stoney Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 From what i can see we have two options. I dont see miller giving the ok to sack his "man" so the most realistic option is to stick it out and go for third (which after this result should be a new priority) 4 games to go till the split and 3 of them away Think we need at least 7 points just to be in with a shout. Looking at the fixtures hearts and united dont have it easy either, unfortunatly motherwell and hibs are snapping at our heals which could put pressure on us - something we dont react well too. then there is next season, smith and seve aint getting any younger and they are on big bucks - they need to be offloaded no point in offering new deals need to cut loses and look for something else. We need to get a few younger, hungrier kids who actually want to play for the club. What we have just now is too inconsitant to ever be the 3rd force, too many needless changes. When we cut that out this season we actually looked like a decent team. The other option is that calderwood walks and we are left with the dross we currently have if you look at our talented players we have.......aluko (inconsitant) miller (lacks motivation) and Diamond (makes too many mistakes) we have a good crop of youngstars in the under 18's who we cant afford to waste (looking at our current team in 2 years we are going to be fucked if we dont bring two maybe three players through) think we need to get a manager is willing to give these lads a chance. If it fails we are loosing nothing, but we cant go on like this, we need to rebuild again. In my opinion the change is two years too late in coming (if it does come) but we have to look at two or three years down the line. Quote
boboisared Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 I agree with pretty much everything said there apart from the last sentence. Hard to argue with it. Quote
Sweetchuck Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 A good crop of youngsters? In all honesty, the current crop of youngsters is mediocre in comparison with the rest of Scotland. Quote
boboisared Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 A good crop of youngsters? In all honesty, the current crop of youngsters is mediocre in comparison with the rest of Scotland. How can you confidently say that? The other day it was reported there are 12 youngsters we should be hoping to make the step up. Pawlett is being hyped up as much as Bebo was. Quote
BigAl Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 Got to say pretty much agree with Stoney on this one, but again apart form the last sentence. Is our crop of youngsters really worse than other clubs. Recent international squads would tend to suggest otherwise. Kind of curious as to who is in much better shape than us youngster wise Quote
Sweetchuck Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 How can you confidently say that? The other day it was reported there are 12 youngsters we should be hoping to make the step up. Pawlett is being hyped up as much as Bebo was. Because I've seen youth games with my own eyes. Because the youth league tables show that we are not particularly strong at youth level across Scotland. Because none of them have made the step up yet despite our first team squad being threadbare and deficient in terms of quality. If we genuinely had outstanding youngsters, we wouldn't need to piss away £100k on utter garbage like Tommy Wright. As for Maguire being a benchmark for young players: do you think he is the quality of player required to get us into regular 3rd place finishes and beyond? If so, heaven help us. If Pawlett is on a par with Maguire, all that means is another primadonna who is incapable of some of the most basic requirements of being a professional footballer. I've seen him play and yes, he looks good, but he is only one player competing for a position for which some of JC's golden boys already provide cover. Is our crop of youngsters really worse than other clubs. Recent international squads would tend to suggest otherwise. Kind of curious as to who is in much better shape than us youngster wise On the basis of recent international squads, we have had one player (Maguire) in the under-21s (the same number as Hamilton and three fewer than Falkirk), one (Crawford) in the October squad for the under-19s (same as Livingston and fewer than all our major SPL competitors and the likes of Falkirk) and two (Crawford and Smith) in the February squad, and 3 in the under-15s (the same as St Mirren and Cowdenbeath; fewer than Falkirk again). I'd really struggle to describe that as anything more than average. In terms of under-19 league performance, we are firmly camped in the middle of the table, which again suggests the kind of mediocrity with which Milne and Miller are so happy at first team level. Bearing in mind games in hand, our youngsters could be left trailing in the wake of those youth-team powerhouses Falkirk and ICT. Finished 6th overall last year and 7th the year before. Don't get me wrong: my point isn't that our youth team is awful, because it's not. It's just very, very average, with one or two exceptions. Quote
boboisared Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 Because I've seen youth games with my own eyes. Because the youth league tables show that we are not particularly strong at youth level across Scotland. Because none of them have made the step up yet despite our first team squad being threadbare and deficient in terms of quality. If we genuinely had outstanding youngsters, we wouldn't need to piss away £100k on utter garbage like Tommy Wright. As for Maguire being a benchmark for young players: do you think he is the quality of player required to get us into regular 3rd place finishes and beyond? If so, heaven help us. If Pawlett is on a par with Maguire, all that means is another primadonna who is incapable of some of the most basic requirements of being a professional footballer. I've seen him play and yes, he looks good, but he is only one player competing for a position for which some of JC's golden boys already provide cover. On the basis of recent international squads, we have had one player (Maguire) in the under-21s (the same number as Hamilton and three fewer than Falkirk), one (Crawford) in the October squad for the under-19s (same as Livingston and fewer than all our major SPL competitors and the likes of Falkirk) and two (Crawford and Smith) in the February squad, and 3 in the under-15s (the same as St Mirren and Cowdenbeath; fewer than Falkirk again). I'd really struggle to describe that as anything more than average. In terms of under-19 league performance, we are firmly camped in the middle of the table, which again suggests the kind of mediocrity with which Milne and Miller are so happy at first team level. Bearing in mind games in hand, our youngsters could be left trailing in the wake of those youth-team powerhouses Falkirk and ICT. Finished 6th overall last year and 7th the year before. Don't get me wrong: my point isn't that our youth team is awful, because it's not. It's just very, very average, with one or two exceptions. Think you take the youth team a bit too seriously mate. It's not about winning the league, it's about having one or two players come through and making the first team. I couldn't give a fuck about how many of our players make the U21 squad. How many caps did Anderson get for the under 21's. How many did Darren Young get? Now who do you think is better? Quote
Sweetchuck Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 Think you take the youth team a bit too seriously mate. It's not about winning the league, it's about having one or two players come through and making the first team. I couldn't give a fuck about how many of our players make the U21 squad. How many caps did Anderson get for the under 21's. How many did Darren Young get? Now who do you think is better? The post was aimed at BigAl, not you. My response to you was that I've seen them with my own eyes and know that they are no better than most of the other very average youngsters out there. That said, my point about the leagues still stands: do you have any better suggestions for ways of comparing our youth players against the youth players from other teams over the course of a couple of seasons? The league seems a pretty sensible bet to me, and I couldn't give a fuck if you couldn't give a fuck about youth Scotland squads, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a worrying sign when Livingston and Cowdenbeath are able to claim as many youth internationalists as AFC. Quote
boboisared Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 The post was aimed at BigAl, not you. My response to you was that I've seen them with my own eyes and know that they are no better than most of the other very average youngsters out there. That said, my point about the leagues still stands: do you have any better suggestions for ways of comparing our youth players against the youth players from other teams over the course of a couple of seasons? The league seems a pretty sensible bet to me, and I couldn't give a fuck if you couldn't give a fuck about youth Scotland squads, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a worrying sign when Livingston and Cowdenbeath are able to claim as many youth internationalists as AFC. I don't think Falkirk are better than us but they have more players in the Full Scotland squad than us. Does this worry you? Would you rather be in their position? I don't, but at least they'll get a conga at Hampden this year. Quote
Sweetchuck Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 I don't think Falkirk are better than us but they have more players in the Full Scotland squad than us. Does this worry you? Would you rather be in their position? I don't, but at least they'll get a conga at Hampden this year. Well, first things first: if Miller wasn't injured, we'd have as many players in the squad as Falkirk. However, that's a minor point in the overall debate. In terms of your question about whether that worries me (the implication being that I shouldn't be), I would say that given that our short- to medium-term ambition is to be the third best team in Scotland, then of course it worries me that we can only achieve one representative in the full squad, particularly at a time when almost half of the squad is drawn from the SPL. Why on earth would that make me want to swap places with Falkirk, though? The fact that they have as many players as us in the squad doesn't mean I envy them; it just means that we each have one player worthy of inclusion in the senior squad and that they have even worse Scottish dross than us when it comes to the rest of the squad. The same is true when it comes to our youngsters. I'm not saying that Falkirk are a paradigm of good youth development; merely that they're an average outfit with a pretty poor history of producing good young players, and yet they are producing more international-class youngsters than us and (assuming they win their games in hand) outperforming us in the most meaningful indicator of youth development before graduation to the first team (the youth league). They too are a beacon of mediocrity, but the fact that they are outperforming us surely raises questions about just how good our much-vaunted crop of youngsters really is... Doesn't it? As such, my point is not that Falkirk are doing particularly well and desrving of envy, but rather that we are doing distinctly averagely, despite a number of our youngsters being hyped by the fans as saviours of the club. We need to get a reality check about just how good these young lads are. Sure, you can't base your judgement entirely on the league or junior caps, but until they make it to the first team, it's all you have. On that basis, these guys really aren't going to set the heather alight if they're thrown into the mix with the big boys next season. Quote
BigAl Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 The post was aimed at BigAl, not you. Think this thread pretty much backs up my point Sweetchuck http://www.thedandies.co.uk/messageboard/index.php?topic=7414.msg114138#msg114138 Quote
??? Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 As long as the likes of George Burley are picking players of the standard of Jamie McAllister and Kirk Broadfoot, I really don't think the Scotland squads are a marker for where our various teams are at. Quote
manc_don Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 As long as the likes of George Burley are picking players of the standard of Jamie McAllister and Kirk Broadfoot, I really don't think the Scotland squads are a marker for where our various teams are at. Quote
ntbear Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 I'll dilute stoney's post into some sense From what i can see we have two options. Can't sack Jimmy. Can't afford to let him walk away. we have to look at two or three years down the line. That's about it. Quote
Jute Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 As long as the likes of George Burley are picking players of the standard of Jamie McAllister and Kirk Broadfoot, I really don't think the Scotland squads are a marker for where our various teams are at. Sadly mcAllister is a better left back than Mulgrew and clubfoot as pish as he is still better than Foster so I do not see your point. Quote
BobbyBiscuit Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 Sadly mcAllister is a better left back than Mulgrew and clubfoot as pish as he is still better than Foster so I do not see your point. Are there no other left or right backs around? Just McAllister, Clubfoot and Aberdeen's options? Quote
Jute Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 Are there no other left or right backs around? Just McAllister, Clubfoot and Aberdeen's options? Should have said that I am not saying either them is good enough for Scotland just that they are better than what we have. Quote
BobbyBiscuit Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 Should have said that I am not saying either them is good enough for Scotland just that they are better than what we have. So you don't see his point that the fact those two clowns are in the Scotland squad shows that the opinion of the Scotland Manager isn't necessarily a great yardstick of talent? That's all he was saying, not that what we have is necessarily better than that currently being picked for the national sides. Quote
Jute Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 So you don't see his point that the fact those two clowns are in the Scotland squad shows that the opinion of the Scotland Manager isn't necessarily a great yardstick of talent? That's all he was saying, not that what we have is necessarily better than that currently being picked for the national sides. If they are not better than what is being picked then it is still a yard stick if a pretty shit one. Quote
BobbyBiscuit Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 If they are not better than what is being picked then it is still a yard stick if a pretty shit one. No, he's saying it's just one guy's opinion, and there's politics in it as well. For example, should Tom Boyd or Tosh McKinlay have been picked ahead of David Robertson? Of course not, the whole of Scotland knew that apart from the one gimp who mattered apparently. Bowman, Galloway, peter Grant, MacKay, all got caps ahead of Brian Grant, you trying to tell me any were better than him just cos that twat Roxburgh thought so? Then there's the case of Russell Anderson... try and tell me with a straight face that Caldwell and McManus and Weir and the rest of the clowns were better defenders than Cadger.... Quote
mizer Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 So you don't see his point that the fact those two clowns are in the Scotland squad shows that the opinion of the Scotland Manager isn't necessarily a great yardstick of talent? That's all he was saying, not that what we have is necessarily better than that currently being picked for the national sides. Trust me, Jute doesnt rate much about Burleys selection process! Quote
TENEMENTFUNSTER Posted March 20, 2009 Report Posted March 20, 2009 Just to concur wi Ladette and Mizer re Jute's opinion of Burley! An opinion I share. Quote
??? Posted March 20, 2009 Report Posted March 20, 2009 Sadly mcAllister is a better left back than Mulgrew and clubfoot as pish as he is still better than Foster so I do not see your point. Cannot agree with you there. As for my original point, if you can't see it I'm not going to try and explain it to you... Quote
baggy89 Posted March 20, 2009 Report Posted March 20, 2009 Is McAllister nae playing at centre back these days, for Brizzle? Still a joke of a selection though. Quote
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.