Rothen still sour?

[Danny 0]

Won the league and league cup. I would suggest the ends justify the means. Why do peopel obssess over mediocre players when we're being succesful.

 

Obsess? I was curious about the situation when we were DIRE in the CL and second in the league. Funnily enough folk were asking the questions of the management back then.

 

I still want to know the answers out of sheer curiosity, nothing to do with obsession, and everything to do with this thread reminding me.

 

Also Smith sees a lot more of these players than we do. He watches them in training. Perhaps some players don't just underperform in games, but have a bad attitude in training.

 

Just pure conjecture - you're making assumptions.

 

It is ridiculous to expect Smith to explain every managerial decision he makes.

 

Every? This is only one thing I'm asking about. A bit slippery slope there Ally.

[Danny 0]

With a player like Rothen I can't help thinking that the language barrier was a step too far for him. He barely spoke a word of English when he came here and picking up a new language quickly isn't something that everyone is capable of doing. The faster of learners could pick up English from scratch in 3 months of intensive practice, but others will take years, with some people even never fully getting to grips with it.

 

If language was indeed a problem for Rothen, then it causes problems for others in the team as well as the coaches at training.

 

Could well be a very reasonable point in Rothen's case, but not one which explains Buffel and Gow.

 

I do with Rothen hadn't gone to the press though, makes him look very bitter and a snitch/gossip.

[craig 5,199]

He wasn't exactly Messi but he was no worse than anyone else during that time when, lest we forget, we were second in the league, playing terribly, and we got humiliated in the CL.

 

My point has always been why he was made the scapegoat when no more guilty of poor form than any other player in the team.

 

Being "no worse" wasnt acceptable to Rangers given the amount of money he was being paid. If he was on a wage that was "appearance-based" then being no worse actually means we couldnt really afford to play him. Stick with those who are either not on appearance based wages or whose appearance fee is less than Rothen's - especially if they themselves were no worse than Rothen.

 

Rothen stated in his interview that he was replaced by an 18 yr old - that, to me, smacks of someone who felt that he should play merely due to experience. It is actually anindictment of Rothen himself that an 18 yr old with just a couple of years experience wa preferred over him - rather than backing his side of the story up it suggests otherwise.

 

At no point during his short stint here did he justify his wages. Given he was on a loan, it made sense for us (and probably him too) to just cut losses and let him move on.

[Super_Ally 0]

Obsess? I was curious about the situation when we were DIRE in the CL and second in the league. Funnily enough folk were asking the questions of the management back then.

 

I still want to know the answers out of sheer curiosity, nothing to do with obsession, and everything to do with this thread reminding me.

 

 

 

Just pure conjecture - you're making assumptions. 1

 

 

 

Every? This is only one thing I'm asking about. A bit slippery slope there Ally. 2

 

Dear oh dear Danny.

 

Point 1 is not conjecture. You're missing the big point. Walter does see more of the players than us, that is nto conjecture. Based on that he picks his team. The point about effort in training could be described as conjecture yes, but it was just an exampel of the kind of things we don't see that Walter does. So, Walter does see more than us and on that basis picks his team. The fact you think he was no worse than anyone else in one atrocious game is neither here nor there. You've missed the bigger message of the point to focus on the hypothetical example to illustrate said point.

 

Number 2 and again you miss the bigger picture. Sure dropping Rothen is just one question you are asking of Smith. But if he has to answer you this one question, then he is duty bound to answer all other fans' questions. Or are you more important than everyone else? So either he has to answer all these questions, or none. No slippery slope. Stop makin daft points and look at the big picture.

 

Smith may be expected to explain big questions and decisions is press conferences and on official club duty. In the grand scheme of things the lack of playing time for a player who flattered to deceive does not fall into that category.

 

Pretty daft reply all told there.

[Super_Ally 0]

In fact all this McCulloch is a favourite, Rothen is a scape goat nonsense is childish and bullshit.

 

Smith picks the team he thinks will win the match and he has a lot more info on his squad to make his decision than we do.

 

If he doesn't pick your favourite tough titties, deal with it. The real ones clouded by emotion when it comes to picking teams are the fans and not the manager. His job is results based and he can't afford to pick his so called favourites or scapegoat anyone.

[Danny 0]

Being "no worse" wasnt acceptable to Rangers given the amount of money he was being paid. If he was on a wage that was "appearance-based" then being no worse actually means we couldnt really afford to play him. Stick with those who are either not on appearance based wages or whose appearance fee is less than Rothen's - especially if they themselves were no worse than Rothen.

 

Rothen stated in his interview that he was replaced by an 18 yr old - that, to me, smacks of someone who felt that he should play merely due to experience.

 

It smacks more to me of a player who hadn't been given any sort of explanation as to why he WASN'T playing.

 

It is actually anindictment of Rothen himself that an 18 yr old with just a couple of years experience wa preferred over him - rather than backing his side of the story up it suggests otherwise.

 

Not sure I agree at all. Rothen was brought in as a CL specialist, yet the team has a shocking CL campaign but he's made the scapegoat. None of the players were impressive, including the similar wage Pedro Mendes, but it's Rothen who's made out the villain of the piece.

 

tbh I don't like him going to the press like this, it's very immature. But that in itself does not explain why he was frozen out after Unirea.

 

At no point during his short stint here did he justify his wages. Given he was on a loan, it made sense for us (and probably him too) to just cut losses and let him move on.

 

About the only thing I agree on. The reasons why he didn't justify his wages may vary between us, but we can agree that it didn't work out regardless.

[Danny 0]

Dear oh dear Danny.

 

Point 1 is not conjecture. You're missing the big point. Walter does see more of the players than us, that is nto conjecture. Based on that he picks his team. The point about effort in training could be described as conjecture yes, but it was just an exampel of the kind of things we don't see that Walter does. So, Walter does see more than us and on that basis picks his team. The fact you think he was no worse than anyone else in one atrocious game is neither here nor there. You've missed the bigger message of the point to focus on the hypothetical example to illustrate said point.

 

This smacks of 'Walter knows best' and we really shouldn't question him.

 

I don't deny at all that he does know more than us, and he's the best man for the job, but you're implying here that we shouldn't question anything.

 

Number 2 and again you miss the bigger picture. Sure dropping Rothen is just one question you are asking of Smith. But if he has to answer you this one question, then he is duty bound to answer all other fans' questions. Or are you more important than everyone else? So either he has to answer all these questions, or none. No slippery slope. Stop makin daft points and look at the big picture.

 

It's not a daft point at all, and the fact I'm curious as to its answer does not mean I'm not looking at the bigger picture. In fact, if I was taking this debate as seriously as you think I am, I would not also be pointing out that I trust Walter and consider him an excellent manager.

 

By your logic, you can't ever ask a single question of his management, otherwise you must ask EVERY question of his management.

 

That, to quote you sir, is a 'daft point' and I demand you give me 20.

 

Smith may be expected to explain big questions and decisions is press conferences and on official club duty. In the grand scheme of things the lack of playing time for a player who flattered to deceive does not fall into that category.

 

Pretty daft reply all told there.

 

Right back at you. I'm highly dissatisfied by your post. If this was school I'd have you doing lines as a punishment exercise.

[Danny 0]

In fact all this McCulloch is a favourite, Rothen is a scape goat nonsense is childish and bullshit. Smith picks the team he thinks will win the match and he has a lot more info on his squad to make his decision than we do.

 

If he doesn't pick your favourite tough titties, deal with it. The real ones clouded by emotion when it comes to picking teams are the fans and not the manager. His job is results based and he can't afford to pick his so called favourites or scapegoat anyone.

 

Rothen was never my favourite.

[craig 5,199]

It smacks more to me of a player who hadn't been given any sort of explanation as to why he WASN'T playing.

 

The manager picks his team. If ANY player is not selected then the only time they should possibly NEED to be given an explanation is if they have been playing well. Rothen was NOT playing well, so did he really need Smith to say "Hey Jerome, you have been shite of late so I am dropping you" ? Even given a language barrier Rothen should have known he wasnt playing well enough to keep his place.

 

I WILL, however, grant you that those who came in after him didnt exactly cement their place with their performances either.

 

Not sure I agree at all. Rothen was brought in as a CL specialist, yet the team has a shocking CL campaign but he's made the scapegoat. None of the players were impressive, including the similar wage Pedro Mendes, but it's Rothen who's made out the villain of the piece.

 

Was he really brought in as a CL specialist ? Here was me thinking that, given our financial situation, that we couldnt afford to bring players in just to be specialists in one given tournament. Sorry, but I can't agree at all that he was brought in to solely play well in Europe - common sense tells me that would not be the case.

 

"Hey Jerome, we have a small squad this year and are skint, but here is 15k a week for you to just come in and do well in CL games". Come on Danny, you know that makes no sense.

 

Tell me how you know he has been made the scapegoat ? Because he never featured after that ? How does that make him a scapegoat ? As S_A says, there could be a multitude of reasons behind him not featuring. You are guilty here of the same conjecture you suggest S_A is projecting.

 

You can throw names in the hat all you like - but the reality is that 1) our squad is small so we cant drop everyone 2) Someone like Mendes (who I feel flattered to deceive) STILL did far more than Rothen. The CL campaign was an unmitigated disaster but, again, we cant drop EVERYONE. Rothen played poorly, he was dropped. Why does there need to be some kind of conspiracy behind it ?

 

tbh I don't like him going to the press like this, it's very immature. But that in itself does not explain why he was frozen out after Unirea.

 

No, it doesnt explain why he was frozen out. And, given he is no longer at Rangers, there really is no need to explain why. I would much rather WS focusses on winning games and winning competitions than satifying your (or my or any other fan's) curiosity as to why he did or did not select a particular player.

 

He can go to the media all he likes. Bottom line is that he did nothing to warrant selection - aside from the Stuttgart game and, funnily enough, he was being selected round that time. But he went off the boil, quickly, so all of a sudden he is being scapegoated.... not just that he was playing pish, right ?

 

About the only thing I agree on. The reasons why he didn't justify his wages may vary between us, but we can agree that it didn't work out regardless.

Edited April 12, 2010 by craig

[calscot 0]

But I'm allowed to criticise, right? I mean, it would be silly if I wasn't allowed to make a negative comment over something I deem worthy of it. This doesn't detract from how excellent over the piece I believe Walter's been for us.

 

You may be "allowed" to criticise but then can we not criticise you for very petty criticism. What is your right to criticise based on? Walter has just about won the league and cup double for the second year in a row, and probably would have had a treble before that without the cheating of Celtic.

 

I think it's pretty obvious to fair minded people that he knows how to manage for success on the domestic scene to a reasonable extent. Accepting that means it seems petty to criticise minutia of his day to day decisions when in the overall scheme, they seem to have worked, worked and worked again.

 

I really can't see how you can justify that criticism in any way and what right do any of us have to slag someone off with unjustified criticism?

 

You seem to think you know best and better than a man who has proven himself to be incredibly competent in his job over two stretches adding up to about 12 years.

 

I think we should be allowed to point out the how your criticism is not warranted.

 

I would just like to know the good reason then.

 

Maybe you should ask Walter yourself, but there are many reasons not to divulge the reason behind every decision, especially when dealing with the fragile egos of highly paid players. I think the main thrust of it is pretty obvious - Walter lost confidence in him and didn't think he was worth his very high wage.

 

Rothen: I explained my logic behind this one.

 

For me Rothen looked like he could have potential without actually doing much of note and making a few mistakes; but he steadily got worse with every game.

 

Gow: He was superb in a pre-season friendly but never featured for us at all in the league. How did he show 'us' anything when he was never picked?

 

He was hardly superb but I think it's probable he had a fall out with the manager and didn't work himself back into favour - happens all the time at every club. He was no great loss and we've gone on to win stuff without him, so I don't see the need for a post mortem. As a Rangers fan, I'm more interested in results than I am about how much chance a player got in the team. This is professional football and not Sunday league where you might feel sorry for someone if they don't get a game. He got paid very well for not doing much.

 

Buffel: Has to be said the fans were screaming out for him when our form was poor, and in the few meagre sub appearances he got he showed plenty of ability. He just wasn't fancied by the management.

 

There were probably more fans against him getting in the team. It was obvious that he had had a bad attitude for a long time.

 

So, it's unnacceptable when it's Gattuso done by DA but ok when it was Rothen/Buffel/Gow by Smith for no good tangible reason aside 'in Walter we trust'?

 

I never said it was unacceptable - however the difference here is that Advocaat was proven wrong. He punted a player who became one of the best in the world and then badly lost two titles.

 

That's the point, Walter won the league twice without these players, if he'd achieved the same as Dick's last two seasons you might have a point.

 

This is so obvious, I don't know why you don't get it. Nobody slags Rossi of for his leg wave because he wins; if he fell off every time he did it, I think he'd get a lot of criticism.

 

You could say the same with Furyk's golf swing. You could really go on about his strange back-swing but the guy is still a great golfer.

 

Slagging off someone who gets results for small things that don't make any difference, seems a bit strange.

 

Any negative attitude which came from Rothen (and I assume he's the one you mean because I don't recall any problems with Buffel or Gow) came as a result of being frozen out. Not the other way around.

 

A professional should not have a negative attitude, even when dropped - that is the time to show the manager why he should pick you again. He was dropped for good reason and obviously didn't convince the manager he could do a better job than another available player.

 

I don't think any manager can afford to cut off his nose to spite his face. If Walter didn't fancy Jerome to do a job then you can bet he had his reasons - especially with a small squad and bugger all money to bring anyone in. In fact we couldn't afford to wait to see if he could improve and with our finances, getting rid at the transfer window was a no brainer.

 

Why is there being an assumption made that Rothen was a passenger? I can accept he didn't fit in with Walter's plans, mainly because it seems he wasn't signed by Walter, but I'm less sure how he was a passenger.

 

There's no assumption - it's a fact. The manager didn't rate him and he was on a large wage. I thought Walter did sign him but that doesn't mean he has to play him. Sometimes you buy something and after a while realise it wasn't quite what you thought it was, or it doesn't fit with the rest of your stuff, or it can break, or its running costs are just not value for money. With players it's difficult to get your money back, but we made a good fist of it.

 

Anyway, in the end I think it's strange to slag off a winning manager for not getting on with the odd player. When a manager loses the whole dressing room and badly loses the league, then there is justification for criticism. That's not happened to Walter while at Rangers.

 

BTW I'm no "Walterite", but I'd defend any successful Rangers manager from unjustified criticism about micro decisions that made no difference to winning trophies.

Edited April 12, 2010 by calscot