Rousseau

My point was that he has... 'qualities'. He's quick, but can't cross, and can't beat a man, so perhaps we can utilise him in another position? He could be useful coming off the bench late on in games. Again, my point is that if players don't fit in the structure/formation/system, they're deemed not good enough. Now, that may be the case, but he had to show something to get this far, surely?

He's got a good touch. I was impressed with the little I saw, but that's my point: players that don't conform to the Scottish stereotype of 'big, tall and strong' are deemed not good enough, but I don't agree -- they're not being used properly.

I don't think it's 'anti-'football' at all. It's football. Like you say: intelligent game-plans. We don't have a game-plan. Mourinho is all about winning. Nothing wrong with that at all.

I read this interesting article on so-called 'anti-football'. I'm sure their is a divide in fans as regards to the way football is played. There is a divide between those that liked Spain's/Bareclona's passy-passy (Tikka-Takka ?), and those who thought it was boring; and those who think Chelsea are 'boring', and those who don't. ------------------------------------- When a team are 13 points clear at the top of the table and have been manifestly the best side in the league that season, perhaps it’s only natural that others should look for sticks with which to beat them. In Chelsea’s case, it’s because some apparently consider them boring, a point Arsenal fans made with gusto during last Sunday’s 0-0 draw – you hope, given their past, with at least some semblance of irony. José Mourinho’s riposte this week was magnificent. “People talk about style and flair but what is that?” he said. “Sometimes I ask myself about the future, and maybe the future of football is a beautiful, green grass carpet without goals, where the team with more ball possession wins the game. The way people analyse style and flair is to take the goals off the pitch.” But then there are many who find possession football dull – as demonstrated by the countless complaints about Spain as they won the World Cup and second European Championship. Even allowing for the fact that the majority prefer attack to defence while respecting the need for some balance between the two, boring is often in the eye of the beholder. Nobody could realistically argue, for instance, that Chelsea’s Champions League semi-final performances against Barcelona in 2012 were boring, and yet in both legs they sat deep and denied Barça space in the final third – just as they did against Manchester United the weekend before last. The piece last week in which I pointed out that Mourinho is better at shutting games down than anybody else at the highest level – indeed, pretty much unique in doing so – wasn’t intended as criticism or complaint, although plenty took it as such. The analogy to Satan in Paradise Lost referred to his relationship with Barcelona and to his apparent relish for his role as the antipode to their style of football – and, as anyone who’s read the poem will know, one of its fascinations is the struggle Milton has to ensure Satan never becomes the hero, even though he is far more engaging than pretty much all of those aligned on the side of Heaven, who often come across as self-righteous or priggish (and have the omnipotent on their side, which rather dilutes any sense of their personal drama). But the whole notion of there being a “right” way to play is baffling. Who decides? Some like skeins of neat passes; some like the clatter of centre-back and centre-forward attacking a cross; some like rapid counterattacks; some even can admire a well-organised defence. The term “anti-futbol” to suggest that there was a way of playing so far removed from the “right” way as to be its antithesis was coined in Argentina in the 50s for the Vélez Sarsfield side of Vittorio Spinetto. They were not one of the five grandes of the Argentinian game, but became renown for the way they battled. They worked hard, were organised and disciplined and that created resistance in a country in which footballers were supposed to stagger from the tango halls to the stadium, pausing only for a chicken casserole and a restorative bottle of malbec. By the end of the 60s the term had taken on far more sinister connotations, thanks largely to the Estudiantes of Osvaldo Zubeldía. They started off as organised grafters, but soon became noted for their dirty tricks, winding up opposition players, spitting on them and punching them when the referee’s back was turned, even, according to some reports, stabbing opponents with pins. Their violence reached a nadir when three players were arrested following a particularly brutal Intercontinental Cup final against Milan in 1969. That was anti-football, a systematic attempt to despoil, to prevent the other team from playing by any means necessary. When moral codes are debated in football, this point seems key: there is a major difference between cheating and playing defensively. But even then there are difficulties in defining precisely what cheating consists of. Every British team that toured South America before the second world war ran into the same issue: they found opponents who were happy to obstruct them but were outraged by a shoulder-charge or a clattering tackle. The same ideology lies behind the modern British aversion to diving and waving imaginary cards and, though it is declining, the demand that players must be able to “take a tackle”. Which is more detrimental to the game, Diego Maradona punching the ball past Peter Shilton or Terry Fenwick kicking lumps out of him all game? There are fundamentalists on both sides, from those who believe players should do anything in their power to win to those such as Paul Tisdale, who won’t let his Exeter City side take the ball into the corner to run down the clock in the closing minutes. However stringent and detailed a set of laws, there will always be grey areas and it is within them that a personal morality must be negotiated. But none of that makes defending wrong. Anti-futbol is an unhelpful term in that it has two quite distinct meanings: the football of organisation and effort on the one hand and the football of Machiavelli on the other. Both are pragmatic, but only one is immoral. Mourinho’s Porto often did dive, waste time and feign injury but his Chelsea, while far from perfect, are no worse than anybody else in the Premier League. Where they do differ is in their capacity to defend, to play without the ball, to manage games – and even then, as Mourinho said, they’ve only started to play like that since fatigue set in in January. The only real doubt is whether, after all the investment they’ve had over the past decade, Chelsea should be producing something more overtly thrilling – but that is a matter for Roman Abramovich, who apparently tired of Mourinho’s astringency in his first spell, but is seemingly prepared to accept something more functional this (although you do wonder whether his art-dealer girlfriend would prefer something more obviously aesthetically pleasing), and Chelsea fans, who presumably, aren’t yet sated enough with trophies to start insisting they win in a particular way. Everybody else should probably just accept that defending is part of football and football, despite what people keep saying, isn’t an entertainment – or rather, it’s a specific form of entertainment in which the struggle of one side against the other is paramount. If it weren’t, tens of thousands would turn out on street corners to watch freestylers; Mourinho’s satirical proposal to play without goals and measure possession wouldn’t go far enough: football would be played by one team only, doing tricks around cones and being marked, like ice dancing or diving by a panel of judges. It is part of football’s richness that there is such a variety of ways to play it and it’s an oddity of the present that so many follow the Barcajax route. But as Jürgen Klopp, Diego Simeone and Mourinho have proved, possess and press isn’t the only way. If Chelsea fans are annoyed by the jibes, they might remember that no side that defends poorly is ever described as boring. http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/apr/30/mourinho-chelsea-maradona-boring-immoral-football

He could finish the job he started 15 years ago as DoF!

I see where you are coming from. I'll admit I haven't seen them, apart from once or twice, but they still don't really excite me. There is history of League One sides doing really well on their return to Championship, but fall away afterwards. If they could have done it a few years in a row, then maybe -- obviously their leaving so that's not going to happen.

There is a leather ball in my hand, slightly smaller than a clenched fist, dark red and shiny, with a white seam around the centre, and a stamped gold logo on each side. It is a cricket ball. My fingers and wrist go through all the different bowling positions: the middle and index finger parallel with the seam and thumb tucked underneath for a fast delivery; index, middle and ring finger nestling the ball, this time with the seam perpendicular and thumb held away for a leg spin delivery. There are almost as many wrist and finger positions as there are Overs in a One-Day International, and each bowler has his own idiosyncrasies. James Anderson has just become England's record Wicket-taker, overtaking Sir Ian "Beefy" Botham. Anderson is not the fastest bowler around, nor is he the most influential, nor parsimonious. What he does have is a technique unique to him. After a few successful early years he was pulled out because it was thought his style would eventually cause trouble for his back -- his style was 'corrected'. Then in 2006 he broke down with a stress fracture -- the very injury the tweaking was trying to prevent. After a few years he reverted to his natural style, and what followed was success after success. And the rest, they say, is history. You may be wondering how this relates to football, and more specifically, to Rangers. The answer is: Style. Cricketers have an inordinate variety of techniques and idiosyncrasies. Batsmen in particular, being the centre of attention, are more noticeable. The great batsmen of history are revered for their ability and style -- Sachin Tendulkar is worshiped like a god in India -- but there is now a distinct lack of them. There are more coaches in the game than ever before, but they are more concerned with producing better and harder hitters, than they are with artistry. Their styles have been praised but never preached. The best worked things out for themselves. If I were to ask people for a list of the best football players in the world at the minute, I could pretty much guarantee that those lists would invariably include the following: Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar, Suarez, Rooney etc. What they all have in common is a certain unique style, an idiosyncrasy. Messi is small and nimble, the ball never leaves his feet as he weaves past defenders; Suarez has a bit of a street footballer about him, as he explodes past players allowing the ball to deflect any which way; Ronaldo has an immense physicality, a game build on speed and an incredibly powerful shot; Neymar glides, and has the tricks; Rooney also looks like he has developed his game on the streets, but also possesses a deftness of touch and an impressive range of passing. They each have an individual game that they know inside out, and they don't try to do what they're not good at. When I come to look at Scottish players, whether that's in the Leagues or the National team, I see one homogeneous group. There is no significant difference between each player, and there is certainly no style. One has to look very closely to see any difference at all. It seems like they have been 'developed' to be bigger, stronger, faster; like modern cricketers, they're coached to hit harder, but not allowed to develop their own styles. And this is prevalent at Rangers. There have been a good selection of young players coming through Auchenhowie over the past few years. McLeod, Murdoch, Crawford, Aird, Gallagher, McKay, Walsh, Hardie and Stoney. Of those, only McLeod and Murdoch have been able to flourish -- Walsh, Hardie and Crawford have been given a few more games recently, but I shall overlook them for now. I think the reason they have been able to flourish is that they have been able to fit into the prevailing structure: their natural game has allowed them to fit. Murdoch is like nothing we have currently, but has been able to slot into the defensive-midfield role without much disruption. The same goes for McLeod; he has a natural talent, and was asked to fit into the left of midfield, which he was also able to do without much disruption. However, whereas Murdoch has slot in quite comfortably -- his natural style suits that role -- McLeod's game was hindered by the way the management used him, and was never used to his full potential. It's as if they have been shoehorned into the structure: if they can fit, they'll play, but if they can't, they're not good enough. The problem with this is that it overlooks their natural game, their idiosyncrasies. McKay clearly has a lot of talent, but has been sidelined for the past few seasons, simply because he doesn't fit the Scottish mold of being big, strong and fast. It's an outdated view that must be corrected. McKay's focus may be a problem, but he's not the first player to have a bit of an attitude. Even the best players have had problems, where their natural game has not quite fit with their teams system. Andrea Pirlo started out as an Attacking-Midfielder at Brescia, and then moved to Inter Milan but couldn't break into the first-team; it was only once he moved to AC Milan where Ancelotti gave him a run in the team as a deep-lying playmaker that his skills were fully recognised. Henry played out wide with Monaco and Juventus to average success, but it was only when Arsene Wenger moved him up front that his world-class ability was revealed. (Please bare with me for a moment, for I am about to mention Fraser Aird in the same breath as Pirlo and Henry.) Pirlo and Henry are two examples of players only being able to show their true ability once their natural game and idiosyncrasies matched with their position on the park -- could the same be true of Aird? Aird was put out wide by McCoist because he is quick, and that seemed to fit a wingers role. However, because he is quick does it then follow that he is a winger? I don't think so. I think that is a Scottish mentality, where the player fits the system rather than the system fits the players. Would Pirlo have been dropped back into a deep-lying playmaker role at a Scottish club? Would Henry have been moved up front? I doubt it -- they would have been shoehorned into a role that would not match their natural game. Aird is not naturally tricky; but he is quick and he has a good shot on him, so could he perhaps play up front, on the shoulder of the defender? Who knows? I believe every player has a natural game, and that every player has a position or role that suits them best. Every player must be allowed to develop their natural style; every player must be allowed to do what they do best. The fans have a part to play. We must be patient, and allow our young Rangers time to express themselves. We also need a coach that will give our young players freedom to develop their own style. It is certainly not something anyone can teach, but it can be encouraged. James Anderson become England's record wicket-taker not because he is the fastest bowler, nor because he is the greatest, but because he played his own natural, idiosyncratic game.

Well, they'd still have to pay full price, but ST holders would get in for 1p! Same situation, but SPFL get less, which is always good. I see your point though.

Yes, but the Board have already suggested allowing ST holders in for free, so they can obviously cover it.

I'm telling you: 1p per ticket!

Understandably angry but I agree with what Martin Keown said in the article: 'Carver is out of his depth' Former Arsenal centre-back Martin Keown on Final Score was not impressed with the Newcastle manager. "When you're in a position like Newcastle are in, you have to stick together, but John Carver is digging players out. There was a lack of desire granted but he is out of his depth at the moment." "It's not just about demanding the effort. He needs guidance on how to behave because he is taking players apart. Just don't say it. If he was an experienced head, a long-term manager, he wouldn't do that."

The kick-off times are all over the place: Sat 09 Queen of the South - 17:30 Sun 17 Queen of the South - 15:30 Wed 20 3rd/4th v 2nd - 19:45 Sat 23 2nd v 3rd/4th - 12:00 Thu 28 2nd/3rd/4th v Prem 11 - 19:45 Sun 31 Prem 11 v 2nd/3rd/4th - 15:00

1 defeat in 11! That's my point: if a new guy comes in a draws more games than he wins for the first year, then we will all be on his back saying he's not good enough. McCall's not the answer, but he never was IMO. We must also remember he hasn't had a transfer window to make acquisitions; he's only been able to work with what he has got.

Ooh, it's like a buffet. Few good players there. Nile Ranger? C'mon...

The problem is that a 'proven' manager -- that we could realistically get -- would be of a certain type; old school. I think we need to go young and more technical and coach-like. (With a DoF, but I'll leave that for now because we're talking about 'managers'.)

The Blue Fellaini! He's too slow to play wide (or centre-back for that matter!) -- put him up front.

He was an easy fit at the time. He has done OK, but I still think we have better players than our position suggests, so in that regard he's hardly been a success. However, for the long-term we need a complete overhaul, and I hope the Board get someone progressive to do it -- not the same old types. I get frustrated when people say it's too late to change. We may have missed an opportunity 2 years ago, but it's never too late to instigate a change in the way we do things. I hope we get a statement of intent from the Board when King gets the ok (?).

It's the 50% of turnover that really sticks in the throat. Set ticket prices at £1 -- They'd still get their money, but it'd be next to nothing.

What do the SPFL exactly say on the matter? Is it just that ST holders can't be let in for free? If so could we not just let them in for a quid? It'd cost us, but it could cost us anyway. It appears as though the board have budgeted free entry anyway. It's all about getting one over the SPFL.

I generally agree: If he has to play, put him up front.

A 5-3-3 looks like it would be tactically beneficial with that extra man!

Good news. Now for Dave...

It really doesn't matter which brand it is, we cannot command the amount we want. We just have to take what's on offer.

Sarcasm? Subjectivity? You're calling Conservative voters stupid? (This thread is going to have to be moved: it's turning into another political debate!) Edit: I actually feel the same about SNP voters, in the sense I hope Scots are wise enough to see through their rhetoric and propaganda. Who's right I wonder? Or are we both unduly subjective?

Any means of sticking two-fingers-up at the SPFL/SFA 'cabal' I am in favour of. Well done Rangers.