Tom English - embarrassing article on Shankland

[Watt-Zeefuik]

14 hours ago, JDK2020 said:

 

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.

 

Once again the sportswriters don't write the headlines. Headline writers are separate and put the most sensationalist thing from the article on top to grab attention.

 

[Ricardo Quaresma]

35 minutes ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

Once again the sportswriters don't write the headlines. Headline writers are separate and put the most sensationalist thing from the article on top to grab attention.

 

Maybe, but the article, or at least the first part of it, was the same context as the headline, which was that other people held that viewpoint, that he had these 'flaws' and that's ridiculous from our point of view as Hearts Fans

 

Plus English is chief sports writer for them; I reckon he came up with it

 

I also reckon he doesn't watch Shankland much either, but clearly watched that game

[Luckies1874]

This still going 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, Ricardo Quaresma said:

 

Maybe, but the article, or at least the first part of it, was the same context as the headline, which was that other people held that viewpoint, that he had these 'flaws' and that's ridiculous from our point of view as Hearts Fans

 

Plus English is chief sports writer for them; I reckon he came up with it

 

I also reckon he doesn't watch Shankland much either, but clearly watched that game

 

We can probably let this rest but again I don't see the article as actually claiming them as flaws. The big subtext to me that English is talking about without mentioning it is the "some people" who see those as flaws in Shankland's game are the Scotland national team coaching staff. English to me is saying that Clarke has kept Shanks out because he thinks of him as just a goal scorer but while he missed the big shot (narrowly), he created opportunities for other players repeatedly.

 

To me the whole article is effectively advocating having Shankland be a starter in the national side which is why I'm puzzled folk are mad about it.

[Ricardo Quaresma]

1 minute ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

We can probably let this rest but again I don't see the article as actually claiming them as flaws. The big subtext to me that English is talking about without mentioning it is the "some people" who see those as flaws in Shankland's game are the Scotland national team coaching staff. English to me is saying that Clarke has kept Shanks out because he thinks of him as just a goal scorer but while he missed the big shot (narrowly), he created opportunities for other players repeatedly.

 

To me the whole article is effectively advocating having Shankland be a starter in the national side which is why I'm puzzled folk are mad about it.

 

I'm not sure about who 'they' are; his detractors, for sure, but if you think about it, it's all a way to conveniently get his word count up

 

Maybe he was in the group of detractors, but he's not admitting after seeing that match; a lot of padding in it

[Hearts_fan]

For sure the bulk of the article was complimentary and accurate about Shankland’s abilities.

 

This begs the question why the whole article couldn’t have been that way, instead of giving ‘airtime’ to baseless criticisms such as the incorrect observation that Shanks can’t hold the ball up or pass.

 

The negative falsehoods then literally became part of the headline, whether it was English who wrote it or not.

 

Please, to those who kept alleging that TE didn’t write the headline, you’re missing the point which is that the article was published under that headline. It doesn’t matter if it was Tom English or Johnny English who wrote the headline, the upshot was that the headline was totally unfairly critical of Shankland’s abilities, and did not reflect the article itself which was 90% complimentary about Shanks. The headline wouldn’t have been as it was if TE hadn’t referred to false information. It was a cock up in an otherwise fair article. That’s all.

Edited March 25 by Hearts_fan

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Hearts_fan said:

For sure the bulk of the article was complimentary and accurate about Shankland’s abilities.

 

This begs the question why the whole article couldn’t have been that way, instead of giving ‘airtime’ to baseless criticisms such as the incorrect observation that Shanks can’t hold the ball up or pass.

 

The negative falsehoods then literally became part of the headline, whether it was English who wrote it or not.

 

Please, to those who kept alleging that TE didn’t write the headline, you’re missing the point which is that the article was published under that headline. It doesn’t matter if it was Tom English or Johnny English who wrote the headline, the upshot was that the headline was totally unfairly critical of Shankland’s abilities, and did not reflect the article itself which was 90% complimentary about Shanks. The headline wouldn’t have been as it was if TE hadn’t referred to false information. It was a cock up in an otherwise fair article. That’s all.

 

No problem with criticizing the headline, but folk saying "I can't believe Tom English, who's normally a good journo, would publish under that headline" should understand that it's not English.

 

And I don't think the information was "false." There's certainly a perception that Shanks is a goal poacher and nothing more, as I said I think that was Clarke's impression for a bit (which he seems to have changed).

[hmfcbilly]

4 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

We can probably let this rest but again I don't see the article as actually claiming them as flaws. The big subtext to me that English is talking about without mentioning it is the "some people" who see those as flaws in Shankland's game are the Scotland national team coaching staff. English to me is saying that Clarke has kept Shanks out because he thinks of him as just a goal scorer but while he missed the big shot (narrowly), he created opportunities for other players repeatedly.

 

To me the whole article is effectively advocating having Shankland be a starter in the national side which is why I'm puzzled folk are mad about it.

Yep. Exactly how I read it. Definitely more positive than negative re shankland and Scotland in that article but, equally, forthright and honest as to what could happen if the form continues. Don't really see any issue with whats been written by Tom English 

[RobNox]

3 hours ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

No problem with criticizing the headline, but folk saying "I can't believe Tom English, who's normally a good journo, would publish under that headline" should understand that it's not English.

 

And I don't think the information was "false." There's certainly a perception that Shanks is a goal poacher and nothing more, as I said I think that was Clarke's impression for a bit (which he seems to have changed).

Go back 18 months or so ago and there were more than a few on here who thought the same, and that Shankland only scored goals in the lower divisions and wasn't good enough for the Scottish Premiership and we shouldn't waste £500k on signing him (even though we didn't spend anything like that for him).  Even if we had spent £500k (which we did not) he'd still be the best signing we've made in decades.

[mud and mullets]

On 24/03/2024 at 00:33, Watt-Zeefuik said:

 

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.

 

Not any more going by today's Evening News. He goes out of his way to defend Shankland and it reads as if he actually enhanced his chances of playing more for Scotland, which I think anyone unbiased who watched the game would agree with. Good man management from Clarke here. This reads as if Shankland is now potentially level with his top two, and I like how he's challenged the other two to start scoring at their clubs.

 

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/steve-clarke-lawrence-shankland-theory-hearts-striker-scotland-support-4568211

 

"Lawrence was good. The reason I played Lawrence against Holland was I have to see how he plays against that level of opposition. And he was good. He’s done himself no harm whatsoever. Forget the scoreline. Forget the chance that he missed. Lawrence was good in the game. It was a good night for Lawrence. Maybe not a good night for everybody else .."

[Gundermann]

5 minutes ago, mud and mullets said:

 

Not any more going by today's Evening News. He goes out of his way to defend Shankland and it reads as if he actually enhanced his chances of playing more for Scotland, which I think anyone unbiased who watched the game would agree with. Good man management from Clarke here. This reads as if Shankland is now potentially level with his top two, and I like how he's challenged the other two to start scoring at their clubs.

 

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/steve-clarke-lawrence-shankland-theory-hearts-striker-scotland-support-4568211

 

"Lawrence was good. The reason I played Lawrence against Holland was I have to see how he plays against that level of opposition. And he was good. He’s done himself no harm whatsoever. Forget the scoreline. Forget the chance that he missed. Lawrence was good in the game. It was a good night for Lawrence. Maybe not a good night for everybody else .."

 

A proper manager talking there. Good news all round. That last sentence too... 😄

 

[TexasAndy]

I think the main point is that Shankland will be in the squad for Euros.  The fact the debate has turned to whether he starts or not is a good indication that he'll be on the plane.  

[pettigrewsstylist]

I believe he is closer to Germany than he was Fri afternoon, after reading this.

 

The Scotland head coach said: "No. I don’t buy that at all. I think that goalscorer are goalscorers. He worked ever so and to get that chance. Nobody is more disappointed than Lawrence that he didn’t take it. But he knows that there will be another chance and he’ll probably score it.

 

 

"Lawrence was good. The reason I played Lawrence against Holland was I have to see how he plays against that level of opposition. And he was good. He’s done himself no harm whatsoever.

[pettigrewsstylist]

1 minute ago, TexasAndy said:

I think the main point is that Shankland will be in the squad for Euros.  The fact the debate has turned to whether he starts or not is a good indication that he'll be on the plane.  

It has kind of quietly morphed that way. 

Needs to keep club form up tho, which im sure he can.

 

[Fozzyonthefence]

3 hours ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

I believe he is closer to Germany than he was Fri afternoon, after reading this.

 

The Scotland head coach said: "No. I don’t buy that at all. I think that goalscorer are goalscorers. He worked ever so and to get that chance. Nobody is more disappointed than Lawrence that he didn’t take it. But he knows that there will be another chance and he’ll probably score it.

 

 

"Lawrence was good. The reason I played Lawrence against Holland was I have to see how he plays against that level of opposition. And he was good. He’s done himself no harm whatsoever.

He was a certainty for the Germany squad anyway with Nisbet and Brown both injured and having done hee haw this season.  The only question is whether he is a starter but I’d be amazed but pleasantly surprised if Clarke doesn’t go with Dykes as his first choice (although I’d prefer Dykes over Adams).  Shankland is the form player, it should be him but I can’t see it. 

[Luckies1874]

36 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

He was a certainty for the Germany squad anyway with Nisbet and Brown both injured and having done hee haw this season.  The only question is whether he is a starter but I’d be amazed but pleasantly surprised if Clarke doesn’t go with Dykes as his first choice (although I’d prefer Dykes over Adams).  Shankland is the form player, it should be him but I can’t see it. 

 

 

My guess is that right now, and this could change, he starts Dykes against Germany in the opener but every chance he changes that for the Switzerland game and it's Shanks who starts in that. A game we are much more likely to have a chance of winning - may even need to win and where we have a lot more of the ball. Germany may see a more pragmatic approach and he may want Dykes physical presence. But just a pure a guess. Be very interesting to see what Clarke does this evening. 

[Ricardo Quaresma]

6 hours ago, mud and mullets said:

Not any more going by today's Evening News. He goes out of his way to defend Shankland and it reads as if he actually enhanced his chances of playing more for Scotland, which I think anyone unbiased who watched the game would agree with. Good man management from Clarke here. This reads as if Shankland is now potentially level with his top two, and I like how he's challenged the other two to start scoring at their clubs.

 

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/steve-clarke-lawrence-shankland-theory-hearts-striker-scotland-support-4568211

 

"Lawrence was good. The reason I played Lawrence against Holland was I have to see how he plays against that level of opposition. And he was good. He’s done himself no harm whatsoever. Forget the scoreline. Forget the chance that he missed. Lawrence was good in the game. It was a good night for Lawrence. Maybe not a good night for everybody else .."

 

Cleared up the mess there, Clarke

 

Suppose it'll only be weegie goobers that just read the headline and didn't get the content of the OP article anyway

[Watt-Zeefuik]

6 hours ago, mud and mullets said:

 

Not any more going by today's Evening News. He goes out of his way to defend Shankland and it reads as if he actually enhanced his chances of playing more for Scotland, which I think anyone unbiased who watched the game would agree with. Good man management from Clarke here. This reads as if Shankland is now potentially level with his top two, and I like how he's challenged the other two to start scoring at their clubs.

 

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/steve-clarke-lawrence-shankland-theory-hearts-striker-scotland-support-4568211

 

"Lawrence was good. The reason I played Lawrence against Holland was I have to see how he plays against that level of opposition. And he was good. He’s done himself no harm whatsoever. Forget the scoreline. Forget the chance that he missed. Lawrence was good in the game. It was a good night for Lawrence. Maybe not a good night for everybody else .."

 

Yeah, agreed, and I don't want to slate Clarke here. But I think he was guilty of pigeon-holing Shanks earlier, although he thankfully seems to have corrected that view.

[Ricardo Quaresma]

11 minutes ago, Watt-Zeefuik said:

Yeah, agreed, and I don't want to slate Clarke here. But I think he was guilty of pigeon-holing Shanks earlier, although he thankfully seems to have corrected that view.

 

Spot on, both counts 👍

[No Idle Talk]

https://rangersnewshub.com/journalist-claims-lawrence-shankland-to-rangers-is-now-almost-certain/?fbclid=IwAR3uAWxuuwxQruEYqng2q3CUlYGPle5HXfhvNGrJi5Bqb_3k64XNO5YqENE

 

Sorry for the minging source.

 

The laughable part of this article is where it suggests because we have signed Spittal(a midfielder) and Penrice(a full back) the path is now clear for Shankland to go to Ibrox. That doesn't even make sense! 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

9 minutes ago, No Idle Talk said:

https://rangersnewshub.com/journalist-claims-lawrence-shankland-to-rangers-is-now-almost-certain/?fbclid=IwAR3uAWxuuwxQruEYqng2q3CUlYGPle5HXfhvNGrJi5Bqb_3k64XNO5YqENE

 

Sorry for the minging source.

 

The laughable part of this article is where it suggests because we have signed Spittal(a midfielder) and Penrice(a full back) the path is now clear for Shankland to go to Ibrox. That doesn't even make sense! 

 

No way, Shanks isn't going to Ibrox until we have a solid third keeper in place.

[Fozzyonthefence]

17 hours ago, Luckies1874 said:

 

 

My guess is that right now, and this could change, he starts Dykes against Germany in the opener but every chance he changes that for the Switzerland game and it's Shanks who starts in that. A game we are much more likely to have a chance of winning - may even need to win and where we have a lot more of the ball. Germany may see a more pragmatic approach and he may want Dykes physical presence. But just a pure a guess. Be very interesting to see what Clarke does this evening. 

I think there is every chance of this and possibly it’s the best scenario for Scotland and Shankland, i.e. Dykes starts against Germany but when we inevitably get our arses felt Shankland comes in for the two more winnable games.  What I don’t want to see is Shankland start against Germany then get dropped after a miserable team performance and we end up losing all 3 games because of the lack of goals.  Having said that our defence is also a big concern at the moment. 

[Thomaso]

On 25/03/2024 at 23:46, RobNox said:

Go back 18 months or so ago and there were more than a few on here who thought the same, and that Shankland only scored goals in the lower divisions and wasn't good enough for the Scottish Premiership and we shouldn't waste £500k on signing him (even though we didn't spend anything like that for him).  Even if we had spent £500k (which we did not) he'd still be the best signing we've made in decades.

The Levein fanboys thought Wighton was a much better buy……