Rousseau

''Nobody had heard of Mauricio Pochettino when Southampton hired the Argentine.Now, Poch is regarded as coaching royalty.''

 

Really?, and he is supposed to be a football reporter and had not heard of Pochettino?, an Argentina international and PSG defender!

Coaches don't exist unless they manage in the UK or Barcelona/Real Madrid.

Tom Miller said something at the end of the game that I wanted from us, and got in spades. He said we "slapped Aberdeen down" which made me smile. And I'm coming around to Shug Burns co commentary style. He's still a wee bit OTT but he does have a decent insight and talks some sense between the cringe worthy shouts of "EE'S IN TAM, GON YERSEL SON GO ON GO ON!!!!"

Did he not also say something like 'lock up your sheep' when they started to leave in their droves?

I don't see why PC is a 'maverick'? He's named a team 24 hours earlier than usual; surely that's more to do with not knowing Scottish convention? And, the subs at the Motherwell game was a singular coincidence.

Also, the win had nothing to do with tactics, it's just Miller doing the business? What about the fact PC brought on Dodoo and moved Miller into a central position? Did that not have anything to do with it? What a plank.

The Barry Ferguson stuff just proves why many fans had doubts about him.

He does work hard and is a good professional. Both his goals were great today. It's not the first time, this season, that he has scored important goals either.

 

The question is "Can we win the league with him playing?".

 

We need to find players that match our ambitions. Sadly for Miller I think that means that we need to move on.

Unfortunately, I agree. There are moments in the game when I think, 'how the f*** is he playing?', then he goes and scores a screamer?! He is a consummate professional, but I agree I don't think we can win the league with him playing regularly. I would like to see him get another deal, to have him around and to play a part, but I would like to see us get someone else in there.

Well, I watched it; why wouldn't I, after we won?! The whole theme was the incredulity of our win; Aberdeen were the best side... blah, blah, blah. They did have us under pressure -- a lot of it -- and so you can say they were in control. However, someone else said -- perhaps McCann -- in another game, you can twist that: actually Rangers were in control because we sat in and dealt with everything they fired at us. Moreover, how many times have we dominated games this season, and last, only to be criticised for not making it count? possession counts for nothing etc. They undoubtedly had the better of the possession, but we dealt with everything they had and then countered very effectively. We should be given credit for the way we did it -- I didn't think we had it in us. Alas that doesn't fit the narrative, does it?

GIRUY!

I said the other night that Wilson looked far, far better with Bates beside him rather than Hill - there can be very little doubt that it is because he knows he is the senior CB and needs to assist the younger, more inexperienced partner. I think we all thought Wilson needed experience beside him - but it is starting to look like the added responsibility of being the mentor is making him concentrate more and making fewer mistakes.

 

Dare I say it, and quietly, in the last couple of games Danny Wilson has actually looked like a SPFL centre half.

I said that elsewhere -- it's a surprise to me! Perhaps it is because he knows he has to deal with it -- whatever it may be -- instead of hesitating and waiting for his partner?

I never watch Sportscene.................but I will tonight!:devil:

I was just going to ask: when does Sportscene start? I can't wait!

Agree with much of what you say - but I will cut Waghorn some slack for his miss. You would expect him to finish it - but the ball travels over the top of the Aberdeen defender so he doesn't get to see the true flight of the ball till last second, and it has been travelling through the air where some would have expected the defender to get a touch.

 

It isn't the sitter some are making it out to be - indeed, he actually makes a cracking, powerful touch on it - he just got under it.

 

Saying "How does Waghorn miss from 5 yards" makes it sound like it is a tap-in - it was far, far from being a tap-in.

I agree that one was tricky, but he still should be hitting the target for me.

However, I actually meant the shot just before Miller scored. He's 5 yards out and hits the 'keeper -- Miller then scores the rebound.

I thought Waghorn had a poor game.

I loved the passion from PC when we scored. I think he looks good tactically, and he gets the culture of the club; time will tell whether he can walk the walk.

We seemed to go to pieces for the next period of the game though. We looked totally lost between then and the 79th minute....

 

I thought the same re Wilson and the defence.

It was backs against the wall, but it was like that since the half kicked off. He's undoubtedly our best player, but I just thought he was anonymous. Like I said elsewhere, I think PC was looking at the counter and that's why Windass came on.

Foderingham made a couple of very good saves at 0-0. He's doing the job at the minute.

I thought Hyndman was anonymous again. We were under the cosh when he was on so I disagree that we lost shape, or whatever you want to call it, once he went off.

Windass and Dodoo have better running ability for the counter -- I think that's what PC was counting on towards the end.

As good a goal as that was from Miller, WTF is Waghorn doing missing from 5 yards?! It doesn't matter now, but that costs us too often.

That was a solid defensive performance. The youngsters gave the ball away at times, but they were solid for the most part. I think Wilson looks better too -- with added responsibility? I always thought he was the one who needed guidance. I really think our defensive performances have been much improved under PC -- it's still quite early, though.

GIRUY Dolly! So f**king easy... Brought a tear to me eye!

Garner goes down easily, but what striker doesn't nowadays. The chests bump together then the Aberdeen player goes in with the head; it's not a hard contact but there is contact and there is intent. If it was the other way around it would've been.

The worry that we'd be outnumbered in midfield has not materialised; It's 4-3-3 in attack, but without the ball it's 4-1-4-1, with Holt and Toral doing a good job covering the wide men.

It sort of sums up our season. Defensively we're shaky at times -- mostly from the expectation from past performances I suspect -- but have dealt with them well -- certainly an improvement since PC arrived IMO -- but up front we can't seem to hit the bloody target: Two sitters! Garner's done well with the first touch but should score with the second, and then Waghorn's chance is easier to score than miss! Waghorn also having a tame shot when the pass wide, and in behind, would create a very dangerous chance. We can't afford to pass these up.

There is a weakness about the side. In the past tight games we'd nick; now, tight games we will lose. We need to take our chances.

Yup, I would have had McKay or Windass instead of Garner.

I don't think it's the game for either of those. Garner may be too 'unpredictable' for this game, but his physicality could be an asset.

[tweet]851020060307095552[/tweet]

McKay on the bench is an interesting one, but perhaps an astute decision as he's not the best defensively -- we'd be carrying him tbh! -- and at least now he can come on when they tire as a late impact sub. Our defense needs all the protection it can get!

I'm glad Toral is back: we missed him against Kilmarnock.

Has Johansson not got a job with the Finish National side? I recall Tom Miller and he speaking about something like it on RangersTV a few games ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_de_gloria

 

http://hoaxes.org/weblog/comments/interviewer_who_cant_stop_laughing

Ah... so it wasn't real. Makes sense: I can't see a presenter laughing at personal problems. It made the parody, though!

Thanks.

I want to know what the real story was about!

That was funny, though.

We have to remember he's not had a settled side either. He had free reign against Hamilton, got a good result, then names the same side I think -- maybe with one change? -- for Motherwell and then that goes completely out the window at half-time. The game at the weekend again had two youngsters in defence and no Toral dictating play. If people are judging him on that I don't know what they expect, and can only surmise that they've approached it that way regardless of how he'd do.

In terms of improvement, I think there has been significant change. Again, 3 games is a little early, but defensively I think we've been more solid, and we have been more direct. Two things we've been crying out for all season, but we all have to admit the players we have are only going to take us so far; they're just not good enough.

It seems Garner knew that Bates was starting before PC held his conference.

Bates made a shaky start but he grew into the game; he used his physical presence to good affect, heading a few balls away from set-plays. I don't think he's the best with his feet, but he tried to play forward -- maybe our anonymous midfielders did not help matters.

Beerman was good. You can clearly see that he was a former winger, as elfideldo said; very confident with the ball, linking up and running at the defence. He did ok defensively too considering he was up against a big brute of a forward in Sammon. He wasn't troubled too much and he pretty much marked him tightly.

Halliday doesn't have the technique or vision to play DM, but he's got good energy and pace so I feel like he could be used further forward. He's at his best -- not great I'll admit -- when he's running at defenders. We could've just swapped Halliday for Hyndman, letting Hyndman dictate the play from deep, with Halliday in the N0.10 role using his energy to press and run at the back-four. (Hyndman was probably removed because of the pitch -- which is a disgrace at this level -- so it's a moot point.)

I tend to agree with the sentiments. We suck offensively: too many players are isolated, make wrong decisions and/or just fail to hit the bloody target. We peppered their box with crosses but outwith a few Garner headers we didn't do enough; there was no quality. Hyndman was anonymous for me; I wasn't really surprised when he came off (partly because of the surface too I suspect). Too many players dawdle on the ball, wanting too much time; and there was no tempo. Second half was better, but still not good enough.

The only positive for me was the performances of the youngsters -- Bates had a shaky start but grew into the game, using his strength and height, and Beerman was decent going forward and did ok against a brute in Sammon -- and the fact that we did well defensively -- we weren't really troubled outwith the odd corner and Tavernier getting caught upfield leaving the Killie winger loads of space. I think the double pivot is helping; Holt was quite good for me, bringing lots of energy and breaking up play etc. Halliday can't control a ball and on the rare occasion he does he passes it back; Toral is significantly better.

No Kiernan ?

He's injured.

Did I understand correctly, from an interview, that Toral's knees are too dodgy for the plastic fantastic @Killie?

I believe so.