Furman weighs up new contract

[Super_Ally 0]

But sometimes players learn MORE by being up in the stand watching the game. I am not saying Hutton did but there are plenty of players who, whilst out injured, that comment that they have become better players because whilst sitting in the stands they see more of how their position needs to be played.

 

Given how Hutton turned out I don't really see how it hindered his progress. He has ended up an international (possibly world) class player. Would he have been a better player had he been playing instead of Bardsley ? None of us know. Lets not forget that when Hutton came back from his injury (pre-Bardsley) that he was one of the Ibrox boo-boys - and the fans have assisted in costing players of their Rangers careers in the past with the boo boy antics - perhaps the fans appreciated Hutton more when he came back into the team in part because they realised that he was a better player than Bardsley and perhaps in part because of that appreciation Hutton could play with a greater confidence than he had when being booed.

 

I know Hutton was a target of the boo-boys, but in all honesty, they are idiots. I could see Hutton was a player even then. Go back and check my posts.

 

Even the "pish" Hutton was at worst, on a par with Bardsley but had more height and so was less of a target and weakness for cross field balls on top of the fullbacks as exploited in one of our Euro qualifiers when bardsley played.

 

Yes Hutton became all the things you say, but it may have happened earlier had PLG played the better player. If Hutton improved from sitting on the side lines it was in spite of PLG's tactical nouse and footballing brain, not because of it. he didn't bench Hutton to improve him, he did it because he mistakenly thought Bardsley was better.

 

I still think you learn more by playing than you do sitting in the stands. Especially a player regaining form and confidence after injury.

[craig 5,199]

I know Hutton was a target of the boo-boys, but in all honesty, they are idiots. I could see Hutton was a player even then. Go back and check my posts.

 

Even the "pish" Hutton was at worst, on a par with Bardsley but had more height and so was less of a target and weakness for cross field balls on top of the fullbacks as exploited in one of our Euro qualifiers when bardsley played.

 

Yes Hutton became all the things you say, but it may have happened earlier had PLG played the better player. If Hutton improved from sitting on the side lines it was in spite of PLG's tactical nouse and footballing brain, not because of it. he didn't bench Hutton to improve him, he did it because he mistakenly thought Bardsley was better.

 

I still think you learn more by playing than you do sitting in the stands. Especially a player regaining form and confidence after injury.

 

But that was the point I was making - the argument would be that he may have become that player earlier - not necessarily a better player. I don't see how that hinders his progress other than mere timing.

 

PLG is a bit of a red herring here because the debate isnt about PLG playing or not paying Hutton - it is about whether Hutton had his progress hindered - I am not convinced it was hindered (maybe it is interpretational - I see hindered as his "progress" being stunted - but given the way he turned out I dont think it was. Perhaps you see hindered as "timing" ??).

 

You could be right about learning more playing than not - but what if he was playing poorly, suffering the fans, losing confidence ? Is it still better to be playing than not ? What if by sitting in the stands watching someone else play your position and seeing the good AND the bad in that other player's play ? Surely you can learn BOTH ways and one complements the other ?

[Super_Ally 0]

But that was the point I was making - the argument would be that he may have become that player earlier - not necessarily a better player. I don't see how that hinders his progress other than mere timing.

 

PLG is a bit of a red herring here because the debate isnt about PLG playing or not paying Hutton - it is about whether Hutton had his progress hindered - I am not convinced it was hindered (maybe it is interpretational - I see hindered as his "progress" being stunted - but given the way he turned out I dont think it was. Perhaps you see hindered as "timing" ??).

 

You could be right about learning more playing than not - but what if he was playing poorly, suffering the fans, losing confidence ? Is it still better to be playing than not ? What if by sitting in the stands watching someone else play your position and seeing the good AND the bad in that other player's play ? Surely you can learn BOTH ways and one complements the other ?

 

That was the context in which I was using the word.

 

What else do you take hinder to mean. Had Smith been manager rather than PLG Hutton would've been better sooner and so Rangers would have benefitted from him for longer.

 

From this page first result for hinder is "to cause delay".

 

I didn't mean PLG stopped him from becoming the player he did (though if he hadn't have fallen out with Bardsley he might have done). I meant he prevented Rangers from having as good a player as they could on their books for as long as we could have (i.e. if he had developed his full potential earlier we'd have a better player for longer).

 

Regards the last paragraph. Yes you can learn from watching other players in your position, but i'd rather Hutton played for Rangers and watched the RBs of Inter Milan, Man Utd, Chelsea, Barca etc. What's he going to learn from PB? That way he gets to learn by playing and by watching as you say.

 

It wasn't a massive problem. PLG's man management problems forced him to plunger Hutton back into the team. I'm just pissed that he couldn't spot a potentially world class RB from a journeyman and that only falling out with the journeyman stopped him holding back Hutton's development any further.

 

Completely dragged this thread off topic now.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Super_Ally
Wimbledon caused me to end a sentence mid-thought

[craig 5,199]

I dont read thesaurus's - maybe I should

 

See how easy it is to disagree when there is no need to ?

 

Apologies man.

 

PLG and his pros/cons is for another thread I agree.

 

WS seems to be better at nurturing the talent - but lets not think he is infallible - were it not for Advocaat, WS was willing to let Berry Ferguson leave Ibrox....

[Super_Ally 0]

I dont read thesaurus's - maybe I should

 

See how easy it is to disagree when there is no need to ?

 

Apologies man.

 

PLG and his pros/cons is for another thread I agree.

 

WS seems to be better at nurturing the talent - but lets not think he is infallible - were it not for Advocaat, WS was willing to let Berry Ferguson leave Ibrox....

 

I was just going off on a rant about a random irritation of mine anyway.

 

Take it there's been no updates on Furman as of yet?

[craig 5,199]

Take it there's been no updates on Furman as of yet?

 

Aye, he won't be a first choice if he signs.

[calscot 0]

Your constant rants about Dailly being a striker is nonsense!

 

What rants? Didn't I just say that him being a striker is nonsense? Your the one that says that you have a natural position by the time you are 18 - THAT implies that Dailly's natural position is a striker as he played there until he was 22 - including a world record of U21 caps. That's about as extreme as it gets for natural position... You're trying to argue both ways when it's convenient for you.

 

When did I say that I'd like Wilson to play ahead of Cuellar or Boogie?

 

I got the impression you thought we should be playing teenagers before bringing in outsiders.

 

Edu broke into the 1st team and got a good run of games there only when Ferguson spat the dummy. I like Edu but would he have gotten a game if Ferguson remained in the good books?

 

Probably not, but that's management - long established players in the team are less of a gamble than a young newbie. Rangers is not a club to take unnecessary risks with the team. PLG did that and look what happened.

 

I don't think so. McCulloch would probably have been given the nod ahead of Edu if he had been fit at the time.

 

I doubt that. McCulloch had been tried and wasn't up to it. It's all academic as the manager picks the team. If his team is shite then he deserves to be pilloried, if he wins the league then he's completely vindicated.

 

It's not exactly piss easy to win the league even at Rangers - as Advocaat, Eck and Le Guen have found to their cost.

 

Thomson was already a regular with Hibs. He hardly broke through the ranks at Rangers. The same goes for Lafferty, he was a regular with Burnley.

 

All the more reason to play them before a teenager who hasn't been a regular anywhere. You're making my point for me.

 

I think you need to take your nose out of Walters bum mate.

 

What, for thinking a manager that has won us the league knows better than a forum member who just makes it up? You should maybe take your head out of your arse as you seem to think you know everything about management.

[Gribz 846]

I definitely think it's very naive to think an untried teenager would have a huge impact. It's just Roy of the Rovers type dreaming. Why didn't Walter start him every week if that was so obvious? Just what to the posters on here know that a successful Rangers manager doesn't? Remember, this Spaniard wasn't good enough or ready enough for his own club.

 

Naive in your opinion only. Id rather remain open minded and let an untried player show us what he has got then judge once we have seen for ourselves. Yet after only getting minutes on the park with a Gers jersey we dont know what Aaron could have done. He showed a bit of promise in his debut then we didnt see him again until an away cup match at Forfar when again he played well.

He seems to have done ok for the Spanish young side so far. He wasnt ready for Valencia doesnt mean he isnt ready for the SPL. The 2 leagues are miles apart with Valencia being contenders for La Liga most seasons.

 

WS sets his teams out to not lose rather than go and win and to see the likes of McCulloch being played ahead of a hungry youngster is poor for me.

 

A lot of people thought a lot more of Fleck than Aaron and again he didn't exactly make a huge impact and was actually disappointing.

 

As i mentioned on another thread today, there was a bit too much hype put on Fleck, then he was being played out of position which can ruin a player before his career starts. He is not a left winger. But i do admire Fleck for filling in on the left and doing a decent job. I believe professional footballers should be able to fill in on most positions on occasion when they are being paid to do such job.

[Gazza_8 233]

What rants? Didn't I just say that him being a striker is nonsense? Your the one that says that you have a natural position by the time you are 18 - THAT implies that Dailly's natural position is a striker as he played there until he was 22 - including a world record of U21 caps. That's about as extreme as it gets for natural position... You're trying to argue both ways when it's convenient for you.

 

You constantly go on about Dailly and him being a striker. I don't think you really believe that. If you do, then you'll be the only one.

 

I got the impression you thought we should be playing teenagers before bringing in outsiders.

 

You're impression was wrong. I think the younger players should be given a chance before players like McCulloch who aren't the best in their preferred position nevermind he's played at CB. Remember the Hearts game at Ibrox? What hope does that give the younger players? It must set them back.

 

 

I doubt that. McCulloch had been tried and wasn't up to it. It's all academic as the manager picks the team. If his team is shite then he deserves to be pilloried, if he wins the league then he's completely vindicated.

 

Why did WS continue to play McCulloch in midfield then? He played and was horrific in the cup final. Moving Davis into central midfield (he ran the game from that position in the semi-final) and starting with Novo would've been a better option, no?

 

 

All the more reason to play them before a teenager who hasn't been a regular anywhere. You're making my point for me.

 

Wasn't Thomson a 1st pick at Hibs when he was a teenager? Same goes for Lafferty.

[UCF2008 0]

Why did WS continue to play McCulloch in midfield then?

 

Why does he ever play McCulloch? Possibly just to try and justify the �£millions we've invested in him. If any youngster was as consistently poor as big Lee they'd be out on their ear quicker than you can say Aaron.

 

 

Wasn't Thomson a 1st pick at Hibs when he was a teenager? Same goes for Lafferty.

 

True, but it's a BIG step up from Hibs to Rangers as I'm sure Thomson an his buddy Whittaker would testify. Other clubs the size of ours find it easier to bring through youngsters because they can afford the best youth talent on the planet, while we can't. They also generally have a better standard of player supporting the youngsters.

 

The level of expectation is the main obstacle to our youth development. having less room for giving youth a chance is the price we pay for winning at all costs. That may well be about to change to some extent with the downsizing of the squad though.