Rousseau

5-0...wtf!?

He jumped over the advertising board and, arms outstretched, succumbed to the hands and hearts of the fans. The sheer joy or perhaps relief that compels a player to lose all inhibitions and jump into the grasping crowds I can appreciate as a fan, but the trust that must exist between player and crowd is harder to explain; even more so when you consider the animosity that had existed historically and more recently between them and this player. Kenny Miller has possibly experienced more with our club than another player would in their entire careers. He arrived fresh-faced with hopeful enthusiasm and left just as abruptly without so much as a groan or gasp from the fans. Crossing the old-firm divide caused relations to sour as he became the target of scathing vitriol. If you wear the blue jersey it's inconceivable that you'd ever consider wearing the hooped rag. He turned away from the dark side and, after another uneventful spell in England, returned under a chorus of boos. He quickly won us over with some of the best performances of his career, until again, he left, but this time we were gutted to see him go. A third spell soon beckoned and he arrived with the hope that his goals would fire us into the Premiership. His form since has been frustrating, mirroring the team in many respects. Kenny Miller's first spell showed promise and burned bright for a time, but quickly fizzed out. Miller arrived in 2000 for a then-modest £2 Million fee after winning the Scottish PFA Young Player Of The Year award. He started slowly and was restricted to a collection of substitute appearances. However, there was a spell in October/November of that year were he showed impressive form, scoring 9 goals in only 6 games, including a quite remarkable 5 goals in a single game against St Mirren. Unfortunately his form fizzled out and only one more goal followed during his first season, with injury, fall-outs with management and a certain Tore Andre Flo the main cause. Apart from that early golden spell, it was an average debut season. He finished with 35 appearances, the majority of which were from the bench. There were only 3 appearances the next season before he was loaned out to Wolverhampton, before moving permanently for £3 Million 2 months later. A spell across the old-firm divide--becoming only the third player to cross the divide since World War 2, following Alfie Conn and Maurice Johnston--threatened to sever relations for good. A £2 Million fee was agreed between Rangers and Derby, paving the way for his return, becoming the only player to cross the divide twice in the modern era. It was certainly not popular--especially after the antics after scoring against us at Celtic Park. There was an inherent hatred towards the man because of his actions, which was predictable and not entirely uncalled for: how much trust can one place in a man that had played for your most hated rival? Many fans tried to justify their opposition to his return by masquerading their hatred as objective judgement, suggesting he was a poor player, a 'headless chicken' and the like. At this time his critics were many and vociferous, and one always felt a chorus of boos was always on the tip-of-the-tongue. It takes a brave man to enter a hostile atmosphere willingly. Miller's second spell started the same as his first, slowly in terms of goal returns and, curiously, at home to FBK Kaunas. His critics abounded, but they were swiftly brought on side after Miller netted a brace in the first old-firm game of the season. A sublimely controlled volley into the far corner was the cause of wild celebrations as Rangers took the lead. It was telling that his first instinct was to whirl away and head straight for the jubilant fans, stewards flailing about trying to separate a magnetic attraction. His first season saw a disappointing return of 13 goals in 43 games, but that old-firm brace saw an upturn in his standing with fans. The second year saw a marginal improvement with 21 in 49 games, but crucially another 3 old-firm goals followed, including another brace. His final season was short, but was undoubtedly a purple patch in his whole career, notching 11 goals in his opening 7 games. He finished his season with 22 goals in 25 games, and, despite leaving for Turkey during the January transfer window, Miller finished top scorer in the SPL. The third spell has been nothing short of disappointing, and has in many ways mirrored the performance of the team as a whole: ageing, lacking confidence and lacking quality. Miller was tasked with spearheading a return to the top division. The first 15 games yielded 5 goals, and the team was merely ticking along without really setting the league alight. A goalless middle spell for Miller coincided with an atrocious spell for the team including 5 defeats and only 3 wins. The season started out with so much promise after an unbeaten season previously, and with a front pairing of Boyd and Miller it was expected to be more than enough to see us win the league at a canter. It wasn't to be. His critics resurfaced. Miller's game has evolved over the years. When he began it was all about pure speed; he was light-weight, but his speed could get him past anyone. His second spell saw him mature and become a lot stronger. Miller's purple patch in that final half-season saw him prowl the shoulders of defenders; he still had the pace, but his power during this spell was phenomenal, out-muscling many a defender to slot the ball into the net. Miller's first touch has always been lacking, but he always had the raw pace and strength to mitigate this failing. Unfortunately, these attributes have somewhat left him this year as his age has finally caught up with him. The last few months have seen an upturn in the performance of the team, and crucially, the results. A third place finish condemned us to the play-offs as our only route to promotion. The games against our nearest rivals in the league were big games; not so much in themselves because we couldn't overturn Hibs, but more for our own momentum. Big players step up in big games. Kenny Miller was one of those big players, scoring 4 goals in 11 games since the 2-0 victory at Easter Road in late March. In itself this is not a great record; it's not bad, but it's not great. What is great is the importance of the goals. The goal against Hibs sealed a win that gave us a chance of finishing second. A goal against Champions Hearts gave us another morale-boosting win, and another goal against Hearts followed as we drew at Tynecastle--disappointing considering we were 2-0 up with 10 minutes to go, but remarkable in the course of an extremely poor season. Miller's critics and detractors abound--and I have been one of them--as he has been symptomatic of a team that has failed in so many ways this season. He's an easy scapegoat. His pace and power may have left him, and his first touch has never been there, but he reads the game well and his use of the ball has been good. Kenny Miller is a big game player, and his experience and goals have been invaluable. Who else would have caressed the ball with the outside of his foot to win us a cagey play-off game against Hibs? Who else would we trust to take that chance? He jumped over the advertising board and, arms outstretched, succumbed to the hands and hearts of the fans. The trust exists because Miller has done it time and time again. Big players step up.

Is it wrong that I kind-of like the sound of it?

2 good results, surely?

It's certainly a long shot, but it can't be any less than he was on at Twente? He's the right type IMO.

What about Shteve McLaren? Good coach; looks like he's on his way out at Derby. Cheeky text/call from King?

I think most Rangers fans would agree, but I had to laugh at the above. Irony?

McCoist's managerial tenure was undoubtedly a failure; nothing more, nothing less. He shouldn't be criticised for it; he was doing what he thought was best. It just so happened to be a failure. Moreover, it shouldn't overshadow what he did as a player. There is a tension between what we want to believe about McCoist and his actions. We want to believe McCoist is a Rangers man. A Rangers man wouldn't take a salary; McCoist is taking a Salary, so McCoist can't be a Rangers man. I don't think we can reconcile those two issues. We want to see things as 'black and white': he's either a Rangers man and so wouldn't take his salary, or not a Rangers man and will take his salary; Angel or Devil. However, perhaps he's both? Perhaps he is a Rangers man, but also feels entitled to his salary; legally, he is entitled to it. I would like to echo the sentiments of others: we should wait for his side of the story before criticising, no matter how it looks. It's not a 'black and white' situation, no matter how much we think it is. No fan has ever been in that position.

The above from Calscot is absolutely key for me. The other points were spot-on also, but they're mostly a formality -- hopefully! What I don't want is for us to go back to what we were doing before: outspending Scottish sides to win the League but get nowhere in Europe. We need to go down a different route. We need to be a bit more intelligent in the way we spend our money. I'd like to see us adopt a more Ajax, Barcelona-type model; where we develop our youngsters technically so they (and the club) can compete with European teams; where we start playing a better brand of football. Scottish football is stuck in the past. We should take the lead.

I actually agree that Vuckic shouldn't play wide-midfield, but not for the not-tracking-back accusation. I don't think it necessarily matters whether a wide-midfielder tracks-back if we have three in midfield because there will be cover; in a 4-4-2 wide-players tracking-back is a must (Man City really suffered as a result). Nevertheless, I think Vuckic is most effective when he's further up the pitch, so, for me, he must play off a striker, or at the tip of a diamond; at the very least in the attacking third (LW, RW, AM, SS). I'd like to see him more central, perhaps even in a midfield three, with a free-er role. Shiels suffered out wide but has been a lot better since being played in central midfield. I believe he actually started his career as a out-and-out Striker. Perhaps we should try him up front?

We've only ever had Scottish Managers (except for two), and, omitting the 2008 UEFA cup run, they've hardly been outstanding in Europe. The football was poor. It depends what you define a 'good run'. I would suggest it's not going to be exactly challenging for titles. We should have an infrastructure in place to challenge for EU titles, or at the least get as deep as possible. FC Porto are a relatively small side, but punch above their weight in Europe. We seem to have 2 standards: one for domestic competitions, where we expect to beat everyone playing good football; then one for Europe, where we expect to defend games out and try to 'sneak it'. If the latter standard creeps into our domestic game it's 'not worthy of the jersey', but in Europe it's a tactical masterclass. Now, it may be pragmatic, but I want something better for our team. We need 1 standard where we play decent football and are able to match any European opponent. I think a Scottish manager is only going to get us so far as they are dependent on the quality of player, whereas a proper 'coach' (continental or otherwise) would be able to get us playing a decent brand of football, with players developed to be technically as good as most European opponents. (Sorry GS, that wasn't really aimed at you, just the first paragraph; it just sort of spilled out!)

Aye, true. However, we only beat Alloa once in 4/5 games so you can hardly say it was slackness, whereas we actually have a not too bad record against those two--relatively speaking!.

Alright: "I don't think it was overly negative, just pragmatic--we won; they [...] got a sniff." They went gung-ho, but we could also have scored at the end on the break--if it wasn't for some abysmal ball-control.

Looked like we moved to a 5-3-2 to me: Miller up front, Vuckic in behind (5-3-1-1?), and Smith playing in midfield. I think we were back-to-wall because of how Queens were playing, not so much because we were playing with an extra defender. It may have played a part, but we've played with 5 at the back and dominated possession before. I don't think it was overly negative, just pragmatic--we won; they barely got a sniff.

Bringing on a defender to hold a lead is nothing new--Mourinho does it week-in week-out, bringing on Zouma or Mikel to sit in midfield alongside Matic. Negative, or Pragmatic?

Damn! We might have to play Alloa again next year (the epitome of a bogey side)!

I though his strategy (I'm calling it strategy rather than tactics because I think tactics should be how our players link with each other) was spot-on against Queens: 4-4-2 diamond meant we outnumbered them in the middle, and then we attacked on the flank where they had only one WB. Where we let ourselves down is the way we link together (tactics)--passing to create chances etc--which was poor, and then we couldn't take the chances we created--It would have been a totally different game if Clark had scored that early chance. We need to take our chances, and for that I think we need Boyd on the pitch rather than Miller, or Clark (but Clark should remain because we need his pace to stretch opposition defenses).

I doubt he'd be interested--as Frankie says "Advocaat is largely a chequebook manager and he won't get much funds returning to Rangers." However, what about as a DoF? I like the idea of a safe pair of hands, but with lots of experience internationally, not just in Scotland.

I can't believe after one game we are implying Clark is better than Bell!? One good game against Rangers does not mean he is world-class; and it's not as if we tested him much, apart from Miller's point-blank header which I don't think he knew too much about going by the unorthodox technique of palming it onto his face then out. Bell is a decent shot-stopper, but he is lacking in presence. Can someone not just punt balls into the box and he can practice stepping-out to catch them? It seem we just accept players for what they are; can we not coach them to do better?

Yogi seems like a bit of an idiot. I get the feeling he hasn't really made that ICT squad, more like it was brought through under Butcher with young players--good ones at that--and he's just perhaps let them play to their strengths. They haven't really set the League on fire; there's been no real progression IMO, ,ore like Dundee Utd and Hamilton have gone backwards. It's the Cup run that's got everybody in a fuss; anyone can have a good cup run one year and then get knocked out in the 3rd round the next. The real indicator of ability is league form: they've done well, but I think it's based on the squad of young players, rather than Yogi's input. I wouldn't say no to Calderwood--he's got international experience and, like Pete says, he knows the Dutch market. He wouldn't be my first choice though.

I don't think I could take more Scottish highlights.

I was disappointed at the time to see him leave. I thought he had something, and was certainly young enough to develop. Another poor decision from McCoist. I believe he scored quite a few times for Cowdenbeath in the Championship, which, if so, could should have meant he would have been ok with us. However, I do wonder if we are ever really set up properly to take advantage of these players, like Cowdenbeath obviously were?

Yes, you're right. Perhaps narrowing the Championship group and extending the Europa League and Relegation play-off group? But then we'd still end up with meaningless games, but then again we get meaningless games now. We're trying to find a 'perfect' system, when perhaps we just need to find a 'better' one.

What about a variation on the Belgian Pro League: 16 team Regular Season; Championship play-off (1-6?); Europa League Play-off (7-14?); and a Relegation Play-off. Its quite complicated but everyone is playing for something and it appears to be quite exciting. Perhaps a variation on this? An increased league is what most people want--it's a bit 'same-y' after a while with 10 teams (and even 12).

We're obviously not going down the DoF route, which I would've preferred, but actually bringing in a manager (although I think he is more of a coach type?) who has the ability and track record of developing a club from the bottom-up could be beneficial over the next few years. Once we have a better 'base', we can then think about new structures.