Rousseau

Can I just try a sum-up this 'argument':

Mr O'Hara is a public representative. He represents everyone in his constituency. (As much as I dislike his party and everything they stand for, his party should be irrelevant.)

Mr O'Hara has used a sectarian/bigoted term -- a term which the majority of Scots think is unacceptable.

There was no 'law' against it when he said it, so therefore it can't be illegal. (You can't start charging someone retrospectively--where does it end?)

So, for me, the issue is whether it's right--ethically, because legally I don't see a problem--that a 'public representative' should continue his responsibilities after he has demonstrated bigoted behaviour, which, by definition means he is intolerant of a persons views, because he is therefore not able to conduct his role.

Is this the gist of it?

I appreciate the sentiment in having another year in the Championship to build a new foundation, rather than expose a team with several deficiencies to the Premiership. We could find ourselves on the wrong end of a few hidings!

Financially it's better we go up -- even just getting the bigger gates.

Ethically, it's just not compatible with the Rangers way. We exist to win. We should expect a very difficult Premiership campaign, but we'd need to take it. I think someone else said we will have to take a beating no matter when we go up, because there is no way we can assemble a Premiership-winning side in the Championship.

It could all be a moot point: there is no guarantee we'll get up this year...

Jackson implies that there is a big gulf in class between the Premiership and the Championship. Barring top few in the Premiership, the difference in quality is not that significant. There is no doubt we have overpaid for our squad, but we overpaid for SPL-standard players. The very fact these players are struggling would suggest the gulf in class in not as stark as it may appear. Our ambition to get to the top again necessitated the player expenditure, however, a turbulent period off the field curtailed that next level of improvement/expenditure. I haven't even mentioned the poor managerial decisions.

To suggest a squad assembled through a large amount of expenditure should route to the title shows little understanding of football. One can acquire the best players, for the most money and still not achieve success. Real Madrid assembled expensive squads for the last decade without being able lace the boots of Barcelona, a club assembled at a fraction of the cost. Even Man Utd, the highest spenders in the league and they are still limping into 4th place.

Moreover, to suggest that we should be turning-over a side because we have a bigger wage bill shows little respect for the football Queen's play. They are a very well-drilled, hard-working side with talented youngsters. This Queen's side have exposed our inadequacies several times, so it's no wonder we approached the game pragmatically: the objective is not to play nice football, it's to win; we've won the first 'half', but there is another 'half' to go.

We should be doing better, but the situation is as a result of tricky operational circumstances -- in which anyone would struggle -- and poor managerial decision-making. To imply that our squad "does not look fit for purpose in Scotland’s Premiership" and "that this is the very level at which today’s Rangers actually belong" because we have approached an important game in a pragmatic manner is a bit of a stretch. I truly doubt there is much of a difference in quality between Hearts, Hibs, Queen's and ourselves and the bottom-six in the Premiership. Again, we should be doing better, we must do better. It does not imply that it will "come apart in a puff of smoke."

(I don't know why this piece annoyed me so much? I usually don't take too much notice of what he says. We've certainly not done as well as we should have, but 'one step at a time'.)

In fairness, we're talking about articles which are intended for print and space in narrow columns, so the sentences span far more lines before a break than what we read online.

That's very true, but there is clearly a significant difference in the quality of prose between publications. I do think the quality has decreased in the more populist publications; Even the space is smaller than it could be. I don't think it's necessary.

I disagree.

Information provided in small sections

is easier to read

and understand.

Like writing on a blackboard

It's symptomatic of a general 'dumbing-down'. 'The Gruffalo' is a nice piece of prose to understand, but one will not get as much out of it as Thomas Hobes' 'Leviathan'. One could argue that news pieces should be short and to-the-point, but opinion pieces should be more developed.

Can't agree that Waddell is a good writer. He is of the Leckie mould, a wee team supporter who hates both of the OF equally. Why can we not have writers in this country who can write neutrally on the big stories with informative, researched, balanced articles. Is that really too much to ask from the so-called professionals.

To be fair, it's an opinion piece; it's not supposed to be impartial. Moreover, the quality of his prose is not linked to his content or opinion.

His opinion is valid. I don't really disagree with it.

(What's with the one-sentence paragraphs?!)

I think the consensus is McGregor and Murdoch.

McGregor has been immense, despite not garnering much optimism from me when we signed him because he had only played for Cowdenbeath and St Mirren!

John Hughes is never Rangers manager material, no chance.

 

If we don't get through these play-offs and get promotion, then I wouldn't be against the idea of Derek McInnes coming in if he wanted to, although I'm not sure if he'd leave Aberdeen when he's had a very good season with them and he's got European games to prepare them for and to look forward to.

Yogi is an absolute no-go for me. Not good enough. Butcher built the ICT squad with young players. It doesn't take much to come in and do a decent job in Scotland with good young players IMO. He's not exactly been successful.

Again, McInnes is the same old type. He's done well, but I'd rather we do better -- DoF with technical Head Coach.

I agree with Laudbertz: it's a very subjective question that invariably consists of forwards.

We'd be better picking a Greatest XI, so defenders, 'keepers etc. are included.

Has it?

 

Once again I'd argue context remains everything.

 

First of all Findlay wasn't accused of singing anything with fen!an in it. However, even if he did, I doubt it was used in a sectarian fashion but it brought enough reputational damage to himself and the club that firstly Findlay then the fanbase fell on its sword when it came to the Billy Boys chant.

 

It was only after around 2004 via media pressure to UEFA that fen!an was seen as sectarian - whereas before it was, like hun, just another insult.

Should everything not just be allowed? In a football context?

(I do expect better from a politician, no matter how much I disagree with their party. Position of authority and all that...)

I was the same as you but given what transpired since I don't see how anyone can blame them. Did you expect him to stay and play in the 4th tier? At a critical stage in his career and development? Or did you want us to sell him? Given our track record we would have got half a packet of skittles for him.

 

The club couldn't afford to keep these players and Green knew that.

He was 19. I think a few years in our squad would have been beneficial for him and the club. He was a youth player, so he couldn't have been on that much?

I agree when it comes to the more professional players.

McCabe was man of the match in the 3-2 win over Celtic and was exceptional. I don't think Murdoch is anywhere near that level.

 

McCabe might have turned out to be a mediocre Championship player but most of our squad would be mediocre league 2 or Conference players.

He was promising, but one game is not enough, even if it was against them. It's not so much his ability that I'm rejecting, but his decision to terminate his contract after just breaking into the first-team. He only played 9 games!

Naw -- like I said: he's made his bed...

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.