Rothen still sour?

[andy steel 0]

There 101 reasons why, during our run of dodgy results which morphed into good ones, Rothen was not re-introduced into the team: none of them make him a scapegoat. Steven Naismith was out for a good long time, not always with injury I think (although I will stand corrected since my memory is shocking). Walter Smith looked at how we were playing, decided what the team needed to play better and came to the conclusion that Jerome Rothen would not fit into the scheme he had in mind: I just can't see how that becomes scapegoating anyone, with all it's pejorative associations. Fair enough for the player to be miffed, and to divert attention away from his own potential failings and onto some (to me) contrived personal clash with the management, but I don't see why any fans would accept that argument.

 

As to the rest of this thread, I'm equally baffled and propose to keep well out of it.

[Super_Ally 0]

You've not justified or explained anything.

 

You are adamant Rothen was "scapegoated". You've repeated it many times. There is absolutely no good evidence he was scapegoated. It is more plausible he was dropped due to not being good enough and not doing enough in training to get back in the team. Your view is every bit as much as mine conjecture. Just mine looks a stronger conclusion from the available information.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Frankie

[calscot 0]

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

 

We can always listen to other points of view.

 

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?

 

I don't remember it getting ignored. Basically my opinion is that your view is extreme and overly judgemental.

 

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.

 

That question is only makes sense if people agree he was "scapegoated", which is why you have been taken to task on it by people who disagree.

 

You are stating that opinion as fact when there is no evidence to suggest it is. I think you've misinterpreted your own question as fact rather than conjecture.

 

 

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. There are plenty of other scenarios you've ignored. The "scapegoating" anomaly clearly looks to be a slur on Walter when his intentions could have far more integrity.

 

 

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.

 

Like I said, you've agreed you criticised him, you are also putting a negative connotation into his character with the "scapegoating" and as I think your criticism and judgement are unfair, I interpret that as a slagging off.

 

I've explain in great and painful detail, that there is no "offence" taken, we believe your conjecture is wrong and have taken great pains to explain why.

 

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.

 

There is a difference between asking a question and making a negative judgement of something while asking a trick question.

 

I'm defensive of my view being misunderstood.

 

Then feel free to explain it further.

 

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.

 

It's getting melodramatic because you take offence at people disagreeing with you and we're now having to talk about how we're talking about it. I took great pains to try to explain to you there was no need to argue about the way people disagree with you. We're all happy to talk about the original issue.

 

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

 

It's difficult to get the discussion flowing when we're having to explain the debating process - and I can't see where you've defended you position except by the assertion that you have a right to an opinion, so there.

 

Erm, I never said I am right. I asked why Rothen was dropped.

 

Doesn't this contradict what you said at the top?

 

I didn't make a claim of knowledge, I asked a question.

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

 

You claim to know he was "scapegoated", and then asked the question, treating that knowledge as fact.

 

I don't know what contrivance you are referring to, but I would gladly get back to discussing the main point rather than your emotional reaction to having your opinion questioned.

 

 

*sigh*

 

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

 

I take it you didn't get point?

[Danny 0]

Cal, we could go round and round in circles - we clearly aren't understanding each other, so let's just leave it.