Rousseau

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.

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'.)