JohnMc

Great stuff Elfideldo, many thanks.

Let's see what the rest of the month brings, hopefully this is a blip on an otherwise upward trajectory.

I'm not sure hypotheticals help much but had the result been reversed I'd have been much happier, aside from the obvious elation at winning cup the display of resilience and winning when playing poorly plus the psychological impact it would have had on both sides would have led me to believe we're closer to a league winning side than I feel we are now.

Celtic are having a good season and have had some exceptional results in Europe, but yesterday they were poor. We should have pummelled their 18 year old full back for a start, it was only his 4th match ever, instead we let him look like he's Carlos Alberto at times. I accept we played well for most of the match, but I genuinely feel that Celtic's strange starting line-up and shape allowed us to build from the back and meant they kept giving away possession. We should have beaten them yesterday, they were there for the taking.

I certainly viewed yesterday's match as a benchmarking of sorts, an opportunity to see where we were compared to our biggest rivals and ultimately the side we need to finish in front of. I'd hoped we were closer than I now feel we are. I very much saw this season as one where our goal was the winning the league, unlike last season where I felt that was unrealistic. Celtic have a 'new' manager, and even though he knows the club and had a few months of last season to assess the squad I still felt that gave us some advantage. I accept they've a better squad and more money to attract players, but while I think Lennon is a better manager than some give him credit for I don't think he's of the same calibre as Rodgers. Having played them twice now, once at Ibrox and once at Hampden it concerns me we've not been able to score a goal yet. That was a Celtic side who got their tactics all wrong yesterday, who had nothing upfront almost all match and a rookie 18 year old at full back. I expected us to be able to beat Celtic in a one off match such as yesterday by this stage in our rebuilding. Psychologically that was a huge result for Celtic yesterday and a damaging one for us. I'm not really having a go at Gerrard, or any specific player. I just thought we were further along the road than we seem to be. Plus we just lost a cup final to Celtic so I'm in a fucker of a mood.

You might be right about Aribo, I knew nothing about him before we signed him and made my assumption on the first couple of games I saw him play for us. I also agree that I don't think he's settled, some players take a few months to be fair. Had Davis been fit I wonder if Arfield or Aribo would have started, or if Kamara would have been on the bench. We'll learn a lot about this squad in the next few weeks.

I think we're a better squad than this time last year and light years from the year before that, so I agree about the situation as a whole. But we couldn't beat a poor Celtic side yesterday. That tells me we're still some way short of where we need to be.

I'm afraid I'm also questioning the mentality of this side. I was also reminded of Tommy Burns Celtic against Walter Smith's Rangers, they'd play us off the park for long periods but we'd still win. That's a concern for me. Dropping points to Aberdeen during the week was a disgrace. There was a lack of leadership and a lack of sheer will to win. When Aberdeen got a lucky goal they grew in belief and we visibly drew in. That's a worrying trait. It was different yesterday, we were unable to get a goal despite numerous chances, almost all falling to the player we'd want them falling too. But let's be honest here, that was a makeshift Celtic side upfront. Their only forward was a winger who looked half decent when in the Championship but well out of his depth in the SPFL. This severely hampered them, make no mistake, and allowed us to control the match. We were unable to make this count and my concern is they won't be that poor again when we next play them. Yesterday was our chance to land a blow and we didn't take it. I'm not suggesting wholesale changes, but we do need to make changes. There's a lack of leaders on the pitch for a start. I like Tav but has he got the sheer drive to be a Rangers captain? Be honest, will he do what Scott Brown does to help change a match? Are our centre-halves commanding? Do they scare the opposition, do they control our box at set-pieces, do they hurt the forwards they're up against? Lastly where are the moments of magic from Kent and particularly Aribo? Aribo clearly has a wonderful touch and a great close control, but we need to see that create something during a match. When I first saw him I thought we'd bought a player similar to Sone Aluko. Not in stature obviously but it terms of what he'd bring to the side. The ability to beat a man, to create space for others, to hold the ball and draw a foul, and more importantly to provide that wee piece of quality that wins us tight matches. I'm not seeing that, he's fine at playing one-twos with Kamara but he's not hurting the opposition and that's what we need. I accept we need to be careful of knee-jerk reactions fuelled by bitter disappointment, but football matches between evenly matched sides are won by small margins, and, in my opinion those are largely in mentality related. Personally I've not taken any positives from yesterday.

That's got to give 'them' a lift. Our players will have known for a few days but Celtic will have assumed Davis was starting, they know he's integral to how we play. Davis has played in cup finals, and won them, he knows what's needed, there's no disguising this is a blow. Time for someone else to stand up and make their mark.

Kent makes a big difference to our side, if he's on his game and gets the ball in the last third he'll cause them problems. He's looked good in the last few matches, finding form at the right time.

I'm still raging following Wednesday night, if we lose tomorrow I'll want him out. That's two games, how much more patience to you expect me to show here.

While someone like King might seem like an extravagance we don't need having someone experienced and used to playing at a high level like him keeps the competition for places in our midfield. Our midfield has been excellent this season, Davis, Kamara and particularly Jack have played consistently well. I'm sure that's partly because they're good professionals, partly because the training, tactics and coaching suit them but also I suspect because they're thriving in a competitive environment, where they know their place can't be taken for granted. If King provides that he's fulfilling a role.

I didn't realise Defoe was out, that's a blow. I wouldn't expect him to start but having him on the bench should we need to change things is required. This will be a hard game tonight, looking forward to it though.

For all King has done his most telling and lasting contribution might prove to be the appointment of Gerrard as manager. From the outside it looks like they have a good relationship and I understand it was King who identified and made initial contact with Gerrard about the Rangers job. We forget now that we weren't exactly an enticing prospect. Laden with debt following years of terrible publicity, struggling in the SPFL and miles behind Celtic on and off the pitch. Mr King must be quite persuasive for Gerrard to give up his job for life at Liverpool, while biding his time for Klop to leave in the hope that the 'boot room' promotion system that served Liverpool so well in the 70s and 80s would see him in line for the top job there. Gerrard has taken a huge gamble coming to us, if it doesn't work out here he has no chance of ever getting the Liverpool job. Dave King deserves huge credit for that if nothing else. My dad pointed out to me a long time ago that King attended Allan Glen's School in Townhead while living in Castlemilk. He must have had an inner-steel and an ability to either avoid or deal with trouble, because he must have attracted some dressed in their uniform while travelling across the city everyday. We shouldn't be surprised he doesn't back down from a fight and has no time for bullies. I'll be sorry to see him go, for all his faults I always felt he'd the club's best interests at heart, even if some of his actions left me a little nervous at times.

I don't think there's any one person to blame, rather it's a cultural thing around the club. The need to win every match makes it hard to introduce young players, who will inevitably make mistakes, and put pressure on the manager. The support, particularly the home support, are pretty unforgiving of mistakes, we're not good at making allowances for inexperience. I also think the support clamour for 'big signings'. they create a buzz, excite people and help sell season tickets and merchandise. Announcing your building the side around two 18 year olds from the reserves simply doesn't do that. I'm coming to the conclusion that young players are better off beginning their careers at smaller clubs. There is less pressure, more first team opportunities and the opportunity to move if you do well. There are always exceptions to this but I think the current system, where small clubs sign the players who don't make it at big clubs is the wrong way around. Yes, facilities are better at the bigger clubs, but nothing beats first team football.

I can't remember a time when we've not had upcoming talent, the problem is it rarely makes that final step into our first team. We'd a spell in the early 2000s when Hutton, Stevie Smith, McGregor and Adam all followed Barry Ferguson to become first team players and made decent contributions. Previously players like Scott Wilson, Steven Pressley, Craig Moore, Charlie Miller, Maurice Ross, Chris Burke, John Fleck, Barrie McKay and Lewis McLeod have made some sort of impact on our first team but currently there's no one even in our first team squad we can point at and say to any promising young player 'that could be you'. Barjonas seems to be forcing his way back into some sort of contention but he's far from the first team. But would anyone be surprised if McPake, King, Mebude and Kennedy don't make it at Rangers? Frankly I'd be more surprised if they do.

I couldn't agree more, Colin makes it sound easy, and it's not, but he's got a relaxed manner and natural style to what he does and it comes over really well. To be fair Ross does too. Stewart Weir (or Steven as he's now known) is clearly a pro and sounds it.

It's an interesting point and one I think there's a good argument for it. All I would say is that not every kid who shows massive potential at 15 realises it, and many a kid who didn't look like they'd make it at 15 goes on to have a stellar career. Elfideldo tells of seeing Michael Stewart play as a schoolboy, he turned down our offer and signed for Man Utd, a club with a fantastic record of nurturing talent, but failed to live up to the expectation. I don't know much about the lad King other than he seems to be highly prized, however it's hard to make a strong argument for him to stay with Rangers currently which is a real shame.

It's only in recent times (last 40 years or so) that Cliftonville have been seen as a 'Catholic/Nationalist' club. That's partly to do with the changing demographics of that part of Belfast and partly to do with the demise of Belfast Celtic the traditional West Belfast 'Catholic/nationalist supported club. In the early 70s most of the Protestant families in that area were burnt out and Cliftonville cricket club, who played beside the football team, had to abandon their home of over 100 years due to sectarian attacks on players and supporters. The other main Belfast sides couldn't play at Solitude during the 70s and 80s for safety reasons, and Cliftonville lost many of their traditional supporters due to this too. In turn they attracted many 'nationalists' living locally and from other parts of Belfast. Sport is a helpful way to understand Northern Ireland and Belfast in particular. Football isn't encouraged in the Republican communities, so Cliftonville weren't able to build a big support to rival Linfield and Glentoran. At the same time the rivalry between Glentoran and Linfield, two 'Protestant/unionist' supported clubs, is far more intense and far more visceral than between them and any of the 'Catholic' supported clubs.

It was the suggestion of future matches at the Brandywell that really raised my eyebrows! I lived in Northern Ireland for a while and went to a match at Solitude once. I quite liked the ground, I like football grounds that are situated in residential areas, cheek to jowl with houses and people. I was little nervous visiting that part of Belfast though, one visit was enough for me. I went to matches at all the Belfast grounds plus Coleraine when I was there. I didn't ever go to Larne's which I regret as I like the look of it, you can see it when leaving the ferry and heading for Belfast. Although I became a Crusaders fan my favourite ground was The Oval, where Glentoran play. It was a really atmospheric old ground and both times I went there was a decent crowd. I went to Windsor Park a couple of times, once to see Linfield and once to see a Northern Ireland match. Again this was the old ground before the redevelopment. It was too big for the crowd that attended the Linfield match, so it had a poor atmosphere. There was a great thread on Rangersmedia many moons ago about the Rangers v Bohemians of Dublin match in the early 80s. I knew a couple of guys who attended the away leg and some of their stories were just astonishing.

An interesting idea, thanks. I've no idea how feasible this is but it's an interesting discussion. I could see a pan-Irish/Scottish league happening actually, both the Irish leagues want to increase revenues and interest. There's not a massive amount in it for Scottish sides though, but combined TV deals might be attractive to broadcasters. Getting the 'swifts' into the Irish League might be a precursor to that.

Chelsea play at a higher level than we do, they are in a more competitive league and in the Champion's League, so the standard a young player has to attain to reach their first team is higher than ours. I'm well aware that circumstances have forced Chelsea down this route and until relatively recently they were largely ignoring their youth prospects. However, currently, they look like a better career path than we do. Unfortunately I've seen nothing from the club recently to suggest we've figured out how to take highly talented, over-achieving youngsters and turn them into first team players. There's no way of knowing where Gilmour would be if he'd stayed at Rangers, but ask yourself would he be ahead of Davis, Kamara and Jack? Arfield or Kent? I'm not convinced, and nothing the club have done in the recent past has suggested to me he would be. I don't disagree with you in terms of the club's focus, but I'm not yet convinced there is a pathway to our first team even if we did win the league this season. It's not about whether that's the right thing or not, it's all about the context around the young lad King being courted by Chelsea and Liverpool. My point is that if I were him (or his parents) the harsh reality is that Liverpool and Chelsea can both point to successful 'graduates' of their youth system playing regular 1st team football at the highest level, plus offer him a life changing amount of money. We can't even point to successful youth system graduates. It makes it harder to convince an exceptionally talented young player their future lies with us.

Craig, it's patently obvious we can't compete on money, that doesn't need stated, which is why our strongest card should always be the opportunity to get first team football earlier, play in cup finals, Old Firm matches, Europe and International football before moving south as an established first team player. Any aspiring young player should look at Rangers and see a clear path to first team football and then look at big English sides and see various loan spells before being released at 21 having made the bench in the League Cup a couple of times while their peers have 200 first team games under their belts. If money is what motivates them (and I'm not criticising them for that) then it won't matter what we say they'll go with who offers the most. If the family are looking at a bigger longer term picture we should be able to convince them to sign, however, currently it saddens me to say that Chelsea and Liverpool are better at training and promoting youth players to their first team than we are.

Yeah, but at 15 everyone involved thought those lads all had an excellent chance of making the Rangers first team, otherwise why bother offering them contracts and signing them? Some still might, but without a clear pathway to the first team and examples of players who've made that transition, it's much harder to convince young players their career is better served at Rangers. Alfie cost £1 Million to sign and we were his third senior club, I don't think the two are comparable.

I said the same thing about Billy Gilmour when he left us for Chelsea and he's on their bench today having featured in the Chelsea first team already this season. The biggest issue we'll have convincing this boy to stay is demonstrating the pathway into our first team. The unfortunate truth is there isn't one currently. McCrorie is struggling at Portsmouth, Rudden isn't even on the bench for Plymouth today, we've a couple of lads doing well at Ayr Utd but we've no clue if any of them will even make our first team squad next season far less the starting 11. Even if he's the biggest bluenose in the world the sad truth is the only other academy graduate who is in our first team currently is 37 year old Allan McGregor. So he might as well join Liverpool or Chelsea. Indeed he's probably got more chance of making the Rangers first team if he joins Liverpool.