Rothen still sour?

[Danny 0]

It's not his opinion I have a problem with.

 

It's the way he airs it and a lot of fans seem to do it in a similar manner. It's not just that Smith didn't rate him and so didn't play him. No, he "scapegoated" Rothen.

 

It's a forced conclusion based on selection.

 

Rothen played poorly and got dropped. Fair do's. Rangers have gone on from then to win 2 out of 3 domestic trophies. That seems to support Smith's stance.

 

On the surface this seems like a very reasonable view to hold, and initially tricky to argue with.

 

But my problem with it is the same one as I've perpetuated from the start, and please, listen fully to what I'm trying to say:

 

Match day 1 - we battle to a terrific draw in Stuttgart with Rothen having a splendid game and looking every inch in his element. Match day 2 we get absolutely tanked by Sevilla with the defence caving horribly in the second half. Match day 3 we get even worse humiliation at the hands of Unirea with the whole team having an utter shocker.

 

In the league we're struggling for results, looking quite mediocre, questioning why guys like Broadfoot and Thomson are in the team when playing so hideously - we're second in the league and some are calling for Smith's head. The nonsense 'we deserve better' campaign shows up.

 

And yet the only, solitary, single change to come out of this entire period was that Rothen got dropped - the 20th of October being his final game - a full 6 weeks before that great December period and the only player punished for the entire team being horrible is Rothen.

 

To make a scapegoat is to freeze or blame one player - to symbolise the reason for our poor display was this player, hence eliminating him from the team.

 

And yet, we know, during this whole period the entire team was horrible - so why not wholesale changes?

 

In hindsight we can say that it came good a month and a half later, but it was more than a reasonable query to have at the time.

 

Rothen has ended up at some naff team in Turkey or Cyprus or something.

 

Big Phil Scolari is at some naff team in Uzbekistan. What's your point?

[Danny 0]

Where does this 'Rothen is the scapegoat' come from? Why not 'Rothen was dropped and we staggered to wins, so he didn't get back in, plus his mystery illness didn't help, so why doesn't he shut it and stop whining?'

 

Staggered to wins? After Rothen was dropped we drew against Hibs, lost to Aberdeen, and barely scraped a 2-1 over St Mirren.

 

How does all that fit in to your 'staggered to wins' comment?

 

I'd agree on the whining part, I don't really want to hear it.

[Danny 0]

Stop talking sense. That isn't wnated in this thread. :fish:

 

Ha, so you just blindly agree with an incorrect post because it supports your argument?

[Danny 0]

I think that's a difference in semantics, I think unfair criticism is "slagging" by definition.

 

I never said, "how dare you", I was saying that there was no foundation for your criticism. The point is, who can say that Walter freezing certain players for whatever reasons, is not one of his attributes which helps players to play in a way that wins the title?

 

If there is no fear of punishment for crossing the manager, then it's easy for him to lose respect of the dressing room.

 

I said it was strange to criticise small decisions when the results are achieved, you have no idea or evidence as to whether those decisions hindered or helped the success of Rangers.

 

One thing is clear, if they hindered then it hardly matters, seeing as we've been as successful as we've ever been in the last few years, there is good reason to think it may have helped.

 

Every manager has a style and makes day to day decisions on how to deal with players and their personalities. They have to go with their values, their assessment of the situation, what they think works and their gut instincts. In the end, they live or die in their job on their results. Walter has passed that pudding test pretty much every year he has had at Ibrox.

 

So it's not, "how dare you", it's "what are you on about?".

 

I don't disagree with much in this post, but my point does still stand. There is foundation in my criticism, of course there is. If there wasn't any, I wouldn't be making it.

 

I'm a big supporter of Smith, I think he's been splendid for us, but I still consider this episode an oddity of his management which I am entitled to question.

 

The day a criticism is chastised as 'what are you on about' is a sad day when discussion becomes futile and we turn into drones of double lobotomies.

[pete 2,499]

Agree with Danny in that nobody is above criticism. This is also a forum where people have the right to express their opinion. If you don't agree with them is no reason to say they are wrong. Their opinion is just different to what your opinion is.

 

For what it is worth my opinion of why Rothen was dropped was his inability to track back and defend against an up coming full back. It happened in many league games before the Unirea game but the Unirea defeat was a shocker for Rothen. He was caught ball watching instead of defending on a number of occasions. He did not produce enough going forward to make up for his poor ability to track back and defend.

[Super_Ally 0]

Danny, I know what a scapegoat is but thanks for the English lesson.

 

Rothen was not scapegoated. Rothen is not the only player to have been dropped this season. As Craig pointed out it is you who is using conjecture if you assume that Rothen was bombed out the team on one performance as a scapegoat and that there were no other reasons. Smith is a canny manager who is widely regarded to have good man-management skills. It is highly doubtful he did not keep Rothen out the team without good cause.

 

You also don't consider things like some players are not replaced due to no viable alternatives. E.g. Boyd and Miller played often when they shouldn't due to poor options behind them.

 

I also think you are every bit as guilty of trying to tell others their views are wrong or denying other people the right to disagree with you and I am a little bemused by peopel jumpin in to defend your stance just because you took such a defensive approach to people disagreeing with you.

 

Normally people on Gersnet can take issue with what they see as frankly ridiculous views and say so. Why people are being chastised for debating your views I have no idea.

[Frankie 8,185]

Rothen possibly was rather hard-done by at the time but his actions since - both immediately after being dropped and even after being moved on - suggest taking him out of the team was the correct decision.

 

We've got to remember the management team won't only base performance and selection on match displays alone.

[Danny 0]

Danny, I know what a scapegoat is but thanks for the English lesson.

 

Any time. If I can give you a hand with your punctuation feel free to drop me a line.

 

Rothen was not scapegoated. Rothen is not the only player to have been dropped this season.

 

He's the only player to have been dropped but then not let back in. I think that's the difference.

 

As Craig pointed out it is you who is using conjecture if you assume that Rothen was bombed out the team on one performance as a scapegoat and that there were no other reasons. Smith is a canny manager who is widely regarded to have good man-management skills. It is highly doubtful he did not keep Rothen out the team without good cause.

 

So what you're saying is we're both using conjecture? 'assume' 'no other reasons' 'widely regarded 'high doubtful'.

 

You also don't consider things like some players are not replaced due to no viable alternatives. E.g. Boyd and Miller played often when they shouldn't due to poor options behind them.

 

Doesn't really help your argument. Thomson played on despite dreadful form yet Edu was sitting there unused.

 

I also think you are every bit as guilty of trying to tell others their views are wrong or denying other people the right to disagree with you and I am a little bemused by peopel jumpin in to defend your stance just because you took such a defensive approach to people disagreeing with you.

 

Actually, there's a difference between being told you're wrong and being disagreed with. The fact more than one person has defended my stance tells its own story, and the fact you're bemused highlights your inability to understand why.

 

Normally people on Gersnet can take issue with what they see as frankly ridiculous views and say so. Why people are being chastised for debating your views I have no idea.

 

Because you're the ones who started the chastising. I took issue with your denial of my right to criticise a Walter Smith decision, ridiculing my view in the process, and nigh on denying my right to express said view because it was misinterpreted as slagging off Smith.

 

If you have no idea where the problem lies, you're just being obtuse.

[calscot 0]

The day a criticism is chastised as 'what are you on about' is a sad day when discussion becomes futile and we turn into drones of double lobotomies.

 

"What are you on about?" is not chastening - it's pointing out that from my interpretation, you don't seem to have thought about all the angles.

 

In my opinion, it looks like your splitting hairs about something and having an unfair go without putting it in perspective of the bigger picture which to me gives a completely different conclusion. I'm hoping by asking you to justify it and by explaining my view to you, I'm hoping you'll rethink yours.

 

Basically I can see what you're saying but think you're being overly judgemental when you have very little information and in the great scheme of things, all the evidence suggests you could be completely wrong in your criticism.

 

Like I said you could criticise Furyk's back swing but if you asked him to change it he may become pretty ordinary. What he does works for him. The same could be said of Smith and how he deals with players. It seems foolish to me to criticise a small part of a process which could be an import small cog in the machine when you have no clue of how the machine works - except that it works well.

 

While Walter leaves some scratching their head there does seem to be a lot of method in his madness which at the moment (and all the time he's been here) seems to work incredibly well. It's like chastising a master craftsman for a small part of how he does something without knowing the ins and outs of why he does it and what overall effect it brings.

 

A quick look at Super Nanny shows it's obvious that without discipline and following through with it, behaviour can deteriorate badly - PLG could maybe have taken a few pointers from that program.

 

The criticism of Walter also seems to be strange given it happens all the time in football by most managers.

 

You seem very defensive of your opinions being questioned. When it looks like you're saying something unfair and someone thinks you haven't thought it through properly you're going to get dissent. Unfair is also comes across as insulting and people will be saying, "Come off it!"

 

I want you to see what I see, not because I'm arrogant, it's because you seem to be unfair and of course I want you to look at it again and see it in a different light.

 

In the end I may be wrong but at least I've looked at both sides of the argument and also based my opinion both on what I know, and what I know that I don't know.

 

I really don't think you know enough to make allegations or open criticism.

 

It's fair enough to question what happened but you have been judge, jury and executioner. To me, that is wrong, and I'll speak against it.

 

There is a way to discuss that, without being so judgemental and so there's no need for lobotomies.

 

You're highlighting discussion but you seem to be taking offence when it comes and haven't really defended your position, except by saying we're not nice for totally disagreeing with you.

 

You sound like an intelligent guy but to me you think you're right first time with your first thought and don't like being contradicted. For me, an opinion is the best mental model of a situation at the time for a persons knowledge and cogitations. It shouldn't be rigid as more knowledge and looking at different angles can bring different conclusions.

 

A lot of the time it's best to reserve judgement until you have enough knowledge to make one. Unfortunately, many people don't always do that - but still expect their jump the gun opinion to be highly respected.

 

Discussion is about changing opinions and having your opinion changed - due to more knowledge and being persuaded by a different or wider viewpoint. It's not about just listening to quickly made opinions that are set in stone. That type of board WOULD require a lobotomy...

[Danny 0]

"What are you on about?" is not chastening - it's pointing out that from my interpretation, you don't seem to have thought about all the angles.

 

No one can think about all the angles. That's impossible.

 

In my opinion, it looks like your splitting hairs about something and having an unfair go without putting it in perspective of the bigger picture which to me gives a completely different conclusion. I'm hoping by asking you to justify it and by explaining my view to you, I'm hoping you'll rethink yours.

 

I explained my view fully to Ally, an explanation which got totally ignored. I'm not asking anyone to rethink their stance, I'm just trying to make them understand mine. And it seems a few do. So why should I change my view when it clearly has merit?

 

Basically I can see what you're saying but think you're being overly judgemental when you have very little information and in the great scheme of things, all the evidence suggests you could be completely wrong in your criticism.

 

Aha! My criticism is not 'Walter was wrong to drop Rothen' - my criticism is 'why did he scapegoat him after Unirea'. Why was he the one player ditched to never return?

You've misinterpreted my argument quite badly.

 

Like I said you could criticise Furyk's back swing but if you asked him to change it he may become pretty ordinary. What he does works for him. The same could be said of Smith and how he deals with players. It seems foolish to me to criticise a small part of a process which could be an import small cog in the machine when you have no clue of how the machine works - except that it works well.

 

For 6 weeks after Rothen was dropped, our results did not improve.

 

Indeed, it wasn't till we hit upon the Novo and Beasley winger combination that things got much better - that's 6 weeks of bad displays unnaccounted for - with Rothen's absence not being justified.

 

While Walter leaves some scratching their head there does seem to be a lot of method in his madness which at the moment (and all the time he's been here) seems to work incredibly well. It's like chastising a master craftsman for a small part of how he does something without knowing the ins and outs of why he does it and what overall effect it brings.

 

I agree there, and again, I seem to feel you're interpreting me as someone slagging Walter off. You and Ally appear to be taking great offence at my view, for reasons I can't quite fathom.

 

A quick look at Super Nanny shows it's obvious that without discipline and following through with it, behaviour can deteriorate badly - PLG could maybe have taken a few pointers from that program.

 

The criticism of Walter also seems to be strange given it happens all the time in football by most managers.

 

And in most cases people ask why such and such has been dropped. Riera is another example; Liverpool playing poorly and struggling for fourth yet in a way Rafa has scapegoated him and frozen him out entirely - yet he's not been in the team for months WHILE the team's played atrociously. So his absence is not the reason for the team playing badly.

 

You seem very defensive of your opinions being questioned.

 

I'm defensive of my view being misunderstood.

 

When it looks like you're saying something unfair and someone thinks you haven't thought it through properly you're going to get dissent. Unfair is also comes across as insulting and people will be saying, "Come off it!"

 

I want you to see what I see, not because I'm arrogant, it's because you seem to be unfair and of course I want you to look at it again and see it in a different light.

 

In the end I may be wrong but at least I've looked at both sides of the argument and also based my opinion both on what I know, and what I know that I don't know.

 

I really don't think you know enough to make allegations or open criticism.

 

It's fair enough to question what happened but you have been judge, jury and executioner. To me, that is wrong, and I'll speak against it.

 

That's nonsense Calscot - all I AM doing is questioning. Judge jury and executioner? Good grief, you're turning this into a soap opera. And I don't know why it's getting so melodramatic.

 

There is a way to discuss that, without being so judgemental and so there's no need for lobotomies.

 

You're highlighting discussion but you seem to be taking offence when it comes and haven't really defended your position, except by saying we're not nice for totally disagreeing with you.

 

I've defended my position more than once and been ignored. Your argument appears selective.

 

You sound like an intelligent guy but to me you think you're right first time with your first thought and don't like being contradicted.

 

Erm, I never said I am right. I asked why Rothen was dropped. I didn't make a claim of knowledge, I asked a question.

I seriously wonder what you are seeing to be contriving these replies.

 

For me, an opinion is the best mental model of a situation at the time for a persons knowledge and cogitations. It shouldn't be rigid as more knowledge and looking at different angles can bring different conclusions.

 

A lot of the time it's best to reserve judgement until you have enough knowledge to make one. Unfortunately, many people don't always do that - but still expect their jump the gun opinion to be highly respected.

 

Discussion is about changing opinions and having your opinion changed - due to more knowledge and being persuaded by a different or wider viewpoint. It's not about just listening to quickly made opinions that are set in stone. That type of board WOULD require a lobotomy...

 

*sigh*

 

I get the feeling I could ask the question a hundred times and just be told I'm wrong over and over again.