Scott Arfield

[Kadenge]

30 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

The relevant question isn’t whether or not Scott is better right now.  It is whether or not he will justify a position in January when he still is in mid-season form and the MLS guys will be 3 months out since their last competitive game (both TFC and LAFC missed the playoffs).  A lot will depend on Scott’s form and playing time in the buildup to the window, but we can’t say right now that he won’t be in contention for a spot.  

If it is MAK you are referring to re LAFC he is with Colorado and in the playoffs

[dyslexic nam]

1 minute ago, Kadenge said:

If it is MAK you are referring to re LAFC he is with Colorado and in the playoffs

Ha.  Of course.   My bad.   Still stuck a few months ago.   

[Bison44]

13 minutes ago, TGAA_Star said:

Yes it does count for something but he hasn't played for us for a while so what makes him any more deserving than players who have been here picking up the slack? We don't need him. That is how deep our national team is in talent now.

If Herdman can bring in IKE, with no camps, no involvement AT ALL, with the program and throw him in...whats wrong with any former player coming back??  Glad to have IKE, glad to have DIAS or Fergi etc, all depth is good.  But any argument about "deserving" because missing previous steps in WCQ kind of goes out the window when we are parachuting guys in now.  If we need him in Jan, call him, or Tiebert..Morgan, hell call in Forrest for the 3rd keeper if it helps the guys win. 

If he doesnt get a call I doubt its because of some vendetta or him giving up on the program.  His body is beat up, he is getting to the end of the line (skills wise), falling doen the depth chart and prob needs to look after his club job.  Dont most guys stop playing INT long before they quit the club career?  

[Shway]

13 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

The relevant question isn’t whether or not Scott is better right now.  It is whether or not he will justify a position in January when he still is in mid-season form and the MLS guys will be 3 months out since their last competitive game (both TFC and LAFC missed the playoffs).  A lot will depend on Scott’s form and playing time in the buildup to the window, but we can’t say right now that he won’t be in contention for a spot.  

Agreed, and I’ve never said otherwise. 
If he’s playing, and in form - I hope he’s there. 

Would be the worst way for him to go out of the program.

[TGAA_Star]

16 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

If Herdman can bring in IKE, with no camps, no involvement AT ALL, with the program and throw him in...whats wrong with any former player coming back??  Glad to have IKE, glad to have DIAS or Fergi etc, all depth is good.  But any argument about "deserving" because missing previous steps in WCQ kind of goes out the window when we are parachuting guys in now.  If we need him in Jan, call him, or Tiebert..Morgan, hell call in Forrest for the 3rd keeper if it helps the guys win. 

If he doesnt get a call I doubt its because of some vendetta or him giving up on the program.  His body is beat up, he is getting to the end of the line (skills wise), falling doen the depth chart and prob needs to look after his club job.  Dont most guys stop playing INT long before they quit the club career?  

Interesting point

[VinceA]

I think the issue hinges on if he thinks Scott is a disruptive member of the locker room. That's what seems to have kept out his involvement, not necessarily his form. Herdman is going for full 100% harmony. If Arfield even lowers that down to just 95%, Herdman ain't bringing him.

I also think this is what ended up kicking Will Johnson off the team.

[The Beaver 2.0]

2 hours ago, VinceA said:

I think the issue hinges on if he thinks Scott is a disruptive member of the locker room. That's what seems to have kept out his involvement, not necessarily his form. Herdman is going for full 100% harmony. If Arfield even lowers that down to just 95%, Herdman ain't bringing him.

I also think this is what ended up kicking Will Johnson off the team.

yeah, but from everything we've heard, Arfield is a good block and Johnson was a dick.  Am I wrong?

[Joe MacCarthy]

3 hours ago, The Beaver 2.0 said:

yeah, but from everything we've heard, Arfield is a good block and Johnson was a dick.  Am I wrong?

Just to speculate , if Arfield was of the attitude that boys will be boys and it's ok to get in a tussle (with your teammates) now and then,  then he isn't buying wholeheartedly into the Gospel of Herdman.  It doesn't make him a bad guy, it's just the Herdsman needs 100% buy in.  And I think it is safe to say that we can't complain about the results so far.

[bwilly11]

We have done amazing without him. Why do we assume he can still help us? He has not stepped up when it counted. Loyalty to the cause has to mean something.

[TGAA_Star]

5 minutes ago, bwilly11 said:

We have done amazing without him. Why do we assume he can still help us? He has not stepped up when it counted. Loyalty to the cause has to mean something.

I'll admit even that I can't argue with because the fact is, is that without Arfield we have become even better than what we are

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

Don't see why this is even an issue at the moment given he isn't a first team regular with Rangers and the players who are being selected for the CMNT are clearly getting the job done:

https://www.transfermarkt.com/scott-arfield/leistungsdaten/spieler/55291

Will be interesting to see if the lack of regular playing time changes under Giovanni van Bronckhorst now Steven Gerrard has left for Aston Villa. If it does there would be more reason to speculate over why he isn't getting the call up.

[gator]

Like all of us I want the team to make the World Cup obviously, if Arfield gives us a better chance to do that than an out of season MLS midfielder I want him in the squad, it's that simple for me! We can speculate and debate all we want as to why he hasn't't been called but at the end of the day we have to trust JH making the right call!

[Califax]

1 hour ago, TGAA_Star said:

I'll admit even that I can't argue with because the fact is, is that without Arfield we have become even better than what we are

This rock that I found yesterday scares away tigers. I found the rock on the ground and I have yet to be attacked by any tigers. 
 

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Califax

[The Beaver 2.0]

9 hours ago, The Beaver 2.0 said:

yeah, but from everything we've heard, Arfield is a good bloke and Johnson was a dick.  Am I wrong?

 

[The Beaver 2.0]

4 hours ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

Just to speculate , if Arfield was of the attitude that boys will be boys and it's ok to get in a tussle (with your teammates) now and then,  then he isn't buying wholeheartedly into the Gospel of Herdman.  It doesn't make him a bad guy, it's just the Herdsman needs 100% buy in.  And I think it is safe to say that we can't complain about the results so far.

Oh, I am 100% all about culture.  Our results so far are due in no small part to the culture Herdman has fostered and nurtured from the outset.  I was just of the impression that Arfield would fit that culture seamlessly, at least in so much as he'd buy into it without any problem.  And I am not complaining about the results at all. And, yet, making sure we've the strongest squad possible for a challenging January window must take into account the possibility of bringing in a player or two who has not been in the mix thus far, especially with our MLS guys out of season.

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

16 hours ago, Shway said:

Not to his fault, but he's played/been to Canada once, and has played once in San Pedro.....what experience are we talking about. He's never played at altitude, he's barely played in the sweltering heat of the islands or latin america.

I do take your point about physical conditions.  He has, however, played on some of the biggest stages, in things like the anomosity of the Old Firm Derby and in places where football/soccer is everything to the vast majority of people.  I think we might need that experience in the Central American games, to go with the passion and exhuberance that a number of our players have. 

I personally have no idea if he fits in the dressing room now and none of us have any idea if he will get more playing time between then and now, but just some things I think are important.  

[Obinna]

As integral as Kaye, Osorio have been, do you pick them over Arfield in January? It depends on how much importance one puts on game-condition and team chemistry.

Must be said though, the chemistry with Arfield may be just fine. It's been a while but he's certainly no stranger. However, how much better would his game-conditioning be if he's only picking up spot minutes for Rangers?

This is all assuming he's wanting to return.

Or do we reward someone like Harry Paton in January?

[An Observer]

I personally think the January window is a great window to bring Arfield in. We could really use a player like him in midfield. I don’t think he is a guaranteed starter for us but definitely someone who would get minutes. But if that creates tension within the side, probably better to leave him out. I get the feeling that his opt out on the Gold Cup caused a stir in the camp (see Hoilett’s 🧢) and that doesn’t seem to be mended. Maybe January is the time to try. But I leave it to Herdman to make that call

[Wingback6]

I cannot fathom that people are still floating the idea of Arfield coming back. He's done. He decided he was too big time for the team. Now the team is too big time for him. Simple as that. Shoulda stuck it out.

[Califax]

8 hours ago, Wingback6 said:

I cannot fathom that people are still floating the idea of Arfield coming back. He's done. He decided he was too big time for the team. Now the team is too big time for him. Simple as that. Shoulda stuck it out.

Source? 
 

I remember people piling on Osorio as well a few years back. The fact is there was a spat between him and Floro (we think I don’t even think we knew much at the time) And a whole bunch of people took sides without information.

So when people say he thinks he’s too big time, I question why they’re saying that. And if the same situation presented itself for another player, if they would hold the same position.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Califax

[baulderdash77]

I was certainly pining for Arfield as he was amongst or even maybe our best player for a few seasons.

However injuries and age have caught up to him.  He’s only played 13% of the minutes for Rangers this season.  So he’s not aging like Atiba has and he’s not on form.  This is his last season for Rangers and if he decides to continue his career after this year it’s going to be at a lower level / team.

He’s been out of the program for several years and it’s unlikely he’s returning.  That page has probably turned.  It’s unfortunate but Father Time remains undefeated as always and Scott Arfield is no exception.

We will have a number of other quality midfield options, although certainly none at the moment other than Eustaquio who are at the level Scott was at 3-4 years ago.

[prairiecanuck]

9 hours ago, Wingback6 said:

I cannot fathom that people are still floating the idea of Arfield coming back. He's done. He decided he was too big time for the team. Now the team is too big time for him. Simple as that. Shoulda stuck it out.

The idea that he wouldn't leave his wife and his 1 and 3 year old child in a covid world to take on Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.  We desperately needed him.  We barely slipped by them.  Imagine if we had lost!  

The last time he played was against the US.  He came at time before the rules were changed and it was thought that Canada would have to get to increase their ranking to top 6 to make the hex.  He played wonderful football in those matches and helped us beat the US for the first time in decades.

We are currently capping players like Ugbo.  Convincing them to switch.  What sort of promises are being made to these players?   What sort of promises were made to an in form player Scott Arfield in 2016.  He was an in form player with Burnley who had 37 appearances in the premier league 14/15 and his club had won promotion again in 15/16 when he signed his papers.  Many felt he deserved to be in the Scottish side and there werel still opportunities for him at that point.  The day he signed his papers the Scottish manager, Gordan Strachan called Scott Arfield.  He had not spoke to him in 2 years.  You think it was a coincidence that he reached out to Scott the day he was to sign his papers for Canada?  Scott signed those papers.  He still had opportunities with Scotland and he signed those papers.  Does that mean nothing?  He made a commitment to Canada.

This idea that "he thought he was too big time"  is ridiculous.  He was feeling pressure from a club on the verge of winning the Scottish premiership for the first time in a decade.   The very club he grew up as a boy cheering for.  He's in a very competitive environment  fighting for his next contract for his family, which is his number 1 priority and he was pressured by a manager who is a football legend.  Things aren't black and white.  There is a whole lot of grey.  Would Scott have answered the call for a due or die game against Honduras for the world cup?  Who knows.

Milan Borjan and Scott are very tight.  I don't think Scott is a bad guy at all.  He had fame and fortune and married his high school sweetheart.  That says something to me.

He may not get the call and might be done.  That's more of decision to go with younger players who are very talented.  It has less to do with the real housewives of Beverly hills controversies some of you are trumpeting up in your over active imaginations.  

Edited November 20, 2021 by prairiecanuck

[Wingback6]

13 hours ago, Califax said:

Source? 
 

I remember people piling on Osorio as well a few years back. The fact is there was a spat between him and Floro (we think I don’t even think we knew much at the time) And a whole bunch of people took sides without information.

So when people say he thinks he’s too big time, I question why they’re saying that. And if the same situation presented itself for another player, if they would hold the same position.

No source. Speculation. The main point is, I don't see him coming back. Or any reason for him to.

[Wingback6]

13 hours ago, prairiecanuck said:

The idea that he wouldn't leave his wife and his 1 and 3 year old child in a covid world to take on Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.  We desperately needed him.  We barely slipped by them.  Imagine if we had lost!  

The last time he played was against the US.  He came at time before the rules were changed and it was thought that Canada would have to get to increase their ranking to top 6 to make the hex.  He played wonderful football in those matches and helped us beat the US for the first time in decades.

We are currently capping players like Ugbo.  Convincing them to switch.  What sort of promises are being made to these players?   What sort of promises were made to an in form player Scott Arfield in 2016.  He was an in form player with Burnley who had 37 appearances in the premier league 14/15 and his club had won promotion again in 15/16 when he signed his papers.  Many felt he deserved to be in the Scottish side and there werel still opportunities for him at that point.  The day he signed his papers the Scottish manager, Gordan Strachan called Scott Arfield.  He had not spoke to him in 2 years.  You think it was a coincidence that he reached out to Scott the day he was to sign his papers for Canada?  Scott signed those papers.  He still had opportunities with Scotland and he signed those papers.  Does that mean nothing?  He made a commitment to Canada.

This idea that "he thought he was too big time"  is ridiculous.  He was feeling pressure from a club on the verge of winning the Scottish premiership for the first time in a decade.   The very club he grew up as a boy cheering for.  He's in a very competitive environment  fighting for his next contract for his family, which is his number 1 priority and he was pressured by a manager who is a football legend.  Things aren't black and white.  There is a whole lot of grey.  Would Scott have answered the call for a due or die game against Honduras for the world cup?  Who knows.

Milan Borjan and Scott are very tight.  I don't think Scott is a bad guy at all.  He had fame and fortune and married his high school sweetheart.  That says something to me.

He may not get the call and might be done.  That's more of decision to go with younger players who are very talented.  It has less to do with the real housewives of Beverly hills controversies some of you are trumpeting up in your over active imaginations.  

I have a personal rule about how many words I post out of respect for the time of other people on this forum. Consider it. 

Arfield is/was in the same situation as every player to rep Canada. If anything it is a shame that he wasn't a few years younger/that this all started to gain momentum sooner. Arfield at his peak would have made us better. I don't think so now.

Maybe his priorities are elsewhere. Who knows. The point is, I don't see him coming back. Or any reason for him too. And i don't know why people are flogging this dead horse.

[prairiecanuck]

10 minutes ago, Wingback6 said:

I have a personal rule about how many words I post out of respect for the time of other people on this forum. Consider it. 

Arfield is/was in the same situation as every player to rep Canada. If anything it is a shame that he wasn't a few years younger/that this all started to gain momentum sooner. Arfield at his peak would have made us better. I don't think so now.

Maybe his priorities are elsewhere. Who knows. The point is, I don't see him coming back. Or any reason for him too. And i don't know why people are flogging this dead horse.

feel free to ignore my posts.  I don't need any lectures.