Scottish Sun Back Page

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

I understood your post perfectly well. You say entertainment is about winning and entertainers are probably not winners. Personally I was bored shit less with the Walter Smith then ally crap that was served up even when we were successful. I want to win and be entertained.

Perhaps with the modern approach we have to playing football now, we might actually start winning matches in Europe one of these days, and not go into the ties fearing for our lives. Our brand of short passing, attacking football with dynamic play and constant flow of movement should cause sides a lot more problems than playing 5 at the back.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Ser Barristan Selmy

[Bearman 9]

Perhaps with the modern approach we have to playing football now, we might actually start winning matches in Europe one of these days, and not go into the ties fearing for our lives. Our brand of short passing, attacking football with dynamic play and constant flow of movement should cause sides a lot more problems than playing 5 at the back.

 

You're getting me excited with your positivity, got me thinking we can win the Premiership next season.

[calscot 0]

I understood your post perfectly well.

 

Then your reply is incredibly strange and pretty meaningless.

 

You say entertainment is about winning and entertainers are probably not winners.

 

No I didn't. I said if you focus on entertaining you'll be taking your focus off winning, your strengths will be compromised. It's far better to entertain by playing winning football - that's what Warburton is trying to achieve, and it's a pity you don't appreciate that.

 

Do you really think that doing a rainbow flick every few minutes is going to win games? The last one didn't even work, all that happened is we gave away a foul and possession. Most will have found it amusing but will have been far more entertained by the goals. But then trying and failing with a flick is easy, scoring goals not so much.

 

Do you think we should base all our training sessions on tricks or do you think we should be practicing things that help us win games? Do you think players should be thinking, I've got a tap in here but that's not entertaining so I'll try something more spectacular? Do you not think he now has more of a chance of missing? Do you not even see that thinking about how to be entertaining is distracting when you should be focusing on scoring a goal?

 

Are you likely to win if you encourage players to try and beat three other players trying all the tricks they know, every time they get the ball?

 

The irony is that rainbow flicks and such are only entertaining by their rarity. If it was the first thing every player did to try and beat a man it would become very mundane, very quickly, and will not be entertaining at all if it never works - which is likely.

 

And guess what? You'd have people saying, "we should stop this and mostly play the ball on the ground."

 

Personally I was bored shit less with the Walter Smith then ally crap that was served up even when we were successful. I want to win and be entertained.

 

You need to go and watch the Harlem Globetrotters or watch some contrived sports film. You obviously don't find real football that enjoyable.

 

Most Rangers fans disagree with you, which is why so many went to Manchester, instead of spending their money on something more "entertaining" - or even going to a game with Messi in it. But the thing is Messi is not an entertainer, he's a great footballer, and people find that entertaining. He doesn't sing, dance or tell jokes when the crowd look bored, but he plays football very well.

 

People have been entertained by great games for example the OF ones - and at no time in those games did the players think, "I need to entertain the crowd".

 

You seem to want something very contrived, where it's all choreographed and it's written in the script that your team win - maybe the opposition could be more entertaining for you if they stopped trying and let your team run rings round them? But most people are entertained enough by watching a real match where two teams are using all their skills and tactics in trying to get the better of the other.

 

I don't remember Davie Cooper trying to entertain, and if he did he was obviously a massive failure at it most of the time. What he did was use his skill to try and score or set someone up, and his level of skill, when it came off, was highly entertaining.

 

The thing is, there are 42 teams in Scottish football and they all have some fans, despite the fact that most of the standard is not that high and it's impossible for them all to win all the time or even most of the time. These fans appreciate the sport as sport for what it is, it's a shame some people would rather it became some sort of circus where teams are judged on entertainment rather than how good they are at winning.

Edited August 19, 2015 by calscot

[Bluedell 5,353]

But the thing is Messi is not an entertainer, he's a great footballer, and people find that entertaining. He doesn't sing, dance or tell jokes when the crowd look bored, but he plays football very well.

 

Messi is both a great footballer and an entertainer. Matic, for example is a great footballer, but not an entertainer.

 

I don't remember Davie Cooper trying to entertain, and if he did he was obviously a massive failure at it most of the time. What he did was use his skill to try and score or set someone up, and his level of skill, when it came off, was highly entertaining.

If you are "highly entertaining" then you are an entertainer.

 

The bit about singing, dancing and telling jokes is putting a very narrow definition on the phrase/word and it seems like you're trying to pick a pedantic argument for the sake of it, for some reason.

[calscot 0]

Messi is both a great footballer and an entertainer. Matic, for example is a great footballer, but not an entertainer.

 

 

If you are "highly entertaining" then you are an entertainer.

 

That seems to me to be a label rather than a calling. It's a semantic argument, but the point for me is that an entertainer is someone whose primary goal is to entertain. Their entertainment is necessarily contrived. You can be entertaining without being an entertainer just by doing what you do well - if people are entertained by that.

 

The bit about singing, dancing and telling jokes is putting a very narrow definition on the phrase/word and it seems like you're trying to pick a pedantic argument for the sake of it, for some reason.

 

No, it's using extremes to get people to see the direction their arguments are pointing. It begs the question, "what is entertainment?" in football and should players be spending their time in trying to work that out - or should they be concentrating on football excellence that leads to winning and success?

 

The whole entertainment thing is erroneous. Are you entertained when your team lose? The boos at Ibrox suggest not. But unless it's a draw, one set of fans is not going to be "entertained".

 

Football like all real sport is not entertainment in itself, it's more of an experience of the competition, and when you support someone or a team, there is also an emotional reaction. In that way it's more art than entertainment.

 

To use what I've said previously, would you rather some guy tried a rainbow flick every five minutes, or a team that creates intelligent, flowing move after move, using a variety of skills at appropriate times to attempt out fox the opposition, as well as being tactically astute about defending, and putting in robust challenges when necessary? If we have the latter then I'd not be disappointed if I never seen a rainbow flick again.

 

I want to see skills and the odd trick when appropriate if the player thinks that the surprise will work and create an opportunity, I don't want to see them used randomly in the game just to get a cheer from the crowd.

 

Tricks are by definition difficult to pull off, and if you get used to using them just to please the crowd, a decent team will punish you. I've seen guys down the park doing tricks all the time that you rarely see top professionals do - there's a reason for that, and it's not because they are incapable of performing it, or because they are boring.

[pete 2,499]

Perhaps with the modern approach we have to playing football now, we might actually start winning matches in Europe one of these days, and not go into the ties fearing for our lives. Our brand of short passing, attacking football with dynamic play and constant flow of movement should cause sides a lot more problems than playing 5 at the back.

 

To be honest it didn't really get Ajax very far. Very young players and an attacking style that is.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

To be honest it didn't really get Ajax very far. Very young players and an attacking style that is.

When? They won the Champions League doing that in 96/97 and are one of the most successful clubs in world football history.

[Rousseau 9,479]

Football like all real sport is not entertainment in itself, it's more of an experience of the competition, and when you support someone or a team, there is also an emotional reaction. In that way it's more art than entertainment.

 

Ooh, I like that analogy: I appreciate a work of Art, but I'm not 'entertained' by it; likewise, I appreciate a rainbow flick, but I'm not 'entertained' as such unless it plays a part in the eventual win. Have I got that right?

 

I've argued before that we don't watch Rangers to be 'entertained', rather to be apart of the visceral experience of the competition.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Calscot - out of interest, have you watched any of our games this season? Just worth checking since you deem yourself fit to be telling supporters on here - who watch every game - what they can and can't appreciate about the current Rangers team.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Ooh, I like that analogy: I appreciate a work of Art, but I'm not 'entertained' by it; likewise, I appreciate a rainbow flick, but I'm not 'entertained' as such unless it plays a part in the eventual win. Have I got that right?

 

I've argued before that we don't watch Rangers to be 'entertained', rather to be apart of the visceral experience of the competition.

Whatever way you want to look at it, the football we played under Smith and Ally was dreadful, aside from the tail end of 2010/11. This is the same football Calscot spent years defending (and rarely watched), hence why he is trying to save face. What we are seeing now is vibrant, exciting and a joy to behold. We will be entertained now simply because we are playing entertaining football with a positive outlook.

 

If one of our players wants to do a rainbow flick or similar move when we are destroying the opposition, that's wonderful. You will find Eden Hazard regularly doing the same.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Ser Barristan Selmy