Rousseau

Touche.

8 minutes ago, ian1964 said:

 

Can he play Right-back?

I would much prefer to see Patterson get a start. By all accounts he played well recently. 

Flanagan's not very good, generally -- although he's dependable in certain, defensive, situations.  

Polster, maybe, but I'd prefer the youngster. 

I might pop in later.  

Valverde sacked; Quique Setién appointed new manager. 

Barcelona will be entertaining again! 

Quique Setién had Las Palmas and Real Betis playing some really attractive stuff. 

May as well get an early start on this.

I'll go for a Gaffer special:

Rangers 5 - 0 Stranraer

Kent to score all five. 

2 minutes ago, alexscottislegend said:

Harvey Elliott  - with whom we have been linked - is only 16 but I agree with your other points.

Elliott is a special case. Liverpool just bought Elliott at the start of this season from Fulham, after he made a few appearances last season for them. 

4 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

Apologies but I presume Patterson is a young player?

Yes - he was mentioned in the transfer thread no too long ago (Liverpool sniffing about, I think?). 

12 hours ago, NDC Gers Fan said:

Zak Rudden off to Thistle on a permanent apparently. Probably get a small fee and a sell-on 

I want a % of any sell-on fee and a buy-back clause -- we should do the latter more often, like European clubs. 

15 hours ago, alexscottislegend said:

Absolutely I get the point about how critical this season is, but my point was inspired by L'pool and their equally critical season. Why are THEIR youngsters seemingly far more ready and developed than ours right now? 

Liverpool were almost forced to play youngsters -- it's not because they are good enough to play consistently. They've got a heavy schedule over Christmas, with League, League Cup, FA Cup and Club World Cup.

Klopp played youngsters in the League Cup, where they were smashed by Villa 4-0, and then against Everton, where for the most part they should have been smashed, if not for some poor finishing and good saves. Klopp wanted the CWC, so played his first team -- which is unusual for European sides, I think -- which they won. Obviously, he wants the League more than anything -- I've not seen any youngsters get game time in the League. 

I think you're putting too much spin on this. 

Do I need to install Podbean to listen to it?

Yeah, I quite enjoyed it. 

I was somewhat -- concerned is the wrong word -- struck, when he suggested he doesn't see himself being a manager for the next 30 years. It seems like it's a ladder for him; whereby the Manager's job at Liverpool is the endgame. It's like everything is geared towards that goal; not necessarily to 'be' a manager, like these managers that go from job to job. (I can't quite describe it.) 

He's obviously very driven, and that endgame suits us anyway; if he gets there, it means he's been a success with us.

I saw him on Gary Neville's Soccerbox (?). I was really impressed with his desire to learn; I lost count of the number of times he questions why things were done in-game by his managers in the past, and in games he watches now. In the above podcast he mentions asking Klopp why he does certain things. 

He's an impressive man. 

Didn't McCrorie play RB for Portsmouth? I wonder if he could be the cover for Tavernier -- I still think there's a player there, in McCrorie. 

2 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:

Has Chelsea's transfer ban been lifted?

Yes.

BT are showing every game today. 

3 minutes ago, Yorkie Bear said:

It's questionable if it takes 2 minutes to decide. When you see the referee at the screen looking at the incident played several times, it is clear that it is not a clear and obvious decision and in that case I believe an offside should not be given.

 

I think the default position should be that no offense has taken place (penalty, offside or whatever) unless it is clear and obvious.

 

I'm not arguing that VAR should not be introduced. All I'm saying is that it's use needs to be refined from what is happening at present.

In general you're correct, but I was under the impression that Offsides are different? I might be wrong there. You're offside, or you're not; there's no interpretation involved. 

I agree it needs refined. They've made changes already, and will continue to do so, hopefully. 

I'm still in favour of a challenge system, like Cricket and Tennis, whereby you get 3, 4, or 5 challenges throughout a game which the Captain can take to VAR to check. 

10 hours ago, ChelseaBoy said:

Totally agree, every time a goal is scored in the EPL there is a pause as a large percentage of goals are referred as the defending team puts pressure on the ref even if there hasn't been an incident - they hope VAR spots something!! It has reduced the spontaneity and atmosphere within the ground. I'd defer VAR until we see it working properly.  

It's not every goal. Players don't refer it, the VAR guys will check and inform the Referee if there's a chance, and then check it. 

I wouldn't be throwing out the baby with the bath water. 

It has it's flaws but they've made, and will continue to make changes. 

It's mostly the laws that people don't like -- it's just that before Ref's couldn't judge them properly. I like Souness' idea for offside, whereby an attacking player is ON, if any goalscoring part of his body is behind the defender. It gives the advantage to the attacker. 

11 hours ago, ian1964 said:

Maybe I am way out of touch regards this, but when watching matches on sky/BT we see very quick replays, why can't the 4th official and both managers not have a monitor on the touchline to review incidents? 4th official could assist the refs, I know that is pretty much VAR but right now that option is available.

Yeah, there are a few pundits calling for the monitor to be used more. One suggested it would calm things down if both managers are looking at it too. 

14 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

I can understand armchair fans being a bit keener on VAR.

 

A relative regularly goes to Anfield and has told me VAR is horrendous when you're at the match.

 

I was on the fence when it was first talked about but having seen it in action in England I'm now 100% against it.  

 

 

Well played -- Forget the ball, take out the man.  

I can appreciate fans being confusing at the match, but they've made changes to improve that (displaying on screen what's being checked etc.), and they'll continue to make improvements. 

What's your main arguments against it?

1 hour ago, Yorkie Bear said:

It's good that Rangers have put out this statement and it shows that we are leading the discussion on refereeing decisions.

 

I have my doubts about VAR. The experience in England does not sell it well. In the cases cited in the Rangers statement the correct decision was clearcut and VAR would have shown this. However, as in England, where part of a player's upper body is arguably a centimeter offside and it takes minutes to come to a decision, VAR is questionable.

 

It's probably inevitable that it will come to Scottish football and the point the Club make about the game in Scotland being left behind is valid. Those clubs in Scotland that aspire to European football should recognise that regardless of their reservations, to be treated as a serious league it needs to keep up to date with the prevailing technology.

 

Rangers are leading the way here and that's good to see. I would like to hear whether other clubs have anything worthwhile to say on the matter.

 

We're starting to lead the way on the field with our style of play. it looks like we're starting to lead the way on suggesting how Scottish football can move forward.

 

 

In what way is it "questionable"? It's offside or it's not. The law's the law, centimetre or not.

2 hours ago, Whosthedado said:

Some All of the decisions in England have been farcical Correct. 

Fixed that for you.

If you have an issue with the laws, then that's a different matter. 

3 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

Their integrity is already in question.

 

VAR is dire and if they introduce it up here it won't benefit Rangers and I would seriously consider packing in going to the football.  Thankfully a few managers and players in England seem to be slowly realising it is ruining the game down there.

It is, but then they can't hide behind rules. 

It gets the correct decisions. It will benefit Rangers. There's no way they can look at the VAR evidence of, say the game on Sunday, and not disallow their goal; same as in the Cup final. 

I'd go so far as to say, if VAR had been implemented this last month, we'd have won against Aberdeen and sitting top on goal difference with a game in hand and have won the Cup final - and that's forgetting about the numerous other decisions that the Ref's have got wrong this season when we're concerned. 

It's not ruining the game. It is highlighting some laws that need changed, though. Souness made a good offside suggestion yesterday.