der Berliner 3,240 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 (edited) Okay calscot, I take that argument re Hearts back. As I pointed out elsewhere, we may pay our people more than other clubs (because we can, as we have a far different backing), there were only two "big signings", one of which is injured now, the other has off-field problems. Senderos is a has been and won't get the same money as Kranjcar et al (and I doubt we are paying either him or Barton the 20k rumoured at various sites). As you have seen yourself, despite some rather disappointing results, we usually outplay anyone bar the Scum thus far, and created enough chances to win all those games. IMHO, had we scored more goals and beaten those teams, even by the odd goal, there would hardly be a discussion at all. It's simply not true that we dominated these teams throughout the years, what we did was constantly scoring more goals - which is what mattered. Before 2012 we were consistently about 20-30 points better than the best SPL also rans over a season, now we're in 5th after more than a quarter of the season. I can't see the similarity. See above. If you check the record tables, we beat them regularly by the odd goal, which at the end of the season was enough to create that points gap. We simply haven't got the same standard of players these days, or our players have thus far failed to improve on their standards (or get to last season's ... not least Waghorn and Tavernier). The point I've made in this thread is that the stark facts of the situation also apply to Hearts, but they have had a lot less money to spend. We need better progress but we seem stuck up a cul de sac, trying to find our way back to the main road... We've spend 136k on average for our current team. Wages aside. At the end of the day, if a team clicks, the argument about money only stings those who can spend more but don't click. If your "poor" team does not click, no-body will care a jot ... as you are "poor". Thus, this pendulum seemingly only swings in one direction. Edited October 28, 2016 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 I think you're argument goes both ways - if our previous teams consistently won by a goal, then if we don't then we are nowhere near as good rather than a smidgen off. The problem is that it's not a one off - we just don't look like winning many games as we don't score enough, no matter how much possession we have. It's a problem that needs to be addressed - as does leaking bad goals, which to me is a lesser problem, but the combination of the two is a huge one. Walter Smith came into pick up the pieces after the last disaster of a manager with an intransigent football philosophy - he immediately sorted the defence and got the team scoring more goals. We wen't from scoring 1.5 goals a game to 2 and from letting in 1 goal a game to 0.5 (discounting the last two game that didn't matter). That made a difference of a goal a game which made us unbeaten in those 14 games, with 10 wins, and made us the best team in the league for that part of the season, despite having less of a budget than Celtic. The worrying thing is that I'm seeing a bit of a parallel with Le Guen here in the failure to acknowledge that big changes are needed, and some pragmatism put into the team. Trying to play pretty football is all very well and good, but as I've been saying for years, and once again being vindicated, it takes a lot more than that to consistently win games. In Scotland you should be winning games and maybe trying to add some style when you can, rather than playing with style and maybe trying to win some games when you can. What is effective is more important than what is entertaining - at the moment we're starting to do neither. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 Only one of them has beaten us all season with a last minute goal that I recall. we're not paying MW the thick end of 1M a year to not get beat from aberdeen 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 [tweet]791786278194905088[/tweet] 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,240 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 we're not paying MW the thick end of 1M a year to not get beat from aberdeen We actually pay the players to beat them ... and not to give away silly goals. We have done the latter in recent weeks, the former is still a working project. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 We actually pay the players to beat them ... and not to give away silly goals. We have done the latter in recent weeks, the former is still a working project. There is no distinction between the players a manager signs, coaches and selects; and the manager himself. I'm not really sure how many times I need to say this. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,240 Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 There is no distinction between the players a manager signs, coaches and selects; and the manager himself. I'm not really sure how many times I need to say this. It does not matter how often you do, as it does not make your opinion any more valid or wrong. If you believe it, so be it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 A manager carries the can for his staff in every walk of life. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,240 Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 A manager carries the can for his staff in every walk of life. Let's put it this way: if he sees his lot every day in training and knows who is fit enough at the day, shows eagerness et al, he (like you and me) will pick these players. If said players can't produce that same level on match days, of manage to have the odd blip in concentration once in 90 mins, what should MW do? IMHO, this blaming game is utter nonsense, even though the manager will at the end of the season (etc.) be the first one who comes under scrutiny. Yet, he can only pick the best chaps he has and going by some comments, we would have an ever rotating squad and probably 5 different manager this season alone. It quite simply is not as simple as that, unless you don't want any sort of reasonable debate. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 Let's put it this way: if he sees his lot every day in training and knows who is fit enough at the day, shows eagerness et al, he (like you and me) will pick these players. If said players can't produce that same level on match days, of manage to have the odd blip in concentration once in 90 mins, what should MW do? IMHO, this blaming game is utter nonsense, even though the manager will at the end of the season (etc.) be the first one who comes under scrutiny. Yet, he can only pick the best chaps he has and going by some comments, we would have an ever rotating squad and probably 5 different manager this season alone. It quite simply is not as simple as that, unless you don't want any sort of reasonable debate. Replace them or improve them like any manager with under performing staff. Regardless managers always carry the can. That's a fact. Literally true in football. It's not an opinion. The manager gets sacked the players remain. 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.