ArcticJambo Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 1 hour ago, chrystaf said: Indeed. I may be off the mark here but according to john Carver, Shanks is an out and out striker/centre forward and that how Scotland will play him. Bollox. Most of Shanks play is behind where a striker would play, working the channels and bringing other player into scoring positions. Yes when he's in the box he can be a predator , but apart from his goals, his all round play and eye for "a pass" is equally as beneficial. He needs a striking partner to benefit from his play and Scotland is not giving him one...yet. that carver is a grade a1 idiot, a dinosaur. only reason hes there is to make Clarke look like a genius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1971fozzy Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 It’s an awful lot of words when perhaps he should be focusing on John Souttars performance and that of the defence who conceded 4 (would of been 5 had that lad not missed an easier chance than Shanks) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmbraCraig Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 The headline is crap, and doesn’t reflect what is in the actual article. But there’s a fair chance the headline was written by a subeditor and not actually by Tom English at all…. And it got you enraged enough to click through to the article, so did its job. ’Shankland proves doubters wrong about perceived weaknesses’ would be closer to the content of the article. And yes, plenty of people across Scotland reckoned that Shanks couldn’t do that holdup job that Dykes does for Scotland well enough for Clark to play his usual system with him up top, so it’s a entirely fair to call them ‘perceived weaknesses’. Pretty sure TE has been one of those on Sportsound saying he thought Shanks should be given a start in these friendlies, and (especially given Dykes and Adam’s scoring records), I don’t think he’s done himself any harm at all, even though he hit the bar with a chance you’d usually expect him to tuck away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettigrewsstylist Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 Article fine. Headline clickbait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 A very poor choice of words perhaps. Shanks is unlucky, the ball sits up a bit as he hits it probably sticking a bit more height on it. I think Clarke needs to play him in every game anyway, Shanks just needs a goal and he'll be cooking wi gas. Tell you what, if he scores that last night then mentally he's probably thinking that he's proven himself as a worthy starter and it's his to throw away. Now he's probably thinking that he's not done enough. That's what I think English is touching on here. Shanks did all the stuff Dykes and Adams do but the thing he has that they've no got is that finishing ability. It's about what separates Shanks from them, what he brings that they don't. So I do get what Tom is saying, he did really need to finish that to propel himself into that first choice position. Shanks is highly critical of himself but he should be damn proud of his performance last night, he did well against VDV who is arguably one of the greatest ever. He's come a long way and I'd put my house on him scoring the next one that presents itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micole Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 Nothing I could see that was wrong with the article. All strikers will miss chances, it happens. Do we as supporters get frustrated, of course we do, imagine how Shanks must be feeling. What's done is done, we move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stirlo Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 Tom English is fundamentally a good journalist and I've not got an issue with this particular article, but I do find he sometimes goes a bit far in terms of writing a narrative to correspond with the outcome of a particular game or competition. In fairness, many sports journalists are guilty of the same thing (and worse) but I think it's a temptation that should be avoided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Dawkins Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 I'm sorry, this article is anything but embarrassing. It's written by a journalist whom I respect very much. Indeed, I think it is the opposite, and is very praise worthy of Shankland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luckies1874 Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 Excellent article. Fair, reasonable and indeed accurate. Praises Shanks for his overall contribution which on the night was more than adequate, indeed he held the ball up and linked very well whilst being disappointed, like most of us (and I'm sure Shanks himself) that he didn't bury a golden chance. If he had done he would have put himself in a very strong position to start against Germany. Some Hearts fans are amongst the most paranoid supporters you'll find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticJambo Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 (edited) The most paranoid, laughable mate. Youre the NTs biggest cheerleader on here. Your post doesn't surprise me. Edited March 23 by ArcticJambo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upgotheheads Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 (edited) 5 hours ago, MTS1874 said: Shankland played well last night, it’s just a pity he missed that chance. Shankland misses chances like that every week, just like Tom English has completely missed the point. The point of being a striker is to get into positions to score, that's the first and most important skill, the second is to convert them, that's the second and most difficult skill. Every great striker misses more than he scores. Shankland's effort last night was composed, he struck the ball beautifully in trying to place the ball exactly where the goalie couldn't get it and missed the bullseye by about three inches. Tom English only pays attention to players when they happen to be playing the arse-cheeks, which is why he knows the square root of F-all when he talks about Shankland. Edited March 23 by upgotheheads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PortyBeach Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 5 hours ago, JFK-1 said: I think he might have implied that without actually saying it so to speak. Rather than just his view a such I think it's a statement of plain fact. With the current statement of Budge in mind about spending on players, well you would think some of that could be applied to giving him a large bump, minimum 20K a week. But money aside it might also come down to a desire to win major trophies, multiple even, like drives Harry Kane. And if his ambition lies elsewhere it might be best to offload him this summer for the best price that's going to be available in comparison to the following summer. And add that money to the funds Budge says will be available now. If he could bring even just 2 million in the summer, and presuming another 5 million from euro groups all of which and more Mrs. Budge says is now available for players they could spend a bundle on a young prospect. A million minimum or even 2 million. Shankland is going to be gone, everybody knows that's an enormous loss. Typically any major loss is irreplaceable like for like, and he's more than just typical to the side. Given Mrs Budges statement about finances presuming multi millions might be available I think this has to be the optimum time to try to replace Shankland. If Shankland can secure 2 million or even more as I mentioned in another post I would like to see up to 2 million spent on some Morelos like prospect who could bang in the goals and return a profit, perhaps a handsome profit. If Shankland stayed and left at the end of his contract then obviously there's no income at all from that. And the problem of replacing him would have been kicked down the line till he was gone. Part of the reluctance to let him go among fans is often emotional rather than rational, that's football fans, all of us. Hardly surprising since he's become a club icon. I feel it's in the best interests of the club going forward that Shankland go this summer for the highest possible sum. Euro group football is already pretty much acquired if not yet mathematically. Who would it be best to showcase in Europe this year? Shankland or some young million plus prospect who, with a bit of luck, will come good. Post Shankland is a scary world, but I think it's best this summer. Implied or otherwise, I suspect we now have a pretty good idea about which way the wind is blowing. As you say, Hearts’ management must now develop a strategy to manage the change in a way that, going forward, best ensures the club’s interests are protected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go for it 1308 Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 1 hour ago, ArcticJambo said: that carver is a grade a1 idiot, a dinosaur. only reason hes there is to make Clarke look like a genius. Now that's a very good point you make about him. I can't stand the prick. Arsehole of a man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gundermann Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 37 minutes ago, Luckies1874 said: Excellent article. Fair, reasonable and indeed accurate. Praises Shanks for his overall contribution which on the night was more than adequate, indeed he held the ball up and linked very well whilst being disappointed, like most of us (and I'm sure Shanks himself) that he didn't bury a golden chance. If he had done he would have put himself in a very strong position to start against Germany. Some Hearts fans are amongst the most paranoid supporters you'll find. Thought the same. Read it, waiting for English to debase himself with some prize slavering but it didn't really appear. Maybe the bit about 'having a black mark next to his name'? That aside, it was spot on. He raised the defensive frailities too though he didn't go as far as Sportscene last night and name Souttar and Porteous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May98 Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 Decent and fair article. Positive also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DS98 Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 6 hours ago, kingantti1874 said: honest but wrong. He’s phenomenal at holding the ball up, extremely tidy on the ball and happy to run the channels when it’s needed. So call those aspects of his game “flaws” is plain wrong regardless of whether he’s being honest or not That’s the bit that stood out for me. Shanks’ hold up play is tremendous. I thought Boyce was brilliant at that side of the game but for me Shankland is even better than him at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Duncan Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 4 hours ago, mud and mullets said: That's a throwback! The football media lost their collective minds during the Romanov era. Impartial reporting about Hearts went out the window. I think Tom English has spoken about having a bit of regret about that piece mind you. I hope he has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunder and Lightning Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 I am outraged. Oh wait, it passed. Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Ian Malcolm Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 The folk who keep saying Shankland's link up and play outside the box are "weaknesses" haven't been watching him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Rob Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 As I said to a friend today, the Shankland chance wasn’t a sitter, though we’ve seen him put that sort of chance away a dozen times at least. He lifted it just a touch too much and it hit the bar rather than the top corner. It happens. The difference is that Shanks will convert a chance like that 70-80% of the time, and the really top drawer strikers will convert it 98% of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 4 hours ago, Nookie Bear said: Nah he’s using phrases like “he had to score” and “catastrophic miss”. Plenty of praise but in reality It’s a hatchet job he was desperate to write. In the context of how the game progressed, how was it not catastrophic? That's not a slight on Shankland. English as much as says that it's unusual for him. But what could have been a galvanizing equalizer was left wanting and then three more went in for the Dutch. It wasn't a howler. It wasn't incompetent. It wasn't some sign that Shanks isn't good enough. Fortunately English doesn't say any of those things. But in terms of the stakes of the match (admittedly not much), it ended up being one that Scotland deeply rued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts_fan Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 3 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said: Nothing wrong with the article, we really do have some sensitive bed wetters in our support. Shankland played well. The article says that. He was excellent at the things that people who don't watch him regularly think he can't do well. The article says that. He missed an absolute sitter by his standards. The article says that. The headline refers to “Shankland’s flaws”, in reference to areas of Shanks’ talent and skill which are not flaws at all, namely his hold-up play and link-up play, among others, which are exceptional. Hearts fans should be unanimously mocking Tom English for this bizarre analysis, not praising a “good article”. It kind of undermines the credibility of the rest of the article, but some Hearts fans don’t mind because much of the article is complimentary towards the Hearts player. It’s liking a pundit simply because they said something nice about Hearts. There’s got to be more cross-examination than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomaso Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 10 hours ago, jambo191 said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68643514 As the title says. What a clown. Thought his comments were painfully accurate. 🤷♂️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Quaresma Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 1 hour ago, Hearts_fan said: The headline refers to “Shankland’s flaws”, in reference to areas of Shanks’ talent and skill which are not flaws at all, namely his hold-up play and link-up play, among others, which are exceptional. Hearts fans should be unanimously mocking Tom English for this bizarre analysis, not praising a “good article”. It kind of undermines the credibility of the rest of the article, but some Hearts fans don’t mind because much of the article is complimentary towards the Hearts player. It’s liking a pundit simply because they said something nice about Hearts. There’s got to be more cross-examination than that. I agree; the boy's spending the credit he has in the bank, quite fast now A bit rushed and obviously persisted with it after a bad starting position, I would hope that's because he had limited time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VALDOS' Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 Shankland should be scoring that chance, it's international football, that's the level expected. Outwith that, his performance was good. I don't see much wrong with the article. As for social media, it's normal to beat someone down as they rise to the top, it's a very British thing. You only need to look at last nights thread on here, posters frothing at the mouth to put players down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeke1874 Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 I think the article is fair enough. Apart from maybe not realising that shanks can do all the outside the box stuff well and has been all season. He's maybe been a wee bit off the last few games for Hearts as well. But he'll defo come good again. 2 inches lower and that shot is a great goal. Sometimes think shanks always want to hit top bins tho. The spectacular finish etc. Maybe should have just fired it low past the keeper. But these things happen. Would still back him 100% before dykes to score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queensferryjambo Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 Article is pretty fair. Only thing is Tom English seems to have forgotten it was a friendly against a very good side, not the World Cup final. Either way apart from over egging the importance of the missed chance pretty spot on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upgotheheads Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 (edited) 2 hours ago, Hearts_fan said: The headline refers to “Shankland’s flaws”, in reference to areas of Shanks’ talent and skill which are not flaws at all, namely his hold-up play and link-up play, among others, which are exceptional. Hearts fans should be unanimously mocking Tom English for this bizarre analysis, not praising a “good article”. It kind of undermines the credibility of the rest of the article, but some Hearts fans don’t mind because much of the article is complimentary towards the Hearts player. It’s liking a pundit simply because they said something nice about Hearts. There’s got to be more cross-examination than that. If Shanks was playing for Rangers he would have no 'flaws'. Edited March 23 by upgotheheads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Quaresma Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 1 hour ago, zeke1874 said: I think the article is fair enough. Apart from maybe not realising that shanks can do all the outside the box stuff well and has been all season. He's maybe been a wee bit off the last few games for Hearts as well. But he'll defo come good again. 2 inches lower and that shot is a great goal. Sometimes think shanks always want to hit top bins tho. The spectacular finish etc. Maybe should have just fired it low past the keeper. But these things happen. Would still back him 100% before dykes to score. English is pointing out a 'public perception' of LS, by a group of people, without naming any particular set of people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 3 hours ago, Hearts_fan said: The headline refers to “Shankland’s flaws”, in reference to areas of Shanks’ talent and skill which are not flaws at all, namely his hold-up play and link-up play, among others, which are exceptional. Hearts fans should be unanimously mocking Tom English for this bizarre analysis, not praising a “good article”. It kind of undermines the credibility of the rest of the article, but some Hearts fans don’t mind because much of the article is complimentary towards the Hearts player. It’s liking a pundit simply because they said something nice about Hearts. There’s got to be more cross-examination than that. The headline makes complete sense in the context of the article which addresses the perceived flaws of Shankland which he in fact demonstrated to many last night are indeed not flaws. That was a main focus of the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter McGavin Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 Pretty fair article, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PortyBeach Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 59 minutes ago, upgotheheads said: If Shanks was playing for Rangers he would have no 'flaws'. How dare you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 4 hours ago, Hearts_fan said: The headline refers to “Shankland’s flaws”, in reference to areas of Shanks’ talent and skill which are not flaws at all, namely his hold-up play and link-up play, among others, which are exceptional. Hearts fans should be unanimously mocking Tom English for this bizarre analysis, not praising a “good article”. It kind of undermines the credibility of the rest of the article, but some Hearts fans don’t mind because much of the article is complimentary towards the Hearts player. It’s liking a pundit simply because they said something nice about Hearts. There’s got to be more cross-examination than that. Journalists don't write their own headlines. They turn in the story and then the website editor will add the headline. English almost certainly had nothing to do with the headline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregzy2k7 Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 Shanks will score in the next match, Bookmark this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 5 hours ago, Dr Ian Malcolm said: The folk who keep saying Shankland's link up and play outside the box are "weaknesses" haven't been watching him. Rangers acolytes attempting to talk down his value, and Celtic acolytes trying to say he's not good enough for them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambo1975 Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 Whilst the article itself isn't too bad the question is why does it need to be written? Simply put the majority of the west coast media can't accept that a forward for Heart of Midlothian should be a first team starter for Scotland. I have seen more written about Shanks and Scotland over the last few days than I have ever seen about any individual in a squad for a long time. I'd be quite happy to see him benched for the Tuesday game as I'd much rather he was fit and ready for next week than having to try to keep justifying his selection to the hacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 5 hours ago, Ricardo Quaresma said: English is pointing out a 'public perception' of LS, by a group of people, without naming any particular set of people At least one of those people appears to be Steve Clarke, whose prior verdict on Shanks seemed to be, "he can score but not sure he can do the dirty work." The article to me is pointing out that he did exceptionally well at the dirty work, and his failure to score kind of turned that narrative on its head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFK-1 Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 The miss is meaningless to anybody who matters, pundits and fans don't matter. It was a friendly, nothing at stake, and anybody can miss anytime. This will do nothing to put any sort of dent in his reputation. To the people who matter the fact he got into a position to take the pop will be as significant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Ramsay Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 15 hours ago, Dr Ian Malcolm said: The folk who keep saying Shankland's link up and play outside the box are "weaknesses" haven't been watching him. Correct. He clearly doesn't know much about Shankland which is a bit embarrassing for a man in his position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philfigo Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 Really poor article because it shows how lazy journalists are in Scotland. If English had have bothered to come to Tynecastle a few time this season he would have noted that Shankland does almost the things he suggests are his weaknesses. Instead he has just listened to social media and based his article on that rather that FACT. Shanklands strengths ARE dropping back into a No10 role and linking play, being physically strong and also running the channels. These BBC pundits are all just and extension to social media comments. They go with the flow of social media to please the loudest and get more views and likes. Next month they will have a different opinion completely they change like the wind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4marsbars Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 So we generally agree. It's a good article from a decent and fair journalist. MODS Please change thread title. It's embarrassing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambo19 Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) I think the only outrage seems to be there's no articles having a pop at "super" John McGinn, Ryan Christie or Scott McTominay who all missed great chances. At the end of the day Shankland did pretty well and as a team the first round of 3 subs killed our momentum and forward play. If we were braver we would've played Shankland with Adams instead of Christie, who has been poor lately, so we had pace off the shoulder like he had in Ginnelly or Vargas/Forrest. Shankland is the easy target for journalists to pick on after a terrible defensive capitulation. We really should be looking elsewhere to point the blame like the goalie/manager/defenders or our so called best players. He should have scored but in the minutes he's had for Scotland he's still done well. Hopefully gets a better chance against Northern Ireland! Edited March 24 by jambo19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Goalscoring Knee Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 55 minutes ago, Philfigo said: Really poor article because it shows how lazy journalists are in Scotland. If English had have bothered to come to Tynecastle a few time this season he would have noted that Shankland does almost the things he suggests are his weaknesses. Instead he has just listened to social media and based his article on that rather that FACT. Shanklands strengths ARE dropping back into a No10 role and linking play, being physically strong and also running the channels. How many more times? HE'S not saying those are Shankland's weaknesses. He wrote: "The Hearts captain had spent his night doing the very things that some thought were potential weaknesses - working the channels, holding the line, bringing others into the game." His knows Shankland does that stuff, he's pointing out that there are people spouting off (usually on social media) who don't realise that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 1 hour ago, The Goalscoring Knee said: How many more times? HE'S not saying those are Shankland's weaknesses. He wrote: "The Hearts captain had spent his night doing the very things that some thought were potential weaknesses - working the channels, holding the line, bringing others into the game." His knows Shankland does that stuff, he's pointing out that there are people spouting off (usually on social media) who don't realise that. Indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampant Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 18 hours ago, Hearts_fan said: The headline refers to “Shankland’s flaws”, in reference to areas of Shanks’ talent and skill which are not flaws at all, namely his hold-up play and link-up play, among others, which are exceptional. Hearts fans should be unanimously mocking Tom English for this bizarre analysis, not praising a “good article”. It kind of undermines the credibility of the rest of the article, but some Hearts fans don’t mind because much of the article is complimentary towards the Hearts player. It’s liking a pundit simply because they said something nice about Hearts. There’s got to be more cross-examination than that. It's an article written about Shankland playing for Scotland. Everyone has known for a very long time that Shankland is a better finisher than Dykes or Adams. What's been questioned is whether Shankland has the physicality and athleticism to do the job that Dykes and Adams have done for Scotland. It's a fair enough question given the respective levels each has played at for the previous few years. English is only speaking of 'flaws' in the context of what is required for Scotland. And he concludes that Shankland proved they shouldn't be a concern any longer. It's a positive article and some fans are being a bit too precious, and needlessly critical of one of the fairest sports writer in Scotland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busbyfth Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 On 23/03/2024 at 07:59, Paris 84 said: Embarrassing where in the article exactly? Aye...but dreadfully laboured/long winded piece. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzyonthefence Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 Embarrassing………… thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford donald Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 On 23/03/2024 at 13:55, micole said: Nothing I could see that was wrong with the article. All strikers will miss chances, it happens. Do we as supporters get frustrated, of course we do, imagine how Shanks must be feeling. What's done is done, we move on. Another day he scores,and it was 1-0 when he was subbed,who's to say he would not have scored if he was kept on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luckies1874 Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 6 hours ago, The Goalscoring Knee said: How many more times? HE'S not saying those are Shankland's weaknesses. He wrote: "The Hearts captain had spent his night doing the very things that some thought were potential weaknesses - working the channels, holding the line, bringing others into the game." His knows Shankland does that stuff, he's pointing out that there are people spouting off (usually on social media) who don't realise that. Correct. The paranoia on here when it comes to Hearts players is hilarious. It's an excellent and totally fair article. The fact English is even bothering to write an article concentrating on Shankland simply shows that he is very much in the conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDK2020 Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 On 23/03/2024 at 08:19, Hearts_fan said: That’s the worst piece of journalism I can remember from English. I normally respect what he says, but that was sensationalist tabloid garbage. He had to lay it on thick to justify the attention seeking headline. Other than that not a lot wrong with the rest of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.