Scottish Football Discussion Thread 2010/11

[The Cum Doctor]

I dunno about Danny Wilson. As far as I'm concerned, the whole defence played their part in our downfall. You'd think that after the first leg, they'd have closed players down from distance. But no. Apparently their memory doesn't last as long as a few days.

[Stylin_and_Profilin]

Wilson and Goodwillie aside i'd be surprised if any of them make it into the full team.

[The Cum Doctor]

If Bannon is able to get the occaisional game for Aston Villa and play well, then I'm fairly sure that he can get a game for Scotland.

[Daaaaaad!]

Take it we're just avoiding the fact that the national team put up another 'brave losers' performance against the best team in the world last night then? Well too bad

 

Was at the game and I've never experienced anything like it. The crowd were on their feet all game and whilst I've had that before, I honestly didn't realise that was the case until David Villa's penalty hit the net just before half-time. I was very aware that we needed to keep the noise levels up to keep the Spanish on edge and it seemed to work for the most part until Iniesta's goal, after which things went nearly silent. However, Naismith's excellent goal (from Miller's awesome cross, by the by) really roused the crowd and when Pique directed the ball into his own net, the place erupted in the loudest of Hampden roars that one could imagine; so it was heartbreaking when Old Reliable McManus decided not to bother marking Llorente and missed the header that caused Spain's third.

 

The performance yesterday will, unfortunately, open up further questions as to why exactly we did not hit the Czechs with full force last Friday. Nevertheless, there is definite encouragement there for the national team and whilst we don't have another qualifier for a year or so, the Nations Cup in February and May will give us a chance to hopefully include some new faces and establish a proper defence in preparation for the following games. There's no getting around it; we need to win our next three games to qualify, and if we can get something from Spain away it'll be a minor miracle; but there is at least hope where last Saturday there was none.

[David]

To be honest, did anyone really buy into the idea that Spain were going to murder us? Seriously?

 

Anyone who has had even a passing interest in Scotland should know by now that we always fail against the likes of Lithuania and the Czech Republic, only to come "so close" and put in a "terrific display" against the big nations that should easily beat us.

 

If things go to form as they usually do with us, we'll go into our last game needing one point.

 

That game is against Spain away, where we will hold them until the last 15 minutes or so then concede a goal to lose the game, which will then see a few days of the papers telling us how unlucky we are, and how the "boys can be proud" etc.

 

Same old shit.

[Daaaaaad!]

If it's so obvious, why did you waste your time telling us?

 

My main focus now is on us getting a decent couple of centre halves. It's time for David's boy Reynolds to get a shout for the Carling Nations Cup games, as well as hopefully Andy Webster when he's fully fit. We need to get some of these players into the squad and give them a few games in dark blue under their belt, so that when next year does come around, we have international players playing our international games. Giving Bardsley his debut against Spain may not have been avoidable, but it was still a poor way for the situation to come about, and the less said about Stephen McManus the better.

[bAzTNM#1]

My main focus now is on us getting a decent couple of centre halves. It's time for David's boy Reynolds to get a shout for the Carling Nations Cup games

I was wondering what you're were on about there, so I did a quick Wiki search - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_Cup_(football)

 

That flew under the media radar. I thought the plans had been scrapped?

 

It's also a bit odd that Scotland next play a Euro 2012 qualifier in September 2011.

[Daaaaaad!]

Naw, they even held a proper 'announcement' photo op in August. Our representative was Craig Burley, unfortunately...

 

It is a bit odd, but then don't forget all the qualifiers will be over by the end of 2011, leaving early 2012 available for the playoff fixtures.

[FUM]

David Weir in the rags today saying we should stop the "kickers" instead of punishing someone for not kicking another player. Aye, cause he never tried Davie. Anyone got a sensible answer yet as to why trying to fly kick someone only constitutes a one match ban?

[InvertedSmiley]

David Weir in the rags today saying we should stop the "kickers" instead of punishing someone for not kicking another player. Aye, cause he never tried Davie. Anyone got a sensible answer yet as to why trying to fly kick someone only constitutes a one match ban?

I've no issue with the length of the ban. I think one match for the intent is fair enough. It makes for a nice change that McGregor is actually being punished for a misdemeanour.

 

Haven't read any of the articles concerning David Weir's views on the matter and on how we should be punishing the "kickers", but did he happen to mention anything about punishing those players who regularly throttle other players...?

[unfitfinlay]

David Weir in the rags today saying we should stop the "kickers" instead of punishing someone for not kicking another player. Aye, cause he never tried Davie. Anyone got a sensible answer yet as to why trying to fly kick someone only constitutes a one match ban?

 

Because that's the punishment for violent conduct isn't it? I'd say a better question is why trying to kick someone (a red card offence) gets you a one game ban but Kyle Lafferty got a two game ban for simulation, which is only worth a yellow card on the pitch? Of course Gordon Smith was running the SFA back then so no doubt it was his usual "over react so no one thinks I'm biased".

 

I can sort of see Weir's point but it's kind of lost by the fact that McGregor does have previous for this. Rather than defending him Smith and Weir should be asking him if it was really worth getting himself suspended during some of the best form of his career. It wasn't even like he was frustrated or was trying to get Maguire back for something, he wasn't even looking at WHO he was kicking out at!

 

He's a quality goalkeeper but he really needs to screw the nut.

[FUM]

David Weir in the rags today saying we should stop the "kickers" instead of punishing someone for not kicking another player. Aye, cause he never tried Davie. Anyone got a sensible answer yet as to why trying to fly kick someone only constitutes a one match ban?

 

Because that's the punishment for violent conduct isn't it?

 

To be honest, it should be the same for violent conduct and intent. One guy tries and succeeds and gets a 3 game ban or whatever it is, another guy tries the exact same thing but cause his leg isn't long enough he fails to connect and gets a 1 match ban. Both have tried the same thing yet get different bans, doesn't make sense to me.

[Reznor]

David Weir in the rags today saying we should stop the "kickers" instead of punishing someone for not kicking another player. Aye, cause he never tried Davie. Anyone got a sensible answer yet as to why trying to fly kick someone only constitutes a one match ban?

 

Because that's the punishment for violent conduct isn't it? I'd say a better question is why trying to kick someone (a red card offence) gets you a one game ban but Kyle Lafferty got a two game ban for simulation, which is only worth a yellow card on the pitch? Of course Gordon Smith was running the SFA back then so no doubt it was his usual "over react so no one thinks I'm biased".

 

It's for the same reason as why in law, you'll get a harsher punishment for a 'successful' crime than for an attempted one - the consequences of it. It's only a yellow card if it fails and gets dealt with at the time, as it makes no difference and has no further influence on the game. With Lafferty, his cheating and dishonesty totally turned the game on it's head, he actually succeeded and went through with conning the referee in a quite extraordinary incident, and nothing could change that afterwards, therefore the retrospective punishment has to be more severe.

 

Besides, there's simulation and there's simulation. There isn't, as you appear to be implying, set ban durations depending on what category of offence it falls under - cases are considered on their own merits. And i would like to think you would agree that blatantly feigning being assaulted and injured in order to get a player sent off and suspended is on a whole different level to someone going down a bit easy in the hope they'll get a cheap free kick or penalty (which everybody does)

 

It's an entirely fair way of doing things. In fact, it could be argued that stiffer penalties are needed for cheating like that. That would make them think twice about it in the first place, and if anyone did try it in the heat of the moment, then the knowledge of the inevitable suspension may in some cases act as the stick for them to put their hands up and take the yellow card before any harm can be done. If on the other hand, they're happy to take the short term advantage gained from their cheating, then hell mend them when it comes to the disciplinary committee, they should be prepared to miss several weeks of football for it.

 

I can understand being a bit pissed off at getting suspended for what was little more than a gesture, albeit he's been lucky to escape with plenty in the past - but you're way off the mark in trying to bring up Laffertys suspension as being in any way unfair.

[unfitfinlay]

I can understand being a bit pissed off at getting suspended for what was little more than a gesture, albeit he's been lucky to escape with plenty in the past - but you're way off the mark in trying to bring up Laffertys suspension as being in any way unfair.

 

I didn't say it was unfair. I just said it was bizarre that he got a harsher punishment than is usually dished out for violent conduct. Is conning the Ref really twice as bad as wildly kicking out at an opponent (McGregor) booting an opponent in the knee (Loovens on Edu) or "stamping on an opponents head" (Novo on Pearson - which I still think was accidental but he did get banned for it) all of whom got one match bans?

 

Anyway, Rangers are back on the top of the table by one goal. Can anybody else see the Title coming down to the last day again?

[Reznor]

I can understand being a bit pissed off at getting suspended for what was little more than a gesture, albeit he's been lucky to escape with plenty in the past - but you're way off the mark in trying to bring up Laffertys suspension as being in any way unfair.

 

I didn't say it was unfair. I just said it was bizarre that he got a harsher punishment than is usually dished out for violent conduct. Is conning the Ref really twice as bad as wildly kicking out at an opponent (McGregor) booting an opponent in the knee (Loovens on Edu) or "stamping on an opponents head" (Novo on Pearson - which I still think was accidental but he did get banned for it) all of whom got one match bans?

I'd say in many cases, it is. It's difficult to practically compare levels of 'badness' directly because they're different types of crimes, but cheating in that kind of blatant, brazen way is particularly reprehensible amongst football fans and anyone involved with the game. It's similar to spitting on a players face in that it's not going to cause injury, but it's still extremely bad form. But as i tried to explain (probably badly), the other side to it is that if the cheating succeeds, it changes the game, and the innocent team/player is punished whilst the guilty party benefits. Once the deed is done, it can't be changed, so the retrospective punishments have to be more severe for that reason.

 

With acts of violent conduct, there's usually little or no consequences other than a bruise and a couple of stud marks because they tend to just be acts of petulance. It's only rare occasions when someone has to go off injured, but there's at least a sub to come on, and i'm sure the disciplinary committee would take into account any injuries when it comes to dishing out the retrospective ban. Most of the time however, it won't won't have much effect on the game, so it's fair enough to dish out the same punishment afterwards as what the referee would have given at the time if he had seen it. I think in some ways, being calculated and deceitful is lower than momentarily being a dirty bastard. Just about every player will have have made a shocking challenge or had a wee petulant dig at someone at some point or other, but very, very few players ever stoop to Lafferty's level.

 

Anyway, Rangers are back on the top of the table by one goal. Can anybody else see the Title coming down to the last day again?

Well if it's not the last day, it won't be far off it. Can't see either team collapsing or allowing a 10 pt gap or anything to form. Next week's a cracker and i think it's more important for Celtic to win than for Rangers as Celtic have had the more favourable first round of games. If Rangers come out of it with even a draw, they're in a good position for the next couple of months, whilst Celtic have to go to the notoriously difficult places like Tynecastle, Pittodrie and Ibrox.