Higdon 3 month loan to Oldham

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

William Henry Foulkes said:
By definition this cannot be a scapegoat.
Click to expand...

By definition a scapegoat is someone who is blamed for (or offers to accept the blame) something someone else has done.

A scapegoat is NOT someone who get's booed for playing shit or mis-placing a pass as is often stated on here (on fucking countless threads by everyone and his son).

If Baxter were to send a ball out of play and someone stands up and shouts "fuck off Sammon" then Sammon IS A SCAPEGOAT as it's Baxters fault.
If Basham hand balls it in the area and someone shouts "What the fuck are you doing Basham you twat" then it might be unpleasant and undeserved but a scapegoat HE IS NOT.

As Alco is pointing out, this "scapegoating" (i.e that's the bollocks version which is why I've gone for the quotes) happens to players who play shit on a regular basis NOT on the likes of Brian Deane or Tony Currie.
 



Grecian2000 said:
By definition a scapegoat is someone who is blamed for (or offers to accept the blame) something someone else has done.

A scapegoat is NOT someone who get's booed for playing shit or mis-placing a pass as is often stated on here (on fucking countless threads by everyone and his son).

If Baxter were to send a ball out of play and someone stands up and shouts "fuck off Sammon" then Sammon IS A SCAPEGOAT as it's Baxters fault.
If Basham hand balls it in the area and someone shouts "What the fuck are you doing Basham you twat" then it might be unpleasant and undeserved but a scapegoat HE IS NOT.

As Alco is pointing out, this "scapegoating" (i.e that's the bollocks version which is why I've gone for the quotes) happens to players who play shit on a regular basis NOT on the likes of Brian Deane or Tony Currie.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Those that accuse others of creating scapegoats are in effect creating their own scapegoat by calling normal criticism (justified or not) scapegoating.
 
Grecian2000 said:
By definition a scapegoat is someone who is blamed for (or offers to accept the blame) something someone else has done.

A scapegoat is NOT someone who get's booed for playing shit or mis-placing a pass as is often stated on here (on fucking countless threads by everyone and his son).

If Baxter were to send a ball out of play and someone stands up and shouts "fuck off Sammon" then Sammon IS A SCAPEGOAT as it's Baxters fault.
If Basham hand balls it in the area and someone shouts "What the fuck are you doing Basham you twat" then it might be unpleasant and undeserved but a scapegoat HE IS NOT.

As Alco is pointing out, this "scapegoating" (i.e that's the bollocks version which is why I've gone for the quotes) happens to players who play shit on a regular basis NOT on the likes of Brian Deane or Tony Currie.
Click to expand...

There's more to it than that. Of course.

Disproportionate focus on shortcomings of one player over another.

A few posters on here thought that Freeman had a poor game at Bradford. I don't know how you'd quantify it, but it'd be interesting to see stats on, say, passes and/or completion rates for Freeman and McEveley this season.

Apportioning blame where non existed: McEveley against Bury. Possibly at fault for the third, blamed by a fair few for two goals, and by some creative types all three.

Howard has gone from being beaten by world class strikes to letting in daisy cutters, and diving out of the way of the ball.

For me he's been excellent all season and made some very good saves and blocks from direct free kicks and dangerous halls into the area.

There's an Angry Mob waving their pitchforks at McEveley. I think it's better to look at real.issues in the team as for instance Bergen's legendary posts do.
 
secretchief said:
We are talking about a player that is getting hauled off at half time in the third division because he is too immobile to deal with an average winger. He is not good enough to play for us.
Click to expand...
I think in a minor way this post illustrates the scapegoating point: unless I've missed something there has been no direct announcement of the reasons for the substitution.

A reason that states he was "hauled off" bc basically he was crap is made based on not very much. Any explanation of general crapness has to account for him starting every League game under Adkins.
 
Lane Ender said:
Definately
Dropped a right bollock with him
Click to expand...
Give him a chance. It takes some players time to settle in.

I'm not saying I think he's going to be great or anything and you're probably right but how many have we seem that have looked shit and then turn out to be OK?
 
BushBlade said:
Give him a chance. It takes some players time to settle in.

I'm not saying I think he's going to be great or anything and you're probably right but how many have we seem that have looked shit and then turn out to be OK?
Click to expand...
There wasn't clubs queuing up to sign Woolford.
Having said that I hope he is a success
 
secretchief said:
We are talking about a player that is getting hauled off at half time in the third division because he is too immobile to deal with an average winger. He is not good enough to play for us.
Click to expand...

One poor half can happen to any player, but if we're honest, he's been generally substandard since winter having only looked respectable before that.

If any player has played regularly for a year and not showed at least the potential to improve then that is a player we need to be shuffling towards the exit. If that player is experienced then that process needs to be doubly ruthless.
 
Saw Higdon and Atkins together in a shop on London Road last week, speaking to this guy. I wondered what they were up to...

p11723117_i_h13_aa.jpg
 
William Henry Foulkes said:
I think in a minor way this post illustrates the scapegoating point: unless I've missed something there has been no direct announcement of the reasons for the substitution.

A reason that states he was "hauled off" bc basically he was crap is made based on not very much. Any explanation of general crapness has to account for him starting every League game under Adkins.
Click to expand...

This is pedantic and illogical.

He was clearly taken off because he picked up a booking within 15 minutes and was getting roasted.

He is clearly being picked because there is absolutely no-one else.

The 'clean slate/vote of confidence' he has benefitted from has already been proven a humiliating wash in under ten games, where the defence is shipping goal after goal.

And incidentally, the painstaking attempt to exculpate him from individual errors does nothing to disguise the utter farce that the defence has descended into with him as a central part of it.
 



JohnDenver said:
One poor half can happen to any player, but if we're honest, he's been generally substandard since winter having only looked respectable before that.

If any player has played regularly for a year and not showed at least the potential to improve then that is a player we need to be shuffling towards the exit. If that player is experienced then that process needs to be doubly ruthless.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
 
secretchief said:
This is pedantic and illogical.

He was clearly taken off because he picked up a booking within 15 minutes and was getting roasted.

He is clearly being picked because there is absolutely no-one else.

The 'clean slate/vote of confidence' he has benefitted from has already been proven a humiliating wash in under ten games, where the defence is shipping goal after goal.

And incidentally, the painstaking attempt to exculpate him from individual errors does nothing to disguise the utter farce that the defence has descended into with him as a central part of it.
Click to expand...

Not sure how it can be pedantic *and* illogical, I suppose it's possible but it'd be nice to have some evidence of either rather than just assertions.

One obvious counter is that if there was absolutely no-one else to replace him then how was he replaced.

If it was bc of the booking after 15 minutes then why wait another 30 minutes (twice as long again) to replace him?

Adkins said, and I agree, that after the early storm, which for me.was dangerous.crosses from free kicks in particular, we were getting a foothold in the game.

And after the unnecessary early booking I don't recall him being under any more pressure than anyone else.

There's a whole inconclusive thread on why he was subbed. Stating categorical reasons afaics reveals more.about a.perception of McEveley than any reality.

Blaming McEveley for eveything does.not advance the cause of the team.

Edgar had a mare. Maybe in concert with Howard.

Some of the posts on here are outright nonsense good illustration is the first goal against Bury. And as has been covered elsewhere the abuse he is getting before and during the game also does nothing to advance the cause of the team.

Fwiw I'd rather Bob was back, and McEveley was a squad player. Till then I'll support him. Though sometimes he makes it difficult.

Various things I've seen and heard make me wonder whether he'll be starting on Saturday.

If and when things go wrong in future games it'll be interesting to see who cops for it.
 
JohnDenver said:
One poor half can happen to any player, but if we're honest, he's been generally substandard since winter having only looked respectable before that.

If any player has played regularly for a year and not showed at least the potential to improve then that is a player we need to be shuffling towards the exit. If that player is experienced then that process needs to be doubly ruthless.
Click to expand...

Generally I think this is a fair assessment, and shuffling towards the exit is better than being stabbed to death on the prongs of pitchforks.

That said we can't have a squad full of high achievers. A proportion will be ordinary and there has to be a weakest link.

Should we attack our own ordinary players and weakest links? Best to support them, get the best out of them till we can improve.
 
William Henry Foulkes said:
Generally I think this is a fair assessment, and shuffling towards the exit is better than being stabbed to death on the prongs of pitchforks.

That said we can't have a squad full of high achievers. A proportion will be ordinary and there has to be a weakest link.

Should we attack our own ordinary players and weakest links? Best to support them, get the best out of them till we can improve.
Click to expand...
Putting the Scapegoat issue aside, do you think on any measure, Higdon is the quality of player we should be keeping?

UTB
 
alcoblade said:
Putting the Scapegoat issue aside, do you think on any measure, Higdon is the quality of player we should be keeping?

UTB
Click to expand...

You put a gun to my head...No.

In this case what got my goat was accusations of poor attitude straight after he'd been celebrating McNulty's goal.

As someone.posted about Reed ffs there were "fans" lying in wait for him to do something wrong so they could point out how crap he was.

Some players get this much more than others.

If he tears the place up.at Oldham then it'd obviously be worth reconsidering which is why a loan is probably good for both parties.
 
Pedantic and illogical are not mutually exclusive.

It's pedantic because you insist that unless some official, authorised explanation for his substitution is offered then it somehow means that you are able to disregard the most plausible and straightforward explanation for it so you can continue with the absurd notion that he wasn't taken off because his deficiencies were being brutally exposed. Habitually refusing to accept reasonable inferences and instead insisting on evidence for everything is pedantic.

Illogical because you suggest that Adkins starting McEv every game is evidence that he mustn't be crap. But as has been laboriously shown over the past few years (cf disagreements over Doyle and Montgomery) a player's ability doesn't have an intrinsic relationship to whether a manager prefers them.

Typically players aren't taken off directly after they are booked. They are given a portion of time to see how things pan out. You know this. 'Leave it till half time' is a reasonable juncture to reassess.

Permit me to disagree with Adkins about us getting a foothold in the game, and with you with your opinion that you didn't see him as being more in trouble than anyone else.

There is no-one to replace him because as you know, Alcock and Freeman are right backs. The fact that Freeman is better at left back than McEveley isn't necessarily something that compels Adkins to play him there at the present time.

That thread is only inconclusive because of your deliberate obfuscation, and was satisfactorily answered with the first reply.

I'm not blaming McEv for everything (you would call this a straw man), just pointing out that criticism of him is totally justified, and his retention in the team increasingly reflects poorly on the management team that recruited him and the management team that retain him and decided to double down and use him as a lynchpin of the current squad.

The biggest determinant of things that advance the cause of the team is the quality of player. That's my primary concern. Teams with better players typically beat teams with worse players.

In terms of your last point, whoever makes the mistake will cop for the mistake, whoever plays poorly will cop for that, just as whoever plays well will get the plaudits. No-one will clamour for McEv's restoration to the side, whatever happens.
 
secretchief said:
Pedantic and illogical are not mutually exclusive.

It's pedantic because you insist that unless some official, authorised explanation for his substitution is offered then it somehow means that you are able to disregard the most plausible and straightforward explanation for it so you can continue with the absurd notion that he wasn't taken off because his deficiencies were being brutally exposed. Habitually refusing to accept reasonable inferences and instead insisting on evidence for everything is pedantic.

Illogical because you suggest that Adkins starting McEv every game is evidence that he mustn't be crap. But as has been laboriously shown over the past few years (cf disagreements over Doyle and Montgomery) a player's ability doesn't have an intrinsic relationship to whether a manager prefers them.

Typically players aren't taken off directly after they are booked. They are given a portion of time to see how things pan out. You know this. 'Leave it till half time' is a reasonable juncture to reassess.

Permit me to disagree with Adkins about us getting a foothold in the game, and with you with your opinion that you didn't see him as being more in trouble than anyone else.

There is no-one to replace him because as you know, Alcock and Freeman are right backs. The fact that Freeman is better at left back than McEveley isn't necessarily something that compels Adkins to play him there at the present time.

That thread is only inconclusive because of your deliberate obfuscation, and was satisfactorily answered with the first reply.

I'm not blaming McEv for everything (you would call this a straw man), just pointing out that criticism of him is totally justified, and his retention in the team increasingly reflects poorly on the management team that recruited him and the management team that retain him and decided to double down and use him as a lynchpin of the current squad.

The biggest determinant of things that advance the cause of the team is the quality of player. That's my primary concern. Teams with better players typically beat teams with worse players.

In terms of your last point, whoever makes the mistake will cop for the mistake, whoever plays poorly will cop for that, just as whoever plays well will get the plaudits. No-one will clamour for McEv's restoration to the side, whatever happens.
Click to expand...

I really could be pedantic about that lot :-)

Was McEveley to blame for any of Bury's goals? If so which one/s?
 
He was absolutely at fault for the third, and lost the ball for the first. Possibly it was a foul, his manager didn't think so. The second goal came down his flank too, but as I recall he wasn't the player who should have been closing down he goalscorer.
 
alcoblade said:
Putting the Scapegoat issue aside, do you think on any measure, Higdon is the quality of player we should be keeping?

UTB
Click to expand...

I said at the time and have said since that Chris Porter was more use to us than Higdon. 1 and a bit seasons later I'm still waiting for that to be challenged. He is currently a waste of a shirt, good luck at Oldham but those suggesting he was top quality have been a little wayward. Those suggesting he deserves a chance (again) are somewhat misguided as we already have people scoring goals and contributing. Its conceding the bloody things that appears to be the bigger issue.
 
William Henry Foulkes said:
I really could be pedantic about that lot :)

Was McEveley to blame for any of Bury's goals? If so which one/s?
Click to expand...

Ok, let's try and boil this down for the sake of concision.

Even if, as you argue, he is getting a disproportionate amount of blame for individual errors that lead to goals, which in the final analysis may or may not be attributable to him, that in itself does not invalidate the commonly-held, evidence based, opinion, formed over a long period, that he is a poor player for us, and that the people that scouted him, signed him, retained him, and haven't replace him deserve criticism as such. He is a symptom of wider failures.

The fact that he is a player that is known for making significant ricks doesn't help the overall impression, though it does give some people the impression that he is being unfairly picked on.

You don't need to white-knight someone earning thousands of pounds a week.
 
Bladesway said:
I said at the time and have said since that Chris Porter was more use to us than Higdon. 1 and a bit seasons later I'm still waiting for that to be challenged. He is currently a waste of a shirt, good luck at Oldham but those suggesting he was top quality have been a little wayward. Those suggesting he deserves a chance (again) are somewhat misguided as we already have people scoring goals and contributing. Its conceding the bloody things that appears to be the bigger issue.
Click to expand...
When you bare in mind what Porter cost compared to what Higdon did, it really isn't even close.

Porter gave us 110% every game, won headers, put himself about and gave us some great memories v Stevenage of course Forest and he was even our joint top scorer 1 season!

And people may disagree but if Porter had started the play off final against Huddersfield on th back of his goal v Stevenage rather than the unfit Cresswell, the story might've just been different if you ask me.

Porter will go down as a cult hero, Higdon will go down as a fat, uninterested, waste of money.
 
William Henry Foulkes said:
Was McEveley at fault for Bury's first? Second? Third?
Click to expand...
100%, he played a part in all three.

The first and third were his fault however you want to dress it up. 'Fouls' are only fouls if the ref blows up.
The second should've been closed down, Riley came into McEveley's area of the pitch basically unopposed. I'm not blaming JUST McEveley for that, but he's captain, he should be organising things for that situation, or closing it down himself. They knew he liked a shot, he'd had about 4 previous to that. But I do also hold his runner accountable, K Wallace was it? Didn't get close enough to him.

If you carry on supporting McEveley like this in the first of adversity, fair enough fair play to you, but you'll get talked about.
People aren't slating him because they don't like his hair, face, accent or him being left footed. He keeps letting us down and costing us points.
 



dannysufc_ said:
When you bare in mind what Porter cost compared to what Higdon did, it really isn't even close.

Porter gave us 110% every game, won headers, put himself about and gave us some great memories v Stevenage of course Forest and he was even our joint top scorer 1 season!

And people may disagree but if Porter had started the play off final against Huddersfield on th back of his goal v Stevenage rather than the unfit Cresswell, the story might've just been different if you ask me.

Porter will go down as a cult hero, Higdon will go down as a fat, uninterested, waste of money.
Click to expand...
How much did Higdon cost? I heard rumours of high wages but were they verified?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Tanganga
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
Whitby-Blade
Whitby-Blade
C
I've always thought Chris Wilder could be our Alex Ferguson.
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Keen Blade
Keen Blade
HodgysBrokenThumb
Welcome to the 3-4 Club
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
DifferentClass
DifferentClass
LBA_Blade
Sam Aston Guiseley Loan
Replies
3
Views
667
LBA_Blade
LBA_Blade
1973Blade
I'm still enjoying our recent games more than last season
Replies
9
Views
652
SandyMcBlade
SandyMcBlade

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom