Rousseau

I've always been in favour of video referrals; so much can depend on a certain decision that it's imperative a team be able challenge it. However, I agree with Coop that there should be a certain number of challenges to keep the flow of the game, rather than every little decision being referred -- maybe more than 2 challenges, though? Although, Cricket has 2 and that sport can potentially have challenges every delivery. As long as they get the challenge back if they are proved correct.

To be fair, I don't think it'll eradicate mistakes out of the game, for much comes down to interpretation.

I don't think Kranjcar can play No.8 because he doesn't have the fitness, stamina or mobility anymore. He is at his best when he doesn't have to run, when he reacts instinctively. His range and accuracy of passing is sublime at times. He could/should play a holding role, a la Pirlo. Maybe not in the bigger games, but whenever we're sure to dominate, having him sit deep and allow him to ping passes every which way would be so much more beneficial than forcing him into a No.8 position.

The first 30 minutes were dull, but after they had to open up we found more space and broke a bit quicker to great affect.

The BT guys did go on a bit, but I felt it was a red card. Going to Howard Webb is nothing new -- it's happened a few times.

Stewart in particular annoys me when he makes suggestions on what we should be doing. It generally revolves around how he played the game, with long balls. We don't play that way. I really don't think they know what we must do to play better. Sutton's a bit better in the sense he doesn't presume to know what we should be doing. He only makes little suggestions like heading back across goal: a simple thing from his experience and is quite correct. Sutton is forceful in his opinions, but I tend to agree with him. (I'm really worried for my health!) The main commentator (Rae?) does annoy me with his 'Rangers Bad' narrative, though; he seems quite keen to keep pressing that narrative.

The Guardian interview was from a week past. It was for his book. He says some things that are probably true but a bit grating.

After spending a few days in Paris I logged on to find I'd to change my password as the old one was 180 days old. I've copied and pasted the new allocated jumble of letters & numbers but being a bit of a Luddite don't know how to change to a personal one.

I'd be obliged for some help guys as I've several issues with this old laptop as it is.

Thanks.

Click on "settings" (very top right of the page) and then scroll down to "edit email and password" from the options on the left.

You mean this:

[tweet]777551120864518145[/tweet]

Come on! It's a fake account.

That Man Utd squad needs a clear-out. Rooney is absolutely abysmal; incapable of stringing 2 passes together!

Or, maybe not a clear-out per se, but tough decisions need to be made regarding starting-11. They can't continue to shoe-horn players into the team.

Yes, County were never in it, time-wasting from the 1st minute; our centre-backs strolled it (which isn't saying much). It wasn't the worst we've played, but our ability to create and score is really frustrating.

Nice to see Crooks on the bench -- hopefully he can get some game-time.

Glad Miller is out. Waghorn, Garner and McKay looks quite potent -- if McKay is anywhere near his best.

Offensive midfield-three. Excellent to see Holt back!

Defensively suspect, but it could be what we need to get that attacking fluidity we've been missing.

5 changes!

RANGERS: Foderingham, Tavernier, Wilson, Hill, Wallace; Halliday, Holt, Windass; Waghorn, Garner, McKay

Substitutes: Gilks, Hodson, Crooks, Miller, O’Halloran, Kranjcar, Forrester.

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/five-changes-staggies/

Liverpool will always do well against the bigger teams, just because of the high-intensity of their game, but their season will be defined by how they do against the smaller sides where they always lose points. I don't see that changing, yet.

I think Chelsea tried to settle into a low block to nullify Liverpool's pace in-behind. It worked for the majority of the game, but they were almost too passive in defending. It had to be a 'plan' because when they attacked they were very pacey and energetic. If not for awful set-piece defending -- sound familiar? -- and that wonder-strike, I don't remember Liverpool creating too much, except long-range strikes. It did remind me of the Old Firm game where we tried to nullify their pace be sitting deep and zonal. It worked for the most part, but we were undone by mistakes and poor set-pieces.

I think Chelsea will do well this season, and I can see them finishing above Liverpool. Conte is an excellent manager.

It's Mac City's League to lose, with Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool, fighting for the other spots. Arsenal seem average, with the teams mentioned getting better. Tottenham are a good side, but again, I just think the 'big-four' (minus Arsenal) have got better again.

The radio appearance is not good, but it's just a response to all the conjecture flying around. I don't think he's done anything too wrong, really. He divides opinion, so "haters are gonna hate" no matter what he's done. I actually like the fact there's been a heated discussion/confrontation after our last game.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. Warburton knew what he was getting and I think -- hope -- that it'll be sorted out. Can you tell I like the guy?!

The cameras pressed against the glass, flickering in their eagerness to get a glimpse. Barton was uninterested and instead has his attention squarely focused on his smartphone as the car slowly rolls away from Ibrox, red brick reflected in the car window. This was the coup of the summer; the transfer that would take us to the next level, solving our much maligned defensive problems. Granted many had reservations about his infamous past, but most felt Barton's experience and quality would shine through.

Fast forward three months and he's enemy number one. He was deemed the main culprit, the scapegoat, for last Saturday's drubbing at the hands of our nearest rivals, and now he has been banned from Auchenhowie. Many have said this was coming from his past misdemeanors, and are now using it to suggest he should be removed as he's not done much anyway ('Haters gonna hate!').

What had happened? Nothing except that time had done it's work, with cruel sobriety burning away that early optimism. The same frailties are still evident: the same exposed centre-backs; the same 'markers' running about like headless chickens at set-pieces. While last season we overcame these frailties by out-scoring opponents, thus far we've been unable to recreate that attacking potency that got us into the top-flight. Barton was the promised messiah sent to solve these problems -- the defensive anyway -- the missing piece of the puzzle. But perhaps circumstances are just outwith his control? Perhaps we have invested too much optimism and hope on the shoulders of one man?

Last Saturday was a bad day all-round, both off-field and on. (I will leave the off-field problems for those more qualified -- Frankie's piece last week neatly sums up the situation, and can be read here: http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/current-affairs/681-exploring-the-fundamental-dishonesty-of-scotland-s-sectarianism-industry) There is a tendency to find a scapegoat after such a performance, a figure on which we can direct all the blame and frustration crackling under the surface, with old cliches rolled out ("There was no passion", "No energy", "The players didn't want it enough..." etc.) Those accusations are valid and certainly play their part, but I don't think they are quite accurate after this last game; it's too easy for these excuses to be bandied about. I felt we tried but just got it wrong tactically; the whole team was poor.

Barton was the scapegoat again, but I thought he was one of the better players that day. When I reluctantly recall that game I don't remember any individual performance of note: McKay, Wallace, Tavernier, Miller were anonymous; Windass had a few good runs, but didn't do much; Kranjcar was up-for-it but was off the pace and too rash at times; Garner didn't do much -- not his fault -- except score. Few players I actually remember doing much in the game.

But I do remember Barton. I remember several aerial duels, numerous blocks and tackles. The stats suggest he was one of our better performers, with 35 passes, tackles, aerials duels, 7 interceptions and several body-on-the-line blocks. Yes, he was caught on the ball a couple of times, green-and-white bodies swarming around him, but I think that was down to few passing options and a well-executed pressing trap from our rivals. He can get rid of the ball quicker but it's a difficult situation. The point is I remember him fighting.

A criticism I have is that the midfield structure doesn't protect or cover Barton -- or the centre-backs. The second goal is case in point. We open-up to play forward. Kiernan makes the first mistake by giving a simple ball away, and we're instantly on the back foot. Barton does the right thing by moving to press the ball-carrier, but fails. He would expect his midfield partner to cover his press by sweeping around to take his position, but Kranjcar is acres off leaving a large space in the centre of the pitch. Kiernan is caught in no mans land and a simple ball is lobbed over the defense. Senderos does the right thing by covering Dembele's run, but then ruins it by sliding in (ironically, I think we deal with the situation if he stays on his feet and forces a shot from a tight angle). It is an example of a series of small mistakes -- although Kiernan is certainly guilty of starting it!

There was a similar problem for Manchester United in the Manchester Derby, played at the same time as the Old Firm game. Fellaini, playing DM, was exposed time and time again through no fault of his own; Pogba just never covered. The DM needs to press the ball player/carrier, but needs a midfield partner to cover the space in-behind. Without which the defenders are sitting ducks. Pogba's former club Juventus had it right: Pogba bombed forward but Pirlo was always shadowed by Marchisio. Conte has brought the same principle to Chelsea, where Oscar has the freedom, but the DM (Kante) is closely shadowed/protected by Matic when he has to press. Rangers seem to have two advanced players that can't seem to recognise the danger.

This "bust-up" involving Barton has probably been a long time coming. While it's easy to say Barton is the main belligerent because of his colourful past, I'll wait to see what actually happened -- although a club suspension is quite a serious charge. His Twitter profile has often been used as a way of proving he does more talking than anything else, but I don't think he's done much on Twitter, except after that initial press conference at his signing. It has been built up by the press, out of all proportion -- it's almost as if they're trying to sell something?

I don't think it's a bad thing that he's speaking his mind. Of course unity is desired, but a group of mindless automatons doesn't benefit anyone. It shows he cares; it shows leadership. If Halliday is indeed the other player involved then we can be sure that any 'discussion' is for the good of the club. A frank, even heated discussion is nothing new in football, and should be welcomed after recent performances. How many times have Henry, Neville and Souness said during their punditry that in their day if someone wasn't pulling their weight they'd be pulled aside and told in no uncertain terms to 'buck up'. They lament the fact that player responsibility is disappearing from the game? Although I'd prefer it remain in-house -- difficult in this age of social media -- I welcome this bubbling over of emotions.

Barton is an easy target; he is visible and speaks his mind. His past still casts a long shadow, influencing any perception we may have of the man today. He's not been spectacular for us, but I always notice his presence on the field: always the main passing hub, always battling, challenging and making blocks and interceptions. I think he has been let down by a team that is just not clicking, and although he must take his share of the blame, I don't doubt his heart and influence. He is very much a love-him or hate-him figure. It may be that his Rangers career is threatened, but I hope not. It's disappointing that our 'dirty laundry' has been aired in such a public way, but I like the friction. I like the fact that the players are upset and as frustrated as we are. He has explained himself to the fans, he'll serve his punishment, and I very much hope a line can be drawn under these events; and that we can now move on to the next important game.

This is much ado about nothing. A 'frank discussion' has been had, and perhaps Barton has gone too far. I don't have a problem with it.

I don't like how it has been aired in public, but there's not much you can do about that nowadays with social media etc. Barton's radio interview was a response to the conjecture that has been built up by the press.

I felt Chelsea's 2nd was just wrong.

 

Going by the rulebook and all that.... The ref gave more decisions in favor of Chelsea than Swansea IMHO - therefore to blame the ref for dropped points is a stretch.

Ha! You're just arguing for the sake of arguing! IMHO it really doesn't matter if the "ref gave more decisions in favor of Chelsea" (which I disagree with) because they were mostly a matter of interpretation. For me the only decision he got "wrong" was the Swansea 2nd. He's not "wrong" to not rule out the Chelsea 2nd because it's all about degrees for that one, same with Fabregas.

Anyway, it's done now. It is just my opinion at the end of the day. We can agree to disagree.

I assume "tugging" means "shirt tugging" and therefore a foul.

Touche. It was just the way he went down, dropping rather than anything to do with a tug or grab, which was well afterwards anyway.

I agree that it was a foul - Fer clipped Cahill and prevented the back pass - so that brings us to a 2-1 Chelsea win. However, by definition, Costa's equalizer was dangerous play and should have been chalked off, therefore 1-1. Then you have the Fabregas "challenge" on Ki at the edge of the box which could very, very easily have been a penalty. If Fabregas is "tugging" then it is contact and it is a foul, and ergo a penalty. Again, like it or not, contact was made by Fabregas - I almost guarantee you that at 2-1 on Saturday had Miller or Garner done the same thing you would be screaming "penalty"

 

That rule annoys me too - however, it is in the rule book that high feet is dangerous play, regardless of the situation - so the goal should have been disallowed.

 

Chelsea played very well, I agree. But to suggest the ref cost them the game is unfair. Chelsea dropped points because of Chelsea. They were complacent in defence and, despite their display, were pretty lucky to get a point in the end.

 

In fact, blaming the ref looks even more unfair when you consider that he COULD have sent Courtois off for the penalty he gave away. It was one of those where you couldn't really complain if he was sent packing because the Chelsea defender was struggling to get back to cover the goal.

Fair enough. Like I said, I am probably -- or most definitely -- biased. However, I felt most of the decisions were down to interpretation, so you can argue one way or the other, but I felt that Swansea 2nd was just wrong.

The single biggest issue for me isnt necessarily the personnel. It is one simple statement that TB makes.... "Fast, free-flowing football". That is the problem. It has disappeared and I still dont think you can put that down to personnel.

 

Last season we played with high tempo all over the pitch both with and without possession of the ball.

 

This season that has stopped, disappeared, and we look a much weaker team for it.

 

You dont actually need pacy players for this fast football, you just need players who can control the ball quickly, move it on and then offer themselves in space quickly too. Which means there is no reason Barton or Kranjcar should be slowing our play down - they themselves arent fast but their touch is usually to a very high standard - which means one touch to control and then another to move the ball on.

 

Another thing that is alarming is that we no longer are pressing the ball high up the pitch. Saturday we allowed ourselves to sit very, very deep and put nigh on zero pressure on the ball in the opposing final 3rd. And I don't think that has much to do with Celtic' play. We looked like it was a deliberate tactic to not pressure the ball high, which was a mistake in my opinion - it allowed Celtic to play out from the back with no pressure and also meant their wingers didnt have to even think about assisting defensively.

 

So many things went wrong on Saturday - but that doesnt make us a bad team.

While I would certainly like to see us press high, I actually thought the low block was well-executed and was working well for us. We gave them little space with our 4-1-4-1 and they were forced to pass from side to side. Where they scored had nothing to do with our defensive structure. One was a corner and the second was a counter when the ball was given away from Kiernan's pass. (The third was also a break IIRC?) Then after we lost 2 centre-backs the defensive structure really goes out the window.

We keep bringing up this plan A cliche, but I think that how we set up defensively showed a change. He seems to have looked at their strengths (their pace in attack) and weaknesses (defense on the break) and set up to take advantage. We were tight in 2 banks of 4 to nullify their pace, and we conceded territory so when we won the ball back we had space to break into -- Incidentally, that's where your favourite man's (Windass) running ability could have caused a lot of damage. It's frustrating how we keep bringing out these cliches -- not you, Craig -- when things go wrong; lack of desire and passion seemed to be rolled out again, somewhat wrongly IMO. We made mistakes and we lost discipline. (We're not actually playing well at the moment anyway.)

Eh ?

 

How do you work that out ? What did the ref get wrong ?

 

From my viewpoint the only reason Chelsea got as much as a draw was because of the ref - Costa's goal would have been chalked off by many refs (dangerous play - whether I agree or not is a different matter) and Fabregas could easily have given a penalty away to Ki at the edge of the box)

I was specifically thinking of Swansea's second: no way is that not a foul. I was certainly expecting Costa's second to be chalked off, but that rule annoys me anyway, as it takes these wonderful sights (overhead/bicycle kicks) out of the game. That was was a dive from Ki; Fabregas was tight/tugging, but he just drops to the ground, embarrassingly.

I concede I'm biased, but I thought Chelsea were very good and deserved to win the game. Swansea were average, but took advantage of a Chelsea mistake for their first and the Referee made a mistake for their second. I suppose that's what the PL is all about?

How Chelsea didn't win that game at Swansea I'll never know

The Referee.

I thought Barton was superb yesterday. He won the ball back, passed simply, won aerial duels, intercepted passes, blocked numerous shots on goal. Yes, he was caught on the ball a couple of times -- quite clearly a pressing trap from Celtic, well executed -- but there were very few options on the ball for him. What more can he do? Easy scapegoat IMO. The team as a whole were poor.

A 4-1-4-1 is basically what we play now (4-3-3), and was what we played against them for large spells. Your issue, and everyone's to be fair, comes down to personnel and what is our best XI.

I actually though we defended quite well when we lined up with 2 banks of four -- something I've not really seen -- and shows how easy it is when you're covered. We started conceding when we opened up to pass forward, which there is nothing wrong with in itself, it's just that we gave the ball away.

To be honest, I don't think the defensive frailties are the main issue at the moment -- although they are a worry -- as I am more annoyed, frustrated at our poor attacking play; there's no intent or zip in our play anymore, which is worrying.

The formation will stay the same (4-3-3). Miller has often played wide for us. Kranjcar is less mobile than the rest -- although Windass makes up for it -- but will be a deep-lying playmaker, with McKay, Miller, Garner and Windass to pick out. It's a strong, attacking side.

As has been said, the best form of defense is attack; we must push them back by dominating the ball.

I think we can say Warburton is copying Rogers, but Celtic are copying us?

They need to get a phone charger relay going for him!

What is happening!? (I mean that literally and figuratively! 5-0? Sheesh!)