Rousseau

Quite clear why Warburton felt the need to postpone games if we lost a couple of players in the past -- only 5 players on the bench!

Diddums...

The fact that his boyhood team is being questioned is pointless -- typical Scottish 'journalism'. If he wants to play for us and he his talented enough (not in that order), then bears will not have any issue at all. Looks like a decent prospect. It's nice to see us get linked with these guys, rather than the 'experienced', journeyman -types. If he's good enough, get him signed! We can never have enough young prospects!

Can we not just give it to all of them? McKay for YPOTY, and It would be Wallace for POTY in my opinion -- too many good contributors to give them both to McKay!

Undoubtedly mistakes were made, but it's how we react to them; we have done rather well in that regard thus far. It's a strong side; a probable side. It's amazing how the squad looks now. Before, 'lean' and 'tight' were bandied about, and although it is still those things, we actually have some good options up front. McKay and King are missing, but the squad still looks strong. Quality over quantity.

I don't necessarily want to see us scoring 2 and then defending it out. I agree we should have tightened up when they came back into it, but that's difficult to put across during the game (or without a team talk at half-time, for example). To be fair, we have learned in the past to be less gung-ho; Tavernier and Wallace are not as 'rampaging' as they used to be. It was reminiscent of the previous game: I am annoyed that we didn't have a plan to protect Tavernier. I'm hopeful it'll be rectified. I'm not sure I want to see players necessarily taking that type of responsibility during the game; it's up to them to implement what the manager wants; otherwise we have every player doing whatever they want. I'm all for a player 'directing' and organising, but we need a cohesive game-plan, not several players doing what they want, or going against the manager. I'll admit that's not Wallace's strength (directing). He seems to prefer just implementing what the manager wants, which I actually like, but I'll concede that we need a player that is willing to direct a little. (Perhaps not the best time for this particular article!)

The article wasn't really a response to that game, merely a response to his slight shift in position etc., but I agree with you. The changes made weren't bad -- O'Halloran, Forrester and Clark in theory don't slow the game down -- but I thought the main issue was mentality. We thought it was over; we weren't as sharp and, as the manager said, took too many touches. We can learn from it, as the team has done many times this season, and move on. As for Captain material, I'm not sure the 'ranter and raver' is really necessary any more. We have a few players that will hurt after a game, and I'm sure they'll have words with each other, but I don't think taking someone by the scruff of the neck is really necessary. Wallace is more of a leader by example. His understanding of the philosophy is important and beneficial. He did put a shoulder round Burt when he came on, so he does take that type of responsibility. Getting wound-up and angry in games can benefit some, but I'm sure for many others that is detrimental. I prefer the calmness he brings to the game and dressing room; he leads by example, providing the basis for the players to carry out their jobs on the pitch. I was just impressed by his self-improvement off the pitch and his tactical/positional switch. It was the managers doing, but it takes a player willing and with a tactical/positional awareness to implement it.

Following on from the excellent Gersnet article on Lee Wallace earlier this month, I thought it would be appropriate to add to it with an overview of the tactical progress our captain has made over the past few years. Bought as a rampaging full-back, Lee Wallace has transformed himself into a Guardiola-esque full-back, demonstrating a tactical awareness all too lacking in the Scottish game. The thoughtful full-back arrived on the cusp of our demotion, and had to show loyalty and determination at a time of great adversity. The young Wallace was born in Edinburgh in 1987, and like many youngsters, he would gravitate towards football. Showing promise, he eventually made his way through the Hearts Youth Academy, making his first-team debut at 17. The Hearts Academy has been relatively successful over the past decade or so, churning out talented youngsters who would go on to play at a decent level. Early on he was showing the raw running ability that would become his trademark, when in 2006 he would score his first goal for Hearts in the Scottish Cup by running a full 70-yards to stroke the ball into the net. It was this powerful running game that brought the 23 year-old to the attention of McCoist's Rangers in 2011. Tactically lacking, McCoist always would prefer the powerful, athletic footballers over the next few years; the rampaging full-back fit the bill perfectly. Signed for £1.5m, Wallace would face strong competition at left-back, with stand-out Sasa Papac ahead in the pecking-order. He was not put-off however, saying "I'll be working hard [...] to push my way into the team and capture the success". Wallace was aware of the challenge, and was only looking forward to learning: "These are top players [...] I can learn from. Training with these players every day can only benefit me and that's what I'm looking for. I'll certainly be working hard to try to progress into the team". Unfortunately for Wallace, this would be the highest level he would play at for quite some time, as Rangers were unceremoniously demoted by the SFA, who hypocritically cited "sporting integrity". He could easily have left along with the other first-team players -- the ones he so looked forward to learning from -- but chose to stay faithful to the club; one of only three first-team players that did so. The full-back would devote himself to regaining Rangers' rightful place at the top of Scottish Football, and looked to improve himself as a footballer. (It seems many of the deserters could have learned something from him...) To become a more complete player, the relatively young Wallace would put himself through his coaching badges. Keen on Frank DeBoer, he did his thesis on Ajax, assessing their strengths and weaknesses, looking to understand their philosophy and way of playing. He unashamedly describes himself as a "geek" in these matters, stating he is "relentless [and] borderline insane when it comes to studying and research". His first choice subject for his thesis was Barcelona, but a friend got there first, so he had to settle for doing a little personal work on them, reading several books on Guardiola. Wallace is never happier than when studying team formations and philosophies, which can only stand himself and Rangers in good stead for the future -- the only negative being he was willing to give such analysis to Neil Lennon's Celtic in preparation for their defeat against Ajax! Displaying loyalty, tactical awareness and a desire for self-improvement, Wallace was named captain by Mark Warburton. Following in the footsteps of greats like Greig, Butcher and Gough, Wallace would wear the armband with pride, leading in his own way. Never a 'ranter and raver', Wallace looked to bring an air of calm to a distressed dressing room, seeking to lead by example. In the modern-era, an understanding of the teams philosophy is key; Wallace seeks to lead by demonstrating this understanding, ensuring Rangers lead the way, suggesting "[the] other teams should be watching us". Signed for his qualities as a rampaging full-back, a mid-season 'crisis' brought a halt to this 'to-hell-with-the-consequences' running game. After a series of disappointing results where too many goals and points were conceded, Warburton sought to tighten up the defence, admitting that Rangers were a little too gung-ho. As a result, the full-backs were more disciplined in their positioning. It is testament to his tactical awareness that Wallace can adapt to a more disciplined game, whilst still providing a strong attacking threat. A subtle positional shift by Warburton has allowed Wallace to utilise this running game in a new way. As in Chess, the centre is the main zone; control the centre of the pitch, you control the game. The reason for this is quite simple: the choices are greater in the middle of the pitch. Theoretically, if a player has the ball on the wing he is restricted by the touchline into only having a 180-degree view of the game. Whereas a player in the centre theoretically has a 360-degree view of the game. Simple maths. Of course, receiving the ball in the middle is difficult because there are more defenders to block the way to goal; loosing the ball in the centre is also often more dangerous. Wing-play is the opposite. A player receives the ball with less pressure, with only a full-back to press him. The danger of loosing the ball out wide is less dangerous because you have your defensive players set up centrally. Half-spaces provide the best of both worlds. The half-spaces are the channels, the space in between the centre column and flank. By taking up positions in the half-spaces, a player can simultaneously occupy a more central position, therefore having a greater view of the game in front of him, and move away from the more congested central defensive zone. This opens-up the diagonal passes. A typical defensive position will see a 4-4-2 zonal defense. If the attacking team move to the right flank, the defensive team shuffles across. If the attacking team move the ball to the centre, the defensive team tightens-up. Moving the ball horizontally gains little territory, but forces the defensive team to move alongside; vertical passes gain a lot of territory, but the defensive team merely has to drop deeper. By occupying the half-spaces, a player can open up diagonal passes (both short and long) to gain territory, which in turn forces the opposition into more complex moves, both horizontal and back. It is with these ideas that Guardiola has tuned his full-backs to target the half-space. Bayern Munich's Bernat, Lahm and Alaba will start at full-back, but instead of drifting wide, they will drift inside to take the half-space. This has the effect of freeing space for the natural winger, dominating the centre of the pitch and providing more diagonal passes. Lahm has made this position his own. Over the last few games Wallace has incorporated this tactical awareness into his game, taking up position in the half-space so he is effective playing centre-midfield. A typically Scottish response to this change in position was "Lahm eat your heart out". By doing so, Wallace allows Rangers to dominate the centre, strengthen the middle column against any counter-attack and provide more passing options for our possession game. Moreover, his running power is used more centrally within the half-spaces, providing a difficult defensive task for any defense: do you man-mark leaving the gaps for Holt and Miller to exploit? Or do you play zonal and allow him to penetrate directly through your defense? The club, bereft of many of our recent stars after 2012, has in many ways found a better one; one that espouses all the qualities of a modern, tactically proficient player with the grit and determination to develop, and to always look to the future. Wallace's raw running ability steered his game towards that of a rampaging full-back, but his self-confessed 'geekiness' and constant need for self-improvement has seen him develop into a cultured, Guardiola-esque full-back, demonstrating a tactical awareness all too lacking in the Scottish game. His loyalty and understanding in the face of great adversity for our club has endeared him to many. The thoughtful Captain, leading by example, is a modern-day full-back.

He'd be a decent option, but I seriously doubt Hibs will sell -- maybe if we are in different leagues? What's his contract like?

In theory, yes, but if he has the ability to contribute and fit into our way of playing, his inexperience is irrelevant. I'd prefer permanent deals, however.

It's fair to criticise Kiernan for his role in the second goal, but IMO he did the right thing: trying to control the ball to play forward; he just mis-controlled it, letting them in. If he did what he intended, then we'd be saying he was composed under pressure. Of course, sometimes the best thing is to just clear your lines. There is no doubt he has improved a lot and there's no doubt he was culpable for the goal, but it doesn't then follow that he's gone backwards; he only mis-controlled the ball, which any player can do.

That would be giving it context. So yes, £15bn is not meaningless in that context. Even then, that's not the whole story because Greece has a much bigger debt. It's a bad figure, but it doesn't mean we are a basket-case. It does suggest that Scotland would need to cut spending or raise taxes to cover that unsustainable deficit -- something the SNP seem unwilling to accept.

You're far too eloquent Cal. I agree the £15 billion is meaningless out of context, but I think the point is that it's an unsustainable % of GDP (just like it is for the UKs deficit). Whereas the UK have been trying to reduce it, the SNP haven't done much, and it's actually increased. (I think they'd rather spend as much as they can, blaming Westminster for any problems, and taking the credit for any successes; but that's just a groundless personal opinion.) Of course Oil has a lot to do with it, but we can't base an entire economy on one source of revenue. (And we can't argue 'what-ifs': the Norway model would have been great if we (UK) had the sense to do it.) NS admitted she'd do the same as the UK (austerity) when they (SNP) clearly like to spin the anti-austerity line. Perhaps 'proves' is too strong a word, but it surely suggests Scotland would be in difficulty in the event of a Yes vote? Spending would need to be cut, or taxes increased. Simple. I'm not suggesting we're a basket-case, but they (SNP) can't keep lying that we'd be better off. We wouldn't. (And you can move the goal-posts all you want, but I believe they did say we'd be around £500 better off immediately -- I'm not entirely sure on the number, but it was something like that.) I think it's a 'lie' in the sense that the figures don't really prove the alternative. I think it's idealistic bluster.

That was the best and worst of games. The first 20-30 minutes were sublime: the running off the ball, the through balls were just terrific. We should have been 3-0 up if the linesman had his contacts in. And then the second-half was poor. We just seemed to stop running. Then a fluky wonder-goal brings them back into it. Our confidence then just fled. Overall, we did it to ourselves. I'm not sure if that's better, because it's something we can work on or not. However, to say it was all us is doing Falkirk a disservice. I'm too annoyed to look at what they did second-half, but I recall Hippolyte coming on to play wide to make a 4-5-1, shutting off the midfield a little more. I also think they dropped deeper also; the first-half they played quite a high line. We did give it away, but Falkirk did the basic things well. Houston is a very good manager -- would he like a job alongside MW and DW?! We're all annoyed, but quite frankly we should have won that game -- how many times have we said that? -- which somewhat negates the bad feeling because it's something we've done to ourselves, rather than being out-played by an opponent. It's a bad result but it won't/shouldn't affect the winning of the league. Acknowledge the mistakes, correct them, and move on.

I think the lie is that they can peddle the anti-austerity line, but then admit that they'd reduce our deficit by "doing the same as Westminster". NS was reluctant to concede that they would have to cut spending or increase tax. It seems they are more interested in peddling a party line rather than dealing with the issues. Perhaps it's not a lie per se, but it's certainly hypocrisy. Nobody is "gleefully extolling the £15b deficit". It merely proves that an independent Scotland would be in serious trouble if there was a Yes vote. I believe the SNP party line was that Scotland would be better off, so was that a lie? Or maybe just a misinterpretation of the facts? Either way, it doesn't lend much credibility to their party line. They were also suggesting that the referendum was a 'once in a lifetime' thing, but we now have NS announcing that they are working towards another -- I can't remember the exact announcement details -- was that then a lie? The SNP's record is not encouraging: high unemployment, failures in NHS and Education, and, of course, the deficit figures. They keep suggesting they're doing what's best for Scotland -- which is a silly statement because what are the others doing? -- but the figures would suggest they're not. They keep painting this rosy picture of an independent Scotland, but the facts do not align with that picture -- point it out and you're "talking Scotland down". Again, is that a lie, or a misinterpretation? It is very frustrating that they seem to be beyond criticism.

If you're still asking that question, then you've already made up your mind IMO. Surely it's for the SNP to make the case for independence rather than the other way around? Does Rab get the $1million or are you donating it to the site?

According to the all-knowing Transfermarkt he is a Defensive-Midfielder. I suspect if he's being called a 'winger', then it must be because he's been playing at Full-back. I suppose if one isn't watching their games regularly, Full-back can be easily misinterpreted as winger. He'll be a Defensive-Midfielder for us, and perhaps as a stop-gap for any position along the back line if and when required.

I agree defining Messi as a striker is wrong, but I don't think he's a midfielder; He's more of a winger/wide-forward/Second-Striker. They play with a front-three of Messi, Suarez and Neymar. Suarez is usually the main striker, but Neymar and Messi are on either side, drifting about. I wouldn't class either as midfielders; they are forwards.

Thanks. I missed the game on Friday, and I'm now sorry I did if that was the case. I suppose it indicates the progress Warburton is trying to impress on the team. It's not just a static way of playing, but something more progressive. Very interesting; I need to find the highlights.

That's where inverted wingers and false-nines come into it; the same position, but individuals playing it differently give the opposition something else to think about. Our basic model/system of playing will remain the same, as will the opposition's zonal defense, but by allowing players to play different roles, we mix it up, giving them something else to think about. Again, you do want a settled front-three that can do it week-in, week-out, but, while it's possible, it gives the opposition more opportunities to find a solution for it. I do want a strong, pacey striker with two good wingers, but I also think that having a wide-forward in there and a false-nine in there doesn't do any harm. Again, it's good to have different options. We know how teams are going to play against us -- sit back and hit on the counter -- it's boring and predictable. It's up to us to find a solution. I don't think there is just one solution (the string, pacey striker), but several ways we can go about it. The technical deficiency in the few Premiership games I've seen is astonishing. It's Sunday League but with 'better' players. We can do the same, but with even better quality players that we should be able to attract, or go down the more technical route, carving a better path for Scottish football. I want to see us do something different, rather than the standard Scottish formula.

I think it will, but I also don't think we're challenging Celtic with the squad we have at the moment. We do need extra quality added throughout the side IMO; not wholesale changes, but good additions in certain areas.

I agree, but I've not mentioned Suarez. Are you mixing him up with Sanchez?

I can't argue with that!

I can't argue with you there. I agree, the majority of our goals will come from a central striker, and I certainly think that's what he wants. I'd also quite like the variety of a false-nine though, as a back-up. I agree -- he's not that bothered about the opposition for that! -- but is that not a tactical decision too? Bringing in a certain mix of players to keep the opposition guessing?

He played for C*****. One game though. Decent Defensive-Midfielder/Centre-back. I think we have other options there though.