Rousseau

That was a sitter. 

Wow. 

I apologise to @Oleg_Mcnoleg: the pitch is atrocious!

Windass should be scoring there, but was that the bravery we wanted?

We're playing quite well. Several players look lively. 

2 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

We've gone from Shhhgate to GIFgate on this thread.  

I have a problem...

We've created a few openings, but some appear to be a tad greedy: Murphy and Cummings went for glory when an easy pass was on.

I think it's 4-3-3: Murphy, Morelos and Cummings up top; Docherty, Goss and Windass behind?

Meh... it's just a wee setback; we're dominating.

Docherty looks like he has good feet. Is he playing on the right?

Murphy looks lively. 

Ugh, what a touch that was.

1-0 Ayr...

Wow! Tavernier Captain. A season or two ago I would've thought that was mental, but it's almost fitting now; testament to how far he has come. Solid professional.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Docherty does too; he's only had a few minutes here and there. 

It's an aggressive line-up, which should be the case against these teams. 

Looks like you were pretty much spot on with the team Pete.

I think we're all looking forward to seeing Morelos and Cummings together !

1 hour ago, pete said:

Calling it faux-offence is just as stupid as putting a point forward with a lone gif which adds absolutely nothing to the argument. I don't mind gifs for a comical remark but when you are trying to make a point in an argument you should have the decency to put your point across in text. Then we don't have to read 3 posts to get what your point is.

Now was that faux-offence?

10 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

I don't boo at matches and can't recall ever shouting abuse at one of our own (excludings general expletives when we make a mistake or miss a sitter).  I try to stick to the dictionary definition of supporter.

 

Away from matches, I tend to be far more honest.  

Like I said, it wasn't strictly aimed at you; I felt you captured the attitude of those that do, whether you are one or not. 

This is a non-issue; I can't believe we're still discussing it.

18 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

I fail to see the irony.  I did resign from a job when my boss criticised me about 15 years ago.  Might be that.  

 

People moaning about fans moaning about players are wasting their time.  It will continue to happen.  And Windass will probably continue to react the way he does.  That's life.  

I'm not moaning; merely delighting at the irony of those claiming Windass is acting petulantly, when they've spent their time doing the same (I can't imaging spending good money to watch a game, only to waste my time abusing someone). Of course that's life: including the snowflake's faux-offense -- it's not going away anytime soon, but I like to laugh at it. 

(It wasn't strictly directed at you, but you did encapsulate the general attitude: 'what a f*ckin' dud man; tw*t... how dare he shush me!!')

15 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

Some people seem to think players can make themselves look foolish and the fans have no right to criticise.

 

That is unrealistic, at best.  

 

We pay his wages.  Many of us have invested loads of money, time, effort and emotion into supporting Rangers.  Windass is entitled to act petulantly if he wants but I'm also entitled to criticise him.  That's the nature of the game.

The future looks bright, but we need to see that pathway into the first-team.

Just now, DMAA said:

Probably an unlikely scenario but I would have liked to have seen us sign him on a similar length of contract Dundee got him for (18 months) and loaned him out to a Scottish Premiership side like Dundee/Hamilton.

 

In any case, I wish him well and hope he does generate significant revenue for Dundee, Scottish football needs much more of that.

I don't think we're in a position to buy players just to loan them out. 

I was surprised he went to Dundee, but then again not: his career has been ruined with alcohol, gambling and depression. If he was good enough Celtic would've signed him, as Rodgers has worked with him before. 

I don't think so. He's barely played in three years because of a mental health issue, which won't be made easier playing in the old-firm goldfish bowl.

He may do a turn for Dundee, but I'm not too fussed we've overlooked him.

5 minutes ago, cooponthewing said:

Not from me until an apology to fans who pay good money to watch his guff, is forthcoming.

If guff is 7 goals and 6/7 assists in 20-odd games, then bring on the guff. 

Diddums. He shushed you. 

27 minutes ago, colinstein said:

Neurapraxia is a disorder of the peripheral nervous system in which there is a temporary loss of motor and sensory function due to blockage of nerve conduction, usually lasting an average of six to eight weeks before full recovery. Neurapraxia is derived from the word apraxia, meaning “loss or impairment of the ability to execute complex coordinated movements without muscular or sensory impairment”.

Where'd you copy that from...?  

Better first XI, but I don't see any improvement -- other than goal difference.

I don't think Murty knows what system he wants to play; neither do I think he has any experience of any particular style. The basic shape is 4-2-3-1, but we don't play it properly. The players are left to do what that want. 

I'm not criticising Murty: he needs to gain that experience first, as an assistant to a more well-rounded manager; we've just thrown him into the deep-end because we were desperate. Rodgers spent his own time travelling around Spain, learning coaching methods, and then worked with Mourinho (indirectly) for a few years. 

12 minutes ago, MacK1950 said:

It is an improvement and is not to be scoffed at,if the team can get the mental side of things right at home it will get better.

As for set up of team,style of play,formation etc.there is too much emphasis on following paper led systems.Oh for the old days when we had wingers,Henderson,Wilson,Scott and so on who would send in crosses to Millar,Brand,Forrest and so on no fancy number formations then.

Wait we have wingers Candeias,Murphy,we have centre forwards Cummings,Morelos,so things should not be much different but the psychological and diagram based stuff seems to be stifling abilities.

 

Gone are the days when you said, 'you're playing here; go and play'. Teams are far too organised for that now. 

I thought the difference was in both 45-minutes was down to our wingers. In the first half they played wide, cutting themselves off from support, and also leaving our midfield isolated. There was never any easy passes to make. Windass, Murphy and Candeias kept trying to do it themselves and screwing up. You need support. Playing wide suited Thistle, as they could dominate the middle, and then double up when we invariably went wide.

Second half, it seemed like the wingers played inside. There's more support all-round, and players have easy passes. Windass assists Tavernier because he runs inside. It was a better structure, both offensively and defensively. We were able to recover the ball well too.

That game summed Bates up: atrocious with the ball; every pass was wayward, and actually hit the byline several times. We need to tell him to play it simple -- although I'm sure teams force us to go through him. Then the second half he was immense, clearing everything, tough tackles, heading the ball away. That latter is what he's good at.

Well done Windass. He gets an unfair amount of abuse, simply because fans want a certain player-type that just doesn't exist as much anymore. We slate him for the least wee thing. He's one of our best players at the minute. We praise Cummings for showing arrogance, but criticise Windass for it. Cummings has scored 1 goal; Windass has 7. And, as Ian posted above, he's very close to a double-double season of goals and assists; something no one in the league did last year. Several have their minds made-up, and whatever he does will get a response. He doesn't have to do it, but who cares? It's a GIRUY to those who think they can abuse players, then get in a state when something gets flung back. Well done Windass. He's showing a bit of back-bone. 

(I actually thought he was poor last night, but did the business, which is all that matters.)

11 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

And what is the 1st rule of Gif Club?

You do not talk abou...

5 minutes ago, MacK1950 said:

Well attacking players have to attack the ball,tackle opponents,show determination etc..If none of these are defined as aggression I will have to look for another word.

Windass presses as well as anyone; he works his socks off (or gloves... ) to attack the ball-player.

An attacking player shouldn't really be putting in tackles anyway (they're then out the game); they should be instigating pressing traps, forcing the opponents into channels/spaces where our players can win the ball back. Have you ever seen Salah, Firmino or Mane out in a tackle for Liverpool?

22 minutes ago, craig said:

Uh huh.....

Welcome to Gif club!

50 minutes ago, craig said:

I disagree with this, if all players are available

 

Cardoso  Alves  Martin

 

Tavernier/Candeias  McCrorie  Jack  Goss  Murphy

 

Morelos  Cummings

 

You can also put McCrorie back instead of one of the back 3 to solidify and provide pace.

 

You also could bring Docherty into the middle or indeed Holt (who probably doesn't deserve to be dropped IMHO)

 

It still allows you to play your natural wingers and, in Candeias & Murphy, two who understand the defensive side of the game.

 

It then gives you the additional player up top which will keep defences honest.  At home, when teams are playing 4-5-1 there is nowhere for a lone striker to go without being surrounded by opposition - and our midfield in a 4-2-3-1 are over-run, primarily because the 2 are acting as defensive shields - what would the need be, at Ibrox, to have a back 4 and then 2 protecting ?????  A back 6 against a lone striker, are we THAT scared of opposition ?

 

The 3-5-2 would prevent us from being overrun in midfield - Docherty, Goss, Jack & McCrorie would ensure that doesn't happen - the wingers would provide cover when needed defensively - and Morelos would have someone to play off and in up front.

 

If the 4-2-3-1 is still our best option, as you put it, then we are in a painful place - because we shouldn't be losing to Hibs at home.  Not only that but we are losing to lower half teams at home using a variation of that formation too.

 

I had chosen players that weren't injured, so yes, McCrorie would come in; Dorrans and Jack come close too.

When we play a back-four at home, it's actually a back-two: Tavernier and John are high and wide. Having three at the back would actually leave more players back. 

For me, you can't just put wingers into a wing-back slot. Just because they track-back doesn't mean they are defenders. They're good when they are tracking-back, but they need full-backs to help them. I could see one natural winger playing there, but not two; it would need to be one of Murphy or Candeias, with a full-back (probably Tavernier, because he can't be dropped!). 

I'd like to see a front two. However, I think it needs to be John and Tavernier as wing-backs. 

The reason the 4-2-3-1 is not working is because we're not playing it quite right. The three should be narrower, both supporting the forward and supporting the defensive screen.

We really shouldn't be getting overrun in the middle. The average positions against Hibs had Murphy, Windass, Morelos and Cadeias all in a front four, with Holt and Goss miles behind on their own. That shouldn't happen. The 5 in midfield have to work together in a pentagon, to press and screen. 

I'd like to see a back-three trialled, but I don't think we can put natural wingers there; that's my issue. 

A 3-4-2-1 or 3-4-1-2 may suit us better. The former would allow natural wingers, but only one striker; the latter would allow two strikers with no wingers. However I think about it, I can't fit in natural wingers and two strikers -- unless we go 4-4-2, or 4-2-4, which doesn't solve any of our issues!