Rousseau

I have nothing against him taking his wage/money lets face it anyone on hear who has ever been paid off ever said to their employers just keep my lying time and holiday pay I don't think so and it doesn't matter what the numbers are the thing that blemishes all'y record is the dire football played under his management and the state of the team when he left it was the worst team since the club was founded .

For me its the complete opposite: he cannot be criticised for being a bad manager, because he tried his best, unfortunately he wan't good enough -- neither was Greig; but taking wage when he's not doing anything -- and the amount -- is ridiculous. It's the wage that taints his reputation in my eyes.

His style might at times infuriate me but he's the best in the world so he can do whatever he wants.

 

Porto (2002–2004)

Primeira Liga: 2002–03, 2003–04

Taça de Portugal: 2002–03

Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira: 2003

UEFA Champions League: 2003–04

UEFA Cup: 2002–03

Chelsea (2004–2007, 2013–)

Premier League: 2004–05, 2005–06

FA Cup: 2006–07

Football League Cup: 2004–05, 2006–07, 2014–15

FA Community Shield: 2005

Internazionale (2008–2010)

Serie A: 2008–09, 2009–10

Coppa Italia: 2009–10

Supercoppa Italiana: 2008

UEFA Champions League: 2009–10

Real Madrid (2010–2013)

La Liga: 2011–12

Copa del Rey: 2010–11

Supercopa de España: 2012

Individual

Onze d'Or Coach of the Year: 2005, 2010

FIFA World Coach of the Year: 2010

IFFHS World's Best Club Coach: 2004, 2005, 2010, 2012

Primeira Liga Manager of the Year: 2002–03, 2003–04

Premier League Manager of the Year: 2004–05, 2005–06

Premier League Manager of the Month: November 2004, January 2005, March 2007

Serie A Manager of the Year: 2008–09, 2009–10

Albo Panchina d'Oro: 2009–10

Miguel Muñoz Trophy: 2010–11, 2011–12

UEFA Manager of the Year: 2002–03, 2003–04

UEFA Team of the Year: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2010

World Soccer Magazine World Manager of the Year: 2004, 2005, 2010

LPFP Awards Best Portuguese Manager in Foreign Countries: 2008–09, 2009–10

BBC Sports Personality of the Year Coach Award: 2005

La Gazzetta dello Sport Man of the Year: 2010[166]

International Sports Press Association Best Manager in the World: 2010[167]

Prémio Prestígio Fernando Soromenho: 2012[168]

Football Extravaganza's League of Legends (2011)[169]

I agree. He is a genius at setting up teams to win. What I like best is that he tweaks his teams to exploit a weakness, or defend against an oppositions strength (Fellaini last week comes to mind; he put Zouma in midfield to battle with Fellaini and he was completely ineffectual!).

It's like Barca play to play, Mourinho plays to win.

You will always get people criticising the way a team plays: you have to play good football to be considered great. I disagree. You are great because you win. And there are many ways to win. He's the anti-Barca because he can win with 20% possession. How many teams can do that at the highest level?

How can we move on when we're broke and he's our highest earner?

I agree. He should not be getting a wage. A manager cannot be criticised too heavily for being a failure if he's done his best. No one should deny he tried his best. As I said: "One can't be blamed for not being good enough, just thanked and we both move on." That's what should've happened. I don't think his legendary status can be erased just because he wasn't good enough as Manager. The wage aspect is different. It's clouding his legendary status. Again, like I said: "I wish he'd give a reason so I can perhaps resolve my contradictory feelings."

Great player; terrible Manager. He did his best, but it was not good enough. I think he went too far towards experience, whereas a mixture of youth and experience would have been better; it certainly would have placated the fans a little more. He did a lot, and he deserves credit.

However, he is still taking a wage. We cannot afford it.

He is a legend; he will always be a legend. He did so much good, and he tried his best; unfortunately it wasn't good enough. One can't be blamed for not being good enough, just thanked and we both move on. But there will always be that stain on his legend, at least over the short-term -- it'll be forgotten in years to come. I can't resolve these two feelings. I wish he'd give a reason so I can perhaps resolve my contradictory feelings.

As I said, financial difficulties may have various reason, reaching e.g. from burned down stands after a lightning stroke (insurrance was insufficient and suddenly you do no longer fulfill the league's criteria etc,) via mismanagement to downright and willfull overspending, tax evasion et al. At the end of the day, quite a few British clubs still have the single owner structure and if he does something heinous, why would punish the players, general staff and last ut not least the usually unaware support? Punishments should be dealt with at a case for case scenario with certain guidelines, not French Revolution style one judgment for all infringements rules.

Clubs should be punished for financial irregularities (overspending etc.), but FFP should limit that. If there is an external cause for a clubs financial difficulty, then they should not be punished. Case by Case scenario would be better. The Dutch FA are quite domineering in regard to the financial operation of their clubs - they actually step in I believe?

Rangers: The only club that could lose money by being promoted. Scottish Football is a joke.

We need to retreat into ourselves and stop bothering with these 'authorities'. We need to be self-sufficient and generate cash ourselves. Membership schemes like Germany etc.

There is a correlation with league position though, except Southampton. That's what it takes. It's not the clubs' fault.

You would expect that the authorities will help the clubs that get into financial difficulties (who may have various reasons). The above is more like kicking the already dying horse ...

What about Financial Fair Play? Or are we too small (Scottish clubs in general) in terms of revenue for it to take effect?

" the socks are, as always, traditionally styled to pay homage to the club's heritage while engineered to provide comfort and support in key areas."

 

The first picture on the site this morning were the traditional black & red but now they are white?

I watched the video from the link and they show white socks. But then Frankie says they aren't. Perhaps there are two colours?

The socks are white!

Modern football was invented in Barcelona in the mid-90s. Of this season’s Champions League quarter-finalists, four sides are managed by players who turned out for Barça in 1996: Pep Guardiola, Luis Enrique, Julen Lopetegui and Laurent Blanc. Within a couple of years, they had been joined by Frank de Boer and Phillip Cocu as well as the coach Louis van Gaal and his assistant Ronald Koeman. In slightly differing ways, the eight are apostles for the Barcelona way – or, more accurately, given the influence of Ajax on that style, the Barçajax way. However, there was another presence there, initially as a translator and then as a coach. In the Barçocracy of modern football, there is a fallen angel.

In the modern world, at least at elite level, José Mourinho stands alone. At the greatest coaching seminar the world has seen, when the game as we know it was shaped, but he did not draw the same lessons everybody else did. The other eight espoused the proactive, possession-based football seeded at the club by Vic Buckingham, developed by Rinus Michels and taken to new levels by Johan Cruyff.

Mourinho, however, was different. Mourinho believed in reactive football. He was the outsider, the outcast who now revels in his role as the dark lord. Saturday’s game against Manchester United was typical. Others, playing at home in a match that could effectively ensure the title, might have felt compelled to attack. Mourinho fielded Kurt Zouma, a central defender, in midfield, sitting deep and won the game with 28% possession.

Mourinho may have objected to Diego Torres’s biography of him but the passage describing his methods against the better sides was as true of Saturday’s win as it was of the victory over Liverpool that determined the destination of the title last season:

1. The game is won by the team who commits fewer errors.

2. Football favours whoever provokes more errors in the opposition.

3. Away from home, instead of trying to be superior to the opposition, it’s better to encourage their mistakes.

4. Whoever has the ball is more likely to make a mistake.

5. Whoever renounces possession reduces the possibility of making a mistake.

6. Whoever has the ball has fear.

7. Whoever does not have it is thereby stronger.

It’s true that earlier in the season, Chelsea were more expansive. When Diego Costa, Cesc Fábregas and Nemanja Matic were fit and in form, they attacked and racked up goals. The talk was all of how, after the regular failures to break down massed defences last season, Mourinho had taken decisive action. As the squad has tired and form has waned, as the finish line has approached, though, he has reverted to type. Chelsea have been struggling for form and consistency all year and yet, in the 12 league games since the 5-3 defeat by Tottenham on New Year’s Day, they have conceded only seven goals and dropped only six points.

There was a concern earlier this season that Mourinho might be losing his touch. Against Manchester City (home and away), United (away), Southampton (away) and PSG (home and away), Chelsea took the lead, sat back and ended up conceding equalisers. It could even have happened on Saturday, Falcao hitting the post with 11 minutes remaining. However, even if Chelsea have been unusually vulnerable at times in a lead this season, Mourinho hasn’t changed – and it could be argued that Saturday was vindication.

From right to left, the then Barcelona manager Louis van Gaal, assistant coach Ronald Koeman, keeper's trainer Frans Hoek and assistant trainer José Mourinho during a friendly in Amsterdam in 1999 Facebook Twitter Pinterest

From left to right: the then Barcelona manager Louis van Gaal, assistant coach Ronald Koeman, keepers’ trainer Frans Hoek and assistant trainer José Mourinho during a friendly in Amsterdam in 1999. Photograph: VI-Images/VI-Images via Getty Images

Anyway, the sense is that it’s not entirely a matter of utility: Mourinho has his sides play that way because he enjoys it. Cast out from Barcelona, overlooked by them when they appointed Pep Guardiola in 2008, he is now the anti-Barcelona, determined, like Milton’s Satan that, “glory never shall his wrath or might; extort from me,” vowing “To wage by force of guile eternal war, irreconcilable to our grand Foe.” Every defensive performance, every win with limited possession, is a blow against Barça.

There’s probably no game Mourinho has enjoyed so much as Internazionale’s Champions League semi-final second leg at the Camp Nou in 2010, when his side, down to 10 men for more than an hour, had only 19% possession and lost 1-0 to win 3-2 on aggregate. Who needs the ball?

Mourinho is not a pragmatist in the way that, say, Fabio Capello is, changing approach according to his players and, where necessary, adopting reactive, defensive tactics. Rather his preferred way of playing is reactive, which is why he sold Juan Mata. He may have been Chelsea’s player of the season in each of the two previous years but he had no place in Mourinho’s conception of football.

The paradox is that if Mourinho really has allowed his philosophy to be defined in opposition to Barcelona – he is that which they are not – then he is still allowing Barcelona to dictate terms, creating a dichotomy where there could be multiplicity. It is not that there is the Barçajax school and Not-the-Barçajax school; it is that the Barçajax school is one way of playing among an almost infinite variety, as represented by Jürgen Klopp, Carlo Ancelotti and Diego Simeone among others.

And that, of course, is testimony to the astonishing influence of Barcelona over modern football. Mourinho cannot escape his upbringing as a coach; even as a rebel, it is Barcelona he is rebelling against.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/apr/23/jose-mourinho-the-anti-barcelona-chelsea-pep-guardiola

Impossible to predict as both Hibs and us have been so inconsistent.

 

1. Can we beat Falkirk? Yes but it's not a certainty.

 

2. Can we beat Hearts? Again, yes but it's not a certainty.

 

3. If we finish 3rd can we beat Queen of the South in the play-off quarter final? Yes we can but it's certainty a difficult task over two legs given the league results.

 

4. Can we beat Hibs if we finish 2nd or 3rd? Of course but league results also suggest it will be tough.

 

5. Can we beat Motherwell in the play-off final? Recent games against them suggests so and this may, in fact, be our easiest game.

 

 

Overall, one has to say the odds of us being promoted are against us. We should be beating all these teams but it's far from a formality.

It goes to show: there is no gulf in class between top Championship sides and the bottom dwellers of the Premiership. It makes the case for an extended top division.

Impossible to predict as both Hibs and us have been so inconsistent.

 

1. Can we beat Falkirk? Yes but it's not a certainty.

 

2. Can we beat Hearts? Again, yes but it's not a certainty.

 

3. If we finish 3rd can we beat Queen of the South in the play-off quarter final? Yes we can but it's certainty a difficult task over two legs given the league results.

 

4. Can we beat Hibs if we finish 2nd or 3rd? Of course but league results also suggest it will be tough.

 

5. Can we beat Motherwell in the play-off final? Recent games against them suggests so and this may, in fact, be our easiest game.

 

 

Overall, one has to say the odds of us being promoted are against us. We should be beating all these teams but it's far from a formality.

I actually think a two-leg tie gives us more of a chance. A one-off game would be nervy, but two gives us a margin of error. It's still not going to be easy though!

Hibs will be tricky either way, and yes, ironically, the premiership tie could be the easiest one!

Hibs win at Livingston last night was a big disappointment, as a loss and a win for us v Falkirk on Saturday would have been enough to secure second spot, a bye to the Play Off Semi Final and fix the date of the 3rd Gernet Dinner as 23 May, much to the relief of SteveC who has already booked flights.

 

As things stand, Falkirk come to Ibrox still with a mathematical chance of finishing fourth, although they would need to beat us and Hibs at home on the last day and can't afford QoS (who have a vastly better goal difference) taking even one point from Dumbarton at home and Livingston away. A highly unlikely set of circumstances one would think especially as their minds may drift to the Cup Final. Falkirk have only one point to show for 4 encounters with us this season and a total of 2 goals for and 10 against. That said they will not lie down to us and are perfectly capable of taking something from the game; but I expect us to win and Hardie to score again.

 

Alloa go to Easter Rd on Saturday needing points to avoid the relegation play-off spot. HIbs lost the first league encounter when they were struggling in August but have since beaten the Wasps three times. Fyvie was in top form last night and I expect Hibs to win.

 

Falkirk have already beaten Hibs 1-0 home and away in the League as well as the Cup but Hibs will be looking for revenge for the Scottish Cup Semi Final defeat on the last day when Falkirk may have nothing to play for other than avoiding injury ahead of the Final. I think we have to assume Hibs will win that.

 

Which means we will have to win at Tynecastle. We lost home and away in 2014, including the embarrassing performance at Tynecastle in November but for me the victory at Ibrox on the 5th of April was our best performance of the season. Hearts will want to end the season on a high even if it makes life slightly easier for Hibs and it will take another epic performance for us to win again; but we are capable of that.

I am doubtful. As you say: the run in suits them better. I'm confident of beating Falkirk, but Hearts at Tynecastle is going to be very difficult. I can see them winning all their remaining games.

I suspect we may have to do it the hard way.

Transfermarkt gives you a neat list of all the achievments of each of these players, a decent enough evaluation et al. 2014/15 overall stats (plus Championship average game time) are below, but you obviously have to dig deeper than that. There is no doubt that we need freshening up the attacking with people who score regularly, be that youngsters, Vuckic, or Mohsni ...

 

Centre forwards:

Kenny Miller - 35 games, 7 goals, 5 assists (CS avg. game time 68 mins)

Kris Boyd - 44 games, 12 goals, 9 assists (CS avg. game time 58 mins)

Jon Daly - 32 games, 4 goals, 2 assists (CS avg. game time 35 mins)

Nicky Clark - 40 games, 8 goals, 4 assists (CS avg. game time 61 mins)

Ryan Hardie - 5 games, 2 goals, 0 assists (CS avg. game time 34 mins)

 

Attacking Midfielders

Dean Shiels - 24 games, 5 goals, 3 assists (CS avg. game time 43 mins)

Haris Vuckic - 14* games, 8 goals, 2 assists (CS avg. game time 70 mins)

 

*only games in Scotland

 

Our main problem is that ALL our strikers have all been utterly unproductive in front of goals this season, and for a inexplicably long time at that. Even before McCall entered the fray, we usually had 10 to 20 shots at goal. Last season, we converted a decent enough percentage of those, cancelling out the goals the opposition managed against our dubious defence. This season, the oppositions goals per shots ratio remained the essentially same, but our goals per shots ratio was horrible. It beggars belief that the managers stuck to the misfiring strikers for that long. For at the end of the day, you have to change things if it doesn't work, even if that means that a trusted warhorse gets benched and a colt is being blooded.

 

BTW, as was said during the interview with him screened at HT last weekend, Boyd said the manager keeps faith with him as he is scoring regularly in training et al and doing not much differently play-wise when it matters in the Championship. It just does not happening for him and he accepts being benched.

You have summed up the last two years perfectly: Defense has remained the same (poor); Chances created has remained the same (average); goals scored has dropped substantially.

Hardie is another promising young player. I just hope he is given the chance with an extended run in the team.

Sure - genuine competition for places is an agreeable problem to have.

Competition is excellent. Best problem there is!

May the best man win but I'd still argue developing our player above selecting someone who's on loan should be part of the decision-making process.

I'd agree with you in a normal season -- simple long-term development over short-term, which is a no-brainer. However, the play-offs are just a short-term mini-competition, so any player that would give us the best chance at promotion should be utilised, regardless of potential. Ferguson will not play beyond this season, but to exclude him from a significant series of games just because he will be leaving is irresponsible. I don't think the potential experience Walsh could gain outweighs the importance of promotion.

Saying that: any youngster needs and should get a long run in the side -- it's the only way they will progress. I'd still use Ferguson over the play-offs if he will be beneficial to us.

Scottish Under 17 last year.

 

What a change!

Whilst I'm delighted for us to be linked with players -- and younger, promising players at that! -- I am suspicious of why. Has he been told he's not going to get a game at Birmingham? If so, do we really want a reject from a struggling Championship side?

We should be aiming to develop Walsh over choosing Ferguson who cannot be match fit.

 

In saying that we do have at least four games left and possibly as much as eight so we will need the bulk of the squad to be fit and available for any play-off sequence. As such, Ferguson may well play his part or would people prefer the unreliable Templeton and/or the inconsistent Smith in left midfield should Walsh become injured again?

Walsh has earned a game, but that shouldn't preclude Ferguson getting a run-out. If Ferguson can contribute, he should.

Ferguson would be a massive gamble as he hasnt played for so long.

I think McCall simply has to get his tactics spot-on if we're to get promoted via these play-offs. Accommodating both Vuckic and Ferguson in the same team may be difficult IMO.

I don't think it would be too difficult to play them both. Vuckic could play off the striker -- he used to be one -- and Ferguson can take his wide spot. Simples!

I think they will at some point.

Miller will certainly play again, but I would be surprised if Daly did -- i'm not sure he's fit enough, and there are so many ahead of him -- and Boyd I think has dropped out, but I can see him play a small role in the final 10 minutes of games.

I was convinced Boyd would come good, as he always seemed to get a few chances a game, which I think was down to his movement -- not pace obviously, but that knack for finding space. The problem for Boyd has been his finishing; he's not recaptured that ability. Our game plans played a part but I think his failure is down to him ultimately.

They are all past it now, unfortunately. It is a shame, because they were all good players -- even exceptional at times --, but they've had their day. I would be surprised, and disappointed, if any got new deals.

Get them in the first-team!

You missed out second half of the article in which he makes some good points about the future of Scottish football: extending the league, spreading the money less thinly etc.

To be fair, it's nothing we haven't seen for ourselves. We need someone at the top to take a stand.

They have a right to be upset at the decision, but the referee's missed it, so there is nothing to be done about it. To cry "Conspiracy!", "Cheat!" -- and even mentioning "Sporting integrity" is taking the mickey considering the Legia Warsaw affair -- is just taking it too far.

You can easily argue this one both ways but I would not agree with McCall; the season isn't over till FT in the last play-off game.

 

If a player is on 5 bookings going into the last league game of the season and the rule prevents him committing another bookable offence then it is a good rule; and conversely if he were to commit another bookable offence and "get away with it" by avoiding a suspension , then it would be a bad rule.

 

In any event it's arguable that losing Miller would be beneficial to the team, not so McGregor of course.

It's semantics: what constitutes a 'league game'? By definition the play-offs are not a league game, so therefore accumulated league bookings should not count.

You are right Rousseau. We always need a healthy squad with a decent mix of good homegrown* talent and some more exceptionaly and high standard guys. League seasons will be a slog, always have been and always will be. The age (and price) category is right and you will only be able to see whether these chaps can take their talent to a higher level if you sign them up and throw them in amongst the "big guys". Given that we will probably (and some may say hopefully) lose half of the squad this summer, looking for decent alternatives won't go amiss. Meanwhile, those wanting higher standard players can present decent and real alternatives.

 

Gavin Reilly - 36 games, 14 goals, 8 assists - Euro 175k - freebie in the summer (striker)

Daniel Carmichael - 37 games, 1 goal, 14 assists - Euro 150k - freebie in the summer (right winger)

Kevin Holt - 38 games, 2 goals, 3 assists - Euro 175k - freebie in the summer (leftback +left and centra midfield)

 

 

*homegrown refering to Britain in general and Scotland in particular.

I'm relieved someone grasped my meaning! Their age -- as well as their performances against us -- is what grabbed my attention. They're half-decent young, quick players that could be decent squad players. And like you said: we need squad players that can play a small role in a hard slog of a season.

Now for the Premier League? think we need better.

You presume we are getting promoted. I never suggested they'd be decent first-team players, simply squad players.

We can't build a team of Scottish-Galactico's -- forgetting for a minute the financial impracticalty! --; there needs to be a mix of hard-working young players.