Postion vacant: Scapegoat

[Sheff de party]

Other than a whole bunch of mangers who know a whole lot more about football than anyone on here.

None the less, his time was up for us, he offered nothing to our current style.

UTB

ah that old 'whole bunch of managers' comment. bit pointless having a forum then really if they all know more than us anyway?

the fact that the first manager we've had in years who actually wanted us to play football booted him out shows u that hes a rubbish footballer.

but then what do i know, iv never got us relegated.

 

[super_pig]

I liked him and still better than doyle in my opinion, Monty reminded me a little of Trevor Hockey 100% man who never stopped, not the most gifted but never hid.

pfft.. yeah i remember Trevor Hockey.. let's say he was like a Trevor Hockey but couldn't pass

 

[Bladesman]

ah that old 'whole bunch of managers' comment. bit pointless having a forum then really if they all know more than us anyway?

the fact that the first manager we've had in years who actually wanted us to play football booted him out shows u that hes a rubbish footballer.

but then what do i know, iv never got us relegated.

I know its funny hearing that "Whole bunch of managers line" its as if the list contained the likes Jose or Fergie.

The great Robson, Warnock, Blackwell and Adams thought he was good enough to keep or some cases keep if you can't transfer list him and offload him.

Anyway the new scapegoat is Kitson til he scores plus he is ginger.

 

[Grecian2000]

But Monty wasn't rubbish,he just took the blame for the teams failings espeically if we lost(as have Quinn,Porter,Hill etc). They get the blame even when they are producing consistantly better performers than the so called better players in the team e.g. McDonald,Maguire,Lowton (last season).

It's this sort of nonesense that really annoys me.

They aren't "so called" better players they ARE better players. They get some leeway for bad performances because they have enough good performances in the bank to make it so.
Quinny was a fine example. He started of in the Premier League very well, he had a bright future and was viewed as a great prospect. That didn't change with a couple of bad games, it changed over two or three seasons where he went backwards at an alarming rate. He ended up being one of our two or three best players because all the others left, not because he realised his early promise.
Tony Currie had poor games but they were outnumbered by numerous good to great ones. That's how you become a fans favourite.

As for "consistantly better performances", they just don't happen do they? They may have the odd game here and there where they perform beyond their normal contribution but that's the limit of their capabilities and they earn their reputation on those week in, week out performances, not the "one in ten" where they exceed expectations.

You only have to take a look at the "Thanks Monty" thread and people can actually pick out assists like the one at Newcastle. If he had done that week in, week out it wouldn't get a mention, it's because it happened so little it stands out like a sore thumb. He's a midfield player for Gods sake, you're supposed to be able to do things like that!

As for the oft dragged out "Six managers" business, let's not forget where their vast knowledge has got us.

 

[alcoblade]

the fact that the first manager we've had in years who actually wanted us to play football booted him out shows u that hes a rubbish footballer.
.

Because he's a rubbish option in a team that wants to play our current style, but not a rubbish option in a team that wants to play Warnock's style (that got us into the premiership).

I appreciate two scenarios is one too many to comprehend for some...

UTB

 

[Revolution]

I am too lazy to check this, but from memory Warnock only started Monty on a regular basis in the following scenarios:

1. During his bright start to his career at the Lane

2. When he was genuinely playing well, and the team was playing well, in 2005-6, particularly before Tonge's recall.

3. When there was no other option, eg after the sales of Tonge and Brown.

4. When he was doing his 4-5-1 no goals formation.

He was not a regular for much of the time under Warnock.

 

[metalblade]

Even Warnock tried to sell him at one point but got no offers FFS

 

[grafikhaus]

Hill got some dog's abuse today despite being damned good, in the main.

Yes, he was hung out to dry early on while our 'diamond' formation left him with two runners against him. Once he'd/we'd settled down, he put in a good performance. The fact that he's one of the last lines of defence will always attract criticism when a goal is conceded, while players in other positions escape the flak.

I thought Hill was one of our better players at Wembley and was good last Saturday. He's capable of making good runs down the wing and certainly contributes. As much, if not more may I say, than Lowton in a lot of games last season.

But we must have an escape goat and I suppose Hill will have to do until somebody else comes along...

 

[Revolution]

Small smaple size perhaps, but one thing I have noticed about Hill is that his worst moments always seem to be at the start of a game: he can be terrible - particularly with his distribution - for the first 15 or 20 minutes, but then he seems to settle down and improve.

 

[Fiery Blade]

Small smaple size perhaps, but one thing I have noticed about Hill is that his worst moments always seem to be at the start of a game: he can be terrible - particularly with his distribution - for the first 15 or 20 minutes, but then he seems to settle down and improve.

Perhaps Wilson ought to organise a five a side for the subs and Hill to play in just prior to kick off say 10 mins each way - by then Hill should 'hit the ground running' and the subs suitably geared up if they have to come on for injury during the first half !

 

[super_pig]

we don't 'need' a scapegoat.. it is just that fans will gravitate toward the crappest player if they are perceived to be letting the side down

 

[Micalijo]

It's this sort of nonesense that really annoys me.

They aren't "so called" better players they ARE better players. They get some leeway for bad performances because they have enough good performances in the bank to make it so.
Quinny was a fine example. He started of in the Premier League very well, he had a bright future and was viewed as a great prospect. That didn't change with a couple of bad games, it changed over two or three seasons where he went backwards at an alarming rate. He ended up being one of our two or three best players because all the others left, not because he realised his early promise.
Tony Currie had poor games but they were outnumbered by numerous good to great ones. That's how you become a fans favourite.

As for "consistantly better performances", they just don't happen do they? They may have the odd game here and there where they perform beyond their normal contribution but that's the limit of their capabilities and they earn their reputation on those week in, week out performances, not the "one in ten" where they exceed expectations.

You only have to take a look at the "Thanks Monty" thread and people can actually pick out assists like the one at Newcastle. If he had done that week in, week out it wouldn't get a mention, it's because it happened so little it stands out like a sore thumb. He's a midfield player for Gods sake, you're supposed to be able to do things like that!

As for the oft dragged out "Six managers" business, let's not forget where their vast knowledge has got us.

Unbelievably good post, top top stuff.

Afraid though Grecian you are forgetting that in the fantasy world inhabited by certain members it is just not permissable to slag a player off if he runs around alot. In fact, you have to thank him and praise him for doing so.

 

[bartman]

It's this sort of nonesense that really annoys me.



As for "consistantly better performances", they just don't happen do they? They may have the odd game here and there where they perform beyond their normal contribution but that's the limit of their capabilities and they earn their reputation on those week in, week out performances, not the "one in ten" where they exceed expectations.

.

But that is the point...once a 'scapegoat' has been identified,consistantly good performances aren't appreciated by the fans who are consistantly having a go at a player in every game becuase the player has to play exceptionally in their eyes to get any begrudging praise.

For example- Quinn in the relegation season was booed on many occasions during games for making one mistake by some fans even when he was quite clearly the best player for us. These fans had it in their heads that he was crap(maybe because one of their mates told him he was ! ) so he could never produce a good performance(except for 'one in ten'.)

Hill was consistantly good at the end of last season and has been the same this season. That is not 'one in ten' yet he still receives abuse, So yes,he has been performing consistantly better than others (in particular the rest of the back 4)who some fans perceive as better players.

One of our better players last season was Williamson- but he never really turned up for the big games. Wouldn't you rather have a consistantly good performer who maintains that level in the big games as well as the easier ones?

Even last season the abuse he got was unbelievable at times

It is the fans that sometimes have unreralistic expectations of the players' ability and it would appear that they sometimes think that the players should be better than what they are capable of (i.e. league 1 standard).

Nothing wrong with fans critising,it is the apparant targetting of some of our players by some fans at matches that i object to.

 

[alcoblade]

Unbelievably good post, top top stuff.

Afraid though Grecian you are forgetting that in the fantasy world inhabited by certain members it is just not permissable to slag a player off if he runs around alot. In fact, you have to thank him and praise him for doing so.

"Unbelievably good post" = critical in any way of SUFC. Unbelievably boring now, Mic.

In the fanstasy world lived in by others (ie you), it's amazingly impossible to have a positive thought about the club they "support".

UTB

 

[Foxy]

But that is the point...once a 'scapegoat' has been identified,consistantly good performances aren't appreciated by the fans who are consistantly having a go at a player in every game becuase the player has to play exceptionally in their eyes to get any begrudging praise.

This is demonstrated perfectly by simply listening out for the comments at the match.

The number of times I've heard someone like Quinn, Doyle or Monty blamed as McDonald (or insert other well liked name here) spoons a ball to the opposition... Last time, Coventry away... I pointed out that the man making the mistake was McDonald, not Quinny who had actually made a useful run into space or Doyle who had just fed him the ball. This prompted the response "Well I'm not surprised, good player like him having to put up with them useless bastards".

For me, it's a clean slate every game and once they step onto the pitch I rate them based on that performance, rather than any history/perception of them.

Poor players are capable of good games, just as the best players are capable of bad games.

 

[Sheff de party]

Unbelievably good post, top top stuff.

Afraid though Grecian you are forgetting that in the fantasy world inhabited by certain members it is just not permissable to slag a player off if he runs around alot. In fact, you have to thank him and praise him for doing so.

i just agreed with Mic. wow!

 

[Sheff de party]

Because he's a rubbish option in a team that wants to play our current style, but not a rubbish option in a team that wants to play Warnock's style (that got us into the premiership).

I appreciate two scenarios is one too many to comprehend for some...

UTB

i think he's always stood out as a rubbish option. if you dont, then fair enough ur entitled to ur opinion.

i just honestly cant understand how u came to it.

 

[shorehamview]

Nobody was able to offload Monty because he'd signed a watertight lifetime contract. That must be the only reason he was at United for twelve years.

He wasn't "shit", he wasn't "the worst player ever" and he wasn't a "pub player". He wasn't the greatest player to play for United by a long, long way, but neither was he the worst player in the universe, ever, as some may have us believe. He certainly isn't suited to the type of game Wilson wants us to play, and good luck to him in the future, but to label him as totally useless is very wide of the mark. He played over 300 games for United, so perhaps he's not as shit as people would have us believe.

He's not the greatest ever. But that doesn't make him the worst ever either.

 

[Revolution]

Nobody was able to offload Monty because he'd signed a watertight lifetime contract. That must be the only reason he was at United for twelve years.

No, the only reason is that he wasn't worth anything in terms of a sale. If he had skills worth paying for, he would have gone.

Per Foxy, the only interest we have ever had was when a PL side made a bid in 2007-8, but Monty got injured and the deal fell through.

 

[alcoblade]

No, the only reason is that he wasn't worth anything in terms of a sale. If he had skills worth paying for, he would have gone.
.

I think most would agree that we paid him far above his worth, hence lack of interest from elsewhere.

There's little doubt thast this "shit footballer", written off as totally useless by so many, would have spent most of his years in or around the championship with a host of other teams if he hadn't come to us.

UTB

 

[super_pig]

For example- Quinn in the relegation season was booed on many occasions during games for making one mistake by some fans even when he was quite clearly the best player for us. These fans had it in their heads that he was crap(maybe because one of their mates told him he was ! ) so he could never produce a good performance(except for 'one in ten'.)

i'd have to disagree with that .. he was bloody awful.. that is how he got the 'elpiton' tag.. trying to take the fans on after a game didn't exactly endeer him to the faithful..
people aren't stupid.. most of us have played the game to some extent and we know who is crap and who isn't

 

[judge]

my enduring memeory of nick montgomerys time at united is one game v coventry at the lane where i watched closely for the entire game his contribution to try and understand what he did ,he spent most of the game wrong footed and in no mans land when they attacked he was too far forward and when we attacked he was too far behind play

there where occasions in the game where coventry countered and broke towards the goal and there was acres of space for them to play into straight down the middle of the pitch where he should have been providing protection for the back four

monty was obviously a fit lad and a trier but he had no football brain or discernible talent to do anything on the ball ,i had nothing against him personally but i think he did very well to earn a living from a sport he wasnt really that good at

 

[Pinchy]

Vacancy filled. No further applications, please.