Rousseau

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.

What's the lineup?

Only going by the short video evidence. Positive he always looks available. Negative, I don't think I saw many forward passes. A poor man's Zelalem?

In the video I saw he made quite a few forward passes -- Carrick-esque (I'm not comparing them) -- but it's difficult to gauge a player from a short video clip. For what it's worth, I think he's similar to Zelalem, but is more defensively sound.

I'd prefer they lose in the final!

Fair enough ON the park.you never adressed the wages or the sell on value(none).

IMO,the mental thing will still be there-----he just needs a platform to expose it.(which he would get in spades up here)

Wage and sell-on value are self-evident. Again, I agree it is highly unlikely, bordering on impossible. I just made the point that he fits the profile.

That's a good point, regarding the platform to expose it. A bit of aggression is not a bad thing. I think he's mellowed: he was hounded in the Burnley game I saw and never rose to it; doesn't mean to say he won't but it's not a bad thing IMO. The goldfish bowl that is Glasgow may pose another problem entirely!

Ok,someone had to ask.how does he fit the profile(baring in mind hell be on £30,000 a week,oh and hes borderline insane).?

I agree it's unlikely, and If we omit the fact he is "borderline insane", he fits the profile because: a) he has a great work ethic, b) ball carrying ability, c) ability to recycle and retain possession, d) excellent passer, with a good range (he's got a high pass completion rate) and e) he's got, erm... character.

Again, I highly doubt he's a realistic option, but I think he fits the profile and would be an excellent addition. He was in the Championship team of the year, for a team that have pretty much strolled the league. Moreover, the 'insanity' you mention has subsided over the last few years. He still has that aggression, but what good footballer doesn't? Souness was full of it too (I'm not comparing the two -- except in aggression).

Am I the only one that finds it difficult to get excited about trying to sign a 19yo with 1 first team game under his belt that couldn't get more game time in a Liverpool side that has struggled badly most of the year. Klopp clearly doesn't rate him and he is a very good manager. I don't mind taking a punt on a young player but I don't for one second believe this guy will be a first team regular for us, or is what we need for next season.

 

One for the future perhaps but at 19 he should be forcing his way into first team action if he is all that.

I'm excited about him, because he's a great prospect and fits the profile perfectly. However, I agree, I'm not sure whether he's ready for the physicality of the league; I doubt whether he'll be a first-team regular. Who knows? He may be ready.

Oh, come on! Barton vs 'Broon'? Sell out.

Highly unlikely, but I see the logic in it. I think he does fit the profile, and would be a good addition; he's been superb for Burnley. However, I highly doubt it's likely.

Do these so-called journalists know anything? Fans are susceptible to over-the-top excitement around a transfer target, but there's a line; We know the difference between a realistic target and a complete fantasy. You do wonder how they're picking these names? And, indeed, why?

Next Up: Messi's angling for a move because Warburton met him once while scouting the Barcelona academy...

Rossiter is a tidy player, with good technical and passing ability, but very lightweight (in the mould of Crawford and Zelalem). He fits the bill, but I'm not sure how ready he is for the rough and tumble of the Premiership? The proof is in the fact that Rodgers liked him, for certain meaningless games, and thought he had promise, but Klopp has not used him once because I don't think he has the physicality needed to play for a Klopp side.

Hanley is a big, old-fashioned centre-back; strength and no-nonsense. I don't see him fitting in with Warburton's passing philosophy. Hanley is a strange one; I highly doubt he's a target. (I think he's rubbish.)

Here we were espousing the benefits of them having a grueling run of games before the Cup final, and they're not even going to get past the first round! As much as want them to stay down, I don't think anyone wants them out at this stage!

It's puzzling: we were beaten by Livingston, and they got humped by Stranraer! Hibs will get gubbed by Raith at the first play-off stage and still beat us in the final!

It's not an issue who he supports. If he wants to pull on the blue jersey, that's all that matters. Another non-story.

Sack Warburton and bring back McCoist! And if he's still doing that betting advert with Kammy, make a move for Neilson!

I presume it goes up to (and includes) the St Mirren game? The first three are interesting. McCoist and Neilson look to be complete extremes, with Warburton the middle way.

I'm surprised. Who's left?

In a Palace environment where they play a 4 - 2 - 3 - 1 formation, you can have the creative DM and the ball winning DM. MW has made it clear that his formation is 4 - 3 - 3. This really doesn't leave much room for two DM players, particularly when we are playing in Scotland. Europe would be a different situation and I do wonder if MW will be a bit more pragmatic if or when we get there?

Agreed. McArthur could occupy a central bearth, but wouldn't offer much offensively (unlike Holt and Halliday -- when he plays further forward) and would more likely be a support player. The 4-3-3 is flexible, so when we have Halliday and Ball, it sort of becomes a double pivot (2 DM's), but Halliday is fairly offensive anyway. A McArthur in there would create a double pivot, providing more strength and steel in the midfield. It's all about getting the right mix. I think McArthur would be a good, but unlikely, addition.

McArthur sits deep, but I'm not sure he's a DM per se. He's more of a box-to-box midfielder that works for the team: bursts a gut to get forward and back, to win the ball back etc., but then offloads it to a better player. He always plays alongside a DM; Cabaye in CP's case, who is a more of a regista, creative DM. Even at Hamilton he would play beside a proper DM in McCarthy. He'd be an excellent addition to the squad, but I'm not sure if he fits with what Warburton wants. However, I think MW would prefer a creative DM -- still able to protect the back four and organise -- rather than a defensive DM, so a box-to-box midfielder may be a good support?