Rousseau

2 minutes ago, pete said:

He needs to improve his positioning and not get caught out in an advanced position and his 1 on1 needs to improve.

Yes, I agree. I think he's young enough to have time to improve upon those things. The former will help the latter!

6 minutes ago, Tannochsidebear said:

Where does Cummings play in our side in your opinion R? 

 

To me he is a centre forward, a goalscoring poacher, not a wide forward. He is a good player but is not better than Morelos, so if we are going to continue to play one central striker, I dont see where Cummings fits in? Lets not squeeze him into a wide position or drop him into the 10 slot, because thats not where he does his best work.

 

So for me it's either a twin strike force in a 4-4-2 (or any other shape that results in a -2 at the end) or there is no point buying him. While we need good subs, we certainly need better first team players first.

I agree with you: Morelos is probably better, and in a 4-2-3-1, Cummings would make way. (Good option of the bench, though!)

I was thinking with regards to the 4-4-2 (diamond), where a twin strike-force of Cummings and Morelos sounds rather potent. That is assuming we continue to play that formation on occasion, which I think we will with more central midfielders being signed.

Also, if we're going for another CB, then a 3 at the back would allow for a 2 up front too. 

At the very least, we'd have 2 superb forwards; something we've not had in a good while. 

I think Cummings would be a good signing: he improves the first-team instantly, but also has that potential. 

Docherty I'm also happy with, but I don't think he quite becomes a first-team player -- perhaps just improves squad depth, which is necessary --; however, he also has that potential. TheSPFLRadar rates him highly, especially for a player in a lower-league team. It'll be interesting to see if he can step up.

Great attitude indeed.

I think he's young enough to be given more time. I think he's OK technically, but he needs to be better with the physicality, and the 1-on-1's.

10 minutes ago, les186 said:

How many central defenders do we need?

We've got the quantity, but perhaps not the quality. 

2 minutes ago, ian1964 said:

As we agreed the other day though, the management know more than us regarding players, so we can only trust them on signing targets. Murty knows Martin well so he obviously thinks he can make a difference immediately, something I agree with especially loan deals. And you are correct Martin should stroll the Scottish league.

Touche.

I will trust Murty in this regard. I'm underwhelmed, but I do think he should be solid enough for this league, considering the level at which he's played (PL for several years, and the CH, which is not easy).

I'm always looking at players from a universal perspective: are they actually good players in the grand scheme of things, but perhaps we just need players -- as JohnMc has said -- that can do well now, in the Scottish game. I've not watched Martin at all really -- not even Scotland games -- but surely he should be strolling this league, considering the level he's played at? 

I think Alves strolls it, without being spectacular: wins every aerial duel, clears his lines, can pass into the final third accurately etc.

Underwhelming, but maybe it's what we need?

I find this is an appropriate response for most underwhelming signings:

2 minutes ago, 26th of foot said:

What time(British time) did this game take place?

18:00 hrs.

The full-game highlights are on Sky Channel 424 at 16:00 this evening.

11 hours ago, Frankie said:

Yip, as much as we were profligate in the first half, we were prolific in the second.

An apt alliterative abstract. 

I read that we at least share the cup. It's just a friendly, but any trophy is pleasing.

1 minute ago, Frankie said:

Nah, Dalcio is arguably too lightweight for Scottish football (and still behind too many players) but he did well today.

Oh, well. I got my hopes up there...

That sounded like a superb comeback -- can't wait to watch it back.

And... is Dalcio realistic option?!

Well...

Kranjcar is playing as one of the two in the 4-2-3-1. It may suit him playing deeper, allowing him to pass the ball more, and without needing to put in as much of a shift defensively; he's still technically superb with the ball at his feet. 

10 minutes ago, Frankie said:

Maybe they do though...

It's strange listening to a positive commentary of our club.

Just now, stewarty said:

The rumour is that the Board are keen to bring him back, but Murty and Allen are not.   Similarly, Pedro was not.   

 

The interesting aspect will be whether the Board decide that they wish to impose a signing upon Murty/Allen.  

If that's the case it's a 'no-brainer' that this deal should not happen?

It's basically owners picking the team. If the football department don't fancy him, then that should be the end of it. 

1 minute ago, JohnMc said:

You have way more faith in the decision makers at Rangers than I do. Nothing I've witnessed recently has given me any reason to think they've the first idea what they're doing. 

Perhaps. We can't influence it either way, and I can opine until my fingers bleed. In this case I really don't know; and I can't see how so many can be so sure he's a 'no-brainer'; there are too many assumptions. However, as buster. said, I may as well complain about the rain. 

1 minute ago, boabie said:

I fight every single lie they tell mate. 

Dignified silence ended many years ago for me.

They get called out at every opportunity.

I've been banned more times than Willie Johnston.

1 minute ago, craig said:

I think you are being overly simplistic here.  Just because Hearts want him doesn't mean that he isn't good enough for us.

 

It's kind of like, say, Real Madrid saying, If Rangers are going for Messi then he perhaps isn't good enough for Real Madrid.  It is, in fact, a silly way of looking at it.  Every single club wants the best players they can get.  Hearts wanting Naismith is, again, a no-brainer in my opinion, because of the quality he could bring them.  He would definitely improve their team.  Just because they want him doesn't mean he isn't good enough for us.

 

To be honest, I can't even understand your thinking on that remark Rousseau

Just that if we're in competition with Hearts for him, there's only one choice -- I would hope! And, like Frankie said, if we really wanted him, he'd be here. The fact that Hearts look to be in pole position suggests he isn't an option for us. 

My wording was messy. 

9 minutes ago, buster. said:

 

Might as well complain about rain 

 

Happy to wait and see what happens although I kind of agree with Frankie, in that if we had wanted him, it'd probably have been done by now. The assumption there is that the club/football operation are fairly clear about what they want and can do.

Very true. It's just the jumping to conclusions based on nothing concrete in this case. I suppose that's par for the course!

I believe you may be right.  

1 minute ago, craig said:

Would be very tough on Jack to lose his spot and I would be building my team around McCrorie, despite his youth..... but I really liked the look of Goss last night - good first touch, always offering himself for the pass, head turning on a swivel, creating space for himself, and his vertical passing was very good too.

Carrick-esque! 

Jack can sit either way, but McCrorie gives more of a driving presence, while Goss is more of a deep-lying playmaker. Depends on the opposition, I suppose.

Actually, a 4-1-4-1 with McCrorie behind Goss and Jack would give us a good strong base against the 'better' teams. Maybe allows a three-at-the-back too.

I don't want to get too far ahead of myself! I'm too easily excited!