Rousseau

Ooft! Martin-Bates pairing.

Who was it that wanted Bates to deal with the aerial threat? Makes sense.

No Wilson at all?

Looks like Aberdeen are going for it: very attacking line-up.

6 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

The same point applies to the German league.

 

Would it be better without youth teams in the lower leagues?

How are you defining "better"?

12 minutes ago, craig said:

Aye, their development team !

Did Corinthians not bring their A-team, albeit in their pre-season? 

2 hours ago, Gaffer said:

We've tried Halliday in that holding role previously and he didn't look too assured there.  Having said that, I've no idea who else is appropriate for that role.  Goss looks big and strong but doesn't come across as someone who enjoys the physical battle.

 

As for Bates, I really like him and fully expect him to start.  I suspect it'll be alongside Wilson.

I think he was poor when he was the sole holding player. I think teaming up with another will suit him; give him license to use that energy of his, as another covers.

I'm thinking a stronger, more direct Holt, without the technique and movement?

I'm strangely happy with the Docherty move -- it seems to tick a few boxes. Now it is up to him to do the job on the pitch.

Maybe don't click on the link, but the headline is good:

2 hours ago, alexscottislegend said:

Don't forget Martin can give good cover at right back, rather than just be a third choice CB. That means Tavernier can move forward.

Yes, but I'm not sure Tavernier will be moving position, nor will our formation (to a three-at-the-back) change, any time soon. 

There must be a reason why the Countries that develop the best players (Spain and Germany) and play the best football have 'B' teams in their league structure?

It's not the only reason, of course, but it must play its part.

12 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

A bigger gap between the top two and the rest.  I can't stand Scottish football these days but realistically, if we are miles ahead of everyone, the competition lessens and we aren't ready to play teams in Europe.

 

I'd rather have a competitive league.  

 

It's all about opinions and I certainly wouldn't blame anyone for putting Rangers first.  

Although the pilot consists of Rangers and them, there is interest from other Premiership sides which will be taken up. The German II teams don't result in a less competitive top league -- outside of Bayern!

3 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:

Yes, and this is why I don't want it to happen.

 

Improving youth development is a means to an end.  I think that end is to improve Scottish football.  There are lots of ways to improve youth development but this particular one will also damage Scottish football.  It makes no sense to me.

 

Youth development should be improved but not at any cost.

What's the cost?

5 minutes ago, ian1964 said:

He is 26, he is also very experienced for a 26 year old!, he was Hearts captain as well, I just don't see any improvement in his game, he is playing decent just now but he has also had a lot of howlers this season!

2 minutes ago, ian1964 said:

I am not binning him as such, if he continues his recent form then that will show me his consistency is improving, however I am always waiting for him to fall asleep during a match which is one of his consistent attributes.

He is experienced in terms of the longevity of his career, but in terms of match experience it's not as great as it should've been. A decent season for us in the SPL several years ago, then wasting in the Liverpool reserves for several seasons, followed by a couple of season's at Hearts (one of which was in the CH). I think we expect more because he's been around since he was 16. 

Fair enough. I'd like to see him stick around. I think he's a good defender, albeit guilty of being complacent.

1 minute ago, ian1964 said:

He is so frustrating!, he has the ability, but is caught napping too many times for me, as I said I would love him to prove me wrong

I agree, but I don't think that's a reason to bin him at the age of 26. 

2 minutes ago, ian1964 said:

I had high hopes for Wilson, when he rejoined us I really thought he would kick on and reach the potential he has always shown, however I gave up on him after too many howlers and I don't see him getting any better than the standard he is at but needs to have more consistency, I would love to be proved wrong by him!

He's 26. Do you expect a finely polished defender at that age? I don't think a defender reaches their peak until closer to 30.

A lot of his problems have been his due to his partners, and the sheer number of them, IMO. 

It appears I'm in the minority with regards to Wilson.

I can't believe YOU'RE ALL WRONG?!  

I think Wilson should be playing for Scotland; which is an indictment of the dearth of CB talent in Scotland, rather than me saying he's a top, international class player -- whatever that is nowadays?

The fact his contract is ending may indeed by the incentive that has fuelled his good performances of late. It shows that he can reach that level. Moreover, defenders mature later anyway; he's still only 26! 

I would prefer Wilson with one of Alves or Martin as the first-choice pairing; the solid defender, alongside Wilson's play-making abilities. I think Martin will be the third-choice: Alves is too good to leave out, and Wilson is good, but has that experience of knowing what it means to play for Rangers. 

I think it's a silly move all-round. We'd be losing a decent defender that's coming into his prime -- one can only hope! -- and one who has been doing well this season. He could get into the Scotland squad, which would vanish if he left for the MLS.

I agree with Ian, though: I don't believe it.

He is most definitely now our t*t!

The arrogance is brilliant, but he needs to do it on the pitch.

5 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

Depends how you measure the success.

 

Spanish football might be more competitive if the big teams didn't have this advantage.

The purpose of the 'B' teams in the Spanish professional leagues is to bring through young players; in that regard it is most definitely successful. 

I appreciate the reservations, but I think anything to help bring through young players is beneficial.

4 minutes ago, craig said:

60 million Euros I read, which is about 53 million pounds.  I think Aubameyang is a fantastic player and in the current market I think 53 million is an excellent piece of business.  Like every other transfer though, only time will tell.

 

Again Re Sanchez, you are suggesting Arsenal "got rid" when the reality is he was walking regardless.

7 minutes ago, craig said:

But you are completely ignoring the fact that Sanchez could have signed a pre-contract and walked for nothing in 6 months time.

I understand, and in that regard Arsenal got a good deal. I still think Man Utd got the better deal.  

51 minutes ago, craig said:

I would be very happy indeed if Arsenal get Aubameyang - Don't think I have ever seen him have a bad game.  And at the proposed fee he would be a bargain. 

 

Arsenal need about 5 or 6 starters though - from the team that lost at Bournemouth last week you would only probably keep Wilshere in the team - none of the others would command a place at another top 6 team, aside from maybe Bellerin - and even he has gone backwards in the last year or two.

 

They definitely need to can Wenger.  His time has been and gone.  Too stubborn and unwilling to change and it also seems he just cant get more out of the players he has at his disposal.  If Arsenal want to be contenders to even make top 4 and the CL they will need to spend some serious, serious cash - and Wenger isn't that guy as he sees his role as balancing business and football, probably due to his economics background - but the reality is that a football manager should be asking for the best players available, regardless of cost - and leave it up to the financial custodians to determine if they can afford it or not.

Aubameyang is an exceptional player -- when he can be arsed playing; he didn't bother turning up for some of Dortmund's games! Not sure of the benefits of ridding themselves of a "problem player" in Sanchez to get this guy!   

Kidding... sort of! Exceptional player, and he'll score goals. What's the price being touted? £50-60M? That's not bad in this market for a good goalscorer. 

31 minutes ago, craig said:

I actually disagree.  He was in the last 6 months of his contract and could quite easily have signed a pre-contract at City (or a host of other clubs) and left for free in the summer.  Arsenal wouldn't be a CL team with OR without him in the team IMO - so nothing gained or lost there.  Utd's position won't change either - they won't catch City and they are a CL team.

End result was either lose him for free in the summer, keep him until the summer and know there is the distinct possibility he becomes a disruptive influence in the dressing room... OR..... sell him and get a player who cost Utd 27-30 million less than 2 years ago.

 

Arsenal got the better end of the deal if you look at it financially - in terms of playing personnel it is obvious Utd got the better end of the deal - however, players in the last 6 months of their contract are worth nowhere near their REAL value.

 

Arsenal got the better end of the deal financially.

In terms of position, nothing changes. We can exclude that.

Yes, get rid of a potential problem player now. You can say the same about Mkhi, although not to the same extent perhaps. In this regard, Arsenal are probably better off.

Financially, Arsenal free up a lot of wages -- I suspect -- but they also get an inferior player. Each side is taking on the other's financial obligations, but Man Utd are getting a far better player. Utd are also getting a player worth over £63M (based on City's bid less than 6 months ago) for someone that is worth £31M (Transfermrkt), which you can take or leave because of the source, but I think it's fair valuation. (You can argue his REAL value is less because of the length of his contract, but Utd were willing to spend £25M, and City were willing to spend £20M right now. Not far off Mkhitaryan's highest value.) I can only conclude that Utd get the better deal financially -- the only down side is they're taking on more wages, but it's worth it because of the player.

Man Utd got the better end of the deal... IMO.