ranger_syntax

My goodness. Can we lose against beatable teams?! This puts football into a whole new light.

These teams are all beatable.

To say something is interesting is to say that you want to know more about it. You say this is interesting because you are surprised that a B.B.C. columnist would write something positive about Rangers. I don't know what more you want to know about Tom's decision to write this article. I can't even imagine what is unclear about it. Rangers won the Scottish cup. Bassey is attracting attention from outwith Scotland after the Europa league final. Tom wants page views to justify himself to his employers. He is riding Bassey's coat tails to get those page views. (Want to get inside the tiny mind of a columnist? See here for more info) The article itself is rubbish. You can distill it down to a handful of obvious facts including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Bassey is fit enough to play extra time in two successive matches. 2. Rangers have not won many trophies recently. 3. Rangers faced a challenge to motivate themselves for the Scottish cup final. 4. A series of facts about play in the Scottish cup final. All well known to us and buried within Tom's excessively verbose text. I thought I would find some interesting opinion contained within but I didn't.

I think that the real shame is that we are not getting to discuss the article in any substantial way. Not everyone thinks it best to just ignore the thoughts of other Rangers fans. Quite why anyone would hesitate to share his thoughts on this article is beyond me.

The subjectivity is precisely why people want to discuss it.

My thoughts on the article are limited although not limited to what I have posted here. Recall that was what you specifically said about your own thoughts. I'm just taking you at your word.

You did share it on a discussion forum. If your thoughts are as limited as you suggest then fair enough. The use of the term interesting does suggest that there is more to say. Although, admittedly, it is a widely misused term.

You don't need my permission. I thought that you would want to discuss the article.

But what was interesting about it?

Funny. I made an exception and actually read it. I didn't see anything of interest that I couldn't get from watching the match.

Perverse incentives exist. This is worse than previously imagined.

There are a variety of ways to share the plain text of an article. Here is one more: https://txtify.it

https://txtify.it/https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61540598

I don't get it. What do you like about this article?

Not really. He has a couple of very obvious weaknesses. Very happy for people to continue to overlook them until he is sold though.

I was also sat in the North stand but thankfully I was far enough from the Hearts supporters. No risk of flying objects for me. It wasn't all plain sailing though. Early on in the match I heard some deeply offensive language emanating from somewhere further back. Initially the fellow in question was urging Rangers to 'recycle it'. Then as the match developed I heard repeated reference to 'big Shirley'. Shameful scenes.

Why would anyone want to listen to that?

Nice way to end the season.

Rangers 1 Hearts 0 First goal scorer: Tavernier

Yes, lets end with a win for a trophy. That will make it easier to start next season well.

Bamboo is an odd choice, no?

Given that we have another opportunity a win on Wednesday certainly was not required. Fortunately the team, management et al don't share the defeatist outlook.

I'm suggesting that we have lots of room for improvement. Is there a path to the conference league final that doesn't involve a regression?

This notion is everywhere and it is not true. If we start to participate in the champions league group stages often enough then other good chances will come. The team needs to keep working hard though. This has to be inspiration for further improvements.