Our performances

[GovanAllan 0]

For the 7 who voted yes fair enough footballs all about opinion, as for the 4 who voted don't really care I'm just speechless.

[calscot 0]

Craig remember we stopped the mighty Barcelona from playing good football a few years ago. A 9 man defence and some hard tackles brings any team down a few notches. Some of the tackles Peterhead put in were bordering on criminal.

If you are waiting to get butchered like that it will certainly affect your decision making.

 

Yep, Barca were pish and showed nothing of entertaining football - and had to complain about the legitimate tactics of the opposition as an excuse. Barry Ferguson got pelters for playing much better sideways stuff. They had to break the deadlock by the definition of anti-football by breaking the first rule you learn of the game - using an arm. What part of "foot-ball" don't they understand? Bunch of whinging cheats if you ask me. It really put me off that club.

 

If we had played like that against a lesser side I can imagine the melt-down on here.

[Gazza_8 233]

Yep, Barca were pish and showed nothing of entertaining football - and had to complain about the legitimate tactics of the opposition as an excuse. Barry Ferguson got pelters for playing much better sideways stuff. They had to break the deadlock by the definition of anti-football by breaking the first rule you learn of the game - using an arm. What part of "foot-ball" don't they understand? Bunch of whinging cheats if you ask me. It really put me off that club.

 

If we had played like that against a lesser side I can imagine the melt-down on here.

 

Seriously? Goals are scored every week by arms and hands. What happens when we've scored a goal by using an arm and not a foot? Do you go off every club that cheats?

 

Have you gone off Sir Alex Ferguson for all the whinging he does? What about Mourinho? Guardiola? Every moans and whinges. There can't be many players, managers or clubs left for you to like.

[craig 5,199]

Craig remember we stopped the mighty Barcelona from playing good football a few years ago. A 9 man defence and some hard tackles brings any team down a few notches. Some of the tackles Peterhead put in were bordering on criminal.

If you are waiting to get butchered like that it will certainly affect your decision making.

 

So the best way to handle it is by shitting out of the game but punting the ball long ?

 

Sorry, but if they have that attitude then they may as well hang up their boots.

 

1. Tackles. Part of the game. These nancy boys should get used to it and deal with it.

2. Bringing the game down a few notches. Rangers allowed that to happen on the weekend. Simple. The long ball was being played from virtually the first whistle.

3. 9 man defence. Again, you think that the way to deal with a 9 man defence is to just lump the ball up the pitch on top of the 9 man defence, who will only be facing 4 or 5 RFC players who are in an attacking mode ? OK, but I disagree.

 

"Waiting to get butchered". Pete, these are professional footballers who know what they are letting themselves in for. They should be able to see tackles coming, for the most part, and get their feet off the ground so as to minimise injury. And you know what.... even if they dont, that is part of the game. If you dont fancy the fight then dont play the game.

 

Sorry, but these are PROFESSIONALS, supposedly, and it is their job to go out and play the game. If they are shitting out of tackles then they are shirking their responsibility and not being wholly professional.

[craig 5,199]

Yep, Barca were pish and showed nothing of entertaining football - and had to complain about the legitimate tactics of the opposition as an excuse. Barry Ferguson got pelters for playing much better sideways stuff. They had to break the deadlock by the definition of anti-football by breaking the first rule you learn of the game - using an arm. What part of "foot-ball" don't they understand? Bunch of whinging cheats if you ask me. It really put me off that club.

 

If we had played like that against a lesser side I can imagine the melt-down on here.

 

Ahhh, OK.

 

So I recall your argument against us being "anti-football" back then... you suggested that Barca were the ones who were playing anti-football due to not letting us get possession of the ball. So by that reckoning we are now the purveyors of anti-football, correct ?

 

Or, with the way you put it above, given pete used the Peterhead tactics as an excuse then we shouldnt be resorting to such complaints ourselves, should we ? Legitimate tactics would also include 9 men behind the ball and heavy tackles, it is a contact sport after all.

 

As for the Henry handball, you just wont let that go will you ? No worse cheating than Lafferty feigning a headbutt, in fact not even close to being as bad. And if you reckon that we have never willingly accepted a handball goal or offside goal etc before then you yourself know that to not be the case. So are we also whinging cheats too ? It works both ways. In fact, early in the season we should have lost against Berwick as they had scored a legitimate goal which for some unknown reason, the ref gave us a FK for.... should we have done the honourable thing and said "hey Ref, there was no foul there, that was a legitimate goal" or should we have just carried on, as we did, thankful that the ref had saved us from defeat ?

 

Smells of hypocrisy to me.

[Waltersgotstyle 297]

Motherwell and Alloa aside we have really lacked.

[GovanAllan 0]

As for the flying tackles maybe if we moved the ball faster than a snails pace, they might not get as many tackles in.

[simplythebest 0]

That Henry handball was accidental anyway IMO.

 

His one against Ireland on the other hand...

[kuznetsov 0]

That Henry handball was accidental anyway IMO.

 

His one against Ireland on the other hand...

 

was never a handball.

[calscot 0]

Ahhh, OK.

So I recall your argument against us being "anti-football" back then... you suggested that Barca were the ones who were playing anti-football due to not letting us get possession of the ball. So by that reckoning we are now the purveyors of anti-football, correct ?

Very disappointing post from you, Craig. It seems after years of reading my posts it seems you donâ??t get me at all, but I also donâ??t see why you need to troll like this, itâ??s not usually your style.

 

Iâ??ve just lost a detailed reply to the gersnet blackhole so that may affect the tone of this one.

 

1. I didnâ??t say Barca played anti-football, the point is that they implied it from their OWN pathetic accusations of Rangers. Rangers stopped them playing good football by being defensive therefore were anti-football, but then they closed our players down incredibly effectively removed all space and time to play good football also as well as starving us of the ball. They were actually BETTER defensively than we were so whatâ??s the difference? Itâ??s pretty simple but people donâ??t seem to be able to grasp it as it disagrees with how they think Barca play. A bit like not believing Mother Teresa ever farted.

 

2. We did NOT play like Barca against Peterhead so what is your point? In fact the biggest complaint on here is that we gave the opposition the ball too often and too much space to play. Following that logic we were playing the opposite of anti-football so are you arguing that we were playing â??total-footballâ??

 

3. I believe anti-football is blatantly and cynically breaking the rules in order to win, so what is your point against me?

 

Or, with the way you put it above, given pete used the Peterhead tactics as an excuse then we shouldnt be resorting to such complaints ourselves, should we ? Legitimate tactics would also include 9 men behind the ball and heavy tackles, it is a contact sport after all.

 

1. Where did I say Peterheadâ??s tactics were an excuse? I donâ??t think Pete did either â?? he used it as mitigation of our own play. Are you arguing with the right person? Heavy tackles are fine with me as long as they are fair. They should be going for the ball and not the man and also have enough respect for a fellow professional and for the sport itself to not be reckless in a way that could cause a bad injury.

 

2. The difference between Peterhead and us in Barcelona is that while our tactics were perfectly legitimate, some of their tackles were not in the rules or the spirit of the game.

 

3. While their tactics are not an excuse, if they were effective, is there not a possible reason to praise them and mitigate the slating of our own team?

 

4. I believe teams should be able to use any tactics they like within the rules and general sportsmanship. If that spoils the game then it is the rules that need to be changed rather than slagging the tactics â?? for example: the pass back.

 

As for the Henry handball, you just wont let that go will you ? No worse cheating than Lafferty feigning a headbutt, in fact not even close to being as bad.

 

Why should I let go the most obvious evidence of the poor sportsmanship of that Barcelona team when they are being held as an example of the â??beautiful gameâ?? The reason it was worse than Lafferty is:

 

1. They had the hypocrisy to slag us off for anti-football when they are the ones that broke the most basic of rules.

 

2. Lafferty did not hypocritically slag off other players who had real injuries.

 

3. I think he apologised.

 

4. His performance in that game is not used on here as some sort of exemplar for how players should play.

 

Youâ??re moral compass has certainly been affected by the Bermuda Triangle for that one.

 

I donâ??t condone Lafferty (BTW why canâ??t YOU let THAT go?) and actually condemn him for it. I donâ??t see him as an example for our current players to follow. And I donâ??t have to counter many arguments on here that he should be a shining example so I donâ??t keep bringing that one up. Pretty simple.

 

And if you reckon that we have never willingly accepted a handball goal or offside goal etc before then you yourself know that to not be the case. So are we also whinging cheats too ? It works both ways. In fact, early in the season we should have lost against Berwick as they had scored a legitimate goal which for some unknown reason, the ref gave us a FK for.... should we have done the honourable thing and said "hey Ref, there was no foul there, that was a legitimate goal" or should we have just carried on, as we did, thankful that the ref had saved us from defeat ?

 

I have a lot to say on that subject but donâ??t have the time to repeat the post that was lost. In summation, Iâ??m all for playing the game fairly with integrity and look forward to the introduction of TV cameras as I want to win fairly and donâ??t want to lose unfairly. Seeing the number of bad decisions against us, I may at a pinch accept a dodgy one for us, while not feeling completely comfortable about it but would rather have a level and fair playing field.

 

Iâ??ve also championed a code of conduct where the referee asks the player but I wonâ??t explain it now.

 

Smells of hypocrisy to me.

 

Reading your post â?? right back at you!

 

Please explain how Iâ??m being hypocritical as so far your post has been akin to the Self Righteous Brothers where youâ??ve made up a scenario of my behaviour that is not in my character.