Rousseau

I would take McCabe back in a heartbeat.....

He plays the same position as Murdoch -- I think Murdoch is better. Not for me: he's made his bed...

Team News:

It's four changes for Juventus from the weekend. Back come Patrice Evra, Arturo Vidal, Alvaro Morata and Giorgio Chiellini.

Juventus: Buffon, Lichtsteiner, Bonucci, Chiellini, Evra, Marchisio, Pirlo, Sturaro, Vidal, Tevez, Morata.

Real Madrid make one change from the side which beat Sevilla at the weekend as Gareth Bale comes back in to replace Javier Hernandez. Sergio Ramos continues in midfield.

Real Madrid: Casillas, Carvajal, Varane, Ramos, Marcelo, Pepe, Kroos, Isco, James, Bale, Ronaldo

I really admire the way Bayern go about their business: the epitome of professional. I liked the way they play, but I got really frustrated at Barca winning everything 5 years ago and have never come round to liking them again. Moreover, I disliked Guardiola because he was part of it, but I have really come round to admiring his talents. He has had to change his style to be successful at Bayern. I enjoy watching Bayern's tactical approach more than I enjoyed Barca at their pomp.

I'd rather not see an El Classico final -- a bit dull. We get it twice a year already. European Final should be between two European sides from different countries. Nevertheless, I can see it happening.

Did Giles Coke not play for Motherwell? I seem to remember him getting good reviews although I never really seen him play. It goes to show, these guys think they're superstars because they can hack it in Scotland, but then fail in the English lower leagues.

McCabe gets all he deserves.

Juventus vs. Real Madrid:

Depends what formation Juve deploy: 3-5-2, then I can see it being tight, and they could perhaps sneak a win, but the clean sheet is key; if it's 4-4-2 (diamond), then I think Real will win the game.

I think it'll be a score draw - 1-1, or 2-2.

Barcelona vs. Bayern Munich:

This is going to be a very tactical game -- my favourite! I think we might see Bayern dominate possession. I think they will both score, but I think the tie is dependent on Barca taking a good lead to Munich. Enrique is quite dependent on the front three, which I think Guardiola will nullify.

Possibly another score draw -- 1-1, or 2-2.

Damn -- I played that a bit safe!

Not sure if you've noticed on social media mate but Rab Boyle has recommended the following for you:

 

@GersnetOnline I'd encourage the writer to watch the interview with Craig Mulholland that we have on @RangersTV - may change their view?

I had a look last night. It's encouraging.

However, my point was based on when they reach the first-team. They are often shoehorned into a pre-defined position, rather than looking at their individual qualities and how they can be used. I have never had too much of an issue with the youth set-up, because we do seem to be producing decent young players. My problem is the 'integration' as John McIntosh (spelling?) put it. It's the first-team management that are not using the players correctly -- IMO.

Saudi Arabia?

Actually, I was extending D'Artagnan's Orwell reference! Too much?

Hate speech is defined as: "...any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group."

I did not think that the things that have happened to pro-unionist thinkers/writers could be considered hate speech, however, on reflection, it is an expression of hatred, rather than mere disagreement. I may disagree (and dislike vehemently) with what Sturgeon/Salmond say/believe, but I defend their right to say it. Their unofficial Yestapo restricting free speech is going too far.

Scotland's shame is false/fake offense and our all-too-quick predilection for assigning blame.

This law is just an extension of that.

Why should being offended by a crime?

One-party State; controlled state media; thought crime.

Sound familiar?

As per my article -- http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/current-affairs/379-praised-but-never-preached -- (Plug!), it seems symptomatic of a cultural problem.

How are so many players deemed 'pish' when other clubs -- sometimes better clubs -- can pick them up and turn them into proper players? There have been so many decent players that have obvious talent but for whatever reason, they don't make it at Rangers. Is it our attitude? Are we too quick to judge, not able to appreciate a decent player that maybe just needs time? Is it poor management not being able to utilise a player correctly?

We also have the opposite: players that have been quite effectual at Rangers not able to make it at another side.

It seems to me that we don't know how to use talent. We revert into old stereotypes of 'big, tall and powerful' or 'quick'; and that's it.

Mohsni has obvious talent, but he's liable to make mistakes -- actually, I think he just takes too many risks, rather than makes mistakes per se. We could have used him better; possibly partnered him with a more stable CB. I'd like to quote Tannochsidebear: "It seems we look at the CV of our players and try to play the most well known ones into a fixed formation without much thought of if they are the best pick for that position and proposed style of play, and that of our opponents."

AARRGGHHHH!!!!

....it's 'Macleod', not 'McLeod'! Why have I never noticed!

A older relative of mine was a good tennis player. She had a natural feel for the game and used a doubled-handed backhand to get extra power.

 

This was frowned on by coaches who told her that one hand should be used to play both forehand and backhand shots. She was also instructed - yes, instructed - not to play a baseline game. The idea was to serve and volley: always. No other way was coached.

 

Then a younger generation came through, possibly from the USA, and they threw away the coaching manuals They doubled up on backhand and played hard and powerfully from the baseline.

 

Coaches and purists frowned on this, but they were wrong: completely and utterly wrong.

 

We all went to see our players well coached but it's possible to set a player's career path back if coaching or management is flawed.

 

When Charlie Adam left Rangers, he was widely expected to vanish without a trace by the Rangers support and yet it was perfectly clear that he possessed an abundance of talent.

 

And that talent was allowed to flourish at Blackpool. He has gone on to make a great career for himself at the top of the English game and probably has more money in the bank than Rangers.

 

Occasionally players slip through the net, but Charlie Adam wasn't one of them. His talent was glaring but our coaching staff didn't know how to get the best out of him.

 

As a result, the Rangers support wrote him off. Few believed that he'd shine the way he has in the English Premiership. He was even voted one of the top five players in the division by fellow professionals, and yet we thought he was useless.

 

Just now, we have a young player who has a good instinct and a nice touch: Tom Walsh. He's been played out wide but apparently this is not his favoured position.

 

Let's hope that his career develops in a good way - with Rangers.

That's a great analogy. Coaching is important, but, I agree, sometimes 'purists' teach things that are not beneficial to the individual. I think players should be taught different things, but ultimately they have to play and develop in line with their natural ability -- it may not 'look' right, but it's better than trying to force a player into something there not. This is dependent on the coach having an open mind.

The tennis technique dictated on players is similar to a cricket technique: they're told to play a certain way. However, in other countries a players idiosyncrasies are encouraged rather than eliminated.

We also need a first-team coach that's able to appreciate where on the pitch a player can play his best football.

I did state that players are 'shoehorned' into a position and expected to do things that are expected of that role, when that is not always the case. A player should play a role that suits his game. Philip Lahm plays in midfield -- at times -- for Guardiola because he wants an intelligent passer and mover with an appreciation for wider roles in that position, rather than his normal Full-back slot.

It seems we look at the CV of our players and try to play the most well known ones into a fixed formation without much thought of if they are the best pick for that position and proposed style of play, and that of our opponents.

Forget 1200 words! I should have just wrote that sentence! Summed it up perfectly.

LOL. They've been running a toytown parliament for the past eight years full of self-important ex-councillors.

The big decisions such as the the economy still lie with Westminster. The SNP would get found out big style had they got independence. The currency issue at the referendum being the classic example.

Even the decisions they do make are piss poor, but that doesn't matter to Nats -- faith-based politics.

He said: “The secret is good players. I remember being 
on my Pro-Licence and Andy Roxburgh was doing a 
presentation on tactics.

 

“He was looking for a bit of support from Archie Knox, who said, ‘See all that Andy, if you haven’t got the players, you’re f*****’. That is true. The 
players we have now are good and are playing well.

This annoys me. Are we just waiting for a 'good' player to come along, or are we actively developing them and teaching them?

I'd like Roxburgh involved at Rangers. He's got a good technical brain -- I keep seeing his name whenever I read pieces on tactics, developing players and coaches (Mourinho was taught by him...for a bit.)

Point is, if we have 15 boarders on here, we'll probably have 10 different opinions on who is "the best" option.

Of course, everyone has a different opinion as to the individual, but there seems to be a broad dichotomy developing: one group wanting an old-school disciplinarian to get us competing now; versus another group which wants a more progressive, youth-based, 'coach' to develop the team.

Both groups want 'good football', but there is a difference as to what 'good football' actually is.

Not for me. Done pretty miserably at club level and is as arrogant as they come.

Agreed -- A bit of a nutcase. His record at club level is abysmal. I think he only has one way of playing: Forest were quite good early in the season, but as soon as sides figured them out they dropped significantly, and he couldn't adapt. He's an old-school manager, which I think is fast becoming out-of-date.

I hate Cricket. Still a good read though.

Fair enough -- It was used to make a point.

Aird has demonstrated absolutely nothing to suggest he has talent worth persisting with.

My point was that he has... 'qualities'. He's quick, but can't cross, and can't beat a man, so perhaps we can utilise him in another position? He could be useful coming off the bench late on in games. Again, my point is that if players don't fit in the structure/formation/system, they're deemed not good enough. Now, that may be the case, but he had to show something to get this far, surely?

don't think McKay showed very much when he was in the team. I doubt he'll be back.

He's got a good touch. I was impressed with the little I saw, but that's my point: players that don't conform to the Scottish stereotype of 'big, tall and strong' are deemed not good enough, but I don't agree -- they're not being used properly.

I think it's worth adding that you get different types of 'anti-football'. I don't have that much issue with the way Chelsea and Atletico approach certain games. Just as I used to love watching Seria A in the 90's. These sides are still deploying an intelligent game plan and attacking very effectively on the counter (certainly in Chelsea and Atletico's case). Our (Rangers) approach these past years has more just been one that is uncouth, with no philosophy and just a complete disregard for football. The ball regularly gets lumped from one end to the other and possession is constantly lost. Chelsea, Atletico etc make possession count.

 

Chelsea may play negatively in the big games, but they still play good football on the counter/attack, with Oscar, Hazard, Fabregas, Costa etc. They also attack and control games against the other teams.

 

PS - I should add that I would like to see Chelsea play more expansively in the big games but you can't argue with Mourinho's record v the top few teams. Something has to change for Europe though.

I don't think it's 'anti-'football' at all. It's football. Like you say: intelligent game-plans.

We don't have a game-plan.

Mourinho is all about winning. Nothing wrong with that at all.

I read this interesting article on so-called 'anti-football'. I'm sure their is a divide in fans as regards to the way football is played. There is a divide between those that liked Spain's/Bareclona's passy-passy (Tikka-Takka ?), and those who thought it was boring; and those who think Chelsea are 'boring', and those who don't.

When a team are 13 points clear at the top of the table and have been manifestly the best side in the league that season, perhaps it’s only natural that others should look for sticks with which to beat them. In Chelsea’s case, it’s because some apparently consider them boring, a point Arsenal fans made with gusto during last Sunday’s 0-0 draw – you hope, given their past, with at least some semblance of irony.

José Mourinho’s riposte this week was magnificent. “People talk about style and flair but what is that?” he said. “Sometimes I ask myself about the future, and maybe the future of football is a beautiful, green grass carpet without goals, where the team with more ball possession wins the game. The way people analyse style and flair is to take the goals off the pitch.” But then there are many who find possession football dull – as demonstrated by the countless complaints about Spain as they won the World Cup and second European Championship.

Even allowing for the fact that the majority prefer attack to defence while respecting the need for some balance between the two, boring is often in the eye of the beholder. Nobody could realistically argue, for instance, that Chelsea’s Champions League semi-final performances against Barcelona in 2012 were boring, and yet in both legs they sat deep and denied Barça space in the final third – just as they did against Manchester United the weekend before last.

The piece last week in which I pointed out that Mourinho is better at shutting games down than anybody else at the highest level – indeed, pretty much unique in doing so – wasn’t intended as criticism or complaint, although plenty took it as such. The analogy to Satan in Paradise Lost referred to his relationship with Barcelona and to his apparent relish for his role as the antipode to their style of football – and, as anyone who’s read the poem will know, one of its fascinations is the struggle Milton has to ensure Satan never becomes the hero, even though he is far more engaging than pretty much all of those aligned on the side of Heaven, who often come across as self-righteous or priggish (and have the omnipotent on their side, which rather dilutes any sense of their personal drama).

But the whole notion of there being a “right” way to play is baffling. Who decides? Some like skeins of neat passes; some like the clatter of centre-back and centre-forward attacking a cross; some like rapid counterattacks; some even can admire a well-organised defence. The term “anti-futbol” to suggest that there was a way of playing so far removed from the “right” way as to be its antithesis was coined in Argentina in the 50s for the Vélez Sarsfield side of Vittorio Spinetto. They were not one of the five grandes of the Argentinian game, but became renown for the way they battled. They worked hard, were organised and disciplined and that created resistance in a country in which footballers were supposed to stagger from the tango halls to the stadium, pausing only for a chicken casserole and a restorative bottle of malbec.

By the end of the 60s the term had taken on far more sinister connotations, thanks largely to the Estudiantes of Osvaldo Zubeldía. They started off as organised grafters, but soon became noted for their dirty tricks, winding up opposition players, spitting on them and punching them when the referee’s back was turned, even, according to some reports, stabbing opponents with pins. Their violence reached a nadir when three players were arrested following a particularly brutal Intercontinental Cup final against Milan in 1969.

That was anti-football, a systematic attempt to despoil, to prevent the other team from playing by any means necessary. When moral codes are debated in football, this point seems key: there is a major difference between cheating and playing defensively.

But even then there are difficulties in defining precisely what cheating consists of. Every British team that toured South America before the second world war ran into the same issue: they found opponents who were happy to obstruct them but were outraged by a shoulder-charge or a clattering tackle. The same ideology lies behind the modern British aversion to diving and waving imaginary cards and, though it is declining, the demand that players must be able to “take a tackle”. Which is more detrimental to the game, Diego Maradona punching the ball past Peter Shilton or Terry Fenwick kicking lumps out of him all game?

There are fundamentalists on both sides, from those who believe players should do anything in their power to win to those such as Paul Tisdale, who won’t let his Exeter City side take the ball into the corner to run down the clock in the closing minutes. However stringent and detailed a set of laws, there will always be grey areas and it is within them that a personal morality must be negotiated.

But none of that makes defending wrong. Anti-futbol is an unhelpful term in that it has two quite distinct meanings: the football of organisation and effort on the one hand and the football of Machiavelli on the other. Both are pragmatic, but only one is immoral. Mourinho’s Porto often did dive, waste time and feign injury but his Chelsea, while far from perfect, are no worse than anybody else in the Premier League. Where they do differ is in their capacity to defend, to play without the ball, to manage games – and even then, as Mourinho said, they’ve only started to play like that since fatigue set in in January.

The only real doubt is whether, after all the investment they’ve had over the past decade, Chelsea should be producing something more overtly thrilling – but that is a matter for Roman Abramovich, who apparently tired of Mourinho’s astringency in his first spell, but is seemingly prepared to accept something more functional this (although you do wonder whether his art-dealer girlfriend would prefer something more obviously aesthetically pleasing), and Chelsea fans, who presumably, aren’t yet sated enough with trophies to start insisting they win in a particular way.

Everybody else should probably just accept that defending is part of football and football, despite what people keep saying, isn’t an entertainment – or rather, it’s a specific form of entertainment in which the struggle of one side against the other is paramount. If it weren’t, tens of thousands would turn out on street corners to watch freestylers; Mourinho’s satirical proposal to play without goals and measure possession wouldn’t go far enough: football would be played by one team only, doing tricks around cones and being marked, like ice dancing or diving by a panel of judges.

It is part of football’s richness that there is such a variety of ways to play it and it’s an oddity of the present that so many follow the Barcajax route. But as Jürgen Klopp, Diego Simeone and Mourinho have proved, possess and press isn’t the only way. If Chelsea fans are annoyed by the jibes, they might remember that no side that defends poorly is ever described as boring.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/apr/30/mourinho-chelsea-maradona-boring-immoral-football

Seems like there is going to be a manager merry go round, Moyes linked with West Ham with Allardyce going to Sunderland. Meaning Advocaat being available, id take him back if he would come.

He could finish the job he started 15 years ago as DoF!

Mark warburton and sir Davie weir have guided Brentford into the playoffs , it's a no brainer for me , their style of play and fitness levels have been brilliant , and they work on a smaller budget than we presently do.

 

http://www.brentfordfc.co.uk/documents/bfc-group-final-accounts-2014277-2362022.pdf

I see where you are coming from. I'll admit I haven't seen them, apart from once or twice, but they still don't really excite me. There is history of League One sides doing really well on their return to Championship, but fall away afterwards. If they could have done it a few years in a row, then maybe -- obviously their leaving so that's not going to happen.

There is a leather ball in my hand, slightly smaller than a clenched fist, dark red and shiny, with a white seam around the centre, and a stamped gold logo on each side. It is a cricket ball. My fingers and wrist go through all the different bowling positions: the middle and index finger parallel with the seam and thumb tucked underneath for a fast delivery; index, middle and ring finger nestling the ball, this time with the seam perpendicular and thumb held away for a leg spin delivery. There are almost as many wrist and finger positions as there are Overs in a One-Day International, and each bowler has his own idiosyncrasies.

James Anderson has just become England's record Wicket-taker, overtaking Sir Ian "Beefy" Botham. Anderson is not the fastest bowler around, nor is he the most influential, nor parsimonious. What he does have is a technique unique to him. After a few successful early years he was pulled out because it was thought his style would eventually cause trouble for his back -- his style was 'corrected'. Then in 2006 he broke down with a stress fracture -- the very injury the tweaking was trying to prevent. After a few years he reverted to his natural style, and what followed was success after success. And the rest, they say, is history.

You may be wondering how this relates to football, and more specifically, to Rangers. The answer is: Style.

Cricketers have an inordinate variety of techniques and idiosyncrasies. Batsmen in particular, being the centre of attention, are more noticeable. The great batsmen of history are revered for their ability and style -- Sachin Tendulkar is worshiped like a god in India -- but there is now a distinct lack of them. There are more coaches in the game than ever before, but they are more concerned with producing better and harder hitters, than they are with artistry. Their styles have been praised but never preached. The best worked things out for themselves.

If I were to ask people for a list of the best football players in the world at the minute, I could pretty much guarantee that those lists would invariably include the following: Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar, Suarez, Rooney etc. What they all have in common is a certain unique style, an idiosyncrasy. Messi is small and nimble, the ball never leaves his feet as he weaves past defenders; Suarez has a bit of a street footballer about him, as he explodes past players allowing the ball to deflect any which way; Ronaldo has an immense physicality, a game build on speed and an incredibly powerful shot; Neymar glides, and has the tricks; Rooney also looks like he has developed his game on the streets, but also possesses a deftness of touch and an impressive range of passing. They each have an individual game that they know inside out, and they don't try to do what they're not good at.

When I come to look at Scottish players, whether that's in the Leagues or the National team, I see one homogeneous group. There is no significant difference between each player, and there is certainly no style. One has to look very closely to see any difference at all. It seems like they have been 'developed' to be bigger, stronger, faster; like modern cricketers, they're coached to hit harder, but not allowed to develop their own styles. And this is prevalent at Rangers.

There have been a good selection of young players coming through Auchenhowie over the past few years. McLeod, Murdoch, Crawford, Aird, Gallagher, McKay, Walsh, Hardie and Stoney. Of those, only McLeod and Murdoch have been able to flourish -- Walsh, Hardie and Crawford have been given a few more games recently, but I shall overlook them for now. I think the reason they have been able to flourish is that they have been able to fit into the prevailing structure: their natural game has allowed them to fit.

Murdoch is like nothing we have currently, but has been able to slot into the defensive-midfield role without much disruption. The same goes for McLeod; he has a natural talent, and was asked to fit into the left of midfield, which he was also able to do without much disruption. However, whereas Murdoch has slot in quite comfortably -- his natural style suits that role -- McLeod's game was hindered by the way the management used him, and was never used to his full potential. It's as if they have been shoehorned into the structure: if they can fit, they'll play, but if they can't, they're not good enough.

The problem with this is that it overlooks their natural game, their idiosyncrasies. McKay clearly has a lot of talent, but has been sidelined for the past few seasons, simply because he doesn't fit the Scottish mold of being big, strong and fast. It's an outdated view that must be corrected. McKay's focus may be a problem, but he's not the first player to have a bit of an attitude.

Even the best players have had problems, where their natural game has not quite fit with their teams system. Andrea Pirlo started out as an Attacking-Midfielder at Brescia, and then moved to Inter Milan but couldn't break into the first-team; it was only once he moved to AC Milan where Ancelotti gave him a run in the team as a deep-lying playmaker that his skills were fully recognised. Henry played out wide with Monaco and Juventus to average success, but it was only when Arsene Wenger moved him up front that his world-class ability was revealed.

(Please bare with me for a moment, for I am about to mention Fraser Aird in the same breath as Pirlo and Henry.)

Pirlo and Henry are two examples of players only being able to show their true ability once their natural game and idiosyncrasies matched with their position on the park -- could the same be true of Aird? Aird was put out wide by McCoist because he is quick, and that seemed to fit a wingers role. However, because he is quick does it then follow that he is a winger? I don't think so. I think that is a Scottish mentality, where the player fits the system rather than the system fits the players. Would Pirlo have been dropped back into a deep-lying playmaker role at a Scottish club? Would Henry have been moved up front? I doubt it -- they would have been shoehorned into a role that would not match their natural game. Aird is not naturally tricky; but he is quick and he has a good shot on him, so could he perhaps play up front, on the shoulder of the defender? Who knows?

I believe every player has a natural game, and that every player has a position or role that suits them best. Every player must be allowed to develop their natural style; every player must be allowed to do what they do best. The fans have a part to play. We must be patient, and allow our young Rangers time to express themselves. We also need a coach that will give our young players freedom to develop their own style. It is certainly not something anyone can teach, but it can be encouraged. James Anderson become England's record wicket-taker not because he is the fastest bowler, nor because he is the greatest, but because he played his own natural, idiosyncratic game.