Jute Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 is back in according to Daily Retard. Very unfair on Souter if true as he has done well in games I have seen. Just another example of the tanned balloon making a change for the sake of making a change IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ajja Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Soutar has not played badly so it does seem that JC is looking in the wrong area to make changes. However, we are losing goals and although the defence has been fragile, its possible clangers will provide some more familiarity and therefor stability ? Clutching at straws here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Soutar's out of his depth. While he's not made any obvious errors, he's conceded at least 4 goals that a better goalkeeper would've saved. The success of the team is more important than Soutar's feelings, and unfortunately for him, Langfield's a better keeper, albeit he's not ideal himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Very very strange this one. Unless Soutar is injured makes no sense to put Langfield back in. Not played competitively since May. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyBiscuit Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 IF this is true, it's a fucking appalling decision by Calderwood and shows him up for the arse that he is. Langfield doesn't want to play for us. Therefore, he shouldn't play for us. I have it on good authority that he's not that far away from losing the dressing room, I don't see how this decision will appease the players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millers Tache Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 IF this is true, it's a fucking appalling decision by Calderwood and shows him up for the arse that he is. Langfield doesn't want to play for us. Therefore, he shouldn't play for us. I have it on good authority that he's not that far away from losing the dressing room, I don't see how this decision will appease the players. Absofuckinglutely. Dunno about the losing the dressng room bit, but Langfield can away and shite as far as i'm concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil-stellaartois-mcguire Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 don't be fucking daft. if clangers is a better keeper, he's still on our books so shoudlplay, regardless of a) he has fallen out with calderwood or b) he doesn't want to be there. If this is hte case, he will play well to attract another team to take him on. If he plays like shite, no-one will be interested in him. personally, I don't think there's much between the two keepers, so I would go with the one with more experience and who wants to put himself in the shop window as he'll try harder to get a deal elsewhere. And all this gash about losing the dressing room? How can that be if he's introduced dung who is a great laugh in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyBiscuit Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 don't be fucking daft. if clangers is a better keeper, he's still on our books so shoudlplay, regardless of a) he has fallen out with calderwood or b) he doesn't want to be there. If this is hte case, he will play well to attract another team to take him on. If he plays like shite, no-one will be interested in him. personally, I don't think there's much between the two keepers, so I would go with the one with more experience and who wants to put himself in the shop window as he'll try harder to get a deal elsewhere. And all this gash about losing the dressing room? How can that be if he's introduced dung who is a great laugh in there. I would say the problem lies more in how things have been done rather than who's the better keeper. But in saying that, Clangers and Soutar is rather like AIDS and Pluracy... I'd rather have neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glasgow sheep Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I'm torn about this one. On the one hand I totally agree with Slim and think that although Soapy hasn't thrown any goals away like clangers occasionally does I don't think he gives any confidence to our defence and does seem very slow in going down for shots. I'm sure if langfield had been in goals we would have lost a couple of clangers but he would have saved 4 of the ones that got past soutar. Then on the other hand the fact that the cunt doesnae want to play for us and would rather be sitting on the bench (or stand) at ibrox means I see where you guys are coming from. Either way if Jamie is back in it shows up JC for being more of an arse than we thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeedTheBall Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Langfield certainly communicates and organises the defence better. Although more prone to stupid fuck-ups than Soutar. Anyway, both are pish and we should've signed another keeper during the summer. If push comes to shove then if Langfield doesn't want to play for us then he shouldn't. Simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millers Tache Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Leaving aside all the "does he want to play for us" stuff (my opinions on that matter being quite clear, and highly unlikely to be taken into account by JC), Soutar hasn't made any obvious cock ups this season, so it would be extremely harsh to drop him. How many times did Langfield make a total arse of an innocuous situation last season? How close was he ever to being dropped? If he were to play tonight, it would reek horribly of favouritism from Jimmy and would be extra harsh on Soutar who, it would be fair to say, hasn't done anything to merit getting shoved to the bench. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaj Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Regardless of which goalkeeper you'd rather have in the team, which is something akin to having to decide between burning or drowning, there's a seperate issue here. JC made a big hoo-hah about Langfield's breach of club discipline, throwing his usual negative soundbites all over the media, all that pish. He insisted that no replacement would be signed and Soutar would be number one this season. So it sends out a piss poor message if a month or two later you forget such ardent proclamations and let Langfield slink back into the team and basically kick Soutar in his metaphorical bollocks. If you're going to kick up a big stink about something, make a controversial decision, make an example of someone, you have to have the courage of your convictions and actually stick to it. Otherwise, you damage your authority and make yourself look pathetic. Having said all that - probably won't happen, it came from the Record after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Would say Langfield definitely causes more panic in our defense than Soutar ever has and reckon we may see this tonight but hope nae and he has stormer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caledonia Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 There both pish stick Derek Young in goals as he is great for team spirit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentorred Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 There both pish stick Derek Young in goals as he is great for team spirit Don't be stupid we would miss young in Midfield, Seve should be in goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renfrewshire red Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 well done jamie good game tonight organizes the defence far better than soutar .. soutar was a bit suspect a few times this season esp the goals on saturday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glasgow sheep Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 think clangers showed why he should never have been dropped. Organises the defence far better and gives them more confidence than Soutar ever does. Better shot stopper too. Terrible kicking but I'll accept that tbh. I'm sure we would have at least a couple of extra points this season if he had been playing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jute Posted September 21, 2007 Author Share Posted September 21, 2007 Jagerdeen Vindicated. Clean Sheet - defence looked good - especially considine. 2 great saves from JL. Only 2 shots on target from the Neeps! Only problem wi Langfield was he seemed to kick the baa afie far! We were very unlucky to come awa withoot a goal the nicht. We'll go there and win 1-0... in the last minute. JUTE - Think I saw you on telly in the lower RDS the night! (Prawn sandwich muchin b4stard!!!) Nah in the SS last night. On topic I thought Langfield did ok last night apart for the usual woeful kicking but did not see that he did anything that Souter could not have done. Be interesting to see who is in for Sunday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigAl Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Jagerdeen Vindicated. Clean Sheet - defence looked good - especially considine. 2 great saves from JL. Only 2 shots on target from the Neeps! Only problem wi Langfield was he seemed to kick the baa afie far! We were very unlucky to come awa withoot a goal the nicht. We'll go there and win 1-0... in the last minute. JUTE - Think I saw you on telly in the lower RDS the night! (Prawn sandwich muchin b4stard!!!) Nah in the SS last night. On topic I thought Langfield did ok last night apart for the usual woeful kicking but did not see that he did anything that Souter could not have done. Be interesting to see who is in for Sunday. Greg Kelly ? In all seriousness though, can't see it being Soapy............ but then again might be one more spin of JC's tombola Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil-stellaartois-mcguire Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 langfield will be playing to put him in the shop window for the january transfer window Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigAl Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 langfield will be playing to put him in the shop window for the january transfer window Cynical, but quite possibly true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewsome Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 The numbers don't lie - Langfield is our better keeper. While I said last year he needed Anderson in front of him, this year he doesn't seem lost. Soutar can go in January. Strikers still need more consistent service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reekie_Red Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Bring back Bobby Clark, whilst we're at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don4eva Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 cant really complain about any of his performances since he came back which is why he has BEEN CALLED UP TO THE SCOTLAND SQUAD well done to him to be honest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomsod Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 bit shocked he's been called up already considering hes only played a few games for us this season. but fairplay to him. id rather have him in goals than soutar but i'd still rather get someone better in goals, but at moment we cant afford it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
️ Come on you Reds! 
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.