chilledbear 16 Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Thought you were supposed to be chilled...? There seems to be too many people on here that don't realise some of the implications of their views and that extrapolating is a way of testing a hypothesis - then they are unwilling to debate the point, which for me is what the site is about. Seems some are only interested criticising and then having people agree with them. I said I was disappointed about the age of the Rangers squad. Nothing about players retiring at 25, or even that the bulk of the first team should not be in their mid or late twenties. You disagree, fine your perogative, what the quoted post is all about or what it has to do with my post I have no idea. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 I said I was disappointed about the age of the Rangers squad. Nothing about players retiring at 25, or even that the bulk of the first team should not be in their mid or late twenties. You disagree, fine your perogative, what the quoted post is all about or what it has to do with my post I have no idea. You said there were too many 24 years olds and over. We have 15 of those in a 27 man squad (13 that are over 25). Do you not get the logic that if every club makes a hard policy to increase the under 24s and decrease the 24 and above, you will create a situation where there will less places for the older player than the younger ones. That means that you will have to retire players at 25 (actually 24 in this case) as inevitably a proportion will have no places left at any club to go to. You just have to look at the previous post about Dunfermline. Where are the current crop 18-23 year olds going to play in 6 years time? If you take that example and expand it as a rule to all clubs, only one in eleven players will be playing at 26 years old, and none at 27. To me this is simple reasoning of the repercussions extrapolated from a point of view. I think I have a very valid point. I'm sorry if that line of reasoning offends or bamboozles you. I thought it was worth debating but there seems to now be culture where some people just want to either agree or at push to agree to disagree while never actually bothering to think about the validity of the counter view point. I don't get why people don't understand that their suggestions usually have an indirect impact on a situation and instead see the highlighting of that as putting words in their mouth. You may disagree with my counter point but in the spirit of a forum, should you not explain your reasoning so I can understand it? The whole reason for forum is to debate the points, giving evidence and reasoning, listening and countering, which enriches both sides understanding so that they can reach a more enlightened conclusion - even if it is that they keep the same opinion. Why do I keep having to explain this stuff? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 You said there were too many 24 years olds and over. We have 15 of those in a 27 man squad (13 that are over 25). Do you not get the logic that if every club makes a hard policy to increase the under 24s and decrease the 24 and above, you will create a situation where there will less places for the older player than the younger ones. That means that you will have to retire players at 25 (actually 24 in this case) as inevitably a proportion will have no places left at any club to go to. You just have to look at the previous post about Dunfermline. Where are the current crop 18-23 year olds going to play in 6 years time? If you take that example and expand it as a rule to all clubs, only one in eleven players will be playing alt 26 years old, and none at 27. To me this is simple reasoning of the repercussions extrapolated from a point of view. I think I have a very valid point. I'm sorry if that line of reasoning offends or bamboozles you. I thought it was worth debating but there seems to now be culture where some people just want to either agree or at push to agree to disagree while never actually bothering to think about the validity of the counter view point. I don't get why people don't understand that their suggestions usually have an indirect impact on a situation and instead see the highlighting of that as putting words in their mouth. You may disagree with my counter point but in the spirit of a forum, should you not explain your reasoning so I can understand it? The whole reason for forum is to debate the points, giving evidence and reasoning, listening and countering, which enriches both sides understanding so that they can reach a more enlightened conclusion - even if it is that they keep the same opinion. Why do I keep having to explain this stuff? Wow, I feel terrible now. I have to remember not to say I'm disappointed I have to remember not to say I'm disappointed ( 100 times ) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Wow, I feel terrible now. I have to remember not to say I'm disappointed I have to remember not to say I'm disappointed ( 100 times ) That's what you get from my post??? Whoosh! Could you not just have an opinion and have the conviction in it to debate and discuss it? Is it really that difficult? You never know, you might actually enjoy it. If you do, there are these things called "forums" which are designed for that... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 I sincerely hope this is just a Forum persona and not how you are in real life. We all get what we want out of Forums, not what you think we should. You have left me speechless to tell the truth, I think I'll take a holiday from here. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 0 Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Do you not find that pretty worrying for those players careers? Before 26 are they likely to be moved on and replaced with 20 year olds? Like I said, people don't seem to want to think about the implications. Worked out fine for Paul Scholes (over 120 career bookings and 10 red cards), he was never moved on by Sir Alex and retired at 37. I don't really get the positive from the post. ,Wasn't meant to be positive - or negative for that matter - just stating some footie facts from the match. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Like Davie Weir or youn Barry Ferguson when he broke into the team if you are good enough you are old/young enough. Who are our best players? Wallace, McCulloch, Mohsni, Daly. They'll all do for me. A blend of youth and experience is best. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,254 Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 The harsh reality is that what we saw last season was that the majority of our homegrown kids simply won't be good enough for where we want to be in a few seasons time. If they couldn't stand out in SFL3 last season what chance in a higher division.McCoist knows this but won't admit it hence his signing of experienced players in the summer 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Might be some merit in that Rab. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN63 0 Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 McLeod without a doubt is good enough. 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.