Cotter 0 Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 Walter's fanboy types another boring essay. Walter has played lots of youths? Hmmm Remember the state of our squad when he left first time round? Advocaat had to buy a whole new squad which was the catalyst in our endless financial problems. Maybe if he'd been bringing in youth players we wouldn't have had to spend buckets of gold. Walter's doing well just now but he's not immune from criticism. Walter's to blame for Advocaat's spending because he stuck by some of the players from the greatest Rangers team in a generation? Away and see your psychiatrist mate. Tell him about this Walter guy that's bothering you. When you get home look up the average age of Walter's teams since his return. Sick of this pish. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Apparently we should be playing XI 16 yr olds just to prove that WS plays youth.... never mind that we have won back-to-back titles and a plethora of domestic trophies since his return.... That isnt important, playing youths is apparently the be all and end all. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Apparently we should be playing XI 16 yr olds just to prove that WS plays youth.... never mind that we have won back-to-back titles and a plethora of domestic trophies since his return.... That isnt important, playing youths is apparently the be all and end all. Where has anyone said we should be playing XI 16 year olds? Where has anyone said that playing youths is more important than winning trophies? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 I would like to think you understand the irony in my post ? Why is it that WS is taking flak when all he has done is win games and win trophies ? Same old "never plays youths" gets trotted out... yet the man himself picks a team to win games. That is his job, and if it means playing a 40 yr old over a 20 yr old then so be it. There are plenty of youngsters in and around the squad as it is. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 I would like to think you understand the irony in my post ? Why is it that WS is taking flak when all he has done is win games and win trophies ? Same old "never plays youths" gets trotted out... yet the man himself picks a team to win games. That is his job, and if it means playing a 40 yr old over a 20 yr old then so be it. There are plenty of youngsters in and around the squad as it is. I understood the irony, just didn't think you played it very well. Playing a 40 yeard old central defender is a no brainer as Weir is our best defender. There's only plenty of youngsters in and around the squad right now as he has no other choice but to pick the young players. Our squad is dangerously small. Any manager, no matter who, would have to pick the youngsters. "Never plays youth" does get trotted out all the time, only because it's true. Just like WS being a legendary manager for us. I don't think he's getting "flak", just people pointing out the obvious. When does a youth player not become a youth player by the way? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 I understood the irony, just didn't think you played it very well. Playing a 40 yeard old central defender is a no brainer as Weir is our best defender. There's only plenty of youngsters in and around the squad right now as he has no other choice but to pick the young players. Our squad is dangerously small. Any manager, no matter who, would have to pick the youngsters. "Never plays youth" does get trotted out all the time, only because it's true. Just like WS being a legendary manager for us. I don't think he's getting "flak", just people pointing out the obvious. When does a youth player not become a youth player by the way? But even when he is playing the youngsters it is by default - so he will never be credited with playing them. Was WS not the same guy who went out and brought in a 19 yr old Weiss ?? Should he not get credit for that ? "never plays youth" is NOT true. Fleck has played a number of games when fit and featured at 16 (or was it 15 ?)for us. Weiss is a regular and he could still be considered a youth. WS was the one who played a 17 yr old Danny Wilson, was he not ? So how can you possibly suggest that WS "never plays youths" ?? There are plenty of examples of WS playing youths, it is just that some people are more than happy to overlook the fact simply because it suits them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 But even when he is playing the youngsters it is by default - so he will never be credited with playing them. Was WS not the same guy who went out and brought in a 19 yr old Weiss ?? Should he not get credit for that ? "never plays youth" is NOT true. Fleck has played a number of games when fit and featured at 16 (or was it 15 ?)for us. Weiss is a regular and he could still be considered a youth. WS was the one who played a 17 yr old Danny Wilson, was he not ? So how can you possibly suggest that WS "never plays youths" ?? There are plenty of examples of WS playing youths, it is just that some people are more than happy to overlook the fact simply because it suits them. You're getting my arguement mixed up with Dannys or Totti's. I can't remember who! My arguement is that WS signs unknown young players and we never see them again. Weiss is hardly unknown. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 You're getting my arguement mixed up with Dannys or Totti's. I can't remember who! My arguement is that WS signs unknown young players and we never see them again. Weiss is hardly unknown. Maybe the reason we never see them again is because they arent good enough ??? Sorry if I mixed you up... I am blaming the after-effects of a heavy boozing session 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Maybe the reason we never see them again is because they arent good enough ??? Sorry if I mixed you up... I am blaming the after-effects of a heavy boozing session Why are they signed in the 1st place then? Infact, I know the answer to that, our shite scouting system. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Why are they signed in the 1st place then? Infact, I know the answer to that, our shite scouting system. And WS can hardly be blamed for that.... so it isnt WS's fault, I knew you would get there eventually Gav 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.