Rousseau

Very disappointed. It was slow, ponderous and without craft or guile. Our defence was no worse than usual, and I actually thought we got better as the game went on in open play -- corners are a different matter and we seem unable to defend properly at any ball lumped into the box. It was the attacking I was most concerned with: we only really created 2/3 chances during the whole game, which is simply not good enough. Like I said above, Hibs do what they always do: defend with 5 at the back and counter. Every man and his dog knows what they're going to do against us. Again, the most annoying thing is we cannot seem to deal with it. That Stokes fanboy Andy Walker was pissing me off praising the way they were playing and criticising our game. Yes, we did little with the ball, but try breaking down a team with 10 men behind the ball. Moreover, anyone team can break against 3 players (Kiernan, Wilson and Halliday) and carve a chance. Alas! We weren't good enough. It's as simply as that, and we didn't deserve it. We need more players for several positions. When the first-team is lacking, the replacements are non-existent. We need better quality, but it's options we need more than anything else. I don't know the details, but our fans shouldn't be trotting onto the pitch to 'square-up' to Hibs fans -- even if they are taunting and goading us. We lost, and we have to take it on the chin. If Rangers players were attacked, then it is a disgrace -- more evidence of the hatred directed at us. They will (should) be punished.

We've been really poor. I'm astonished we're not still behind. We're slow going forward and slow to defend -- how on earth Stokes etc. can just walk into a shooting position I'll never know; it's ridiculous. It's the same old story with Hibs: defend with 5 (8 including the midfield) at the back and counter. How Andy Walker can eulogise about it I don't know, because it's negative, reactive football; unfortunately, we're struggling to cope with it at times. Add to that a sluggishness up front, and we're not doing well. I really can't see us turning it around. All I can hope for is Hibs tiring and struggling mentally with the situation.

I think he'll be a success, unfortunately. However, I still believe, looking back at his record, that his success has been built upon the work of others. His Watford and Reading spells were poor, but his success at Swansea was built upon Roberto Martinez' work (both first-team and youth set-up) and Liverpool upon Suarez. I think Warburton is better placed, as he can build a team from the ground up; not built upon the work of others.

That's quite inconsiderate: how are they going to watch the Final?

I think Bartley is a certainty. They tend to play a 4-4-2 (diamond), and can dominate the ball well with those three creative players, but against us they defend and hit on the counter in the 3-5-2. The two forwards can be dangerous against our back-line. From our point of view, I can see the patient option in Zelalem being favoured, or maybe the defensive eye (no pun intended) of Shiels -- Shiels can also strike a ball when space opens up too, which might be needed against a resolute defence.

Will it not be on the BBC Sport website? Perhaps someone else can confirm? I think with Freeview you can only get your 'nation' and 'region', but with Satellite etc. you can get every BBC channel throughout the UK.

Great read Frankie! I find the midfield 'headache' quite an interesting conundrum. We have three options, each bringing a distinct role to the position (Shiels, Zelalem and Law). I'm fascinated to discover which way Warburton goes.

This is interesting news. It seems to represent a real opportunity for the Old Firm to enter the English leagues, no?

In a proper game he would've tried to check inside, where he'd trip over the ball or kick it too far away from himself! He is much better playing on instinct.

He's an attacking midfielder (No.10), not a holding player.

We're doomed. I think Pete's got the line-up spot on. The real positive is having Waghorn back.

Pretty much what I thought too. However, he looks strong, able to hold up the ball and seems to like getting to the front post -- all qualities that we could use.

Decent player -- in fact, a very good player -- buzzing (or was) around the England National side but for a bad injury. He's a runner, always looking to get in behind. I find this deal unlikely, but then again, I thought Barton was unlikely!

I thought the rumours were absolute fantasy, but I'd be delighted to get him. He's not a beautiful bastard, but he is a bastard. Fans have always said that we need a bit of steel in the midfield; doesn't get much better than Joey.

Ball/Halliday I suspect -- certainly that position. I'm not sure if he'll be a first-team starter, or a squad player, though.

Rossiter seems to be a good prospect and would fit into the team seamlessly, so I'm delighted to get him. However, I would still like to see more immediate first-team players, as I'm not sure how prepared he will be for first-team action in a physical league. It's nice to see us do our work professionally: quickly and under the radar.

What's changed? Oh, yes, we humped the "champions"! I still don't know why they weren't in the previous squad.

I agree with this, and said as much in the post. An organiser would be of great benefit at set-pieces etc., and I'd hope to see such a CB bought in the summer. But, overall a Weir-type is not the ideal type of player we need. Again, yes, I agree, but a better quality CB would improve that immediately, being better at dominating opponents and better at passing. Just because they make mistakes doesn't mean they're the wrong type of player. I believe they are the right type of players (Kiernan and Wilson), just not of the required quality; acquiring similar, but better quality CB/CH in the summer would be better than buying a Weir-type player -- IMO, of course!

If true, it sounds like both teams were looking to attack, rather than just the one we're used to!

For me, it was new territory. A lot of the stuff sounded like conspiracy theories, so it was difficult to decide what was true and what wasn't. They say hindsight is 20/20.

We probably do need better quality in there for next season, but I think the main issue is how we play. Putting a Davie Weir -- or any other legend of the past -- in there is not going to eradicate our problems. Sure, we may be better organised at set-pieces etc., but we'll still be countered against with most of the team caught up-field. The great CB's of the past were at their best with bodies in front of them; we don't play like that. It's going to take a different type of player to see improvements, not a old-fashioned CB. Wilson and Weir played well together, but they also had a lot of help from the team, with FB's staying back and central-midfielders shielding; we don't have that now -- although we desperately need someone to shield (properly)! Both Wilson and Kiernan can look very good at times -- exactly what we need -- and then at other times unbelievably poor; it's a consistency problem with both of them. I think they are the right type of player. However, certainly a player that can command the defense would be of great benefit.

Never mind -- got it. 4 Rangers players in the team, with Burt the Captain.

What's the lineup?

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

I'd prefer they lose in the final!