Ryan Fredericks

[stocky]

10 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

 

Kieran Tierney the chance to play for Scotland ?

r. 

I dint know that , where was he born?

[daviebee]

1 minute ago, stocky said:

I dint know that , where was he born?

Isle of Man to Scottish parents and lived nearly all his life in Glasgow.  No idea why he'd be lumped in along with "eligibles" who qualify cos their grandad once chugged off to a picture of Lulu.

[mrniaboc]

17 minutes ago, Fairbairn said:

Add Kenny McLean and John Fleck to that list.

...and Snoddy? 

[Fairbairn]

Just now, daviebee said:

once chugged off to a picture of Lulu.

I'm away to get my boots and shinnies.

[ParisInAKilt]

26 minutes ago, Fairbairn said:

I'm away to get my boots and shinnies.

Sitting on your hand for 30 mins before helps as well 

[Arbroath1320]

3 hours ago, Bobby Russell's Lovechild said:

According to today's paper, they have to find out if he qualifies through a grandfather he's never met

An ex-girlfriend of mine was born in London and her father had been born in Burma. She had to go back at least to the grandparents to find a Scottish link. But she had a Scottish name and always considered herself Scottish. It was a shock to her when she came to Scotland and discovered that everyone else thought she was English. I'm not saying this applies to Fredericks but let's not write a guy off before he's even kicked a ball for Scotland. 

[ErsatzThistle]

3 hours ago, daviebee said:

Well that says it all - "a Scotland player" NOT "a Scotsman".

You're right about James Morrison. He didn't play for their U21's. Just U17/18/19/20 so I suppose that makes it ok even though he chose us cos he thought his "opportunities with England would be limited".

To answer your question - no, I don't want to go back to birth country only. I just don't want my nation being some CV whore's second choice. This Fredericks guy's agent wouldn't be the first to go back to his club attempting to renegotiate his contract cos his client "is an international player now".

As for yourself, if you're happy with one then you should be happy with a team full of them. What's your cut-off point? I want to watch international fitba with our best 11 against theirs, not some extension of the club game.

If it's a choice between Stephen O' Donnell (who gets a rough time on here for reasons unknown to me) and your new English wonderboy then the shirt should be on the Scotsman's back every single time.

And yet again I repeat - Morrison was more interested in playing for Scotland than some Scots born players. His pride, effort and enthusiasm throughout his Scotland career can't be faulted. 

CV whore ? For the record in the eighties, Andy Goram and Stuart McCall both initially chose call ups for England U21s over Scotland U21s. CV whores ? Anyone who believes that stupid fairy tale McCall tells of deliberately taking ages to tie up his bootlaces to avoid going on the pitch is a gullible prick. He wanted to play for England but realised he'd have a much greater opportunity with Scotland. And he turned out to be a very good Scotland player.

"As for yourself, if you're happy with one then you should be happy with a team full of them."  Great logic there.

My "new English wonderboy" where did I say he was going to be amazing ? I don't know if he'll be any good but he shouldn't be written off.

Are you smashing up the living room because we now have two Englishmen and an Irishman in the backroom staff as well ? 

2 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Classic straw man argument anytime someone mentions English guys it’s always a matter of time before Gough and Maloney are brought up 

It is a great honour to have the boards resident conspiracy theorist take such an interest. Thank you. Your beautiful.

I don't care if I'm in the minority of one, if he's called up I will give Fredericks a chance.

1 hour ago, daviebee said:

Isle of Man to Scottish parents and lived nearly all his life in Glasgow.  No idea why he'd be lumped in along with "eligibles" who qualify cos their grandad once chugged off to a picture of Lulu.

Because those strange people who want a return to the days of "born in Scotland only" selection would have had us miss out on those three players through their absurd quest for purity.

1 hour ago, daviebee said:

Isle of Man to Scottish parents and lived nearly all his life in Glasgow.  No idea why he'd be lumped in along with "eligibles" who qualify cos their grandad once chugged off to a picture of Lulu.

You classify Richard Gough and Shaun Maloney as eligibles ?

3 hours ago, Bobby Russell's Lovechild said:

According to today's paper, they have to find out if he qualifies through a grandfather he's never met

I have an uncle I've never met, an aunt whom I last saw nearly eighteen years ago, a fifteen year old cousin that I've never met and they live less than ten miles from me. The reason for that - utterly bewildering, ridiculous, petty family politics 

It's really stupid but stuff like that does happen.

[Super_Scotlandfan]

2 hours ago, andyD said:

I think it's a fair measure when they're being accuse of being the team's achilles heel.

If they were our one point of vulnerability then I think it's fair to assume that some evidence for that would exist in terms of goals against over the last dozen games. No such evidence exists.

Are they the greatest right backs we've ever seen? Certainly not.
But are they the vulnerability in our side that saw us struggle under McLeish? Certainly not.

That was the point I was making, and the original maker of the point seems to have accepted the evidence.
You seem to be arguing some other point with yourself.

Have fun with that.

No it’s simply not a fair measure. That’s what I’m disagreeing with you about.

An Achilles heel is a weak area. We are weak at right back no matter how many goals we have conceded directly from our right back making a mistake. 

Weak areas cause stresses on the teamp on different positions all over the pitch.

Their lack of ability did make us struggle under Mcleish. 

Do you really think managers forget about mistakes that didn’t lead to goals and judge players on if they contributed to losing a goal only? 

[Dave78]

When i become president of FIFA, i will base the eligibility rules around the players accent.

I will appoint an independent panel of cunning linguists and dialect coaches to assess the accuracy.

Tierney and Maloney would qualify, as they clearly sound Scottish. Gerard Butler and Michael Gove would be ineligible, despite being born and brought up in Scotland.

Extra eligibility points will also be awarded for being able to sing the national anthem (this would rule out a good chunk of the Ireland team).

[daviebee]

1 hour ago, ErsatzThistle said:

And yet again I repeat - Morrison was more interested in playing for Scotland than some Scots born players. His pride, effort and enthusiasm throughout his Scotland career can't be faulted. 

CV whore ? For the record in the eighties, Andy Goram and Stuart McCall both initially chose call ups for England U21s over Scotland U21s. CV whores ? Anyone who believes that stupid fairy tale McCall tells of deliberately taking ages to tie up his bootlaces to avoid going on the pitch is a gullible prick. He wanted to play for England but realised he'd have a much greater opportunity with Scotland. And he turned out to be a very good Scotland player.

"As for yourself, if you're happy with one then you should be happy with a team full of them."  Great logic there.

My "new English wonderboy" where did I say he was going to be amazing ? I don't know if he'll be any good but he shouldn't be written off.

Are you smashing up the living room because we now have two Englishmen and an Irishman in the backroom staff as well ? 

It is a great honour to have the boards resident conspiracy theorist take such an interest. Thank you. Your beautiful.

I don't care if I'm in the minority of one, if he's called up I will give Fredericks a chance.

Because those strange people who want a return to the days of "born in Scotland only" selection would have had us miss out on those three players through their absurd quest for purity.

You classify Richard Gough and Shaun Maloney as eligibles ?

I have an uncle I've never met, an aunt whom I last saw nearly eighteen years ago, a fifteen year old cousin that I've never met and they live less than ten miles from me. The reason for that - utterly bewildering, ridiculous, petty family politics 

It's really stupid but stuff like that does happen.

I've never read any of this "purity" stuff on the TAMB.  I hope I never do either.

As for Gough and Maloney, I classify them as Scotsmen.  Eligibles/CV whores are your Stockdales, Elliots, Mackies, Dobies, etc.  Not been so many in recent years admittedly.  That's cos any player of sufficient quality is usually involved with their own country and it's only the dross that's left.

[Morrisandmoo]

44 minutes ago, Super_Scotlandfan said:

No it’s simply not a fair measure. That’s what I’m disagreeing with you about.

An Achilles heel is a weak area. We are weak at right back no matter how many goals we have conceded directly from our right back making a mistake. 

Weak areas cause stresses on the teamp on different positions all over the pitch.

Their lack of ability did make us struggle under Mcleish. 

Do you really think managers forget about mistakes that didn’t lead to goals and judge players on if they contributed to losing a goal only? 

I think the difference is that you are assessing strengths and weaknesses based on bias and opinion. 

Whereas the other guy is basing his assessment on relevant facts. 

The facts show that central defenders have been more if a weak point for us. Not right back, regardless of your opinion of how good our right back is or not (relative to the rest of the.team). 

And that rings true in my mind.  The central defenders weve been playing are pretty young (McKenna, Soutter, bates) and liable to make mistakes. They also might not be very good, but time will tell.

Also, we need a striker before a right back. And a keeper I suspect. 

[andyD]

1 hour ago, Super_Scotlandfan said:

No it’s simply not a fair measure. That’s what I’m disagreeing with you about.

An Achilles heel is a weak area. We are weak at right back no matter how many goals we have conceded directly from our right back making a mistake. 

Weak areas cause stresses on the teamp on different positions all over the pitch.

Their lack of ability did make us struggle under Mcleish. 

Do you really think managers forget about mistakes that didn’t lead to goals and judge players on if they contributed to losing a goal only? 

Do you think a manager would weight 'mistakes resulting goals' lower than 'mistakes not resulting in goals'?

[Burj_Alba]

18 hours ago, Texas Pete said:

Where have I heard that before?

As we are one grouping ahead of them and at home, we should win, will never say we will win. Point is, this match will give a good summary of whether ODonnell is good enough defensively and going forward against a team of this calibre, win or not win. Unlikely he will be bombing up and down in Belgium if he has Hazard, De Brueyne or others terrorising him so will see different side to him. Good two matches to see what he's got.

[scotlad]

There is something I find a bit unsatisfying about the eligibility rules. A bit like copying your friend's homework when you were at school: you have an initial sense of relief because you've got a task out of the way but ultimately you don't get that feeling of satisfaction at having achieved something on your own merits.

But the rules are there and teams that we're competing with make use of them too (like Northern Ireland, who are often held up on here as anexample of a small nation with limited resources achieving something in the game). We've also been stung by the rules and lost out on players raised in Scotland too. The bottom line is, we don't produce enough high quality young players any more, and until that is addressed we'd be daft to turn away players who want to play for us just on a point of principle.

So if Fredricks or whoever wants to play for Scotland, turns up for squads and gives his best on the pitch, I say welcome aboard. 

[Tartan_McCole]

7 minutes ago, scotlad said:

There is something I find a bit unsatisfying about the eligibility rules. A bit like copying your friend's homework when you were at school: you have an initial sense of relief because you've got a task out of the way but ultimately you don't get that feeling of satisfaction at having achieved something on your own merits.

But the rules are there and teams that we're competing with make use of them too (like Northern Ireland, who are often held up on here as anexample of a small nation with limited resources achieving something in the game). We've also been stung by the rules and lost out on players raised in Scotland too. The bottom line is, we don't produce enough high quality young players any more, and until that is addressed we'd be daft to turn away players who want to play for us just on a point of principle.

So if Fredricks or whoever wants to play for Scotland, turns up for squads and gives his best on the pitch, I say welcome aboard. 

Absolutely. The boy could be from the Congo and I wouldn't care. If he's eligible, better than what we have, and he's willing to give 100% then fire him in.

[wanderer]

While we all want examples likes Graham Alexander, you will get ones like Matt Elliott....

Suppose its what they go on to do with Scotland that count (plus who they are keeping out the team).... Morrison's comments when he first got into squad were not what anyone wants to hear, yet from 2010-2015, he was arguably the first name on the team sheet and one of the most consistent players in the squad (come qualifier or friendly match), so I think few would grudge him his caps.

Also, and probably more importantly, are they keeping any Scottish born players out of the team who can do just as good a job?

Looks like Callum Patterson's long term future is in midfield, and I am not a fan of playing Kieran Tierney just for the sake of it, so really its Palmer and O'Donnell v Fredericks..... 

Palmer the jury is still out on, and while SoD was probably one of the few "success" stories to come out the Peru and Mexico tour, he has never filled me with confidence that he is our long term answer for that position.

Still no indication if this is going to happen or not, and probably nothing more than Clarke following a lead given to him by one of his former clubs, as ultimately the decision will come down to him and how he fells this will improve the team.

 

[Tartan_McCole]

27 minutes ago, wanderer said:

Looks like Callum Patterson's long term future is in midfield, and I am not a fan of playing Kieran Tierney just for the sake of it, so really its Palmer and O'Donnell v Fredericks..... 

 

Strange way to look at Tierneys situation. We're not playing him just for the sake of it, we're playing him there because he's our best option there. Well, arguably..

[er yir macaroon]

I would be interested to know if other nations forums have page after page of squabbles over eligibility criteria. Maybe they do. 

[mccaughey85]

Tierney did well at right back when he was played there. It would be good to get Frederick's in as he could be a step up in class to what we have at right back and Tierney seems to missing quite a few squads recently.

[wanderer]

14 minutes ago, Tartan_McCole said:

Strange way to look at Tierneys situation. We're not playing him just for the sake of it, we're playing him there because he's our best option there. Well, arguably..

Just not a fan of playing people out of position like that. 

[wanderer]

13 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

I would be interested to know if other nations forums have page after page of squabbles over eligibility criteria. Maybe they do. 

Asked some Welsh friends about it, and it certainly used to divide opinion (Ashley Williams was an example they used, comparing it somewhat to James Morrison, in that fans were not happy at first, but grew to appreciate him).... but certainly came a long way from capping the likes of Vinnie Jones, and now they have to rely less on it, but when they do uncover a player it seems to be that they want to play for Wales.

[andyD]

8 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Tierney did well at right back when he was played there.

I think it's worth qualifying that..

He did well defensively. Going forward he was pretty much non-existent. There's a case to be made for him there.. e.g. against Belgium, where we're probably not going to be looking for our fullbacks to overload and spend as much time int he opposition half as our own, his defensive ability would be welcome and put to good use.

However in the Cyprus game, he'd largely be a waste of a shirt. He basically has no right foot, can't cross off the open side when on the right and so doesn't offer on the overlap. For me there'd be a better argument for playing someone like Matt Phillips at right back in that game. He'd offer a better option going forward and would contribute significantly more than Tierney would.

However, I'd go with the two we have. O'Donnell or Palmer. Whichever is in better shape and looks the better in training. I think O'Donnell is more likely simple because Palmer's season finished a month ago now. It's got to be hard to keep yourself match sharp without a game in a month.

[ParisInAKilt]

4 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

It is a great honour to have the boards resident conspiracy theorist take such an interest. Thank you. Your beautiful.

I don't care if I'm in the minority of one, if he's called up I will give Fredericks a chance.

Don’t flatter yourself too much now, it’s a message board, replying to people’s post is normal

[ErsatzThistle]

7 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Don’t flatter yourself too much now, it’s a message board, replying to people’s post is normal

Really ? That's incredible !

[ParisInAKilt]

4 minutes ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Really ? That's incredible !

You’ll pick it up. 

Back on topic. Fredrick’s could turn out to be a committed granny ruler but he probably won’t. Most aren’t.