Greg Wylde - proof you don't need 'time'?

[Danny 0]

Or to be playing with 'better players'.

 

There are 2 excuses players are often given when it comes to their performances being suspect.

 

The first is that they need time, a run in the team, a real prolonged period to settle in before you can judge them.

 

The second is the players they're playing alongside - if those colleagues are mediocre and off form then surely it will affect said other player, yes?

 

Well, imho, Wylde's display on Thursday blew both arguments out of the water and then some.

 

For example, El Hadj Diouf's current form is being excused because he's playing alongside Whittaker, Edu etc. Players who aren't exactly bleeding edge and who aren't on form. But call me crazy, SO DID WYLDE! And yet looked sparkling.

 

The other excuse is the player needs time - well that was Wylde's debut at that sort of level, and while he's flirted with the first team, this was his first real assertive start. And guess what, he was our best player! By a mile.

 

I find a lot of excuses are given to players in order to justify our support of them, when the likes of Greg Wylde showed you don't need time or great colleagues to shine yourself if you have ability.

 

Maybe Fleck could learn a thing or two from him.

[rbr 1,247]

Dont you think we maybe are just getting a bit ahead of ourselves yet again , a young player makes 2 great runs and all of a sudden he's "ready" , lets give him 6 or 7 games before we jump in , but admire your optimism and hope your right about him

[Zappa 0]

I think you have to take into account that these young lads are at a stage where they can define how far they'll go in football, so most of them will put in a full 100% effort when given the chance. Jamie Ness was absolutely brilliant when he came in and got a run of games and actually looked like our best player in most of them. He might well be THAT good, but it may also be that he was one of the only ones putting in 100% effort. Hard to say really...

[gisabeer 409]

from what ive seen of him so far and ness and hutton for that matter i would be playing him alot more game time. smith could have and should have playeed the three of them a lot more than he did.

[rbr 1,247]

What everyone seem's to forget is that young players do not have any "form " in that they are very unpredictable due to their inexperience , we cannot have that with say 2 or 3 players the way we are down in numbers just now , every game is a must win , there is no room for error or sentiment

[maineflyer 0]

What everyone seem's to forget is that young players do not have any "form " in that they are very unpredictable due to their inexperience , we cannot have that with say 2 or 3 players the way we are down in numbers just now , every game is a must win , there is no room for error or sentiment

 

You mean we can't afford that as well as the total unpredictability of our experienced players.

[craig 5,198]

from what ive seen of him so far and ness and hutton for that matter i would be playing him alot more game time. smith could have and should have playeed the three of them a lot more than he did.

 

Sorry but cant really agree.

 

Hutton ? Quite possibly - no guarantee he would have done consistently well, but deserved his chance. Did he not get injured though ? And "from what you have seen of him" - which wasnt a great deal as he hasnt had much game time. How do you know he would have been better (that said, couldnt have been much worse than Edu).

 

Ness ? How was Smith supposed to do that when the lad was injured ? Was he supposed to play him whilst injured just to satisfy your craving to get him in the team ? Once Ness broke into the team he became a mainstay for WS, until of course he was injured - but plenty on here ignored that fact to suggest it was just "Walter being Walter" - some even ignored it when it was confirmed that Ness WAS injured. No point in playing injured players and even less so for young players. Nothing like trying to break them even before they have made it.

 

Wylde ? Just how much game time has he actually had ? He has probably played not much more than 250 minutes total for us this season. So you havent see a great deal of him. Who would he replace ? Weiss ? Does he really warrant ditching Weiss ? We COULD have had him playimg LM and Weiss playing RM.

 

But I just dont know how you can throw Ness in amongst those two as he WAS a regular. WS isnt responsibly for injuries and then not playing injured players is he ?

[craig 5,198]

As MF says, even though I disagree with gisabeer about Ness, our midfield has been largely ineffective the whole season long. Hutton & Wylde couldnt have done much better than the rest who HAVE played - but there is no reason to believe in EITHER direction that they would have been better or worse. To suggest they should have had "a lot more game time" isnt considering the whole picture.

 

What if they did come in and performed poorly ? should they be persevered with ? because they are young ? because you want them to get more game time ?

 

rbr is right, there is no room for sentiment - but that should work for ALL players, including our highest earners, internationals, experienced players too. If you arent playing well then you should be dropped, even if for one of the kids.

[pete 2,499]

As I also said in another thread, Wylde was playing against a youth player who froze on the night so I really don't think we can judge him on the PSV game. I really hope he is the real thing but that will have to be confirmed in games to come and not on what we have seen of him so far.

[maineflyer 0]

Sometimes I think we over-complicate football, substituting analysis for common sense. Players who demonstrate skill and character will always contribute more to the success of a team than those who don't, regardless of age or experience. If a 19 year old doesn't know how to use those attributes in a team context then the youth coaches have already failed him and should be replaced.

 

Gregg Wylde showed on Thursday that he has skills and desire well above that displayed by many more established players. That's all we should take from what we saw. Forget assumptions about his age, early burnout, inherent inconsistency, and the rest. The fact is he showed more of what we need than anyone else - if you don't then think he should be a first pick then on what basis are we ever going to pick a winning team?

 

The whole problem with football is it believes it's own press far too much. Even experienced people like WS have lost touch with and confidence in the evidence of his own eyes. In the process he has become mired in uncertainty and a debilitating need to play safe.it's a common problem wirh management in industry and this is the real reason he needs to go as soon as possible. It's not a commentary on his past achievements or his passion for Rangers, it's because like many before him he has lost his ability to live on the edge.

 

Wylde has what it takes, Ness and Hutton have what it takes. Young Nartley has what we need. I believe Kirk Broadfoot has it too, and Naismith. Papac doesn't, Whittaker and Edu are miles short of it, Weir has lost it, Lafferty can't find it.

 

We must stop listening to so-called experts and trust our eyes. Gregg Wylde should be encouraged and played because right now he represents the only small hope we have.