NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/sport/soccer/16705

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 5.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!uknet!edcastle!efsv09
From: [e-mail] (J Shaw)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.soccer,eduni.football
Subject: Re: Topical comments
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:16:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Edinburgh University
Lines: 92

[e-mail] (G C Stewart) writes:


>    A real can of worms I've opened here. I appreciate the points made
>by James and Wacko Jacko, but I was really wanting to gauge their
>reactions to what Jim McLean said last week, but both seem to be
>reacting more to what I think. Now as Cloughie said last week football
>is all about opinions and it makes for lively entertainment for myself
>and the Huns to drag each other down into a frothy lather. However I'd
>wager that Jolly Jim knows a fair bit more about the game than any of
>the three of us (put together) and now that his opinion is so contrary
>to those of the Rangers posters, I'm really far more interested to see
>how they react to him rather than myself. If I say "black", you boys
>say "white" - it's as predictable and unless we start getting abusive
>it's a little boring to others. However Jolly Jim has put his oar in
>with a little dark grey and that was not expected (I'll drink to his
>health anyway).

Like you say it is all about opinions, and I am sure Jim Mclean does
know a fair bit more than us humble supporters. However Jim must have
formed his opinion from 4 games. Would it not be as appropriate to take
the opinions of say Davie Provan and Derek Johnstone (both of whom also
know a bit about the game) who have seen their respective sides far more
often than Jolly Jim? Could there also be a touch of sour grapes from
him? I mean he is human afterall (or is he??? :-))))

>    True, I cannot hide from the statistics. Rangers are on a great run,
>but the fact that they may be about to win 5 in a row is less
>significant, as I believe that Celtc have only been a better side since
>the turn of the year. But it would be extremely narrow minded of me to
>deny that Rangers are anything other than a very good team - I just
>happen to think that Celtic are also very good. The basis of James' and
>Wacko's arguments is in stats alone though and that canno give a
>representative picture. Football is almost unique in that there are
>infinitely many ways with which a match can end with say a 1-0 or 1-1
>scoreline and both of you have neglected to discuss the playing styles,
>and that's almost on a par with saying Portugal were lucky to take a
>point from Scotland last month.
The point about all the arguements only being based on statistics is
simply not true. What I said was that Rangers are playing quality
football, in an attacking style, and scoring a lot of quality goals as a
result. What you say about matches ending 1-1 etc. is perfectly true,
however Rangers have been winning a lot of matches by a far more
convincing margin (home and away), and can you really do that
consistently and not be playing well. I feel Rangers have quality
players in every department while Celtic may be able to match them in
midfield but thats it.

>    And on the point that only two Celtic players would get into the
>current - would they two by any chance be Gordon Marshall and Gary
>Gillespie ?  :-)))))
How did you guess!!!!

>    My own opnion on football these days is that the teams do not always
>win and indeed it seems to be more difficult for attack minded and non
>physical sides (as Celtic are) to win. Scottish sides are particularly
>defensive these days and thuggery is allowed to go unpunished. Until the
>coaches themselves start playing the game in the spirit with which it
>should be played, this situation will continue - and will chase the
>punters off the terraces.
Well Rangers seem to manage it on a regular basis. And before you start
telling me that is because they are so physical have a look at the
players from both sides and i think you will find that Celtic have as
many physical players as Rangers.
>    Finally I agree that Rangers are a little short from competing with
>the likes of Marseille. If the try on a technical level, they will be
>destroyed, but Rangers will play to their physical and fitness strengths
>and I don't think they will lose next. I'd like to see Marseille go
>through as they are stylish and the longer Rangers go in the tournament
>the worse they will be to watch. I think Rangers will score 4 or 5
>points in their section.

What I said was that there squad was a little short on quality. I have
to disagree (for a change!) about the longer the tournament going on the
worse Rangers will be to watch. If they could field the team that beat
Leeds then I am sure that they have a good chance of beating anybody in
their group Marseille included. However I don't think that they will be
able to field that side and as a result other less experienced and
skillful Scots will have to come in. However I can remember when Davie
Dodds was drafted in for European nights because Rangers were so short
of Scotsmen and as I said earlier they have came a long way, and it
maybe a perfect opportunity for some of the youngsters to come in and do
well, I certainly hope so.


                               Cheers

                               James

PS
  I always wondered where you got 'Der Bomber' from, care to enlighten
me?