ranger_syntax

Seems like a fuss over nothing to me. The arguments presented in the article are a load of rubbish.

Ever read the story of David and Goliath?

When O'Halloran arrived he provided something totally different to the other forwards. I thought that was good as it gave us more options and could make us less predictable. I seem to recall that the manager said words to the effect that his game would change to fit in with the team. I would be happy to see him in the team, playing his natural game, ahead of Miller or Waghorn.

Was it Benjamin Franklin who once said:

It would just increase the magnitude of every problem with the current system. The structural problems that football has will not go away until we return to something more unpredictable . . . like a knockout cup in Europe! That won't happen while the existing format remains popular with T.V. viewers.

Absolutely pathetic.

Groan . . . not again!

If someone made a decent offer I would be happy for us to take the money and look for a two footed striker to replace him.

This kind of reminds me of Colin McKenzie.

Yeah, just don't break the rules.

Plenty of reasons for doubt. The reports are that he had two offers, one year at his old club and two years with us. (right?) He has hardly kicked a ball for us . . . against also-rans of the SPFL. It was reported that a big factor in his decision was the 2 year contract that we offered. Why do we think he will be offered a contract, of the same duration, elsewhere after failing to impress?

What makes you think that someone wants to sign him? What makes you think that he will not be happy to see out his contract?

We pay a lot of money for these guys to play football. We are entitled to expect that they will know, and observe, any rules about gambling.

Sits in and collects remainder of his contracted wages, you mean?

Mark Warburton tells us that he is careful about doing his homework on players before bringing them in. I wonder how this episode fits in with that claim.

Was the pavilion any good?

It's a bad symbol to use in my opinion. Salty old seadogs know of the negative connotations that it carries. Hope that the club never uses it again. In fact I'll email them later on and warn them not to use it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_maritime_signal_flags Also perhaps admin can consider banning use of the Saltire in here.

Children need to learn the appropriate way to behave when the game is boring. That shouldn't involve various silly ideas like colouring in or face painting. Fortunately there are many role models available nearby. When the game is boring the children should take note of what adult supporters do i.e. groan, shout and complain.

Why would another rambling anecdote, an appeal to a press report or use of the almighty 'surely' make me change my mind? Possession and territory are both subordinate to goals. Goals dominate football matches. It's great to try and soften the blow of another defeat by claiming that our team has 'dominated'. We have all done it.

I think it leads to confusion. Particularly since you dominate a match by scoring more goals than your opponent.

If you want to say 'dominated' as some sort of shorthand for 'had more possession', 'had more shots' or 'spent the match in the opponent's half' then fine. I don't know why you don't just say what you really mean.

I've highlighted some sort of hilarious attempt at trolling. I'm ignoring the majority of this meandering nonsense. Matches are dominated by goals.

I've questioned the tactics as long ago as last season. We still struggle convert possession into goals. Our defence is still poor. Opponents still cause us problems with a simple tactic. These facts are not unrelated.

Don't forget the press.

Ask if we can progress any further than we have before suggesting that we've regressed. Claim we are still learning to break down 'brickwallers' despite the fact we have been coming up against defensive opposition for quite some time. Much of the rest is just empty waffling.