, and it's the people's job to create a tide of expectation that pushes that necessary realism in the right direction. Realism, as any literature student knows, is highly subjective - if the owners, say, aren't being realistic about how we can best progress to meet expectations, they are all of a sudden realistic about profits, and who deserves bigger bonuses and whether they should be spending more time with their family or other business endeavours. This is highly simplistic, obviously, but I think it shows there's different realisms for different situations.

 

The truth is we will always hope to win the league year after year, and we'll always be looking to make our mark in Europe - the problem is expecting these things, demanding these things, and being ridiculous and knee jerk if and when they don't happen.

 

The problem is, if you start being too realistic you get to cut the proportion of knee jerk reactions, but often at the expense of the expectations and demands at the start that drive us on. Do you think Aberdeen would get as many results off us if their fans didn't go absolutely mental every time we gubbed them despite the statistical probability of the whole affair? I'm not sure.

 

It's not really the hope I have a problem with, more the fallout when things don't go our way as they frequently don't - and before you know it you have protests, calls for the heads of the management, a clear out of playing staff etc.

 

I think the managerial staff know there's always going to be a proportion of knee jerk reactions because they are at a big club, with big club vanity. So we shouldn't be promoting being sensible about everything for their sake, because in reality we don't have that much of a say. The only time you get to protests etc is when enough sensible people have been convinced there's a problem. Don't get me wrong, I don't side with these people, and take approximately your view - if people say "Walter Smith should be sacked because we didn't win the champions league" I'm going to say "Don't be ridiculous", but it's important, I think, that there's ebbing and flowing with this sort of thing because somewhere in the swirl there's a roughly sensible opinion but if the pragmatic people became too dominant then there's no demand.

 

The way you're implying, we should just expect that baggage as inevitable because it's only correct to hope for success.

 

In a way, yeah. One of the joys of following football is that there's barely a sensible thing about it. In a world of rationality and sensibleness and moderation you get to shout and sing and demand triumph and bemoan failure and all that sort of thing. I don't think we should agree with ridiculous aspiration, but I do think there's something to be said for it at least being prevelant.

Edited March 19, 2010 by bmck

[bmck 117]

Barry, I don't have a problem with people having aspirations of being better. We all harbour those ambitions.

 

I have a problem with people running down Smith and the players for achieving greater success in Europe than previous teams that were more technically gifted and competed at less of a (financial disadvantage) just because the players did not play in a swashbuckling, attacking style that would infact likley have attenuated the success they managed.

 

For me, victory is everything. So, I'm on your side on that issue. Getting to the UEFA final while pissing off europe in its entirety is one of my most savoured memories.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Sorry it's a bit late. It wasn't a twelve hour munch, I started studying and forgot all about it

 

 

 

Well, obviously there's looking and there's looking. But, I suppose in some real sense they should be. You have to aim for a bit more than what's probable.

 

 

 

No, not really. You just think excess of emotion should be moderated by facts. By slipping in imperatives like 'should' and framing people with expectations that defy facts as 'naive' you're implying, rightly or wrongly - I think it depends on the context, I'm not condemning - that there should be some strict correlation between what's really going to happen and what the fans should think is going to happen, and I'm not sure it follows.

 

 

 

And the question is whether fans - or, perhaps all fans, or even most fans - should have realistic expectations. I tend to think realism is for people in power, and it's the people's job to create a tide of expectation that pushes that necessary realism in the right direction. Realism, as any literature student knows, is highly subjective - if the owners, say, aren't being realistic about how we can best progress to meet expectations, they are all of a sudden realistic about profits, and who deserves bigger bonuses and whether they should be spending more time with their family or other business endeavours. This is highly simplistic, obviously, but I think it shows there's different realisms for different situations.

 

 

 

The problem is, if you start being too realistic you get to cut the proportion of knee jerk reactions, but often at the expense of the expectations and demands at the start that drive us on. Do you think Aberdeen would get as many results off us if their fans didn't go absolutely mental every time we gubbed them despite the statistical probability of the whole affair? I'm not sure.

 

 

 

I think the managerial staff know there's always going to be a proportion of knee jerk reactions because they are at a big club, with big club vanity. So we shouldn't be promoting being sensible about everything for their sake, because in reality we don't have that much of a say. The only time you get to protests etc is when enough sensible people have been convinced there's a problem. Don't get me wrong, I don't side with these people, and take approximately your view - if people say "Walter Smith should be sacked because we didn't win the champions league" I'm going to say "Don't be ridiculous", but it's important, I think, that there's ebbing and flowing with this sort of thing because somewhere in the swirl there's a roughly sensible opinion but if the pragmatic people became too dominant then there's no demand.

 

 

 

In a way, yeah. One of the joys of following football is that there's barely a sensible thing about it. In a world of rationality and sensibleness and moderation you get to shout and sing and demand triumph and bemoan failure and all that sort of thing. I don't think we should agree with ridiculous aspiration, but I do think there's something to be said for it at least being prevelant.

 

Jungian psychology is alive and Jungian it would appear, I prefer my old Clydeside uncle's philosophy. There is nothing more certain than uncertainty.

[bmck 117]

Jungian psychology is alive and Jungian it would appear, I prefer my old Clydeside uncle's philosophy. There is nothing more certain than uncertainty.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, but I do like your old uncle's philosophy :spl:

[wabashcannonball 0]

Jung does that to you, all to do with dreams and aspirations, personally I reckon Masobali was weaving the dreams thousands of years before Jung cottoned on to there being more to being, than pragmatism and order. Life is a cup to be filled not drained.