Edu or McCulloch?

[craig 5,199]

So long as McCulloch is dropped immediately after he has a poor game, i'll accept that

 

Edu was poor against Killie too, so 2 games.

 

Davis should be closer to being dropped than McCulloch - but we know that wont happen.

[Super_Ally 0]

Edu was poor against Killie too, so 2 games.

 

Davis should be closer to being dropped than McCulloch - but we know that wont happen.

 

I'm not saying that McCulloch does not get more time from the manager, but the verocity with which people attack his inclusion is amusing. As if he's the only player who stays in the team after a bad game or two.

 

It's not suprising a safety first manager sticks with experienced players through a bad game and it is frustrating. But whilst the manager is achieveing results then he gets to make the decisions.

 

And as you point out, there are other experienced members of the squad afforded even more of the same courtesy.

 

There is also the possibility that, rightly or wrongly, Smith feels McCulloch offers more than Edu to the team. Certainly Edu' performances are not that far greater than Lee's (if at all) that it's worth getting so upset about it.

 

I don't notice these same fans getting so distressed when Walter perseveres with Lafferty as an example. It appears to just come down to whether or not the player is one of these fan's favourites rather than one of Walters "favourites".

 

I think fans, myself every bit as much as any other, are more likely to have favourites and make an emotional investment in team selections than a seasoned manager such as Walter and that is borne out by much of the greeting faced posts on here.

[Guest Flying Hippo]

Rather than it being about favourites, it's about the good of the club for me. Selling Thomson and handing McCulloch a new contract was short-termism at its best. Having a 24 year old World Cup player sit on the bench to accomodate McCulloch is just as bad. People talk about the Ajax model and i seriously doubt Ajax would have a journeyman veteran in their team ahead of a young player fresh from a pretty decent World Cup

 

You keep Thomson and Edu. You play them both and hope they both flourish, then sell them for a combined fee of about �£8-9 million. Or you sell one of them, drop the other, and hand a long term contract to a veteran whose biggest achievement outwith Ibrox was being converted from a striker to a left winger

[maineflyer 0]

Rather than it being about favourites, it's about the good of the club for me. Selling Thomson and handing McCulloch a new contract was short-termism at its best. Having a 24 year old World Cup player sit on the bench to accomodate McCulloch is just as bad. People talk about the Ajax model and i seriously doubt Ajax would have a journeyman veteran in their team ahead of a young player fresh from a pretty decent World Cup

 

You keep Thomson and Edu. You play them both and hope they both flourish, then sell them for a combined fee of about �£8-9 million. Or you sell one of them, drop the other, and hand a long term contract to a veteran whose biggest achievement outwith Ibrox was being converted from a striker to a left winger

 

What's your point? Are you criticising Walter's management of the team?

[Guest Flying Hippo]

What's your point? Are you criticising Walter's management of the team?

 

It goes higher than that

 

Keeping a 40 year old and selling his 18 year old heir apparent after he was left embarrassed by our alleged �£2000 a week new contract offer

 

Selling Thomson because we couldn't afford to offer him a new contract, but almost immediately offering one to a man 7 years older than him

 

All we care about is one season after the other. There's no long term thinking whatsoever and it's pretty depressing

[Super_Ally 0]

Rather than it being about favourites, it's about the good of the club for me.

 

You can say that but we know it's not true. Edu has played poorly in his last couple of games yet you'd have been perfectly happy for him to stay in the team ahead of McCulloch who had a match winning contribution at the weekend. How would sticking with a player out of form been for the good of the team?

 

Selling Thomson and handing McCulloch a new contract was short-termism at its best.

 

If it was as simple as keeping a younger better player I imagine we would have. Most likely finances dictated the transfer and contract dealings there.

[craig 5,199]

Rather than it being about favourites, it's about the good of the club for me. Selling Thomson and handing McCulloch a new contract was short-termism at its best. Having a 24 year old World Cup player sit on the bench to accomodate McCulloch is just as bad. People talk about the Ajax model and i seriously doubt Ajax would have a journeyman veteran in their team ahead of a young player fresh from a pretty decent World Cup

 

You keep Thomson and Edu. You play them both and hope they both flourish, then sell them for a combined fee of about �£8-9 million. Or you sell one of them, drop the other, and hand a long term contract to a veteran whose biggest achievement outwith Ibrox was being converted from a striker to a left winger

 

Why do you keep going on about that ? So Edu was part of the US squad that made the WC finals - he hardly shone in their tournament did he ? So perhaps if we had the chance we should go with Edu rather than Giggs - you know, Giggs, roughly same age as McCulloch but has never played at the WC finals.

 

A player being at the WC finals doesnt make him a better player than one who hasnt. George Best could have played for any team, but he never played at the WC.

 

Just what is the relevance of Edu having been at the WC ? Often it is a circumstance of your nationality rather than ability which will dictate your likelihood of playing at the WC.

 

I would have preferred we stuck with Thomson rather than McCulloch too - and I think we are being naive if we think that Walter didnt feel this way as well. I suspect that you could replace "couldnt offer him a contract" for "couldnt offer him the contract he wanted" - it is likely that Thomson wanted more money than he was on (probably correctly as he did become a full international whilst with us) whereas McCulloch accepted a pay cut to extend his deal.

 

Whilst you could call it short-termism (wont deny you that) others would say that we ended up with a player on less wages than previously extending his contract for 3 years whilst we sold a player who could have walked for nothing at the end of this season. Some would actually argue what the club did was longer-term thinking.

 

With regards to the Wilson sale - I highly doubt Danny Wilson would have stayed regardless of the contract offer being made. Even if he was offered a derisory 2k (do we know for sure) the boy himself said that as soon as Liverpool made their interest known he wanted to move - so what difference would an improved contract offer meant ?

[Guest Flying Hippo]

McCulloch wouldn't get into the USA team so it's churlish to dismiss Edu playing in the World Cup

[Super_Ally 0]

I can't remember where but I was reading a piece recently where someone was knocking that world cup argument by pointing out that Braafheid played in the World Cup final.

[Super_Ally 0]

McCulloch wouldn't get into the USA team so it's churlish to dismiss Edu playing in the World Cup

 

Aye he was born in Belshill not Boston so is inelligible.

 

But I think you've missed craig's point.