Too early for change?

[Super_Ally 0]

Got to say, even despite my own stance, I'm suprised noone has posted on this thread in defence of Burley and saying he should stay and be given more time.

 

Perhaps that shows just how much damage he has done in such a short space of time!

 

Already a steady drop down the rankings from about 12th to 26th.

[Guest Mac]

Got to say, even despite my own stance, I'm suprised noone has posted on this thread in defence of Burley and saying he should stay and be given more time.

 

Perhaps that shows just how much damage he has done in such a short space of time!

 

Already a steady drop down the rankings from about 12th to 26th.

 

I tried to reply yesterday but for some reason i lost connection and was chucked off the net:mad:

 

Anyway, what i was trying to say yesterday is that there are a few media types here in Scotland who seem to have an agenda against Gordon Smith and by taking pops at his choice of Scotland manager, George Burley.

 

Look at the way Lee McCulloch's retirement from international football was firstly leaked, without naming who it was and why then twisted to make it look like he was trying to create trouble straight after the Macedonia match.

 

It also happened with the Big Kirk has no talent story, if you listen to the whole interview George Burley is actually praising Kirk and when asked about it Walter Smith said that he agreed with everything Burley said.

 

As for the Scotland team, McLeish and Smith both had Scotland playing pretty defensively, solid, tough to break down, hit on the counter break stuff. We beat France home and away, but we were the luckiest team you could imagine. A bundled goal from a corner at Hampden and then a huge punt out by Craig Gordon then a goal in a million from 35-40 yards by McFadden, but that was about the sum of our attacking play over the whole 180 minutes. Burley i believe will try to make Scotland into an attacking team, one who will play with width and instead of sitting back will try to take the initiative and go at teams. The longer that we give Burley in his job the better we will become at beating teams. If you look at the teams that Burley has managed he has always tried to get them playing, what i believe, is the right way.

 

Please don't let us become like the English who seem to demonize and persecute their managers as soon as they draw with someone or don't play the players someone else says they should. We haven't got a 100% record under Burley but things are hardly awful, we're second in the group, we'll probably need to take something away in Norway but after seeing the way we performed against them the other week we're capable of doing that (especially if Iceland can do it).

 

Keep the faith. :cheers:

[Super_Ally 0]

I definitely agree there appears to be some sort of agenda against Burley from some sections of the media, and that it could be argued this is related to many wanting to bring down Smith as head of the SFA. However I am becoming like some of the conspiracy theorists who so ire me in thinking like this? Just because Smith and to a lesser degree Burley have a Rangers connection, am I looking to see a prejudice that is not there merely because it is evident in the media when discussing issues that directly relate to Rangers. Anyway i'm beginning to go off an a tangent. What I am saying is I do believe there may be an agenda from some of the hacks.

 

I accept that some have tried to engineer a sinister reason for McCulloch's retirement when it appears there is none.

 

I do not agree with your views are the Broadfoot debacle though. I think that Burely was trying to compliment Broadfoot. However due to his ineptitude in handling high profile players from high profile clubs, his inability to deal with the media and an apparnet discomfort in verbalising (is this a word? you know what I mean I hope) his thoughts in front of the camera and a press conference he ended up delivering a very back handed compliment that could easily be construed as a slight upon the player. Very much and own goal from Burely and was merely a pre-cursor to him demostrating his failings at man-management and even media-management.

 

Whilst there is no-doubt we got very lucky against the French, the then manager's tactics, squad selections and man management abilities meant that the players who took the field were in a position to take advantage of poor French form and the hand of lady luck. Realistically a weaker team will only defeat more illustious opposition through a combination of hard work, good tactics and ultimately a greater share of good fortune. I do not believe George Burley has the qualities as a manager to prepare a team so that they can take advantage of a bigger nation should they fail to perform and we get the rub of the green.

 

Lastly I think we need to take more than "something" in Norway. We need to take maximum points imo. Whilst a draw in Oslo may be enough to take 2nd spot in the group, that is of no use if we do not finish as one of the 8 out of 9 lucky runner's-up. With our group only have 5 teams I think it may be difficult for second place in our group to finish in one of the play off positions and as such we need to win our remaining games, holland aside as I am unsure that will be possible.

[Guest Mac]

...Lastly I think we need to take more than "something" in Norway. We need to take maximum points imo. Whilst a draw in Oslo may be enough to take 2nd spot in the group, that is of no use if we do not finish as one of the 8 out of 9 lucky runner's-up. With our group only have 5 teams I think it may be difficult for second place in our group to finish in one of the play off positions and as such we need to win our remaining games, holland aside as I am unsure that will be possible.

 

With our group only having 5 teams and all the others having a smaller 6th seed country it's my understanding that when it comes to working out the best eight second places, the points won against the sixth place countries will be discounted so as to give a level playing field.

 

Obviously countries finnishing runners-up in other groups are going to play in more matches and are therefore going to have a better chance of winning more points, especialy if they have a Malta, Luxembourg, San Marino or Andorra as their extra team.

 

Does anyone else know if this is true or am i just being hopeful?

[craig 5,199]

With our group only having 5 teams and all the others having a smaller 6th seed country it's my understanding that when it comes to working out the best eight second places, the points won against the sixth place countries will be discounted so as to give a level playing field.

 

Obviously countries finnishing runners-up in other groups are going to play in more matches and are therefore going to have a better chance of winning more points, especialy if they have a Malta, Luxembourg, San Marino or Andorra as their extra team.

 

Does anyone else know if this is true or am i just being hopeful?

 

That makes perfect sense, so it probably isnt true !!

[Super_Ally 0]

Mac I have heard that.

 

However I have heard other stories as to how they will even the playing field for our group. For once I'm not actually sure what the correct story is, but that scenario makes most sense.

 

However with the nature of our group, everyone bar Holland taking points off each other it's gonna be a struggle to make a play-off place.