Rousseau

And Gallagher for that matter. Good young players with pace and creativity; they should be given a game. However, saying that, is Barrie McKay not still on loan at Raith? Or was he recalled? I know Gallagher is back rotting in the youth teams... Even Gasparrotto (How do you spell it?) is not getting a chance.

I thought we were quite competent during the first half; energy levels were ok. But we couldn't create chances which was down to the tactics (i.e. being outnumbered in the centre and no full-backs getting forward etc.). What we set out to do was pre-planned. There is no way a player can be blamed for doing what was pre-planned, they're simply doing their job, and it was the job that was ineffectual not the players' execution of it, if you get my meaning? Once we conceded the second we collapsed mentally, and then i'd agree we were slow, lethargic and resorted to those long-balls etc which were never going to work.

QotS vs. Rangers: Review DUMFRIES -- Palmerston Park is an old-fashioned ground, tight and intimate, from the standing area to the wooden stand facade and little clock; residential buildings nearby loom large over the low terraces. The Rangers fans were packed like sardines tightly together in the standing area, wrapped in their blue scarfs and tammies on this pitch-black, cloudless night. The pitch is a thing of wonder; it is like a bowling green, pristine and well-defined. Artificial surfaces get a bad press but many have commented on the 3G surface at Palmerston as being "a lovely playing surface;" at least we weren't going to get bobbles. Rangers lined up with a standard 4-4-2. Bell had a muscle strain so the diminutive Robinson deputised; Mohsni replaced a suspended McCulloch in defense; and Templeton replaced Shiels. It was a flat-back-four of McGregor, Zaliukus, Mohsni and Wallace; Law and Murdoch placed central midfield, flanked by Templeton on the left and Vuckic on the right; Miller and Clark led the lines. Queen of the South lined up in a 3-5-2 formation, but it was more like a 5-3-2 with the Wing-backs rarely getting forward. They are known for being a hardworking and energetic side with lots of pacey players, and in previous games were comfortable sitting back and countering with pace. Initially I saw a problem in central midfield: we would be outnumbered 3v2 so we would need to be sharp on the ball and get it wide quickly. Rangers started well, passing it around comfortably. It was clear we would have the majority of possession with QotS happy to soak up pressure and counter when they got the chance. We tried to get it wide to our wingers, but QotS's Wing-backs and Wide-centre-midfielders doubled-up quickly; When Vuckic got the ball -- which was rarely -- he has ushered wide to prevent him getting on his strong left-foot; Templeton received the ball often early on but cut inside on too many occasions and couldn't deliver a good cross or find the target, or he was robbed. With no penetration on the flanks we resorted to the much maligned long-ball. At first there seemed some method to the madness as it looked like we were trying a pre-planned long-diagonal. Alas to no avail. For me, to start with Clark precludes playing those long-balls; he is too slight and small to win headers. The same goes for Miller who can't hold-up the ball. Their strength is their running game, but they never got in behind; mainly because our midfielder never got time on the ball in the centre because they were outnumbered. QotS rarely threatened, but on the one occasion they did, they scored. A simple long ball was launched over the top on the right-hand-side and Wallace got in front of the attacker but was pushed to the ground -- illegally in my view, but he was easily pushed -- and the ball was squared and bobbled up nicely for veteran Derek Lyle to half-volley it into the opposite side of the net to a thunderous roar from the home fans. 1-0. Nothing changed; it was the same pattern of Rangers dominating the ball but with no penetration. The fans were still pretty confident going into the second-half, but not 19 seconds in that bubble was burst. QotS broke down the left and whipped in a ground-cross in behind the defense where the unmarked Kidd fired a tame shot across goal; it was going wide until an off-balance Wallace couldn't adjust his feet and scuffed it into his own net. 2-0. This is when the Rangers players lost it mentally. Their heads went down under the realisation that they weren't going to win this game; 1-0 is fine, but 2-0 is near impossible with no real chances created apart from a Clark header that went wide in the first-half. Mohsni summed it up by trying to get us back into the game by forcing difficult passes and getting wound-up by the crowd and punching the ground in frustration to loud cheers from the home fans. He deserves credit for trying and he showed what winning means to him; it's a good trait, but he must learn to ignore the crowd. The team retreated into the same long-ball game that had no chance of succeeding. QotS continued to press and got their reward when substitute Crawford dawdled on the ball and lost it; a quick 1-2 allowed Reilly a one-on-one chance and he calmly slotted it low into the inside of the near post. 3-0. All the substitutions were man-for-man with no change to the formation, so nothing was going to change. Boyd came on and looked like he could hold up the ball better than Clark and Miller, and he did win a fair share of flick-ons, but his poor first touch let him down on too many occasions. He did get some space when a nice deep cross found him at the back post, but his header was too central and the 'keeper tipped it over the bar. Apart from a looping Miller header earlier on in the second half, Boyd's header was the only real chance. I think Boyd should have started, if we were going to play the long-balls; he'd certainly have fared better than Clark and Miller in that respect. What a fickle and capricious mind the Rangers fan possesses. A few months ago we were at our lowest ebb, pessimistic about getting promotion and complaining that the players had no redeeming qualities and they must get put down. The last few weeks saw a complete reversal after two impressive wins over nearest rivals Hibs and then Champions Hearts, who by all accounts have strolled to this title with barely a whisper of a challenge from us. Now the morning after the night before brings more pessimism: "Will we get promoted?"; "We need to get another manager for next year"; "[so-and-so] is finished". One defeat -- and we must remember it is only McCall's first -- does not define a career. McCall was not my first choice but I was pleasantly surprised with his tactical awareness against both Edinburgh clubs. He just got it wrong last night; he is allowed to make mistakes. Moreover, I wouldn't place the blame on the players. We started very well, passing it around -- albeit with no end product -- and easily dominating possession. There is certainly cause for Wallace to be blamed for the first and second goals. Too easily out-muscled for the first, but he could also have been given a foul; and he knocks the ball into his own net for the second after a tame shot is heading wide. Again, Templeton -- or is it Tempelton? -- can be criticised for an ineffectual display where on a day he finally got a chance to shine he was too easily dispossessed or couldn't find an end-product, from numerous crosses that never quite reached their man, to shot that were powerful but lacked any accuracy and too often kept rising high over the bar with too much back-spin. If he could just hit the ball flatter he'd cause more problems for the 'keeper because he gets a lot of power behind his shots. Case in point was a very tame, long-range shot from Mohsni that because it was on target forced the 'keeper to parry it. But I don't want to blame the player because I think the strategy was wrong. We were outnumbered in central midfield 3v2; that simple numerical advantage meant that it was going to be very difficult to get through the middle or have any time and/or space on the ball. When a team plays three at the back you need to stretch them and that was what, I think, McCall was trying to do with the two wingers, but QotS had their Wing-backs, Wide-midfielders and the Wide-centre-backs to cover. The only way to counter this is to get the full-backs to make deep overlapping runs, but it never materialised so our wingers were constantly marked 2v1, sometimes 3v1. The ineffectual -- or non-existent -- runs by the full-backs compounded the problem. McGregor never ventured forward, but Wallace did quite often. Unfortunately it was never an overlapping run from Wallace but more like the 'underlap' that Baines has made famous, but that was no good because they dominated the middle of the park, so Wallace just ran into more defenders and no one could thread a pass through to him. If we were going to combat QotS last night we had to go 4-3-3, with the two wingers pushed high to press the Wing-backs, and the full-backs making overlapping runs to stretch the back-three and get in behind. An extra man in central midfield would have allowed us to match the Queen's midfielders. It was a disappointing result to say the least, but I don't blame the players too much other than a few individual errors. In my view we were doomed from the start when the formations were announced. McCall got his tactics wrong, but it is not the end of our season. It is a lesson learned.

If he plays in defense then we should expect mistakes. That's a fact. Midfield? I'm not convinced. I think we have better options. I would give him a go at wing-back; I hadn't thought of it. The man is a complete enigma. Exceptional at times, and a complete liability. Crazy.

I expected that. I agree he's nowhere near our best defender, but I think we miss him; jig just being there adds something, but i'm at a loss to explain it because every rational analysis of his game precludes that conclusion. I really cannot explain it. I think Jig would have fouled someone well before the second goal went in. Mohsni was away on his usual walkabout, so Wallace was dragged inside and then wasn't covering the deep run from the Wing-back. It was causally linked. As for the first goal, yes, perhaps it wouldn't have made a difference. (I still think Wallace was fouled!)

Say what you want about Jig, but he would not have ducked out of the way of any shot for the first and would have been in position for the second -- or fouled someone to stop the play! If Jig played, the first and second goals would not a gone in. I think we missed him; which says more about the cover we have than him to be fair. IMO. (let me have it...!!!)

McCall was not my first choice but I have been pleasantly surprised. The main question for me is whether he would work with a DoF? If he can, then allow the DoF to rebuild infrastructure and let McCall have a go at team affairs for the next few years; see how it goes. If he can't, then get someone else in; someone modern, technical, and progressive. I think we need a DoF. To take the middle ground in this thread, I think Cathro would be good. Young, modern, progressive coach based very much on the continental style, but he is Scottish. Simples! And I do agree that we should be aiming higher than a run-of-the-mill Scottish manager; they are too old-fashioned; times have changed.

Mohsni certainly showed what winning means to him, but he must learn to stop getting wound-up by the crowd; too often he responds. I thought Boyd should have started. It looked like we were playing the long-ball game which does not suit Miller or Clark; Boyd on the other hand would have won his fair share and would have held the ball up better. I was mostly disappointed with the mental deficiencies. We just collapsed after the second goal and resorted to the long-ball more and more.

We seem to be reluctant to play youngsters in defense. He's the senior defender because he is senior. He is certainly flawed, but apart from McGregor he has been the most consistent; Mohsni makes too many mistakes charging all over the place, and Zaliukas is also prone to making mistakes. But then again all these guys have been played alongside Jig! we'll see how the do without him...

The comparison with Weir was simply about pace - Weir is in a different league compared to Jig as a defender. Weir was exceptional at reading the game, but the team had to compensate for his age and not let him become exposed. I don't think Jig has been given enough support in that respect. My main point is that Jig has been taking an unequal share of the blame, when it was a team problem. Saying that, I do think he is too old to play for us now. We could maybe use him if we are in the Championship next year, but he should not be given another contract if we get promoted.

There is a degree of subjectivity, but there is also a degree of objectivity: these players are of a standard irrespective of how they have performed. Boyd has been rotten since returning, but nevertheless Kilmarnock - a team that play in a league above us! - are interested. Boyd is a decent player, but just hasn't shown it with us this year, which could be said of most players. Moreover, like someone else said: we have beaten SPL teams over the last couple of times. How could we have done that with league1/league2 players? One-off game maybe, but we've done it a couple of times.

I do wish we'd stop using that word ("imposter"). They are not bad players. Yes, they are not of the standard we expect, but they are decent players. I think the main problem has been that they have not been managed or coached correctly. We've seen under McCall a real improvement. If they were - and i'll admit they have not done it too often - to work their socks off for 90 minutes it wouldn't necessarily give us success because there has been no direction. A runner that conserves and directs his energy is going to perform better than one that expends it all with no direction (apologies for the poor analogy!). Anyway, back to the thread. I agree the season is a failure which is probably a big factor in lower attendance. I suppose the proof will be next year - whatever league we are in.

On reflection I agree with you about age; it should never be an excuse. That wasn't my point though. My point was that he is actually in good nick for a 36/37 year old, and I didn't think anyone could challenge his fitness. It seems I was wrong. We never criticised Weir when he was done for pace - it happened on occassion - but we are quick to criticise Jig for the same thing. I think he's taking the brunt of it. He's never been a great player, but neither was Novo, but Novo doesn't get criticised. Also, he is too old to play, so I think it would be best to let his contract run down. But he should be thanked and praised for his service.

I have been thinking about this since yesterday and Gavin Rae came to me; surely Rae was a worst appointment than Jig? I'm interested in how you define a good captain? Is it leadership and presence? or is it performances? I agree with your earlier posts about Jig not being a great player, but I would argue his presence is beneficial, and therefore has been a decent captain; again, certainly not the best, but I do not think he is the worst.

1) I agree. But I think he is a useful presence. Using him in a back three works well because we get his experience and cover in Zaliukus and Mohsni - who also require cover! I think we'd miss his influence on a game. We must remember he is 36; I think he is remarkably consistent and still able to keep up - for the most part! - with the rest of the team for an old man. 2) Again, I agree, but I don't know for a fact what he's on. I'm not going to criticise him based on an assumption. McCoist should have waved the salary; it's scandalous that he is still getting paid. Thanks for your comments.

I can't -- and don't -- disagree with your listing of his flaws; they are many. But I disagree with the term "impostor" (or "imposter" - the dictionary has both!). The main criticism aimed at Rangers players this year has been a total lack of desire, energy etc, but I don't think that is something we can accuse Jig of. I have outlined a number of occasions where he has acted honorably; in short, like a Ranger should. He's become a scapegoat -- and although I agree with you regarding his many flaws -- the "impostor" accusation is unwarranted. Are you saying we have always despised him? Even when he was one of the few that stuck by us during liquidation? He showed tremendous loyalty. He is by no means the worst captain, just like he is not the best player, but what he is , is a Ranger; he knows what it means to play for this club.

Could you be more specific - I would like to know where i'm going wrong so I can rectify it.

I have completed a new article. Let me have it! FIFE -- There was an air of optimism as the new regime took their rightful place in the stand at the game away to Cowdenbeath. We expected a lift from the team. But the team was flat and bereft of any spark or energy in the gusty conditions -- the 'keepers could hardly launch the ball past the half-way line before the wind enveloped it, pulling it down to the turf -- it was as if the wind was also sucking the life out of the players; a team completely devoid of ideas. As fans, we can excuse almost anything from our players, but a lack of desire or energy is unacceptable when those men pull on that blue jersey. Cowdenbeath had just been dismantled not one week prior by the future champions Hearts 10-0, but on this dull and blustery Saturday afternoon a rudderless Rangers side scrapped their way to a 0-0 draw. It was the latest in a dismal run that had left fans apathetic and even bemused at these results. Of course a scapegoat was needed. Lee McCulloch -- or Jig, which is a somewhat appropriate nickname on account of his jovial personality -- has in many ways been poor all season. Jig was the obvious target. This was not a gut reaction to this one disappointing result, but it had been building for some time. Fast forward a month and Jig is again the recipient of criticism after being sent off before half-time during the feisty game with Hearts. A series of games where too many goals had been conceded have coincided with a series of abject performances from Jig, pushing fans into outright anger and disgust; "Impostor" was the cry. The performances were symptomatic of a wider team lethargy, but 'impostor' was the accusation, and 'impostor' was the charge. If it is so, it's an unforgivable fault, and he deserves all he gets; for we are honorable fans. When Walter Smith took charge at Ibrox for his second spell he identified Jig as a target quite quickly, after working with him with the Scotland squad. Jig signaled his desire to sign, saying he "had hoped [to] get the move in January, but Wigan wouldn't budge". Rangers had their bid rejected despite Jig trying "to kick up as much of a fuss as possible because all [he] wanted to do was come here"; it would take another seven months for the move to be completed. He was delighted to sign, saying it was "undoubtedly one of the best days of my life." Of course, Jig knows what it means to play for the club being a boyhood fan, "My dad used to take me to Ibrox to watch the great standard of football and now I have the chance to play in front of the best fans in Europe, in my opinion." From a young age all he wanted was to play for Rangers. But we have judged him an impostor; And we are honorable fans. Jig got his move to his boyhood club at the age of 29, and was most certainly at the end of his career. It had been a long one. After leaving Rangers boys he was spotted by Motherwell, and would go on to make his debut in 1996 at the age of 18. A string of impressive performances made many clubs take notice. Wigan Athletic paid what was for them a club-record £700,000 fee to take him down south. During his 6 years at Wigan he would play his part in taking them from the old Third Division to the Premier League. It is almost 20 years since his debut and he is still playing at the ripe old age of 36. In many ways he's still in peak condition despite the usual symptoms of age. No one can criticise his fitness. Omitting the injury-ravaged second season Jig has averaged 39 appearances per season for Rangers. Jig's longevity is remarkable in the modern game; at 36 he has played almost every game for Rangers this season. But we have judged him an impostor; And we are honorable fans. In the dark days of administration and liquidation most our first-team -- those players that we had supported not days prior -- refused to have their contracts transferred to the new company as we were demoted to playing in the fourth tier of Scottish football. Sandy Jardine, who would continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with fans, said greed was the motivating factor. At the time he said: "There was an agreement reached over wage cuts and they got a great deal because they could leave for rock bottom prices and now they have seen an opportunity. [it's] greed." Pre-season began that summer with only three senior players: Lee Wallace, Kyle Hutton and Jig. Jig took a "massive pay cut to stay with the club he loves," and even took up boxing to keep in shape over the summer to prepare for the fight in the Third Division. Jig showed tremendous loyalty during those dark days: "Whether we're in the SPL, the Third Division or anywhere in between I will be with Rangers. Since I was a kid growing up [...] all I wanted to do was play for the club and there is no way I will walk away. It's the last thing I would do. Wearing the Rangers jersey is an important part of my life and I'd never forgive myself if I gave that up." But we have judged him an impostor; And we are honorable fans. Jig has been instrumental in our rise through the leagues, playing anywhere and everywhere for the club he loves. He was signed as a midfielder, playing left-midfield in his first season and contributing a few goals, but known for his work-rate. Walter Smith utilised his organisational and leadership abilities by playing him in a defensive midfield role to great success in subsequent seasons. He was made captain because of his leadership ability. After demotion there was an absence of a recognised striker; Jig stepped up to play a starring role in our Third Division campaign, scoring 26 goals as we won the league. With the acquisition of two strikers in the summer -- Daly and Clark -- the following season saw Jig dropped back into central defense, where his aerial presence was used to great effect in defense but also from set-pieces scoring 18 goals. Jig has performed consistently anywhere he has been asked to play. But we have judged him an impostor; And we are honorable fans. I don't seek to disprove those that criticise Jig, but I wanted to say what I know of the man. We all loved him once: what has happened to it? Emotion has overcome reason. We have become blinded by our anger at the performances and results that we can't see what some players like Jig have given. That's not the Rangers I know. Yes, he has lost his pace; yes, he has made more mistakes this season than at any other time; yes, he has captained one of the worst sides ever to pull on the Rangers jersey. But he has never shirked from that responsibility. The bad that players do over their career should never overshadow the good. And lets be honest, there have been very few bad and very many more good. Lets remember the good. Lets remember those screamers from 25 yards; lets remember that header against Lyon in the Champions League; lets remember the strong tackles that got a rousing cheer; lets remember the many times his goals have got us back into scrappy games over the last 2 years. When asked after the Hearts game if he wanted to remain at Rangers next year he responded emphatically: "Of course I want to stay here." All he wants to do is play for the club he loves.

Looks like he can pass a ball, which is something we need, but those long-balls would be ineffectual because our forwards don't make those runs. Looks quite composed. I'm not sure a player from a lower-table Eredivisie team is quite what we should be aiming for, but I think he is the 'type' we should be aiming for: composed, passer, strong in the air, technical etc.; in short, Dutch! To be fair, it is just good to see us linked with a player that is not some SPL reject.

Another thing I've noticed reading this thread: why are we simply looking to be better than Celtic? Shouldn't we be looking at ourselves; looking within ourselves to find a solution for the future? Being better than Celtic is not a great benchmark.

The club has been financially naive - I wouldn't say mismanaged as such - with the focus on spending money to build squads. Now that the money is not there it is apparent that we were completely dependent on that money. It was never a sustainable model. We have been very fortunate. It's time to re-focus on Youth development so there is a conveyor belt of players able to step into the team every year or so; money should only be spent to embellish the team with talent we can't produce ourselves.

This is relatively small punishment. Surely influence over two clubs that can come up against each other is infinitely worse than holding sway over two clubs that can't - at least not within the next few years, if ever?

Thanks for that! You're right: he doesn't seem too enthusiastic about the idea. But, I think that is down to the fact he doesn't understand it - his point about there having to be one man in charge emphasises that. In practice it is one man who is in charge in terms of coaching the team etc, but there would also be a DoF that would oversee the long-term development of the club's playing development and football strategy. I do hope he investigates further, rather than dismissing it altogether because he doesn't understand it.

I don't recall him mentioning a Football Director? I do remember King being quite clear on the need for a Head coach rather than a 'Manager'. The appointment of a Head Coach is a step in the right direction I think. It's certainly a job McCall could do; he seems to be good at getting the players match-ready and he appears to be tactically aware. However, perhaps a Head Coach well-versed in the tactical and technical side of things, as well as being more accepting of this model would be more appropriate.

My article is longer than usual - so long that I can't post it! You'll need to read it on the main site. Let me know your thoughts.