Rousseau

Usually agree with you, Rousseau, but not today.

 

Have to admit that Leicester play football that is effective and pleasing to watch. Reminiscent of Ipswich Town in the early seventies.

Disagree with what?

I'm gutted for them.

I thought the Ref bottled it, with the Mahrez penalty (Monreal 2nd yellow) and then the Simpson 2nd yellow (probably a yellow but fairly soft I thought) seemed to follow several decisions going Arsenal's way.

I'd echo the sentiments so far: it'd be great to see Leicester win the league. I don't think it's game over if they lose today, though. It's a marathon, not a sprint.

I still think Tottenham have a sneaky chance. Going along very quietly, sitting second. If they get a good result against City, then they're in with a shout also.

Man Utd are actually getting worse.

The splitters are a very very small minority within the fans groups so I think you are taking too much notice of these guys(and it seems to be guys). Both of the major fans groups members voted overwhelmingly in favour of holding merger talks, obviously these members must vote again on the finalised plan before any new group is formed.

 

The talks are ongoing and must be held in confidence by all participants, the rest of us just need to have patience - all will be revealed in due course. I have faith in people like plgsarmy who are doing all the work in the background through their love of the club and belief in fans representation not to massage their ego's like some.

Perhaps I am taking too much notice of what, I agree, is a minority. This merger is a good idea, but I don't think it's completely necessary at the moment. I think increasing our shareholding is most important. I think having two groups striving for this goal is not a bad situation -- It could help us get there quicker.

Of course. I'm not a fan of complete transparency. I don't think every little thing should be made available, merely the outlines, proposals and decisions.

It's just frustrating to see what seems like squabbling towards a vague goal, when to me the model to copy is obvious (Bayern Munich). But, I suppose that's part of the problem: everyone having their own thoughts on the issue. I think that's why I'd like Rangers to take the lead, rather than a multitude of groups. Then again, a merger might help that.

This really is depressing; too many ego's.

It seems to me we are muddling through with many variants of the same idea from many groups. Instead, should we not be following the Bayern Munich model; one that works supremely well? (This Guardian article is long, but quite revealing of the Bayern model: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/dec/09/bayern-munich-bundesliga-global-expansion-karl-heinz-rummenigge)

I think the Club needs to take the lead by creating an advisory board/committee (the club already has three committees for various things) which should be made up of representatives from all of the different groups. This advisory board can then make recommendations to the club board. For example, Bayern Munich's advisory Board stated that they did not want any more than 30% of the club shares in foreign hands (they only sold around 15% of shares in the last 6 years to fund the 360m Allianz arena, which they have almost paid off).

Of course the difference between Rangers and Bayern is that their fans own 82% of shares; they have the power. We must seek to build our shareholding. If the Bayern club board don't do what they suggest, then they get voted out at the next AGM. Simple.

Then, Bayern have a membership scheme whereby the members pay 60 Euros (I think per year) for various benefits (Welcome gift (every new member receives the welcome gift of a personalised scarf!) Discount at club shops (10% discount on all full price items), BAYERN MAGAZIN membership, Priority ticketing services, Concessionary match tickets, Admission to FC Bayern museum). They have 220k members paying this small membership, alongside season tickets (these are some of the cheapest in Europe contributing to sold-out matches).

Fan group independence is not the priority IMO; and, one group is ideal, but not necessary at the moment. We fans need a substantial shareholding so we have the power. Then the Club should be taking the lead, so we can have a professional mediator instead of constant bitching back and forth between groups. The Bayern model works and it's there to copy. Why aren't we doing it?

(Apologies -- it's a bit of a rant, but this whole process is depressing. Everyone seems to be fighting for their own egos, both individuals and groups. Pull your finger out.)

Ooft, vertical football at its most extreme!

The OP wasn't suggesting that, as you know. Merely opening the debate as it is obviously being considered elsewhere online.

 

My personal take on it is very simplistic.

 

We throw around the "legend" status far, far too easily. Legends aren't made by simply having a contribution to the Club. Legends are those who have significant contributions and who cement themselves into the fabric and lore of the Club. For example, Gazza was a tremendous player and I have even found myself calling him a "legend". But do I actually consider him a Rangers legend ? No, I don't. I don't think being here for less than 3 yrs really qualifies you as a Club legend. Mercurial talent that produced the goods for us on many an occasion. But legend ? Legendary status is something that very, very few should have. Otherwise, as mentioned previously, it diminishes what legend actually means.

 

Is Kenny Miller a Rangers legend ? Absolutely not IMHO. He has been a contributor and whether we consider him someone who pays for the wage or not I think that you can see that he has a great desire to win and that comes through in his moaning . But scoring some goals (88 isn't too bad to be fair) and winning some trophies doesn't make you a legend.

 

Legends to me are players such as the Barca Bears, Baxter, Gough, Goram, McCoist, Cooper, Laudrup (we only had Laudrup for 4 yrs but I think he earned legendary status) etc etc. The very notion of including Kenny Miller's name in that exalted company should have us all embarrassed.

 

In the same manner that I am embarrassed that Miller is, in some quarters, being considered a legend, I am also embarrassed to hear that McCulloch is too.

 

As for the Hall of Fame - I think we run the risk of diminishing the luster of that too. You don't add people to your hall of fame every year just because you have an awards ceremony. If people aren't considered hall of famers then they shouldn't get voted into it. It should be something that everyone involved in the Club should be considering our best ever players. Ray Wilkins, for example, was a great player - but should he be in the Rangers Hall of Fame given he only played 96 games for us ? Souness only played 73 games for us but I suspect his inclusion was for more than just his playing performances.

 

It is all subjective admittedly - but I like my Legends and Hall of Famers to be people that I consider "greats". Miller doesn't come into that category for me, but I still appreciate his contribution over his 3 stints with us.

I totally agree about Miller (and your narrower definition of legend), but I'm struggling to see the difference between Laudrup and Gascoigne. I suggested individual contribution to the team (as per Rabi-Duck's definition of Legend), as well as longevity, as a basic definition (Trophies are not necessary for legendary status IMO). So, with the above players, both provided a decent individual contribution, single-handedly winning games etc., but neither were here for very long. I'm just wondering why Laudrup can be considered a legend, but not Gascoigne?

Ooh, do off-pitch issues come into it? (I know Gascoigne has had some issues, but he is a bit of a tit.)

That was unbelievable, 9-men winning like that (and the Walter fist-pump). Miller's contribution there does elevate him somewhat. Icon?

I like RabiDuck's definition: "should surely be someone who's made a clear, tangibly individual difference to the squad he's played in".

I don't think trophies come into it, although it does tend to follow, generally speaking, with Rangers; but, like Pete says, one can be a legend without necessarily winning many trophies.

Longevity needs to come into it also, as without this they're just good players, or perhaps icons: Negri made a "tangible, individual difference to the squad", but it was only one year; he shouldn't be considered a legend, but could be considered an icon (Mols, Albertz et al come into this category IMO).

Laudrup is tricky because he was only here for a few seasons (4?), but I think most would argue his contribution and ability more than makes up for this.

Miller has neither, really. Maybe a case for longevity, but it's only 5 years tallied-up, so maybe not.

I always thought that 'legendary' status only really applies retrospectively. We'll only really judge his contribution once he's been gone a decade or so.

Greig , Cooper , Laudrup

 

kenny miller??

 

FFS

If we're measuring 'legend' by those guys' standards then we'll never have a legend again!

On gut instinct, I'd say no; valuable and important, but not a legend.

However, what is the definition of a legend?

How do Bayern Munich deal with their 200m members and vice versa?

I have refrained from commenting because I simply don't know enough, but find it all very disheartening. The principle is admirable but we're certainly making it difficult for ourselves.

McKay's not good enough for me: shirks from the tackle, is too greedy, has not won a header all year and passes backwards too often...

I'm not a 100% sure of this and don't have time to check but is it not the case that MW has made two substitutions on are about the 60th minute in virtually every recent match, save one when they were about 5-10 minutes later?

 

Would you not agree that there are occasions when only one or no substitutions are required and that making substitutions just for the sake of giving some players "game time" or "squad rotation" might disrupt the Plan and/or upset the rhythm of the team and thus be counter-productive?

Apparently, the optimum time for subs are: 58 minutes, 73 minutes and 79 minutes. "To determine this, Dr. Myers analyzed the substitutions [...] of every game played during the 2009-10 season in the top English, Spanish, Italian and German professional leagues, as well as [...] the 2010 World Cup. He concluded that if their team is behind, managers should make the first substitution prior to the 58th minute, the second substitution prior to the 73rd minute and the third prior to the 79th minute. Teams that follow these guidelines improve—score at least one goal—roughly 36% of the time. Teams that don't follow the rule improve about 18.5% of the time."

The times of Rangers' subs (indicated by BBC Sport) in the last 7 games where: Killie (60, 61, 74), Raith (63, 64, 72), Falkirk (60, 61, 77), Morton (58, 59, 73), Livingston (67, 68, 77), Cowdenbeath (62, 62, 71), Dumbarton (68, 69, 72). This clearly aligns with the optimum times suggested by the research above.

This is just another way that Warburton has used stats and data to determine the correct course of action, like he uses with corners. Of course, football is a fluid game, dependent on many variables. In this Warburton is not blindly following stats, suggested by the fact that we've been trying more deliveries directly into the box recently, rather than playing short, as the stats suggest is best.

We have a very lean squad, so every player is able to contribute -- otherwise they wouldn't be there. Every player is schooled in his philosophy, his Plan A, and is able to come in and out of the squad easily without the team losing the rhythm of the philosophy. This is reinforced by the regularity of the subs. Of course, players have different styles, so not everything will remain the same. However, I don't think this is an issue, if all players are playing the same philosophy.

The data shows he likes a double substitution first, around 60 - 65 minutes (58 - 69 minutes is the range). If we take the premise that each player is schooled in the philosophy, and with regular game-time, each player is more than capable of coming into the side without disrupting the rhythm, then making the double sub would be more troublesome for the opposition. Just as the opposition are getting used to the players, there are two -- not just one -- new variables added to the mix; this, combined with the inevitable tiredness of the opponents, suggest it's beneficial to do so. This is demonstrated by the number of late goals we score, and matches the research: that the chances of scoring increase once a sub is made. We have had no reason to deviate from this method, because teams only play one way against us and we have to take the initiative (I suspect that'll change once we play 'better' sides more regularly).

Of course "there are occasions when only one or no substitutions are required", but that would be disadvantageous to Warburton's philosophy and squad in our current circumstances. There is no reason to blindly stick with the same 11 (plus one change, as you suggest) week after week for injuries and suspensions to mount up. That would decimate our squad. It's more advantageous for Warburton to make his changes regularly, using his full contingent, to reduce suspensions and injuries, while also ensuring that the whole squad plays regularly, adding to the effectiveness of making those subs in the first place. (It's quite self-reinforcing when I think about it.)

Erm, what's my point? No, I don't think it's counter-productive to make more substitutions, to rotate our squad; for the reasons outlined above. (Sorry, I rambled a bit.)

Good interpretation of the game should be used to complement the good use of substitutes and not a pre-planned change.I agree with the thoughts that substitution tactic is pre-planned but watching games from other sources there seems to be many of the changes made on the hour mark,a sign of modern manuals?

Apparently the optimum times for subs are: 59 minutes, 68 minutes and 77 minutes. This clearly resembles the changes made in our games. Clearly, it's not absolute, but it's another way he's using data to come to the best decisions; like taking short corners.

I don't think they're pre-planned. There are only three changes to be made, out of 6 players (excluding the 'keeper). Combine that with the fact we only tend to make subs to go more attacking or refresh what we're already doing -- dictated by the type of games we play, where we dominate -- it's no wonder subs are predictable.

I would suggest that's blatantly obvious; and I'm wondering if our very own master tactician Rousseau considers that gives the opposition an advantage (since if we fans can pretty much guess the subs so can opposition coaches) and also blinds MW to any tactical changes that might actually be required in our line up, or is he so wedded to Plan A that there cannot even be a Plan A (v2)?

I don't think substitutions are devised beforehand.

Surely, most sides are predictable with their subs anyway? We know our side best so it'll be second nature to guess what's to come sub-wise. Watching the Hibs-Hearts game today I could tell you what potential subs would be made.

Moreover, there are only 2 or 3 adaptations you can make to a side in a game situation: go more defensive, go more attacking, or more of the same (refresh). We have never had the need -- generally -- to go more defensive and so tend to do the latter two. Combine this with the fact we have a very lean squad, it's no wonder the subs are predictable. And, there are only three changes to be made, out of 6 players (excluding the 'keeper).

As to whether this is a disadvantage, not necessarily. Every side will do their analysis and preparation before a game to devise a way to win, so IMO teams will know, more or less, what an opponent will do; it comes down to how well those strategies are executed.

I think the 'Plan A' comments have been misinterpreted a little. Warburton indeed wants his teams to play a certain way and will not deviate from that, but that doesn't mean changes can't be made to the personnel, which will have an effect of the team. For example, we lined-up with both Ball and Halliday in the side against Killie; both have a defensive side to their game. We were still playing plan A, but the personnel chosen provided a different slant on that game-plan -- more steel in there! The line-up clearly shows Warburton tweaking his line-ups to deal with 'better' sides. I suspect we'll see more of that in the future.

You have misinterpreted my wording. Hooked, subbed, replaced, call it what you like. It wasnt intended to suggest it was for poor play. I would have taken the anonymous Halliday off before GZ yesterday in the normal hour mark changes. I have yet to see MW make a tactical change on the hour mark. It seems to me he just makes two changes as part of squad rotation and game time for players. The shape, formation etc never changes, just some people move about to fit in the players he has pre-determined he wants to bring on for 30 minutes game time. He does mention this quite a lot in his comments. Obviously sometimes injuries etc determines the changes, but most of the time I get it right with who is coming off and who is coming on when I predict it at kick off. It rarely takes into account who is having a good game and who is having a quieter game.

Apologies. "Hooked" has such a negative connotation. I agree, with that: it's usually fairly obvious who'll come off.

How do you view the fact that MW almost always sends on 2 subs in the 60th minute and most times the players who are coming off e.g. Miller appear to know that it is them who are going to be subbed. In the case of Miller (and Law when returning from injury) it is easy to understand the reasoning and many of us would prefer to see him return to the last 30 minute sub role he played successfully at the start of the season, it is less clear why Zelalem would be in that frame if he has the influence on the game that you claim for him. He's a young man of 19 but hasn't played 90 minutes since November.

I'm not saying he is influencing every game all the time; clearly he drifts in and out of some games, and some games are better than others -- I think that's true of every player.

As for the usual subs, in my view it's just what I said: there are players more preferable to have remain on the pitch, regardless of performance. In the Killie game, we needed to retain strength and a more potent threat of goal. Ball must remain for his defensive ability, and Halliday for his strength and long-range goal-threat. The only make-way is Zelalem.

GZ has been involved in each of the last 7 games, where he has generally come off or on around 65 - 75 minutes. In these games we've been chasing a goal in half and been comfortably in the lead in half (4:3 to chasing). It suggests to me that Warburton is simply refreshing the team.

I think you've made your own point: he's a young man of 19 (just turned), why would he be expected to play 90 minutes? I don't know of many 18/19 year-old's that can play 90 minutes at full-pelt. Moreover, it's a lean squad: naturally Warburton will look to rotate.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

thanks for that Rousseau it looks good.

 

He has a small bit on waghorn in the shots outliers part

Ah yes. It looks bad when you see 0 shots on target out of 5 shots, but when you consider 3 were blocked, it's not so bad. All he can do is try to hit the target, and the stats suggest he did so 3 out of 5 times -- it just so happens Killie blocked them!

do you have a link for gersreport? Tried googling it but just get yes vote crap! Sounds like a good site would be interested to see the numbers for waghorn

http://therangersreport.com/

They just compile stats per game, so it might take a bit of searching to find stats for a specific player. I think it's a good alternative interpretation of our games.

While I have my doubts that Zelalem will ever become a top class midfielder as there are too many flaws in his game for his age, I am astounded at those who thought he didn't put in a good performance in the first half. Finally, we are starting to see the boy listen to the coaching he is no doubt getting, and realise he has to contribute more than he was doing in a game. He was regularly further forward than we have ever seen him before, and was trying to find a pass to create a chance. His creative passing needs a lot more work, but no lack of effort yesterday and was the best of the midfield trio. Unfortunately, like at Raith, his second half failed to live up to the first and he was hooked, although Halliday was again anonymous in the advanced role and I am slightly worried about that. Ball was much better today at DM, although it was an easy shift given Killies lack of forward play.

I agree he didn't have as much influence the second-half -- it might have came? -- but I don't think he was "hooked" per se. I just think that's Warburton's usual 60 min sub. It looked like there were players he would rather have on the pitch (Halliday) for a certain quality (strength? long shots?), despite Zelalem performing better. Tactics rather than performance IMO.

As regards Halliday, from what I saw today, he is much more effective coming from the deep position, than as an attacking midfielder, where he has far less time to play his controlled and accurate passing game. Holt and Law would be the attacking midfielders in my team. Ball is an excellent prospect at CB, play him there or not at all.

I think Halliday brings a more attacking threat from deep (long crisp passes and shots), but I still think he's lacking in his defensive game. Ball is obviosuly better at the defensive side of the game, but brings little offensively. I suppose we need to balance up what we need for individual games. I thought Warbruton wanted more steel and defensive cover for the Killie game, and so went for Ball in there.

I'd prefer Holt and Zelalem. Law and Holt are too similar in the sense that they play in the final third, which leaves us open in the middle. Zelalem takes up the space in the middle, so we have more control and a more disciplined approach. That would be my base, but of course, when you need to go for it, bring on Law to drive forward.

To give Law his due, we had more opportunities/half-chances towards the end of the game, but I felt we lost control of the game -- it was more gung-ho. The stats at GersReport suggest that our moves forward resulted in shots more often. (That has something to do with the stage of the game though IMO; it's certainly not the case when Law starts.)

I also noticed that when Holt came on in his place there was a noticeable increase in tempo and dare I say Law also contributed to that with his arrival in the 73rd minute. Now I realise that Zelalem and Holt/Law/Shiels are quite different types of player but it seems to me that Zelalem's somewhat laconic style slows the game down and despite his high pass completion rate, he does little or no damage to the opposition.

 

Talk of him in the same breath as Arteta is badly misplaced IMHO.

Thanks and thanks for taking the time.

I don't think the increase in tempo was because Zelalem went off, more because Holt came on. Holt provides more in the final third, more direct and willing to take risks. He is best (IMO) at finding space, so players were able to find him quicker.

According to Gersreport (I will use them as they can provide raw data), Zelalem was responsible for 44% of Rangers' shots, from primary assists and secondary passes. And, he was joint-second in controlled zone entries. These stats suggest he did in fact cause damage to the opposition.

I think we are better with both Holt and Zelalem: Zelalem dictating the play, recycling possession, and able to pick out Holt, who finds intelligent space and is willing to take risks in the final third.

I only talked of him in the same breath as Arteta (in his role for Arsenal, not for us) in the same way you can talk about Jonjo Shelvey and Xabi Alonso in the same breath: same style, same approach to the game, same role for their respective teams; but clearly Shelvey is nowhere near the same level as Alonso.