Rousseau

12 minutes ago, craig said:

We all know your stance on Miller TB, you have always been consistent.

 

The above post, at the twilight of Miller's career, almost perfectly sums it up for me.

 

His fellow pros have always lauded him (I never really understood it, other than his work rate, application and attitude - his talent leaves much to be desired IMHO).  For me, he isn't a very good footballer but all of the physical, mental, professionalism attributes are in abundance.

 

If all of our players could just have his hunger, desire, work-rate, professionalism, attitude, and application then we would actually be in a much stronger position IMO.  However, what is noticeable with all of those descriptions is that not one of them relates to his abilities as a footballer. 

 

The club could be doing with Kenny Miller around the place - not as a player though, as someone who can instill a hunger and desire to succeed, someone who will instill in them what it means to play for Rangers.  Us fans love someone who would run through a brick wall for the club, one of the reasons we have such an affinity for players like Thomson, GvB, Albertz, Rino, Novo etc.

I wonder if it means something that he was the first player that came to mind... ? 

 

Jason "HHolt"? Unfortunate mistake, there...

 

Murphy could be very useful in that position: he has the dynamism, energy and craft to cause trouble for any defence. 

1 minute ago, Gonzo79 said:

Has to be Windass.  He is capable and there is a possible re-sell value in him, whereas Miller is finished and does little of note when he's on the pitch these days.  

I agree.

 

I'm not suggesting Windass is the new Laudrup -- that's even difficult to type... -- but for now, he's better than the majority of our players. Preferring Miller over Windass is just bonkers to me. (Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but everyone also has a right to challenge it.)

12 hours ago, MacK1950 said:

Re Windass if you were at the game on Saturday I hope you noticed a gloved little lost kid running about with no clue.

He was as I said in another post like the kid who provided the ball so got a game.

Sure he scored three goals in the cup game but in the last two league games gave a 180 minutes of nothing.

There is possibly a decent player in there but he has to get a heart first.

I don't know what gloves have to do with it?

 

I never mentioned the Cup game. In the league he has 6 goals and 7 assists in 23 games. You can take any two games throughout the season where he does nothing, then take another where he scores and assists. 

 

You're suggesting Miller should be preferred to Windass. Miller has done nothing in his previous 8 games before his injury. 

 

I don't understand how you can come to that conclusion?

 

Heart? What is that? 

 

 

13 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

I'd prefer a first eleven with Miller and Windass nowhere near it.  

In the grand scheme of things, yes.

 

But for now, we have a choice: Miller or Windass?

Oh, come on? Miller over Windass? What era are you from?

 

Miller has 2 goals this season, Windass has 6; Miller has 2 Assists, Windass has 7.

 

But no, play Miller because Windass is 'spineless', and has 'nae heart'. What does that even mean?

 

 

 

3-5-2 doesn't fit with the players at our disposal, IMO. The wing-back is a specialist position: you can't just put wingers in there. Tavernier and John would need to play there and then we're without our best players, in Candeias, Windass and Murphy.

Fod

Martin - Bates - Cardoso

Tavernier - Docherty - Goss - Holt - John

Cummings - Morelos*

 

(* without injured players)

 

I agree with the need for more in the middle, but I think 4-4-2 (Diamond) fits better. It means overloading the middle, Windass -- one of our best players, no matter what anyone says -- and two up top. However, you lose the wingers (Murphy and Candeias) too -- just like the 3-5-2.

 

Fod

Tavernier - Bates - Martin - John

Goss

Docherty - Holt

Windass

Cummings - Morelos*

 

(* without injured players)

 

I still think 4-2-3-1 is our best basic formation, but we need to use it better. We just need to tweak it in some games to be more compact. Bring on Docherty for WIndass in the bigger games (or Windass up front alongside Morelos), into the No.10 role but play more a 4-3-3 to get the three in the middle. 

 

Fod

Tavernier - Martin - Bates - John

Docherty - Goss - Holt

Candeias - Murphy

Morelos

 

For me -- although it certainly was an issue -- it was more to do with the ineffective screening of Holt and Goss, rather than the fact we had two in there; they were too disjointed, playing miles away from each other. WIndass could've done better too, to mark midfielders instead of defenders --  that switch is down to Murty not Windass. Teams like Athletico, and Leipzig do very well with a 4-4-2 in leagues that predominantly use either 4-3-3 or 3-5-2. 

 

 

What's he smiling at!? We were just gubbed. 

 

I expect a sickened, angry expression until at least the next win.

Just now, Gonzo79 said:

If we get everyone who won't go on to be a Rangers great, we may as well pack it all in now.  We wouldn't have a single player left.

I don't know; Dalcio has a certain cult appeal...  

I don't understand the logic: some seem to be saying, 'he's not going to be a complete player, so let him go'. Forgetting for a moment that every player can improve and progress, a less than complete player can still be a very good squad player; every team needs them.  

1 minute ago, BEARGER said:

Ok I’m half right, I thought he had scored 6 this season.?3 goals this season for Hamilton, still think he should be playing.

Possibly, but he's not a replacement for Windass; different players, playing different roles.

 

I think Docherty would be a replacement for Holt; same box-to-box type but with better physical presence and a more direct attacking style. Shame for Holt though, as I think he's been good, but his stature is a big limitation.  

I'm struggling to comment on the game, as I was caught up it at the time. I'd need to watch it back to comment on what went wrong, but I can't bring myself to do that. My gut reaction was we played ok, but didn't take our chances, and basically gave them two sloppy goals. 

 

It's clear to see the old scapegoats have been trundled out again. 

 

The stats provide an objective view of the game, cutting out the emotion, and they suggest we should've won the game. Of course, they don't show everything.

9 hours ago, BEARGER said:

Docherty should start from now on, a box to box player who can score goals. Drop Windass a complete phoney imo.

A box-to-box player that can score goals? I agree with the first part, but how many did he score for Hamilton in 6 years?

 

He scored 6 goals. 

 

We're looking for a silver bullet again, and projecting it onto any player that's new.

There's not much worse than losing to those scummy b******...

 

Ugh.

2 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

Apparently Windass pushed Stevenson for the Morelos goal and hence it was not given. I saw nothing of that sort happening in game nor in the four slow-mos on it.

 

There's no doubt we deserved at least a draw, but by the looks of it we'll have to do it the hard way again.

I didn't see much, other than Windass and Stevenson go down. But it was miles away from Morelos, so how can he chop it off?

I don't think we were bad; we just didn't take our chances, conceded a stupid first goal, then Tavernier gives the Referee a decision to make -- he wasn't going to pass it up -- although it was a soft penalty. 

 

The mental fragility annoys me: we equalised, then conceded straight after; we should've consolidated, then built on it. It wasn't a bad game, it's just these little moments are going against us. You have to make your own luck, and we're not doing that at the moment.  

I think Windass has been good: that ball to Candeias, who set up Morelos, was superb!

 

I do think we need more in the centre -- it's whether we do that at the expense of the wing-play?

Just now, the gunslinger said:

We've been ok but i think its fair to say hibs deserve that.

 

 

I don't think they deserve that at all.

I don't think we've been bad, just sloppy in places. 

We've passed up some good opportunities, though...

How does that sneak in? Fod's bad for those types of slip-ups.

 

A bidding war sounds fantastic! 

 

Fingers crossed for £40m! 

11 minutes ago, DMAA said:

I thought Hibs looked pretty good in the highlights from the other night. Barker and Boyle have the potential to get the byline and cause problems and Scott Allan adds creativity in the centre. But the bottom line is they haven't strengthened where they needed to, they create plenty chances but don't have a goalscorer. Kamberi scored the other day but his record is poor, and Murray & Stokes are away now.

 

Further to that, this is Hibs' 5th big away game on the bounce (Aberdeen-Hearts-Celtic-Hearts-Rangers), and they've failed in the previous 4. The Aberdeen game was a humping and they failed to score in the other 3 (2 losses and a draw).

 

So I'm confident we'll beat them. I'd like to see Docherty get a proper run out (half an hour at least) this time, he came to us match fit and we don't want to lose that. And the tempo may suit him more than Goss. And hopefully Cummings will come on with plenty time to do damage too, maybe for Windass.

Shhhh... don't jinx it!

 

They up their game against us and have a 12th man in black on their side -- it won't be easy.