Crouchy says his piece

[Danny 0]

:robbo:

 

Wind it up mate.

 

I'm simply stating the facts about Boyd. I'm sure, in this forum and others too, that other players have been mentioned in a thread where the subject is another player. I doubt I've broken any internet thread laws, however, when at work tomorrow I'll check to see if there's a statute law that covers it.

 

Article 12 under chapter 34 of the Web Law.

 

I don't think I'm the first and I certainly doubt I'll be the last.

 

BTW, I don't understand why you want to "whore" a player who is constantly shite for us. Sorry, I'll rephrase that......I don't understand why you want to "whore" a player who plays one good game ot of about 15.

 

I don't. I consider his value, and rate him more than some others do. I hardly go around saying he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it seems when Lafferty is discussed, you and S_A always have to try and big up Boyd in response.

 

Quite why any good bear would defend anything about him in light of the quotes he came out with about our club is beyond me, but hey ho.

 

PS I don't recall Zinedine Zidane or Materazzi being part of this thread?

 

Touche

[Danny 0]

This has to come from an unabashed, unashamed Lafferty supporter. Undoubtedly.

 

I have had a couple of drinks but let me try to respond as well as I can in same order :

 

1. Show me where in ANY of my responses that I suggested that Lafferty did not react. Show me where I suggested that Zidane did not react. You can't. Simple. Now, if we can actually get to the facts.... he reacted. He shouldnt have. Zidane acted, he shouldnt have. It is part and parcel of the game that you will get wound up either by words or actions - it is also expected that as a PROFESSIONAL that you do not react to the provocation. I couldnt give a shit whether it is human nature or not - it is, IMO, part of being a professional NOT to react.

 

Yes, players ARE human. But part of being a professional is NOT reacting. It is the profession and part of that is NOT reacting. You may agree, may not - but that is how it is.

 

From what I am seeing here, your argument seems to be more against players reacting in general. Because surely you're not singling out Lafferty for doing what thousands of players before him have. And btw, that's NOT how it is - and the laws of the game know this so have handy things called yellow and red cards to punish players when they DO react or misbehave. According to your bizarre logic, these cards shouldn't be in the game because players, as professionals, should not and must not react.

 

Not a liability.... WRONG. The fact that he has not cost us a point does not make him "not a liability" - by definition a liability is a future payment that needs to be made in all probability. Lafferty not having cost us a point is, undoubtedly, because of good fortune more than anything else. McBride was. IMO, unlucky to be sent off on Sunday whilst, again IMO, Lafferty very much deserved his red - had the ref reacted the way he should have (admittedly IMO - and it would be VERY churlish of any of us to suggest that McBride deserved to go whilst Lafferty didnt) then we would have been down to 10 whilst they had 11 - and we were playing shite 11v11 as it was - then you can easily see that it is fortuitous that we didnt play half the game a man down.

 

You dislike him so much you'll defend players of opposing teams in the process? Nice.

 

The Aberdeen incident - so he actually gained, or assisted in gaining, us 3 points there - are you proud of that ? I for one am embarrassed that he felt the need.

 

the Tims game - his lunge at Hinkel could have ended in red - not saying it SHOULD have, but it could have.

 

His rashness has, thankfully, not cost us points - but to suggest that he is not a liability simply because it hasnt yet cost us points is folly. Absolute folly.

 

Disagree. You would have been calling him a liability after that Aberdeen dive - yet in all the time since he still hasn't cost us anything. Or are you purely talking about sheer chance, because in that case every player we have is capable of costing us points or cards so they're ALL liabilities.

 

He IS a liability and to suggest otherwise is absolutely naive. We have had liabilities before and we will again - but with our squad as small as it is we could very well be doing without any right now.

 

You wouldnt have him at LM, full stop. Good. Neither would I. But given that I would also have Miller, Jelavic, Beattie, Naismith and Fleck up front before I had him there..... so do we really need him given we wouldnt play him LM and there are FIVE players probably ahead of him up front ?

 

Tell me.. serious question... just what has he actually brought to this Rangers team over his two year tenure that suggests we should stand by him ?

 

Guess you could argue the same for Fleck really. But at least Fleck isn't getting mostly played out of position unlike Lafferty.

 

I agree, I trust Walter - funny that Walter deemed that he should purchase Beattie and Jelavic so that, from my perspective, he would play them as a rotated 3some with Miller..... leaving Lafferty as.... the odd man out up front.... and we wouldnt play him at LM.....surely then that means he is expendable ???

 

Then I guess Naismith is too. It's called rotation. More players you have, the better.

 

One thing is for sure - with Miller, Jelavic, Beattie, Weiss, Naismith, Fleck all at the club the chances of Lafferty getting back in the team anytime soon after his suspension will possibly limited - with no tears from me - because in his two years he has VERY infrequently proven his worth and all too frequently shown his immature, selfish (he basically admits this himself...) side.

 

I re-iterate - I, for one, regardless of the fact that we have such a small squad, quite honestly wouldnt blink an eye if Kyle Lafferty left tomorrow. He hasnt brought much to the team as it is, he has had more than enough chances and not heeded them, so why should we think all of a sudden he will change ??

 

We will have to agree to disagree - of all of our squad, Kyle Lafferty is one player that I think is expendable for more than one reason. 1) he hasnt proven his worth and 2) he is a liability. Both of those, given our financial predicament, are enough for me to say... Bye bye Kyle.

 

You call me a Kyle supporter, by this reply I can call you a Kyle 'hater'. The truth is I suspect both of us are somewhere in the middle. My case, from the start, has been to give him support, just like I did with Boyd and Bougherra despite disliking them, because he is a Rangers player and has never given us less than his all. I don't think he's the ghost of Hateley and McCoist, nor do I consider him Satan - I just give him slack like I give all Rangers players.

 

If you don't want to do that, fine - but kindly stop calling me a Lafferty supporter. I am a Rangers supporter and hate seeing our players being maligned by our own fans.

 

Quite simply..... Enough is enough.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Danny

[Totti 0]

"I admit I reacted badly after being hit with the ball by McBride, but I think in that situation most players would have done the same."

 

Q: Kyle, did you lift your hands when you reacted badly ?

A: Yes

 

There ya go then, red card it is.

After McGregor dived, someone pushed him. If every little push was a red card we'd have no players left on the park.

 

Lafferty should have been booked and no more.

 

That said, Lafferty isn't someone I rate highly and I don't understand his inclusion. Massive waste of money. How many time has he played well wide on the left? Why does Smith constantly do things that don't work>

Edited August 27, 2010 by Totti