A tale of two K/Chrises

For English, European and World football topics.
Scottish
Site Admin
Posts: 7665
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm
Contact:

Post by Scottish » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:11 am

lbb wrote: The comparison with Beckham is not a valid one. By moving to the USA, Beckham effectively announced his retirement from top flight football and England have a wealth of talent in his area - if not always properly utilised. Although Kris Boyd may sometimes give the impression of deeply contemplating retirement, he is only 25 years old. It's unlikely David Beckham would have accepted a continual bench place after Euro 2000, particularly so if his place in the team was taken by Nick Barmby or Dennis Wise
I think it's perfectly fair - as is the one with Scot Gemmill. Your Beckham comparisons are hypothetical. There is no evidence to support them or to suggest that at any time in his career Beckham even considered turning his back on his country. Not now when he crosses oceans to warm the bench (and while MSL in the USA may not be up to the standard of England or Spain, I doubt if it's any lower than Falkirk or Inverness). And not a decade ago when he was booed at every opportunity in English domestic football after the 1998 World Cup.

Irrespective of what people think of his merits as a player or the circus-style sideshows which accompany him, his attitude as a footballer (and not just at international level) is exemplary.

I'll give you a hypothetical example though and one which I think is more realistic. Had the players you mention all been eligible for Scotland and Beckham played for a non-OF club while Barmby was with Rangers and Wise at Celtic then Beckham would never have got anywhere near 100 caps!

Skyline Drifter
Posts: 790
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:34 pm
Location: Dumfries
Contact:

Post by Skyline Drifter » Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:07 am

scottish wrote:
lbb wrote: The comparison with Beckham is not a valid one. By moving to the USA, Beckham effectively announced his retirement from top flight football and England have a wealth of talent in his area - if not always properly utilised. Although Kris Boyd may sometimes give the impression of deeply contemplating retirement, he is only 25 years old. It's unlikely David Beckham would have accepted a continual bench place after Euro 2000, particularly so if his place in the team was taken by Nick Barmby or Dennis Wise
I'll give you a hypothetical example though and one which I think is more realistic. Had the players you mention all been eligible for Scotland and Beckham played for a non-OF club while Barmby was with Rangers and Wise at Celtic then Beckham would never have got anywhere near 100 caps!
But then, if Beckham had been with a non-OF club and the other two with OF clubs then one of the OF clubs would have bought him and spelled them on the right instead of letting him play for his original club and with the financial incentives on offer he'd have gone. That is the difference between English and Scottish football sadly.

lbb
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:25 am
Contact:

Post by lbb » Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:11 am

Skyline Drifter wrote: To nitpick somewhat without disagreeing with the crux of your point, Graham Alexander didn't play on Saturday.
You're right. I was of course referring to [quickly checks Internet] Kirk Broadfoot. :oops:

lbb
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:25 am
Contact:

Post by lbb » Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:27 am

scottish wrote: Irrespective of what people think of his merits as a player or the circus-style sideshows which accompany him, his attitude as a footballer (and not just at international level) is exemplary.

I'll give you a hypothetical example though and one which I think is more realistic. Had the players you mention all been eligible for Scotland and Beckham played for a non-OF club while Barmby was with Rangers and Wise at Celtic then Beckham would never have got anywhere near 100 caps!
Touche.

I can accept that David Beckham is happy to play second fiddle now - and that he's willing to travel a long distance to do so is a credit to him - but I cannot accept that he would have happily done so at the height of his powers.

Ultimately, though, I don't agree with Kris Boyd's decision - I think it's over-the-top and there's probably more to it than he's letting on. I was simply trying to point out that, at international level, a player has very little options if he's unhappy with the manager. If Boyd feels he's wasting his time turning up for squads then, on the basis of the evidence, it's difficult to argue. The authority of the manager must be absolute, though, and they must be allowed to pick whoever they see fit and players must make themselves available for squads or risk their international careers.

the hibLOG
Posts: 1163
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:41 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Contact:

Post by the hibLOG » Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:29 pm

Does Boyd really think Burley picks him with no intention of playing him? What sane manager would waste one of his squad positions in such a way? Clearly Boyd is simply intoxicated with an inflated sense of his own worth. He might better ask himself why it is that three top managers have all decided that their teams can be spared his majestic talents from time to time and may feel moved to express their view that he could contribute more if he tried just a little.

Does he try just a little bit more? No, he gobs off and goes in the huff. Twat.

There is no doubt that had Scotland won all three matches so far without the assistance of his incomparable services, Boyd would not be temporarily retiring and attempting to humiliate the national team manager in the process. Like David Weir before him he thinks it is ok to desert a ship which he thinks most fans perceive to be sinking. That might be so, but he possibly didn't bargain that those fans can still see him for the cowardly rat he is.
Fraser

upthewell
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:33 pm
Contact:

Post by upthewell » Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:43 pm

the hibLOG wrote:Does Boyd really think Burley picks him with no intention of playing him? What sane manager would waste one of his squad positions in such a way? Clearly Boyd is simply intoxicated with an inflated sense of his own worth. He might better ask himself why it is that three top managers have all decided that their teams can be spared his majestic talents from time to time and may feel moved to express their view that he could contribute more if he tried just a little.

Does he try just a little bit more? No, he gobs off and goes in the huff. Twat.

There is no doubt that had Scotland won all three matches so far without the assistance of his incomparable services, Boyd would not be temporarily retiring and attempting to humiliate the national team manager in the process. Like David Weir before him he thinks it is ok to desert a ship which he thinks most fans perceive to be sinking. That might be so, but he possibly didn't bargain that those fans can still see him for the cowardly rat he is.
Aye - I'd agree with that!

lbb
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:25 am
Contact:

Post by lbb » Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:12 am

Another two bite the dust?

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol ... 353364.ece

'Barry Ferguson could have played his last game for Scotland — after being axed by George Burley last night. Skipper Ferguson and his Rangers team-mate Allan McGregor were booted out after an early-morning bevvy session on Sunday.

Ferguson, 31, and McGregor, 27, joined team-mates for drinks at posh Cameron House Hotel on the banks of Loch Lomond early on Sunday. Burley sanctioned the post-match bonding session, but was left in a rage when it carried on for several HOURS.'



I'm in two minds on this one. Clearly, if Ferguson and McGregor have gone to extremes here - some rumours have them absolutely plastered at Sunday lunchtime - then disciplinary action is the right course. But I don't understand why Burley would sanction a drinking session at all given that the squad didn't arrive back from Amsterdam until the early hours of Sunday morning. What time did he think it would go on to? Burley clearly lacks much respect in the squad but as Barry Ferguson, in particular, has previous for this and is supposed to be one of the senior figures in the squad I ultimately have little sympathy for him.

Sat31March1928
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Musselburgh
Contact:

Post by Sat31March1928 » Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:01 am

It does solve the conundrum of dropping them for poor performances in Amsterdam.
Jackson; James; Jackson; James; Jackson

lbb
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:25 am
Contact:

Post by lbb » Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:23 am

I don't think McGregor played badly.

Ferguson struggled in the game but there's a lot of jerseys could have joined him on that score.

Skyline Drifter
Posts: 790
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:34 pm
Location: Dumfries
Contact:

Post by Skyline Drifter » Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:09 pm

lbb wrote:I don't think McGregor played badly.
I don't think McGregor did play badly and I wouldn't have blamed him for any of their goals (though Burley has implied he does).

However, I also just fundamentally don't think he's all that good, certainly not as good as Gordon, and he's yet another example of a player being presumed good enough because he plays for the OF. I understand Burley somewhat painted himself into a corner about Gordon after his remarks about Boyd (which I don't necessarily agree with. Not playing regular first team doesn't seem to do David Healy much harm every time Northern Ireland games come along) but I don't think match fitness is particularly relevant to goalkeepers. I presume Gordon is playing reserve football at Sunderland and training properly so I wouldn't have thought his sharpness was affected much by whether or not he is playing for Sunderland's first team. A physically fit Craig Gordon should be selected every single time for me (barring friendlies where it's not unreasonable to give the deputy some game time).

lbb
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:25 am
Contact:

Post by lbb » Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:41 pm

I'm not a huge fan of McGregor - I don't think Rangers missed him in the run-in last season and I think Neil Alexander can still feel annoyed at being No. 2 this season. However, you're right to say that Burley had to play him because of his own publicly-stated policy and that he didn't do anything in Amsterdam to warrant being dropped for the Iceland game. I'm not a fan of Craig Gordon either and it seems the Sunderland manager is of that view. I think both of them have high opinions of themselves disproportionate to their abilities.

Skyline Drifter
Posts: 790
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:34 pm
Location: Dumfries
Contact:

Post by Skyline Drifter » Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:51 pm

lbb wrote:I'm not a fan of Craig Gordon either and it seems the Sunderland manager is of that view.
I take the point but for the moment I'm working to the presumption that Sbragia is just being extremely fair with Fulop in that having come in, he hasn't let them down and he isn't prepared to drop him. I rather suspect he sees Gordon as his keeper for next season.

However, you may well be right and certainly there's no way that Sir Alex would be leaving van der Saar out when he got fit after an absence regardless of how well Kuszczak or Foster did in his absence. Likewise Chelsea and whoever Cech's current deputy is. I guess if Sbragia was convinced Gordon was absolutely better he'd be playing him.

Scottish
Site Admin
Posts: 7665
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm
Contact:

Post by Scottish » Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:51 pm

lbb wrote: But I don't understand why Burley would sanction a drinking session at all.
Maybe he was under the misapprehension that he was dealing with mature adults?

lbb
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:25 am
Contact:

Post by lbb » Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:03 am

scottish wrote: Maybe he was under the misapprehension that he was dealing with mature adults?
Clearly there are two points here. It's unarguable that, irrespective of what Burley did or didn't say, Ferguson and McGregor have been unprofessional and worthy of disciplinary action. However, I think that if Burley has said to any players that they can have, even one or two drinks upon arriving in Scotland in the early hours of the morning. then questions have to be asked of him, too. I can't think of any rationale for it.

What was clear last night is that Scotland, like Rangers, play better without Barry Ferguson.

Insertnamehere
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:32 pm
Location: Barrhead
Contact:

Post by Insertnamehere » Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:07 am

Seems all is not well in the national camp! Todays papaers are saying Burley was goinbg to throw them both out of the squad but the other FIVE players who were drinking with them stated they felt the two were being made scapegoats.

I am not for a second defending them as they were out of order but...... letting them have a drink at 5am in the first place and also saying you plan to change your shape and dropping hints you might change your keeper, it seems like fate handed Burley a perfect oppertunity to do both and at the same time cover his own back :shock:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests