Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Wilbur

The (Real) Times, not "The Evening Times"

Recommended Posts

Rangers 4 St Mirren 0.

I think we are breaking new ground here.

The sports report by journalist Mark Walker regarding Saturday's fixture at Ibrox (apologies but the Times is subscription-only so I can't download this), has surely achieved something previously unheard of.

It is hugely critical of Andrew Dallas's performance. Yes, tick.

Four penalties awarded by Dallas, three of them ridiculous and unjustifiable. Yes, tick.

Walker challenges Dallas's competence and his questions his legitimate future as a referee at this level. Yes, tick that one too.

Yet, in the entire article by this journalist there is not one single mention of Rangers opposition that had to bear these unquestionable injustices !! Not a single mention of "St Mirren" or any one of our players names made it into the item. Clearly we don't exist, it was just Rangers Rangers Rangers Rangers.

I like the Times, hence I buy it every day. Usually the journalism is unbiased. But here we have it, a report slagging off a referee's incompetence, but still can't acknowledge the "victim" of this  abomination.

GTF Mark Walker.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be honest we all wear black and white glasses. What did we offer against Rangers ? A bit of possession , yes. , How many saves did their goal keeper make ? Granted we had our guts pulled out thanks to the man in black. Our best player on Saturday was the keeper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rangers 4 St Mirren 0.
I think we are breaking new ground here.
The sports report by journalist Mark Walker regarding Saturday's fixture at Ibrox (apologies but the Times is subscription-only so I can't download this), has surely achieved something previously unheard of.
It is hugely critical of Andrew Dallas's performance. Yes, tick.
Four penalties awarded by Dallas, three of them ridiculous and unjustifiable. Yes, tick.
Walker challenges Dallas's competence and his questions his legitimate future as a referee at this level. Yes, tick that one too.
Yet, in the entire article by this journalist there is not one single mention of Rangers opposition that had to bear these unquestionable injustices !! Not a single mention of "St Mirren" or any one of our players names made it into the item. Clearly we don't exist, it was just Rangers Rangers Rangers Rangers.
I like the Times, hence I buy it every day. Usually the journalism is unbiased. But here we have it, a report slagging off a referee's incompetence, but still can't acknowledge the "victim" of this  abomination.
GTF Mark Walker.
 
So really Mark Walker is just another outraged Celtic fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

Rangers 4 St Mirren 0.

I think we are breaking new ground here.

The sports report by journalist Mark Walker regarding Saturday's fixture at Ibrox (apologies but the Times is subscription-only so I can't download this), has surely achieved something previously unheard of.

It is hugely critical of Andrew Dallas's performance. Yes, tick.

Four penalties awarded by Dallas, three of them ridiculous and unjustifiable. Yes, tick.

Walker challenges Dallas's competence and his questions his legitimate future as a referee at this level. Yes, tick that one too.

Yet, in the entire article by this journalist there is not one single mention of Rangers opposition that had to bear these unquestionable injustices !! Not a single mention of "St Mirren" or any one of our players names made it into the item. Clearly we don't exist, it was just Rangers Rangers Rangers Rangers.

I like the Times, hence I buy it every day. Usually the journalism is unbiased. But here we have it, a report slagging off a referee's incompetence, but still can't acknowledge the "victim" of this  abomination.

GTF Mark Walker.

 

I'm not a great fan of The Times but it's hard to be too critical when he gets his judgement in the ref's performance right.

Edited by St.Ricky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Let's be honest we all wear black and white glasses. What did we offer against Rangers ? A bit of possession , yes. , How many saves did their goal keeper make ? Granted we had our guts pulled out thanks to the man in black. Our best player on Saturday was the keeper. 

That's got nothing to do with 3 penalties being wrongly given and 1 wrongly not given.

Our performance has absolutely nothing to do with the Officials decisions.

Are you saying it's ok to give wrong decisions against a team because they're not up the park attacking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Let's be honest we all wear black and white glasses. What did we offer against Rangers ? A bit of possession , yes. , How many saves did their goal keeper make ? Granted we had our guts pulled out thanks to the man in black. Our best player on Saturday was the keeper. 

Thing is, it’s a different game at 1-0. Having survived the first wrong decision, we were still in the game at 55 minutes. If we held onto that for another 20 mins, then 75-80mins we could have started pushing for the equaliser. Point is, the game would have panned out differently. We may have still lost, we may still have not achieved a shot on target. But we don’t know for sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game was totally different before and after the third penalty . Even those two fannies on Rangers TV gave us, quote, "a puncher's chance" at 1-0. It was only shooty-in after the third penalty. Before that we were containing them fairly well.

The Rangers TV guys eventually got carried away, asking "What would the score be without this goalkeeper?"

Probably about 7-0, but with a proper referee in charge it would most likely still have been 1-0.

Edited by Dirty Sanchez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

Thing is, it’s a different game at 1-0. Having survived the first wrong decision, we were still in the game at 55 minutes. If we held onto that for another 20 mins, then 75-80mins we could have started pushing for the equaliser. Point is, the game would have panned out differently. We may have still lost, we may still have not achieved a shot on target. But we don’t know for sure. 

Your right about being in the game in 55 min. Fact is we did not have one shoot on target in 55 min even up to 90 min that is fact. Have already wrote the ref made a balls over it. Would it have been different had the penalties not been awarded.  If you do I would appreciate if you could pm the lottery numbers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

Thing is, it’s a different game at 1-0. Having survived the first wrong decision, we were still in the game at 55 minutes. If we held onto that for another 20 mins, then 75-80mins we could have started pushing for the equaliser. Point is, the game would have panned out differently. We may have still lost, we may still have not achieved a shot on target. But we don’t know for sure. 

Absolutely. The assertions being made that Rangers would have won anyway are utterly glib. They take no account of the possible dynamics of the game and the home crowd. An insult to those of us who pay to see a beautiful game but end up getting a flawed and deeply unsatisfying product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HSS said:

That's got nothing to do with 3 penalties being wrongly given and 1 wrongly not given.

Our performance has absolutely nothing to do with the Officials decisions.

Are you saying it's ok to give wrong decisions against a team because they're not up the park attacking?

It's why the reporter in the Times wrote nothing on Saints that is my point. It felt like being cheated as a fan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your right about being in the game in 55 min. Fact is we did not have one shoot on target in 55 min even up to 90 min that is fact. Have already wrote the ref made a balls over it. Would it have been different had the penalties not been awarded.  If you do I would appreciate if you could pm the lottery numbers.  
Football is a confidence game.

Your confidence at 60 minutes only being 1 down through a penalty is totally different to being 2 down due to 3 dodgy penalties.

Nobody knows what would have happened if we'd stayed in the game but we know we definitely lost with the ref gifting penalties.

Lotto numbers are 1-59 by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hambud said:

Football is a confidence game.

Your confidence at 60 minutes only being 1 down through a penalty is totally different to being 2 down due to 3 dodgy penalties.

Nobody knows what would have happened if we'd stayed in the game but we know we definitely lost with the ref gifting penalties.

Lotto numbers are 1-59 by the way.

I agree it was very painful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

Thing is, it’s a different game at 1-0. Having survived the first wrong decision, we were still in the game at 55 minutes. If we held onto that for another 20 mins, then 75-80mins we could have started pushing for the equaliser. Point is, the game would have panned out differently. We may have still lost, we may still have not achieved a shot on target. But we don’t know for sure. 

Agree with this. We had a couple of half chances at best that fell to Jackson, though the longer the game could have went on at 1-0 we could have had a bit of self belief and the subs could have made a difference, even to the point where we see it's worthwhile sticking on McAllister to run at them for the last 15. That chance passed when the referee malfunctioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's be honest we all wear black and white glasses. What did we offer against Rangers ? A bit of possession , yes. , How many saves did their goal keeper make ? Granted we had our guts pulled out thanks to the man in black. Our best player on Saturday was the keeper. 


What has any of that got to do with it?

Cos we didn’t play that well, we deserved to have 4 penalties awarded against us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Your right about being in the game in 55 min. Fact is we did not have one shoot on target in 55 min even up to 90 min that is fact. Have already wrote the ref made a balls over it. Would it have been different had the penalties not been awarded.  If you do I would appreciate if you could pm the lottery numbers.  

There was roughly 80 minutes between Rangers two genuine goals. The majority of teams going to Ibrox will need to sit back and take that one or two chances. The possibility of that was ripped away from us early in the second half.

When rangers got the two goal cushion it was game over. There’s no way to know if we could have snuck a goal and gotten back into it because poor refereeing took that option away from us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

It's why the reporter in the Times wrote nothing on Saints that is my point. It felt like being cheated as a fan. 

I'm sorry IOBS,you've lost me.

What made you feel cheated?That we never had a shot on target,the Refs performance or The Times article?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Wilbur said:

Rangers 4 St Mirren 0.

I think we are breaking new ground here.

The sports report by journalist Mark Walker regarding Saturday's fixture at Ibrox (apologies but the Times is subscription-only so I can't download this), has surely achieved something previously unheard of.

It is hugely critical of Andrew Dallas's performance. Yes, tick.

Four penalties awarded by Dallas, three of them ridiculous and unjustifiable. Yes, tick.

Walker challenges Dallas's competence and his questions his legitimate future as a referee at this level. Yes, tick that one too.

Yet, in the entire article by this journalist there is not one single mention of Rangers opposition that had to bear these unquestionable injustices !! Not a single mention of "St Mirren" or any one of our players names made it into the item. Clearly we don't exist, it was just Rangers Rangers Rangers Rangers.

I like the Times, hence I buy it every day. Usually the journalism is unbiased. But here we have it, a report slagging off a referee's incompetence, but still can't acknowledge the "victim" of this  abomination.

GTF Mark Walker.

 

The times, they are a changing :whistle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would it have been different had the penalties not been awarded.  If you do I would appreciate if you could pm the lottery numbers.  


Nobody knows what would have happened after the penalties. That is the point!

The penalties won the game for Sevco. That is the only fact we know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, HSS said:

You dont know either?:wacko:

ok I will try and simplify what I'm sure you already know. 1/  Felt cheated by a incompetent ref who is clearly not up to the job.   2/ Wilbur pointed out the reporter did not mention St Mirren on the game. What can the reporter write when St Mirren had not one shoot on target. My opinion which I have already wrote is that our keeper was our best player. If you don't agree fine the forums is about opinions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Dallas' refereeing was not acceptable for the top flight in Scotland (or at any level for that matter) but I have to agree with IOBS that our defending is also not up to the mark.

We are typically outmuscled in the midfield, and then retreat into our own 18 yard line which is why Sevco were given so many opportunities to 'manufacture' penalty claims.

Until we learn to defend higher up the park we will be struggling to avoid defeat after defeat.

This is our single biggest weakness compared to most of the teams above us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×