skinnymate1690 665 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 this really baffles me smith was asked if he was think about making a sub late on for a change in tactics or fresh legs , and his answer was basically no as he didnt think there was anyone on there who could have really changed things .a bench with naismith fleck bartley healy and hutton .maybe he didnt mean it to come out that way but to me he is basically saying he had no faith in the players on the bench. if none of these guys could have done a better job ( in smiths eyes ) in the last 15-20 mins than anyone of the starting 11 who were fcucking knackered by this point , then why are they with us Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyehigh 2 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Thats why he should keep his mouth shut after games ........... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davie2909 21 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Thats a Fucking Joke what a kick in the Teeth to the lads on the Bench that is. If he thought that none of these players could change the game for us then why the hell did he select them for the bench?He picks the team and the subs so ultimately he is saying that he hasnt got a clue? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 i think naisy was there just for real emergencies. smith probably didnt want to say subs upset our defensive mould. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1st_Jan_1994 4,868 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Thats a Fucking Joke what a kick in the Teeth to the lads on the Bench that is. If he thought that none of these players could change the game for us then why the hell did he select them for the bench?He picks the team and the subs so ultimately he is saying that he hasnt got a clue?Your right.If that's what he said in the aftermath then he's lost the plot.He doesn't realise that we don't need to change the game at 1-0 - we need to freshen it up and maintain it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wearethemighty 186 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Smith doesn't trust ANY player in our squad, never mind on the bench!Well maybe Weir and big Lee! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirWalterSmithLegend 206 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Not unexpected, more downbeat crap from our legend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bob 3 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Smith absolved striker Kyle Lafferty of blame for squandering two good opportunities to bury Sporting, saying: ‘I don’t think Kyle’s chances were easy. They were outside the box, he was running through, and they would have been difficult for any striker to finish.‘After getting the goal, those were the two real attacks when we had a chance to impose ourselves again.‘We are a bit disappointed with how we played in the first half. I didn’t feel that our possession of the ball was as it should have been.‘But I thought we played very well in the second half, up until we scored. Then we allowed Sporting too much of the ball – and that culminated in losing a goal near the end, which is obviously disappointing.‘I don’t think there was any change I could have made that would have made a great deal of difference to the game.’Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1358156/Rangers-insist-Europa-League-dream-alive-despite-late-setback-Sporting-Lisbon.html#ixzz1EGqBViqc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnymate1690 665 Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 Smith absolved striker Kyle Lafferty of blame for squandering two good opportunities to bury Sporting, saying: ‘I don’t think Kyle’s chances were easy. They were outside the box, he was running through, and they would have been difficult for any striker to finish.‘After getting the goal, those were the two real attacks when we had a chance to impose ourselves again.‘We are a bit disappointed with how we played in the first half. I didn’t feel that our possession of the ball was as it should have been.‘But I thought we played very well in the second half, up until we scored. Then we allowed Sporting too much of the ball – and that culminated in losing a goal near the end, which is obviously disappointing.‘I don’t think there was any change I could have made that would have made a great deal of difference to the game.’Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1358156/Rangers-insist-Europa-League-dream-alive-despite-late-setback-Sporting-Lisbon.html#ixzz1EGqBViqci thought he said it slightly different from that , but that still shows no faith in the player imo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
willcol 13 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 I'm afraid Walter is now doing more harm than good, he is mental. Sad times Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgruntled_bear 157 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Those types of comments are unacceptable from Walter Smith. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilRFC 10 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Fucking hell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1mgg 3,766 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 I am sorry but swapping edu for bartley would of made a big difference and if he cant see that then maybe he should come down to the dugout and watch the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redmond7 1,204 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 It is baffling to say the least, even trying out Fleck or Naismith or Healy up front, changing the holding midfielder, but at 1-0 he just thought fine we'll hang on and hold this and you're just asking for trouble doing that.Walter has always been a fairly defensive minded, sort of dull grampa type person but some of the comments hes making nowadays does actually have me wondering if he's going senile. I also wonder, sitting way up there in the stand he doesnt really contribute much anymore from the sidelines and he looks bored half the time they show him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicika Jelavic 7 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 What has happened to you Walter? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueben_d 40 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 I think he meant any subs would have been like for like replacements without changing the pattern of the game. Still doesn't explain why he thinks fresh legs wouldn't have been a boost late in the game, I think I had more influence on the game than edu for example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordo7 147 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 That's a ridiculous thing to say. And what does it say to the guys on the bench, basically it's says that you're not good enough......bullshit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuartmccallsfall 4 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 hope no one missed the fact that their two subs came on and made and scored the goal against us. Fresh legs woukd have made a difference last night, even if we had not changed how we were playing.I had a quid too on 3-0 with whittaker first goal. We defo had this score in us last night but big flafferty gubbed us and me too. Odds were 235/1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinGers93 388 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Healy??? He would have buried those chances at the end as would have Naismith. Bartley would have drove the midfield on and gave them a boost for the last 20. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfcfraserrfc 262 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Naismith injured and not riskedBartley and Healy would not have made a differenceHutton , Fleck youngsters Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnymate1690 665 Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 Naismith injured and not riskedBartley and Healy would not have made a differenceHutton , Fleck youngstershealy and bartley would have made a difference imo fresh legs to replace edu and laffertyhutton and fleck , just because they are youngster doesnt mean they cant have an impact Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WadeWilson 4,670 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Naismith was basically injured and was never going to be risked. The only option was reshuffling the formation and adding Bartley into a back five (that would have made more sense if the idea was to sit in and hold out). Sticking with the formation and sitting deep didn't make much sense... but if we won 1-0 there would have been a helluva lot less criticism of the coaching staff.The players on the pitch need to take a large portion of the blame I reckon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mac444 6 Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 To me it looks like folk are trying to find something to get mad about in what Walter said.What I take from it is that the players on the bench if he made a change it would have been like for like, and other than fresh legs would have changed nothing. Plus when's sub comes on there is a period of time in him getting up to speed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts