Diamond Scot
-
Posts
1,903 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Tartan Army Message Board News
Media Demo
Posts posted by Diamond Scot
-
-
50 minutes ago, BryanBlessed said:
Souttar currently doing his best to play himself out of the squad in front of Clarke. Shankland has done OK so far.
Souttar has never been better than average in terms of Scotland standard in my opinion.
Theres not alot of difference between him and some of our other centre backs like Hendry or Porteous however these guys currently have the jersey and imo Souttar hasnt done enough to displace them.
-
27 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:
I felt a pitch invasion was OTT for a club of uniteds stature. I didn't say not to celebrate.
I tend to agree with this. Pitch invasions should be reserved for historic achievements. Winning a league that you shouldnt even be in in the 1st place is not that.
Celebrate a job well done but no need to go mad. Actually makes the club look smaller than it is imo.
-
46 minutes ago, Tartan blood said:
I was going to say exactly this. In my opinion, we currently have 6 undroppable players that will start regardless of game time at their clubs - McTominay, McGinn, Tierney, Robertson, Gilmour and Hickey. Gilmour and Hickey are new to this list, but I genuinely think they are that good. These are the 6 that will make me sick if we lose more than one of them.
McGregor, although a great player, is slightly behind. I'd actually put him in the same bracket as Christie. A probable starter, but we'd manage without.
The problem we now have is that it would have been unlikely for all the 6 players you mention to play the full 90 for all 3 games. Subbing off McTominay or McGinn for Armstrong or Ferguson is alot stronger than doing it for the likes of Turnbull.
Even though the guys we have lost werent starters, they were solid experienced subs, more than capable of maintaining the standard of the starting players. We are now looking at the real possibility of a huge drop off in quality if we need to make subs or injury replacements during the tournament. For example if Hickey doesnt make it then its probable Ralston will start. That in itself is a massive drop off but if Ralston gets injured / tired / picks up a booking during one of the games then we are probably then looking at giving Max Johnstone his international debut or playing somebody out of position.
-
If we need a few players to pad out the squad id much rather take our best youngsters rather than guys who we know arent at the required level.
For example as a back up id rather take Doig over Taylor.
Doak over Turnbull
Barron over Cairney
The only exception to me is id be tempted to take Gauld purely because he hasnt ever really been given a chance and sometimes a wildcard with abit to prove just shines at the right time.
-
10 hours ago, slasher said:
I’ve seen a different angle on the challenge on AJ and it looks like a foul to me although I can see both sides of it. I’m not so clear on the delay but he clearly points at where the foul occurred and then signals a free kick for the defending team. AJ would normally spring to his feet to defend the box but stayed down throughout the whole incident.
Maybe you can tell me this DS, is it standard procedure for the var to ask the ref what Aberdeen players were complaining about at Celtic’s 2nd goal ? This was clearly indicated by TNT commentators at the time and it seems strange to me given that every goal is checked anyway.
Ive not seen the different angle on the Johnston foul. Dont think they showed it on the TV. If its a foul then I suppose the ref could have been waiting to see if Aberdeen scored and then VAR could have intervened to say it was a foul but that would seem abit backward and not what it looked like happened at the time. The ref did point straight to the foul amd indicate the free kick straight after the penalty challenge. It was the fact he didnt do it straight after the "foul" that seems out of the norm.
I heard that on the TV aswell. No idea if it it normal or not but I suppose if the VAR is meant to consider everything in the final phase b4 a goal its only natural to ask the ref for all the info which would include what the Aberdeen players were complaining about.
-
11 minutes ago, dandydunn said:
Yeah, it hurt, a lot. I was almost in tears at 2-2, 3-3 and at pens, with my loon alongside me. I’ve hugged the wee fucker a lot, but those moments, if you don’t know fitba, can never be understood, his first reaction today was to jump to me, nowhere else, it’s fucking wonderful, but heartbreaking at the same time.
10 years since his first semi (final)🙈 and he’s seen us win a couple and lose a few, everytime we step through the gates, he’s told this is our time, but it’s yet to have the ending we both want.
It’ll come though.
In a way, we need a standard ahite performance thrown in too now, just so the new gaffer can see who is arsed on a day to day basis and who isn’t.
We’re gonna be down Miovski for millions and Barron for buttons will be two massive losses for him.
Whats the story with Barron. Did Aberdeen go big to try and get him to sign a new contract?
Think he is a player with really good potential. If he leaves I hope he goes abroad.
-
Aberdeen shouldnt get drawn into debating whether it was a foul on Johnston or not. (It wasnt)
What they need to concentrate on and demand answers on is why if the ref thought it was a foul, he didnt blow at the time. The game continues for a decent amount of time, the ref watches the play continue and only then the penatly foul is commited by CCV does the ref blow for a foul.
There is no provision for this in the ref rulebook. He cant possibly be playing advantage as Celtic are defending their own box.
Regardless of whether they win or not. Answers should be sought.
-
I think people tend to get abit misguided about players such as Ralston because they play for Celtic and therefore assume that they are competent. Ralston is a backup player for Celtic. He is more than capable of holding his own when filling in for the odd run of games when Celtic dominate and any mistakes arent punished however anytime he has come up against quality opposition he doesnt look like half the player.
My big concern with him is he switches off / doesnt appear to read the game very well. An example of this was ROI 2nd goal in Dublin where he twice lets the goalscorer run off him but just doesnt recognise the danger until its too late.
Ive not seen any of McCrorie when he has been in England but if he is getting regular game time then thats obviously a bonus over Ralston, Paterson and Johnstone who are getting very little.
I wonder if Jack Hendry might be considered for RWB.
-
6 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:
What about alcohol?
Awareness of the link between alcohol and cancer, however, is not anywhere near as high. A recent survey suggests only 13 per cent of people understand cancer is one of the health risks associated with alcohol consumption.
We don’t yet have the same vast body of evidence for the effects of alcohol compared to smoking, but we do know that alcohol itself can directly cause damage to cells that can trigger cancer, and there is evidence that alcohol consumption increases the risk of seven different types of cancer – that of the mouth, throat, voice box, oesophagus, bowel, liver and breast.
Moderate drinking
In an attempt to increase public awareness, a new study published in the journal BMC Public Health has estimated the cancer risks associated with moderate alcohol consumption, and drawn a comparison with levels of smoking.
The authors of the research, from University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Bangor University and University of Southampton, found the risk of cancer from drinking one bottle of wine a week was equivalent to smoking 10 cigarettes a week for women and five cigarettes for men.
If non-smoking women and men drank a bottle of wine every week, their lifetime risk of cancer would increase by 1.4 per cent for women, and one percent for men. In real terms, if 1,000 women and 1,000 men each drank one bottle of wine per week, it’s likely that around 14 extra women and 10 extra men would develop cancer at some point in their life.
Heavier alcohol consumption
On the surface, five or 10 cigarettes a week doesn’t sound like a lot. But we need to put that into drinking habits of the nation. The Office for National Statistics reported in their recent 2019 survey that 60 per cent of adults in the UK report they drink up to 14 units a week. That’s quite a lot of people with a moderate increase in risk.
The survey also revealed that 17 per cent of adults – so more than the number of smokers in the UK – reported the drink between 14 and 50 units and 4 per cent reported drinking 50 or more. How do these levels affect risk?
The BMC Public Health study also looked into heavier levels of alcohol consumption and estimated that drinking three bottles of wine per week (around 30 units) could increase lifetime cancer risk by 3.6 per cent in women and 1.9 per cent in men, or 36 in 1,000 women and 19 in 1,000 men. That’s apparently the equivalent to smoking roughly eight cigarettes per week for men and 23 cigarettes per week for women.
No consencious on this. Certainly nowhere near the body of evidence in respect of smoking.
There will be an equal amount of publications saying moderate drinking has health benefits. You wont find any studies that say smoking is good for you.
-
6 hours ago, Malcolm said:
Alcohol is not consumed in moderation though is it. Maybe vouchers for a couple of drinks a week then? Smoking does have upsides - it’s a pleasant experience, in the same way a drink is. I am not a smoker as I have done my own cost benefit analysis but every individual should be entitled to choose.
Ration cakes? Fatties are very expensive to the NHS. Where do you stop.”people can’t be trusted to make their own choices” sounds very 1984 to me.
Something feeling good / pleasant isnt an upside if the consequence of that is ill health.
The difference between smoking and drinking is that smoking can harm regardless of volume. Alcohol doesnt.
Smoking was introduced at a time when the health implications were really known. We have known about them for years now, attempted to inform the public to make good choices but the public for whatever reason havent done so.
Its literally the role of government to make such decisions. It wont negatively impact anybodys life.
For what its worth, they should be doing something similar in respect of fatty / unhealthy foods. I love a McDonalds and a chocolate bar but id much rather live in a society that not only promoted but more importantly facilitated healthy eating.
-
1 hour ago, Malcolm said:
basically banning smoking over time by stealth. What next… alcohol? Sugar?these are both bad for you, why are they not banned?
the worlds fucked - let people make their own choices
People have shown that they cant be trusted to make their own choices.
Smoking has zero upside, massive downsides and costs millions to the NHS.
The idea that free will equates to society being allowed to do whatever they want has never existed. If it did then why are certain drugs banned.
Nobody can provide a single good reason for smoking. Its not like alcohol which is perfectly safe if consumed in moderation.
-
3 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:
We were paying the USA back until 2006 for the lend lease program - i think it was just us that paid them back and the Russians gave the middle finger
So that was for Ships, Tanks, Guns and Ammunition that we used ourselves.
We didnt pay for the military hardware that the US used themselves for fighting in Europe
Therefore we will be paying for the cost of us defending Israel however by that rule of thumb i expect Ukraine to be paying us back for the next 60 years
Unless they do what the Russians did in 1946
So do Israel then pay us back?
Would seem strange if it cost us to defend Israel from an attack from Iran which came about because Israel attacked some Iranian commanders (rightly or wrongly)
-
When an RAF jet shoots down a drone / missle. Who pays for the fuel and RAF missle used to shoot down the drone?
Does Isreal reimburse the UK or is it just chalked up to expenses of defending an ally?
-
If Hickey is back out on the grass doung light training now then he will be fine come the Euros.
Brentford dont need to rush him back. If they were fighting for Europe or against relegation then it might be different.
Hickey will just need to get his match sharpeness back but given how well he reads the game im not overly concerned. He also tends to keep things simple 2 friendlies and he will be good to go.
-
8 minutes ago, Fairbairn said:
VAR is a good tool and can add value. It’s the application of it in Scotland that’s shockingly bad (and England from what I’ve seen tbf). A full review of how it’s used is needed and if that means benching it for a few seasons then so be it.
I was against VAR or technology for anything other than factual decisions. Ie ball crossing the line, offside or was a foul inside or outside the box.
Ive softend my views a little as its good for correcting really bad errors however I think there needs to be a bigger review on the rules to start with (handball especially) and thereafter what VAR should get involved in.
Ive always thought we shouldnt be slowing down replays. Certainly not to super slow mo. A few times full speed and then a couple 3/4 speed should be enough.
-
2 hours ago, LoganRoy said:
Spot on.
I presume Celtic will maintain a clear separate entity argument and not admit/accept they are one and the same.
If so, then it's unlikely an apology will ever be given. What happened to Celtic Boys Club? Is it now incorporated as part of their youth pathway.
Im confident that Celtic will do the right thing and make a full apology for their part in what was a horrible period of their history (and other clubs).
The reason why they havent so far will be on advice of lawyers. Its standard practice to not say anything whilst proceddings are ongoing.
-
33 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:
https://www.afc.co.uk/2024/04/10/club-statement-video-assistant-referees/
The VAR guessed he was offside. WOW
Very sensible and well balanced statement.
Can you imagine that had happened in the OF game at the weekend!!!
-
37 minutes ago, LoganRoy said:
I wonder how this - if what's being reported comes to fruition - impacts the SFA and their Final Independent Report into non-recent sexual abuse in Scottish football.
It was clear in that the Boys Club was separate from the Senior Club.
Whilst money is welcomed as a compensation, you'd hope that this outcome comes with an apology to the victims, which is the most important thing to the victims.
The problem is that legally it isnt clear that the boys club was a seperate entity to the senior club hence the compensation claim.
The boys clubs and senior club were so closely aligned that it the senior club was felt to have control / influence over decision making, recruitment etc at the boys club.
-
5 hours ago, LoganRoy said:
I presume you emailed Ange asking him to remove Kyogo for his similar cheating?
Silvas earlier theatrical performances should have resulted on a booking, I'd give divers no chances. He was however fouled for the penalty. His theatrics after, waving to Tavernier and hovering at the penalty spot showed how sure he was it was a penalty.
Was speaking about this earlier. The problem from a refereeing perspective with Silva on Sunday and those who act like him is how you differentiate between diving / simulation and over reacting.
I cant remember all the times Silva was rolling about like a twat on Sunday but for the ones I can remember he was fouled / there was contact. The one Johnstone got booked for example. Silva was blocked off, it was a foul but thats all it was. Silva the rolls about as if he has been shot.
Now to the casual fan its easy to point the finger and say, he is clearly at it but in terms of the authorities it would be a minefield.
For example I remember watching a game a while back and the player rolls about similar to Silva, replay shows minimal contact so he is clearly trying to get the opponent booked I was saying. Turns out he had broke a bone in his foot.
As a general point I get the hatred. I hate that side of the game aswell but it how you address it thats hard. Its much easier to punish an actual dive. Ie where there is no contact. Authorities have stopped doing that it seems though. Remember the Hearts guy from Lithuania got a retrospective 2 match ban. What happened to stuff like that?
-
2 hours ago, vanderark14 said:
I didn't notice till this morning than the celtic defender got a touch of the ball too, he then connects with Silva who's delayed reaction tells you everything.
Thats what I was saying about Skys replys and Sutton consistently refusing to not see what was on the screen.
Because he was adament it was a dive (that there was no contact etc which there clearly was) all the replays started after the point where Johnstone gets a touch on the ball. Ive still not seen a good replay to see how much he gets the ball.
Although if the Brighton game midweek is anything to go by, skimming the ball and then connecting with the player is still a penalty these days. Im not sure how I feel about that. The ball skimming your arm and then hitting the post would be a penalty. Skimming the ball when in an offside position would still be offside so why is skimming the ball in a tackle not considered enough? (Assuming the rest of the tackle isnt dangerous / reckless.
-
Said for a while that the door shouldnt be closed on McBurnie however its probably too late for the Euros unless somebody gets injured.
That being said, most games ive watched him in this season he does one or 2 things that would risk a straight red with foreign refs which would be a worry for me.
-
1 hour ago, vanderark14 said:
Why are you so desperate to justify a hun penalty? You don't help yourself here mate 😂
I'd describe it as accidental contact which in no way would stop a diving wee cunt from getting to the ball and taking a pop at goal..
The right decision wad the one made by Beaton to begin with. A yellow for simulation.
I comment on lots of games but few get into much debate cause other games fans can be rationale.
The fact Silva is a diving wee C, whether he would get to the ball or not to take a shot at goal are all irrelevent as you well know.
Again, even accidental doesnt come into the equation. If it was then most of fouls and almost all penalties wouldnt be given as few defenders deliberately kick other players rather than the ball. Its the missing of the ball and kicking the player that makes it a foul. Im sure you know this already.
-
16 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:
Ok ffs, the tackle was neither careless or reckless. It was a dive regardless of any rule you quote
If it wasnt careless or reckless, how would you describe making contact above the knee after swinging for the ball?
-
10 minutes ago, slasher said:
What is it going to take for the governing body to do something about the disorder inside Ibrox at these games? They had no Celtic fans to pelt with missiles today so attacked the bench again instead!
It’s not on but will be swept under the carpet as usual by todays ‘moral winners’. 😏Absolutely disgusting behaviour. Ive never understood the thinking behind a grown adult acting that way but I suppose that also go for the songs sung.
CCTV should make it easy to identify somebody throwing anything onto the pitch. Should result in a ban even when it doesnt hit anybody. You could be banning about 50 fans per game if you actually wanted to in these games.
Scottish players in action 21/22
in TA specific
Posted
Thats kind of my point. A few of our defenders are about the same level. Hendry and Porteous have a mistake or 2 in them but have more recently put in good performances for Scotland than Souttar has. If its a straight 2 out of the 3 then Souttar misses out for me.
Thought Shankland played pretty well today. Had no real service but did the other bits of the game.
Im a big fan of Gordon but thought he looked abit shakey today.