Rousseau

I totally respect your views mate, but everyone has different DNA and I don't think you are in a position to define 'should or shouldn't' in those conditions, and your use of the word 'trotting' tells me something about your view on the people who did stand their ground. I can say hand on heart, even at 55, if those bastards were running up to within feet of me and goading me, I would not have turned the other cheek. I might have 'trotted' towards them rather than 'manfully striding away'.

Fair enough, mate. I don't know how I would react in the heat of the moment, but from the outside, I just don't think there is any justification for it.

[tweet]734070754426392576[/tweet]

Bang out of order with that comment mate!,how can you say that and also say you have no idea what happened?,poor from you!

I amended it slightly, but I maintain we shouldn't be going onto the pitch.

If Rangers fans/players were attacked, then it is a disgrace and I hope they will be punished severely. But, again, we shouldn't be stooping to their level. We're better than that.

Very disappointed. It was slow, ponderous and without craft or guile. Our defence was no worse than usual, and I actually thought we got better as the game went on in open play -- corners are a different matter and we seem unable to defend properly at any ball lumped into the box. It was the attacking I was most concerned with: we only really created 2/3 chances during the whole game, which is simply not good enough.

Like I said above, Hibs do what they always do: defend with 5 at the back and counter. Every man and his dog knows what they're going to do against us. Again, the most annoying thing is we cannot seem to deal with it. That Stokes fanboy Andy Walker was pissing me off praising the way they were playing and criticising our game. Yes, we did little with the ball, but try breaking down a team with 10 men behind the ball. Moreover, anyone team can break against 3 players (Kiernan, Wilson and Halliday) and carve a chance.

Alas! We weren't good enough. It's as simply as that, and we didn't deserve it. We need more players for several positions. When the first-team is lacking, the replacements are non-existent. We need better quality, but it's options we need more than anything else.

I don't know the details, but our fans shouldn't be trotting onto the pitch to 'square-up' to Hibs fans -- even if they are taunting and goading us. We lost, and we have to take it on the chin. If Rangers players were attacked, then it is a disgrace -- more evidence of the hatred directed at us. They will (should) be punished.

We've been really poor. I'm astonished we're not still behind. We're slow going forward and slow to defend -- how on earth Stokes etc. can just walk into a shooting position I'll never know; it's ridiculous. It's the same old story with Hibs: defend with 5 (8 including the midfield) at the back and counter. How Andy Walker can eulogise about it I don't know, because it's negative, reactive football; unfortunately, we're struggling to cope with it at times. Add to that a sluggishness up front, and we're not doing well. I really can't see us turning it around. All I can hope for is Hibs tiring and struggling mentally with the situation.

I think he'll be a success, unfortunately. However, I still believe, looking back at his record, that his success has been built upon the work of others. His Watford and Reading spells were poor, but his success at Swansea was built upon Roberto Martinez' work (both first-team and youth set-up) and Liverpool upon Suarez.

I think Warburton is better placed, as he can build a team from the ground up; not built upon the work of others.

They are leaving it until tomorrow to introduce him to the hordes.

That's quite inconsiderate: how are they going to watch the Final?

It might depend on how Hibs line up. Bartley is their physical option to allow McGinn and Henderson to make the play. However, he may only play if McGeouch is injured or, if as seems likely, Hibs go with a 3-5-2.

I think Bartley is a certainty. They tend to play a 4-4-2 (diamond), and can dominate the ball well with those three creative players, but against us they defend and hit on the counter in the 3-5-2. The two forwards can be dangerous against our back-line.

From our point of view, I can see the patient option in Zelalem being favoured, or maybe the defensive eye (no pun intended) of Shiels -- Shiels can also strike a ball when space opens up too, which might be needed against a resolute defence.

Any bears on here who live in England and (like me) don't have Sky? Can I watch it on the BBC 1 red button? Apparently you can't get it live on the iPlayer.

Will it not be on the BBC Sport website? Perhaps someone else can confirm?

I think with Freeview you can only get your 'nation' and 'region', but with Satellite etc. you can get every BBC channel throughout the UK.

Great read Frankie!

I find the midfield 'headache' quite an interesting conundrum. We have three options, each bringing a distinct role to the position (Shiels, Zelalem and Law). I'm fascinated to discover which way Warburton goes.

This is interesting news. It seems to represent a real opportunity for the Old Firm to enter the English leagues, no?

In a proper game he would've tried to check inside, where he'd trip over the ball or kick it too far away from himself!

He is much better playing on instinct.

I like Dorrans but it begs the question: where would he fit in? We play a 4.3.3. system and he generally plays as one of 2 holding mids. Can't see MW changing his system for the players. Barton and Dorrans together would be fantastic but don't think he could play on his own like Ball, he has attacking instincts.

He's an attacking midfielder (No.10), not a holding player.

We're doomed.

I think Pete's got the line-up spot on. The real positive is having Waghorn back.

I expected more headed goals given how tall he is. A lot of them goals were breaks from mid field and running through...the sort of thing we saw MOH doing with Saints. He's going to be up against 2 banks of 4 defenders much of the time if he's with us next season..........I could have worn carpet slippers and put some of them goals away mind you

AND..........looks like they don't do offside in the US !

Pretty much what I thought too. However, he looks strong, able to hold up the ball and seems to like getting to the front post -- all qualities that we could use.

Decent player -- in fact, a very good player -- buzzing (or was) around the England National side but for a bad injury. He's a runner, always looking to get in behind. I find this deal unlikely, but then again, I thought Barton was unlikely!

I thought the rumours were absolute fantasy, but I'd be delighted to get him.

He's not a beautiful bastard, but he is a bastard. Fans have always said that we need a bit of steel in the midfield; doesn't get much better than Joey.

Ball/Halliday I suspect -- certainly that position. I'm not sure if he'll be a first-team starter, or a squad player, though.

Rossiter seems to be a good prospect and would fit into the team seamlessly, so I'm delighted to get him. However, I would still like to see more immediate first-team players, as I'm not sure how prepared he will be for first-team action in a physical league.

It's nice to see us do our work professionally: quickly and under the radar.

What's changed? Oh, yes, we humped the "champions"!

I still don't know why they weren't in the previous squad.

I dont think I agree on this one Rousseau. While it is certainly true that we have been caught out on the counter attack more times than we should given the positioning of our team in advanced positions, it feels to me that we have lost a lot more goals through bad decision making by the two centre backs, bad starting positions by them, bad marking at set pieces (do we play a zonal defence at corners or are our two centre backs just never near to their man?), and poor tackling. Yes at times a proper DM would have stopped the attacks before it got to our guys at the back, but I cant agree that a Davie Weir type would not be a vast improvement on these two. What Weir lacked in pace, he made up for in vision - he could see where the threat was going to come from and either get there himself or shout to his partner to get him. Commanding inside his own box at set pieces as well which our two would never be accused of.

I agree with this, and said as much in the post. An organiser would be of great benefit at set-pieces etc., and I'd hope to see such a CB bought in the summer. But, overall a Weir-type is not the ideal type of player we need.

The fact we play such an advanced and attacking game doesnt have the slightest bearing on the number of goals we have conceded from corners/free kicks where the opponent has simply outjumped/outmanouvered our centre halfs and scored. I would gladly give up the error-strewn passes upfield from our "ball-playing CH" in favour of a proper centre half who defends first and gives the ball simply to the man in front or to the side of him. If CH have to be creative, then our midfield has failed.

Again, yes, I agree, but a better quality CB would improve that immediately, being better at dominating opponents and better at passing. Just because they make mistakes doesn't mean they're the wrong type of player. I believe they are the right type of players (Kiernan and Wilson), just not of the required quality; acquiring similar, but better quality CB/CH in the summer would be better than buying a Weir-type player -- IMO, of course!

Tottenham 3-4 Rangers. Full time.

 

... unconfirmed so far.

If true, it sounds like both teams were looking to attack, rather than just the one we're used to!

For me, it was new territory. A lot of the stuff sounded like conspiracy theories, so it was difficult to decide what was true and what wasn't. They say hindsight is 20/20.

We probably do need better quality in there for next season, but I think the main issue is how we play. Putting a Davie Weir -- or any other legend of the past -- in there is not going to eradicate our problems. Sure, we may be better organised at set-pieces etc., but we'll still be countered against with most of the team caught up-field. The great CB's of the past were at their best with bodies in front of them; we don't play like that. It's going to take a different type of player to see improvements, not a old-fashioned CB. Wilson and Weir played well together, but they also had a lot of help from the team, with FB's staying back and central-midfielders shielding; we don't have that now -- although we desperately need someone to shield (properly)!

Both Wilson and Kiernan can look very good at times -- exactly what we need -- and then at other times unbelievably poor; it's a consistency problem with both of them. I think they are the right type of player. However, certainly a player that can command the defense would be of great benefit.

Never mind -- got it. 4 Rangers players in the team, with Burt the Captain.