Scott Arfield

[VinceA]

Man I must be the only one who doesn't care about Arfield anymore. 

[Shway]

1 minute ago, VinceA said:

Man I must be the only one who doesn't care about Arfield anymore. 

No you’re not alone.

For me, I just hate the talk that he’s one of the best….which is a lie. And disrespectful to the lot who have gotten us to where we are today. 

If he’s back cool. If he’s not cool. Our identity and level of play doesn’t change because he’s there or not.

[prairiecanuck]

30 minutes ago, Shway said:

No you’re not alone.

For me, I just hate the talk that he’s one of the best….which is a lie. And disrespectful to the lot who have gotten us to where we are today. 

If he’s back cool. If he’s not cool. Our identity and level of play doesn’t change because he’s there or not.

How many games have you watched Arfield play the last 2 years?  Last time I checked the people saying he's one of the best are offering their opinion on the player, not spreading lies..lol.   

[Califax]

39 minutes ago, Shway said:

 I just hate the talk that he’s one of the best….which is a lie. And disrespectful to the lot who have gotten us to where we are today. 
 

I feel like I can’t come up with the words for a response to this myself, but I recall another V responded in a way that framed my feels perfectly.

2 hours ago, Shway said:

That is a shockingly egregious statement. 

I kid. 🤣🤣 I look forward to beers and arguing about this in person in Hamilton. I’m certain we can change each other’s minds. 

[Kadenge]

perhaps for different reasons but Benzema was not selected for France for several years when he was clearly the best  striker for his country.  The "best" players are  not always selected to a team.    

[Joe MacCarthy]

1 hour ago, Califax said:

Joe that’s a perfectly valid point, but if you replace the word “brotherhood” with “clique” then it paints a different picture. From the limited information available, I feel it’s more towards the latter. It’s all about perspective.

That would be fine if clique meant team but clique is a subset of team.  If there was a clique of players that wanted him back I am sure it would have slipped out.  I have seen a lot of interviews and they are very contented and I super analyze everything, word choice, reactions, body language.  I think this is a pretty happy bunch with the status quo. This strategy of argument is an age old thing here at Vs with fans often clamouring for a known "cancer" to be on the team if the fans think he is worthy of being chosen (not implying that is Scott)

They are doing fine without him, I think it is insane to recall him if he actually is an issue in regards to team unity.  It's not worth the risk for a player who is marginally better.  Again (for the millionth time) I don't mean to put something on Scott that may or may not be there.  That's the fun of conjecture.

[Joe MacCarthy]

Just now, Kadenge said:

perhaps for different reasons but Benzema was not selected for France for several years when he was clearly the best  striker for his country.  The "best" players are  not always selected to a team.    

For years that was the mistake we made in hockey.  We chose the best players in the NHL to play for Canada not all the best players that would be suited to the International game.  We had to learn the hard way and that "role" players were needed and not every superstar would be suitable.

[Califax]

4 minutes ago, Kadenge said:

perhaps for different reasons but Benzema was not selected for France for several years when he was clearly the best  striker for his country.  The "best" players are  not always selected to a team.    

Very very very different reasons. He blackmailed and extorted a team mate.

[Kadenge]

There is no evidence of cliques on the team.  Watching the squad during the GC and recent WCQ, the unity and support among the players is clear. If Arfield is not there in January  its time to move on and Herdman does not owe us any reasons as long as the team is getting results

Edited December 5, 2021 by Kadenge

[Kadenge]

1 minute ago, Califax said:

Very very very different reasons. He blackmailed and extorted a team mate.

absolutely as I said in my post, but the reasons  Arfield has not been in our recent squads (as has been discussed in this thread) is not based on his ability as a soccer player

[EJsens1]

I really find some of the conjecture here about him not being brought back a bit off the mark.  There’s just no basis that he’s a cancer or disruptive off the pitch, but we don’t know.  If it doesn’t happen, so be it, but I believe he makes our central midfield better over other options.  Is he a make or break it type player?  No of course not but come on, if he’s in form and seems to be these days, to suggest he doesn’t make the squad better and deeper is bullshit.

[Joe MacCarthy]

15 minutes ago, EJsens1 said:

 No of course not but come on, if he’s in form and seems to be these days, to suggest he doesn’t make the squad better and deeper is bullshit.

How does it make the team better if people don't want him there?  (Conjecture)  Sometimes I wonder if any of you have ever played on any teams. If there is an unwanted player there not only are they going off script but so am I in my resentment.  That's not what winning teams do, again I can hear the platitudes of them  being professional but they are also human being with all the built in strengths and frailties and emotional weaknesses.  And those emotional weaknesses are even worse now than in my day and coaches will tell you that managing people is a totally different ball game today than yesteryear because people are so f'g emotionally weak (in comparison).

Edited December 5, 2021 by Joe MacCarthy

[Snowcrash]

7 minutes ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

How does it make the team better if people don't want him there?  (Conjecture)  Sometimes I wonder if any of you have ever played on any teams. If there is an unwanted player there not only are they going off script but so am I in my resentment.  That's not what winning teams do, again I can hear the platitudes of them  being professional but they are also human being with all the built in strengths and frailties and emotional weaknesses.  And those emotional weaknesses are even worse now than in my day and coaches will tell you that managing people is a totally different ball game today than yesteryear because people are so f'g emotionally weak (in comparison).

Agreed. If he's not there, it won't be because one or two guys don't want him on the team for whatever reason.  It'll be by consensus from the senior group that Herdman consults with and he'll go with whatever that group decides.

[Joe MacCarthy]

Just now, Snowcrash said:

Agreed. If he's not there, it won't be because one or two guys don't want him on the team for whatever reason.  It'll be by consensus from the senior group that Herdman consults with and he'll go with whatever that group decides.

Herdman said who were in the group but I can't remember them all now.  I know Borjan, Crepeau and Piette are.  I don't think Atiba is because he was retiring from the international game and if he couldn't give his all he didn't want to play a major part. I could be wrong on Atiba though

[SoccMan]

20 minutes ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

How does it make the team better if people don't want him there?  (Conjecture)  Sometimes I wonder if any of you have ever played on any teams. If there is an unwanted player there not only are they going off script but so am I in my resentment.  That's not what winning teams do, again I can hear the platitudes of them  being professional but they are also human being with all the built in strengths and frailties and emotional weaknesses.  And those emotional weaknesses are even worse now than in my day and coaches will tell you that managing people is a totally different ball game today than yesteryear because people are so f'g emotionally weak (in comparison).

Yup if there is something about him that disrupts the team then I say no , but saying this I have no evidence of him being disruptive. This is team game and team chemistry is a big part of a successful team as is talent you need the right mix . However , on pure talent of course he can help this team especially in depth . I would have him back in an instant , however, if he is going to cause a problem with team chemistry then I say no . In the end only Herman knows and I’m sure he will make the right decision.

Edited December 5, 2021 by SoccMan

[EJsens1]

20 minutes ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

How does it make the team better if people don't want him there?  (Conjecture)  Sometimes I wonder if any of you have ever played on any teams. If there is an unwanted player there not only are they going off script but so am I in my resentment.  That's not what winning teams do, again I can hear the platitudes of them  being professional but they are also human being with all the built in strengths and frailties and emotional weaknesses.  And those emotional weaknesses are even worse now than in my day and coaches will tell you that managing people is a totally different ball game today than yesteryear because people are so f'g emotionally weak (in comparison).

I’m not arguing that if he’s cancer they should take him.  I can appreciate that.  I’ve played/run many teams over the years.  I wouldn’t take a guy like that too.  My point is there is no proof of that.  A tweet from Hoilett?  That’s really the only “thing” we have seen.  Until I see otherwise, I’ll assume that’s not the case, thus my preference for his inclusion.

If he’s not a problem, are you ok with him being included on the roster?

[Joe MacCarthy]

6 minutes ago, EJsens1 said:

If he’s not a problem, are you ok with him being included on the roster?

Of course, but the question remains, why hasn't he played?

[narduch]

Herdman stated he was supposed to be at the Gold Cup but had to pull out due to a slight injury. 

I take that to mean he is still in play for call ups.

Really he only started playing more consistently the past few weeks. 

[Joe MacCarthy]

3 minutes ago, narduch said:

Herdman stated he was supposed to be at the Gold Cup but had to pull out due to a slight injury. 

I take that to mean he is still in play for call ups.

Really he only started playing more consistently the past few weeks. 

And it could be as simple as that.  Herdman has always said he wanted in form players playing, whether that has applied to everybody, I have my doubts, but it is what it is.

[prairiecanuck]

3 minutes ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

Of course, but the question remains, why hasn't he played?

On August 26th Herdman mentioned Arfield had planned on playing the gold cup picked up a calf injury.  He said he was going with some younger players that had got them their and played the gold cup for the first window.  This isn't the first time Herdman has gone with younger players.  He also indicated that at some point during the campaign Scott would likely his opportunity and would be ready and willing when called upon.

The last time we saw Scott was against the US.  We saw him hugging it out with Herdman after the win.  We heard him say in the interview following the loss that he believed in the coach, the players and the program.  Someone from this forum said they said they saw him out with his team mates following the US win having pints and seemingly getting on well with all his team mates.  We know he's tight with Borjan.

We also know he wasn't finding regular minutes with Rangers at the start of the year.  Why can't we go with everything we know and have heard directly from Herdman.  The trumped up nonsense by those with overactive imaginations is likely just trumped up nonsense.

Scott is in great form and seeing a lot of playing time with Rangers at the moment.  We enter January with Yellow card issues and players who will be out of season.  I fully expect Scott to be part of January, because it will be the best for the team.   Unfortunately, we're a long ways off from the point where that information and people enjoy gossip.   

[VinceA]

5 minutes ago, prairiecanuck said:

On August 26th Herdman mentioned Arfield had planned on playing the gold cup picked up a calf injury.  He said he was going with some younger players that had got them their and played the gold cup for the first window.  This isn't the first time Herdman has gone with younger players.  He also indicated that at some point during the campaign Scott would likely his opportunity and would be ready and willing when called upon.

The last time we saw Scott was against the US.  We saw him hugging it out with Herdman after the win.  We heard him say in the interview following the loss that he believed in the coach, the players and the program.  Someone from this forum said they said they saw him out with his team mates following the US win having pints and seemingly getting on well with all his team mates.  We know he's tight with Borjan.

We also know he wasn't finding regular minutes with Rangers at the start of the year.  Why can't we go with everything we know and have heard directly from Herdman.  The trumped up nonsense by those with overactive imaginations is likely just trumped up nonsense.

Scott is in great form and seeing a lot of playing time with Rangers at the moment.  We enter January with Yellow card issues and players who will be out of season.  I fully expect Scott to be part of January, because it will be the best for the team.   Unfortunately, we're a long ways off from the point where that information and people enjoy gossip.   

I think most of the issue comes from Wheeler saying Arfield was excited to join the team in the future and Hoilett called him a liar.

[prairiecanuck]

8 minutes ago, VinceA said:

I think most of the issue comes from Wheeler saying Arfield was excited to join the team in the future and Hoilett called him a liar.

Hoilett didn't call him a liar.  He tweeted a blue cap.  Never has a blue cap tweet cause so much controversy.  Fine Hoilett was put out because Scott didn't come in March.  There's a lot that went into that.  If we can get over Hoilett not joining the program 4 or 5 years earlier than he did, we can probably get over Scott not showing up in March.

[king1010]

18 minutes ago, prairiecanuck said:

Hoilett didn't call him a liar.  He tweeted a blue cap.  Never has a blue cap tweet cause so much controversy.  Fine Hoilett was put out because Scott didn't come in March.  There's a lot that went into that.  If we can get over Hoilett not joining the program 4 or 5 years earlier than he did, we can probably get over Scott not showing up in March.

It was hoilett calling the report of arfield excited  to join the team in the future a lie. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the-sun.com/news/1812282/what-does-cap-mean-blue-cap-emoji/amp/

Edited December 5, 2021 by king1010

[prairiecanuck]

5 minutes ago, king1010 said:

It was hoilett calling the report of arfield excited  to join the team in the future a lie. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the-sun.com/news/1812282/what-does-cap-mean-blue-cap-emoji/amp/

Ok..I've never heard of the blue cap thing before.  Fine.  Hoilett questioned his commitment all related to him not coming in early windows.  I don't think it was productive or professional for Hoilett to make that sort of comment on social media.

[Kadenge]

Why don't we all  wait for the roster announcement for the January window. If Scott is in form at Rangers and is not called then we have our answer...or we can just start debating again