Rousseau

I must say, TB's response was every bit as good as I thought It'd be!

I thought Miller was poor, but the OP does show that if he was played-in on occasion then we could've scored a couple of goals, or at least manufactured a better chance or two -- Of course, that doesn't take into account whether Miller could've hit the target or not!

That was a really interesting read. I was always an advocate of Miller last year: I always felt his movement was first-class. However, I then always wanted to see someone else brought in -- I don't want to see us rely on a 36 year-old. I went with the consensus that Miller was poor against Hamilton; simply because he was anonymous. The evidence suggests that although he was anonymous, it wasn't through any fault of his own: he was just never given the ball, while his movement remained pretty good.

(I can't wait for TB to get online!)

Interestingly, there were a few critics suggesting the team is "over-coached". The evidence perhaps suggests we're not coached enough: too many players were in good positions but doing whatever they wanted!

Rangers 3 - 0 Peterhead

FGS Halliday

Get your predictions in for Rangers v Peterhead in the League Cup 2nd Round.

Note: No double points for this competition.

We missed Zelalem...

Brilliant positioning from Forrester: in the half-space so our back-two and Barton can play it through Forrrester, moving the ball forward with a purpose.

The cross with sublime!

Our CB's have been running about like headless chickens, but they shouldn't have to in the first place. Hamilton keep passing through our midfield. Where's the shield?

Hamilton's press has been really impressive -- compact 4-3-3, covering the man and the space -- but we must do better; we must be quicker. There's little connectivity between the midfield. The only out-ball is wide which plays into Hamilton's hands, and then we can't move the ball up-field. We need more movement from Kranjcar, which is unlikely because he's too slow and cumbersome -- sublime ability with the ball, though -- or even just better positioning in the half-space to facilitate the movement of the ball forward; Holt or Windass would be better.

Would Kranjcar not be better as a Deep-Lying Playmaker? So we get his passing ability but he wouldn't have to move as much, like Pirlo? I'm not sure Barton is the right man to cover/support that though...

Frustrating.

We need a "sweep sweep" emoticon/emoji/smiley.

No harm in having a look at the kid.

I got excited there when someone on twitter said we'd finally signed a CB. Alas! He is indeed for the U-20's.

Hapoel Be'er Sheva were Israeli champions last year, so they will not be a walkover.

They have two "Bitons" in their team -- and a "Brown"! Apparently one of the Bitons is a cousin of Celtic's Biton... if that makes sense?

Incidentally, what does Hapoel mean? There are a few teams with that prefix; likewise Maccabi.

Edit: Seems to be political: Maccabi were a zionist organisation, but many felt it was predominantly bourgeoisie-focused, and so another organisation was set up, for the "workers", called Hapoel.

Well done JFK-1 and Bearman for that lovely tweet-posting tutorial.

Apologies I had edited a few earlier ones, just inserting the "/" -- so you were 1 character off it all night!

I'm struggling to comprehend how fans can want to see Ball return but turn their nose up at Senderos? Overlooking the veracity of this link, Senderos would be a decent signing.

It's interesting to see that the majority don't think we need AN Other. McKay, Waghorn and Forrester are way out in front, rightly so, but I don't think that means we don't need AN Other.

Who down-voted Barrie?!

I think Senderos would be a decent signing. I was never convinced of him at Arsenal, but since then he's played for several good/decent sides at good/decent levels -- they must see something in him? It's easy to focus on his lack of playing time, but that is not something Warburton looks at; it's the character and qualities of the player that count. He is tall, powerful, got a bit of pace (certainly enough for our league!) and seems to be quite intelligent, speaking 5 languages. I'd be happy with this signing. Of course, I'll wait until we have proper confirmation!

The rankings seems to be reflecting Saturdays result.

I dislike blaming individuals; for me there are usually a series of mistakes in defensive lapses. Sometimes it is just one players fault, but generally it's a series. On Saturday the midfield shield was non-existent: 3/4 times Burnley had a free run at our defense. This forces Hill et al to push out, causing them to get caught in no-mans land. Better covering from Kiernan may have helped, but it was already a dangerous situation.

I'm surprised at the 'keeper ranking. I'm not sure what Gilks has really done, as he's not played much or had much to do; same goes with Wes. Perhaps we are judging on previous faults? I think they each have differing strengths. Gilks is more commanding in the air, but poor with his feet; Wes is the opposite. From there it comes down to personal preference. I prefer Wes for now.

I think we have a man-oriented pressing system in midfield that doesn't suit Kranjcar or Barton; they are just not mobile enough. If we have those two in the starting-11 there has to be a more zonal set-up. For me, we are in a muddle with regards to defensive set-up rather than any individual failings.

Burnley are exactly the type of side to cause us problems. We struggled to break down their strong, well-organised defensive set-up and were caught on the break, with some poor defending added to the mix, and punished by a lethal finisher -- something we've not seen much of.

Much better second half, once the changes were made. I felt Hodson covered the centre-backs better, and Wilson was a better partner for Kiernan. (As frustrating as it is to admit, I think Kiernan and Wilson is our best pairing - Wilson was good when he came on). We managed to build through their midfield too with Forrester's movement -- Kranjcar just didn't provide any! Rossiter was solid, just like Barton before him. The most pleasing aspect was the incisive movement from O'Halloran, with Halliday finally having someone to link-up with. We couldn't get Dodoo into the game, but he kept looking for that ball in-behind that never came.

We've learned nothing new: we're poor at the back. However, Burnley are the best side we're going to face this year.

Burnley are are not pressing high this half -- it is difficult to sustain. Maybe more opportunities for us this half?

Pretty much like-for-like changes from Burnley.

Only one change for us: GIlks on for Wes -- better shot-stopper?

I think we'll see a few changes at Half-time.

I don't think it's pace up front, it's movement that is the issue: Miller needs someone to link with, and Halliday, Kranjcar haven't really provided it. Halliday has done a lot of running, but Kranjcar doesn't have the stamina for this game; WIndass might be a better option, but he's not in the squad. I think I'd prefer a Dodoo rather than Miller, with Waghorn through the middle.

We do need more pace at the back, but they really should be helped by the midfield more. Barton can't cover what is essentially 4 players (Vokes, Gray, Arfield and Boyd)!

We've learned nothing new really. We're struggling to beat a well-organised press, and the mistakes we do make -- although less than last season, there have been a few instances this season thus far -- are well punished by a prolific and clinical striker in Gray.

Organisation at the back is still poor and Kranjcar and Halliday haven't helped Barton cover -- Hill really shouldn't have to close the ball-carrier! Incidentally, I think Wilson and Kiernan would've been a better pairing... Hill is good when he has a high ball to attack though.

We're able to keep the ball easily enough, but we're struggling to break their press. We are unable to find Halliday and Kranjcar. With Burnley having two forwards high up the pitch, any misplaced pass is quickly and directly played through us.