Smith's future up in the air

[calscot 0]

Sorry Cal that is the biggest load of tosh i have read in ages.

 

It seems you haven't taken time to understand it and are blinded by the Barcelona = good and "anti-football" = bad perception. In fact I think you've missed the whole point.

 

Barcelona use the tactic of pushing up into the opponents half and challenging for the ball early. This forces lesser players who have less control of the ball to eventually punt it up the park where there is normally only one striker against 2 defenders. Normally they have the ball back with their opponents still in their own half.

 

No matter how you try to dress it up, it sounds 100% like "Anti-football" to me. Are they stopping the other team playing football - yes, ergo "anti-football". Are they stopping the opposition playing "pretty football" - yes, ergo "anti-football". Are they forcing their opponents to hoof the ball or play badly - yes, ergo "anti-football".

 

Perhaps you need to open your mind to what things actually mean rather than base things on preconceived perceptions.

 

Negative football? Nah sorry i agree with a lot of things you write and i may be an arrogant idiot but it is, in my mind, you who does not have a great understanding of football. It may have another name than anti football but some teams set out to defend with ten men. certainly not pro open football.

 

The point is, "negative" football is a very important and necessary part of the game. Barcelona do it incredibly well and the last time I watched them, they definitely defended with 10 men. They stop lesser teams playing and then play their own game.

 

They are best at this when they face teams of lesser skill and athleticism and the opposition can't cope. When they face an equal team that plays the same way they can end up with a stalemate - and a pretty dull game. However, what sticks in their craw is when their tactics don't work and they end up with a stalemate with a team they see as inferior. When that happens, instead of looking in the mirror they get all whingy and bandy about insults including "anti-football" when it's exactly what they are best at.

 

The reason said people are arrogant idiots is that it's always used as an off the cuff put down without any real intelligence behind the phrase and they don't get there is no "anti-football", it's just an oxymoron to denigrate good defensive play. The irony with Barcelona is that they are better than most at defensive play.

 

Otherwise you could say anyone who doesn't play an old fashioned 2-3-5 formation is playing anti-football and that means there is no football left.

 

Pete, you may know more than me about football but I put it to you that your are not so good at challenging that knowledge and taking a more objective viewpoint as well as a more in depth look behind the terminology.

 

You're telling me I know nothing about football and yet you say Barcelona don't play anti-football while describing how they are very good at stopping the other team playing or having possession.

 

You really need to think about that contradiction.

 

There is no anti-football, there is attacking football and defensive football and each is the yin to the other's yang which creates the enthralling contest in the first place. Playing well in one aspect to stop the opposition in the other is hardly a case for disparagement and I would argue that those who seek to do so, are either being bad sportsmen or know nothing about the sport at all.

[wabashcannonball 0]

“Football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes, of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass. It is terribly simple.”

 

 

The man who said that knew a thing or three.

[calscot 0]

I beleive the contradiction is all yours,.... "You have to be pragmatic. You can go out and try and beat a better side (or sides) at their own game but you'll only end up like Mowbray's WBA and now Celtic. They can crow about all the pretty football they want (even if it is mostly lies and bullshit) while my team can celebrate success and trophies."

 

What you mean is parish success in a piss poor league, me I think we should have bigger aims for such a big club, or are we only a big club in our own country. To be to the point, Rangers where more successful in Europe long before Smith ever appeared on the scene, perhaps we had a greater sense of our true worth then, rather than seeing ourselves as makeweights for European competition, we can do a lot better with the right approach a lot better.

 

I don't ever remember Rangers being consistently great in Europe, in fact I'm pretty used to the disappointment.

 

Ironically the best two seasons in my time of supporting Rangers from the age of about 6 have come from the teams of Walter Smith. Our best ever European cup showing - 1992 and our best ever UEFA cup showing - 2008.

 

Scottish football was on it's greatest high in the 60's and early 70's and although we were good in Europe then, Celtic were tangibly better and they were also in the middle of achieving 9 championships in a row which is not a situation I'd want to repeat.

 

We usually get the odd not bad run in among about five years of pretty crap showings so I don't know where this expectation comes from.

 

Walter probably gives us some of our worst European seasons but also gives us our best - it depends which you prefer - pretty shit then almost win the thing or consistently mediocre a la Advocaat.

 

But in the end the most important thing is the SPL. Advocaat lost it badly twice out of four attempts, Smith has pretty much won it 9 times and been pipped at the post twice.

 

Souness won it 3 times and was 3rd once. His European record was also patchy with some first or second round exits plus a European Cup quarterfinal.

 

Eck won two titles and badly lost two with a 3rd place and had one reasonably good year in Europe but still not great.

 

PLG was a disaster at home and had an ok run in the UEFA cup.

 

Pre-Souness we were a disaster for 10 years with the odd decent win in Europe but no decent run.

 

I don't remember much before that but I don't think it was great until we go back to Celtic's 9 in a row era so any European success then is tempered with not winning the league.

 

Times have now changed and others in this thread have alluded to it well. In my opinion, if you can't enjoy the parochial success and be sanguine about our exploits in Europe then you're going to be perpetually a miserable Rangers fan.

 

Sometimes you just have to get real to enjoy what you have.

[wabashcannonball 0]

You are unlucky Smith is your benchmark, I am very lucky history is mine......people like Captain Cutlass A young player, perhaps a wee bit on edge in the build-up to making his debut for Rangers, would be quietly pulled aside by Bobby and told to relax. "You're wearing that blue jersey, it's the guys in the other dressing-room who should be nervous."

That's the way it should still be today, I was brought up as a Rangers supporters to accept nothing but the best, if you can live without that mantra......carry on.

[Danny 0]

I don't ever remember Rangers being consistently great in Europe, in fact I'm pretty used to the disappointment.

 

Ironically the best two seasons in my time of supporting Rangers from the age of about 6 have come from the teams of Walter Smith. Our best ever European cup showing - 1992 and our best ever UEFA cup showing - 2008.

 

Scottish football was on it's greatest high in the 60's and early 70's and although we were good in Europe then, Celtic were tangibly better and they were also in the middle of achieving 9 championships in a row which is not a situation I'd want to repeat.

 

We usually get the odd not bad run in among about five years of pretty crap showings so I don't know where this expectation comes from.

 

Walter probably gives us some of our worst European seasons but also gives us our best - it depends which you prefer - pretty shit then almost win the thing or consistently mediocre a la Advocaat.

 

But in the end the most important thing is the SPL. Advocaat lost it badly twice out of four attempts, Smith has pretty much won it 9 times and been pipped at the post twice.

 

Souness won it 3 times and was 3rd once. His European record was also patchy with some first or second round exits plus a European Cup quarterfinal.

 

Eck won two titles and badly lost two with a 3rd place and had one reasonably good year in Europe but still not great.

 

PLG was a disaster at home and had an ok run in the UEFA cup.

 

Pre-Souness we were a disaster for 10 years with the odd decent win in Europe but no decent run.

 

I don't remember much before that but I don't think it was great until we go back to Celtic's 9 in a row era so any European success then is tempered with not winning the league.

 

Times have now changed and others in this thread have alluded to it well. In my opinion, if you can't enjoy the parochial success and be sanguine about our exploits in Europe then you're going to be perpetually a miserable Rangers fan.

 

Sometimes you just have to get real to enjoy what you have.

 

Excellent post. We've never been great in Europe, and we've never uniformly dominated domestically either.

 

As far as Europe goes like any other team we've had better campaigns and worse ones - the best Rangers team of my lifetime was the one you mention which came so close in '93, and the run to Manchester was special too, but this talk of 'progress' in Europe is a bit bizarre given we've well over 100 years of never being that great in Europe.

 

Domestically we have 52 leagues - in around 140 years. It's a fallacy to assume we will and should win the league year after year - we do not have a monopoly and only those 2 fantastic stretches by Struth and Smith were ever the exception to the rule. Indeed, almost 30 of all our leagues came in those periods.

 

Rangers and football will always be swings and roundabouts - some expectations are unrealistic and naive.

[bmck 117]

Excellent post. We've never been great in Europe, and we've never uniformly dominated domestically either.

 

As far as Europe goes like any other team we've had better campaigns and worse ones - the best Rangers team of my lifetime was the one you mention which came so close in '93, and the run to Manchester was special too, but this talk of 'progress' in Europe is a bit bizarre given we've well over 100 years of never being that great in Europe.

 

Domestically we have 52 leagues - in around 140 years. It's a fallacy to assume we will and should win the league year after year - we do not have a monopoly and only those 2 fantastic stretches by Struth and Smith were ever the exception to the rule. Indeed, almost 30 of all our leagues came in those periods.

 

Rangers and football will always be swings and roundabouts - some expectations are unrealistic and naive.

 

It never fails to amaze me how the most objectively minded people so subtly try and hardwire their subjective outlook into their arguments. For example, it doesnt follow at all that just because we wont win the league every year we shouldnt expect to. The hidden premise is that fans should be pragmatists, or should necessarily bend their expectations to meet objective facts; as though they were scientists attuning themselves to the most statistically likely outcome. This may be healthy in some contexts, but equally it doesnt follow any less that fans should ignore statistics and unliterally demand success as noisily as possible at all times, to ensure those in charge of the club dont lower expectations, and in doing so make it more likely that we have period of Streuthian or Smithian dominance. Why shouldnt fans demand we aim to progress in Europe? That question cant be answered by looking to the past or to facts or to statistics; its a question of subjective values. Should fans be demanding? Should they be pragmatists? Should they sing a lot? Should they be subdued? Even if European sucess is never going to happen, by shouting about it you state your ambitions and ensure those in charge at least know that there is demand. I dont think we will do anything in Europe, but Im not convinced it isnt a fans duty to harp on about these things to keep standards high. Who is to say unrealistic and naive (optimistic and demanding?) arent virtues rather than derogatory in a football fan?

[Danny 0]

It never fails to amaze me how the most objectively minded people so subtly try and hardwire their subjective outlook into their arguments. For example, it doesnt follow at all that just because we wont win the league every year we shouldnt expect to. The hidden premise is that fans should be pragmatists, or should necessarily bend their expectations to meet objective facts; as though they were scientists attuning themselves to the most statistically likely outcome. This may be healthy in some contexts, but equally it doesnt follow any less that fans should ignore statistics and unliterally demand success as noisily as possible at all times, to ensure those in charge of the club dont lower expectations, and in doing so make it more likely that we have period of Streuthian or Smithian dominance. Why shouldnt fans demand we aim to progress in Europe? That question cant be answered by looking to the past or to facts or to statistics; its a question of subjective values. Should fans be demanding? Should they be pragmatists? Should they sing a lot? Should they be subdued? Even if European sucess is never going to happen, by shouting about it you state your ambitions and ensure those in charge at least know that there is demand. I dont think we will do anything in Europe, but Im not convinced it isnt a fans duty to harp on about these things to keep standards high. Who is to say unrealistic and naive (optimistic and demanding?) arent virtues rather than derogatory in a football fan?

 

So you think Hearts and Aberdeen fans should be looking to win the league?

 

You seem to be implying I've attempted to remove all emotion and am only looking at facts - which isn't entirely true - I'm just stating the way our history is, and why expectations which confound that are not realistic.

 

I didn't say it was wrong, ill judged, or out of order. You were the one to attach that meaning to my words, not me.

 

The truth is we will always hope to win the league year after year, and we'll always be looking to make our mark in Europe - the problem is expecting these things, demanding these things, and being ridiculous and knee jerk if and when they don't happen.

 

It's not really the hope I have a problem with, more the fallout when things don't go our way as they frequently don't - and before you know it you have protests, calls for the heads of the management, a clear out of playing staff etc.

 

The way you're implying, we should just expect that baggage as inevitable because it's only correct to hope for success.

[bmck 117]

im going to munch, shall reply shortly.

[wabashcannonball 0]

What a nice chap you are, sometimes people can't see the wood for the trees, in the words of Shanks...“Aim for the sky and you'll reach the ceiling. Aim for the ceiling and you'll stay on the floor.”

[Danny 0]

im going to munch, shall reply shortly.

 

*rubs hands with glee*

 

I'll look forward to it