Scott Arfield

[Shway]

1 minute ago, prairiecanuck said:

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.

Welcome to the board. This has been one of the main topics around the clique/ not being apart of the brotherhood.

[Shway]

3 minutes ago, Kadenge said:

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

 

Nope. It will actual be the end of the debate if he's not called. 
And his wiki will be updated to Canada 2016-2019

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Shway

[shorty]

If anyone can bring Jamie Tartt back to Richmond, it’s Ted Lasso…

(Now, in case anyone thinks I actually believe that Arfield is like Jamie Tartt, I’m just having a laugh. The potential parallels are interesting though. Not perfect, but interesting.)

[prairiecanuck]

1 minute ago, Shway said:

Welcome to the board. This has been one of the main topics around the clique/ not being apart of the brotherhood.

I meant as a blue cap meaning someone is lying.  Not that I wasn't aware of Hoilett making that tweet, which I just assumed meant he chose Rangers over Canada in March.  For me, I think he did choose, family and club in March and for me that doesn't disqualify him from further inclusion with Canada.  

[prairiecanuck]

3 minutes ago, Shway said:

Nope. It will actual be the end of the debate if he's not called. 
And his wiki will be updated to Canada 2016-2019

 

Well he's going to be called.  I know you can't wait to edit his wiki page, but it won't be necessary.

[Shway]

Just now, prairiecanuck said:

Well he's going to be called.  I know you can't wait to edit his wiki page, but it won't be necessary.

lol...don't worry it won't be me to do it. 

I can say this 1000x, I don't care if he's there or not. We done revolutionary things without him.
If he's there than great, we got another piece that can contribute in training 🤣 . (I'm obviously talk shit) 

[SthMelbRed]

I get the strong sense that there's a significant correlation between those with a lingering (irrational) hate for Herdman and those who think that Scott Arfield should definitely be in the Canada squad.

[Joe MacCarthy]

^Bingo!

 

[narduch]

23 minutes ago, SthMelbRed said:

I get the strong sense that there's a significant correlation between those with a lingering (irrational) hate for Herdman and those who think that Scott Arfield should definitely be in the Canada squad.

And the flipside of that is that all the people who think Arfield can't help Canada just blindly accept anything Herdman does.

[Bison44]

22 minutes ago, SthMelbRed said:

I get the strong sense that there's a significant correlation between those with a lingering (irrational) hate for Herdman and those who think that Scott Arfield should definitely be in the Canada squad.

Or conversely, a correlation with the people that think Herdman farts channel #5, think that is Arfield hasnt been called it has to something wrong with him and he shouldnt be called because the gaffer is infalliable.  

[narduch]

1 minute ago, Bison44 said:

Or conversely, a correlation with the people that think Herdman farts channel #5, think that is Arfield hasnt been called it has to something wrong with him and he shouldnt be called because the gaffer is infalliable.  

People here are definitely trying so hard to read more into this situation than necessary 

[SthMelbRed]

1 minute ago, narduch said:

And the flipside of that is that all the people who think Arfield can't help Canada just blindly accept anything Herdman does.

Most of us are agnostic on the subject.

Herdman has picked the squads/teams that he's felt gave us the best chance of success. He's made mistakes. A lot of us have disagreed with some of his choices. Yet, here we are sitting atop the table after 8 of 14 matches, with one foot on the plane to Qatar. 

If Arfield plays, great. If he doesn't, I won't lose any sleep over it. Only the truly weird amongst us are still clinging to this last remaining issue to manifest their Herdman hate. If you see yourself reflected in my comments, that's a you problem.

[narduch]

2 minutes ago, SthMelbRed said:

Most of us are agnostic on the subject.

Herdman has picked the squads/teams that he's felt gave us the best chance of success. He's made mistakes. A lot of us have disagreed with some of his choices. Yet, here we are sitting atop the table after 8 of 14 matches, with one foot on the plane to Qatar. 

If Arfield plays, great. If he doesn't, I won't lose any sleep over it. Only the truly weird amongst us are still clinging to this last remaining issue to manifest their Herdman hate. If you see yourself reflected in my comments, that's a you problem.

The only person with a problem here seems to be you. When one of the biggest aaaholes on this site agrees with you, you are probably in the wrong.

I actually don't even think this is an issue. Even if I think Arfield does deserve a call. I'm not mad at Herdman over this.

Edited December 5, 2021 by narduch

[Kadenge]

3 minutes ago, narduch said:

And the flipside of that is that all the people who think Arfield can't help Canada just blindly accept anything Herdman does.

To be fair, I don't think there are many that think Arfield cannot help our squad purely from a footballing side. That would be silly given where he plays and his past performances for Canada ( 2+ yrs ago). With respect to John Herdman, its really hard to argue with success no?  Gotta give the gaffer the benefit of the doubt as long as he is getting results..... and we are in first place after 8 games and have taken 4 points from Mexico

[Floortom]

Look - if the squad wants nothing to do with Arfield (none of us have any idea if this is true or not) then of course Herdman cant call him. If Herdman made reasonable attempts to mend fences, resolve issues etc. and the team is still opposed to Arfield then that's that. If the team isnt dead set against him then he should be called based on quality - he can clearly help us IMO. 

[Bison44]

I'm more bemused at it all.  It seems like this "theory" about Arfield being "bad in the dressing room" has a life of its own.  A couple skipped camps, quotes from his gaffer at rangers saying he is done, a cryptic blue cap tweet (is that really what it means??) and a story about an alleged scuffle in a camp that may or may not have included Arfield, or he might not have even been in the camp.  And people have run with it like its gospel.    Weird...but I think Nam (and us) will not get a straight story out of anyone for a long time...best for the people to keep quiet and just keep playing eh? No sense picking at a scab...if there even is one, HAHAHA.  

[Califax]

18 minutes ago, SthMelbRed said:

Most of us are agnostic on the subject.

Herdman has picked the squads/teams that he's felt gave us the best chance of success. He's made mistakes. A lot of us have disagreed with some of his choices. Yet, here we are sitting atop the table after 8 of 14 matches, with one foot on the plane to Qatar. 

If Arfield plays, great. If he doesn't, I won't lose any sleep over it. Only the truly weird amongst us are still clinging to this last remaining issue to manifest their Herdman hate. If you see yourself reflected in my comments, that's a you problem.

Haha what a crock of shit. 
 

Everyone else’s opinion is weird because they want to criticize a guy who has made some head scratching decisions? 

If I dislike aspects of the manager because his squad camp selection hasn’t been a strong suit, brining guys who were hurt, won’t commit to bringing a good player) that’s logical.

You might not agree with that perception but it’s happened thousands of times in the course of football and it will happen thousands more after the ground has us. 
 

You don’t think it’s a big deal, some of us do. Welcome to the internet. 

[Joe MacCarthy]

2 hours ago, narduch said:

The only person with a problem here seems to be you. When one of the biggest aaaholes on this site agrees with you, you are probably in the wrong.

Really, coming from you and your history of irrational, profane laced tirades, and entreaties to mods why you couldn't get me banned (which had other posters saying what a hypocrite you were) and the crying and blaming me as the reason you wouldn't come to the site.  That sir, I take as a compliment.

[GasPed]

Well, if Arfield stirs up half as much animosity in the locker room as he does in this thread, I'm inclined to think we shouldn't invite him...

[Unnamed Trialist]

For me it comes down to mutual communicative talent. If Herdman is a good communicator then he'd be able to talk to Scottie. And get the group agreeing he should be there.

If Scottie wants in he has to say it, both privately and IMO publicly. I mean why not: come out publicly with an enthusiastic comment about a team you'd love to be part of. It wouldn't be the 1st time. I realize that could be interpreted as pressuring the gaffer, but it depends how you do it. 

My view is that there is never a red line, there's only a red shirt. Herdman is a national employee for a national cause and that has to be over and above anything else. If you look at how Benzema got back to France this is clear. 

[TGAA_Star]

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

For me it comes down to mutual communicative talent. If Herdman is a good communicator then he'd be able to talk to Scottie. And get the group agreeing he should be there.

If Scottie wants in he has to say it, both privately and IMO publicly. I mean why not: come out publicly with an enthusiastic comment about a team you'd love to be part of. It wouldn't be the 1st time. I realize that could be interpreted as pressuring the gaffer, but it depends how you do it. 

My view is that there is never a red line, there's only a red shirt. Herdman is a national employee for a national cause and that has to be over and above anything else. If you look at how Benzema got back to France this is clear. 

I mean if you wanted to use Benzema and Deschamps as an example, you did prove your point but it all comes down to form at the end of the day

[Obinna]

Arfield is good enough to help us, but we aren’t sunk if he doesn’t show up (for whatever reason). I personally prefer him to be in the squad, especially because I think he’d work will with Eustáquio, but I won’t lose sleep or cry foul if he doesn’t show up.

[El Hombre]

2 hours ago, Obinna said:

Arfield is good enough to help us.

It really feels like a lot of people are looking at Arfield in a vacuum.  Yes, Arfield is a good player.  There is no debating that.  He has skill. 

However, does he have the right skillset to supplant the existing players?  Because if you include Arfield, you have to drop one of Osorio, Kaye or Hutch.  This is basically what this whole debate comes down to.  I don't think Arfield was in any shape to replace any of those guys in the first three windows and play the style that this position requires.  This is a guy that got 3 starts in August and one in October for his club team.  That doesn't really inspire confidence that he would be up to the demands of the position, which is more defensively responsible rather than offensively minded.

Granted this debate changes in January because two of the competing players will be out of season.  So the door may open a bit for him.  But I don't personally think it is as much of a slam dunk as others that he is an obvious upgrade on the alternative playing that specific role.

[dyslexic nam]

For me it isn’t just about whether or not he walks into the starting 11 and displaces one of the core players.  It is also about if he can strengthen our bench.  Does he represent such an upgrade over Oso (who I think is his closest attacking mid counterpart) that he should displace him?  Maybe, maybe not - and the out-of-season factor needs to be assessed by Herdman.  But aside from that, I am pretty confident that he is still likely an upgrade over the Frasers and Wotherspoons of the squad who are a step down IMO.  Displacing one of them so that there is no drop off in quality if a sub is needed would also be important.  If one of our mids pulls up with a hammy in game 1, I would feel better knowing that we have a starting mid for Rangers that we can call on.  Plus that sort of role wouldn’t overly tax a guy who is likely managing his minutes, and it would maybe be a good way to reintegrate him into the squad without a lot of friction.  

[TGAA_Star]

27 minutes ago, El Hombre said:

It really feels like a lot of people are looking at Arfield in a vacuum.  Yes, Arfield is a good player.  There is no debating that.  He has skill. 

However, does he have the right skillset to supplant the existing players?  Because if you include Arfield, you have to drop one of Osorio, Kaye or Hutch.  This is basically what this whole debate comes down to.  I don't think Arfield was in any shape to replace any of those guys in the first three windows and play the style that this position requires.  This is a guy that got 3 starts in August and one in October for his club team.  That doesn't really inspire confidence that he would be up to the demands of the position, which is more defensively responsible rather than offensively minded.

Granted this debate changes in January because two of the competing players will be out of season.  So the door may open a bit for him.  But I don't personally think it is as much of a slam dunk as others that he is an obvious upgrade on the alternative playing that specific role.

Exactly you're going to have to drop Osorio, Kaye or Atiba to make room for Arfield so tell me who you going to drop? Especially when Osorio, Kaye and Atiba all play regularly for their clubs and have been at a high level for the most part