Rousseau

It sounds like the Steak & Black Pudding pies were the MOTM.

Oh dear. Cringe-worthy.

I don't get it? What's it about?

I didn't know GZ was injured, but must be true because he's not in the squad again. Could mean he's out of favour, but I still think he'd be on the bench as an option anyway. Interesting front-three: King and O'Halloran are probably the most direct wingers we have, and Clark is the only real out-and-out striker. I think Forrester is quite a good option in central midfield; he's got good ball-control and is quite direct. Holt is always a threat. Decent side, considering there are a few changes.

RANGERS: Foderingham, Tavernier, Kiernan, Wilson, Wallace, Halliday, Holt, Forrester, O’Halloran, Clark, King Subs: Bell, Ball, Miller, McKay, Law, Shiels, Burt http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/three-changes-raith/

Aye, at least two stone-wallers denied and several rugby-tackles from St Mirren players going unpunished. Crazy. I don't know how these guys are allowed to referee professionally.

Shhhhh.... It's not over 'till it's over.

We kept plugging away but the finishing is really poor at times. O'Halloran can beat 2-3 players with ease, then sky it. Forrester is the one play that hit the target. We make it hard.

Slow start -- deliberate ploy by St Mirren -- but we've grown into it, creating several good chances; a real lack of quality on the final ball though -- how does Miller miss from 2 yards!? O'Halloran is starting to show what he can do: great pace and trickery to beat players with ease, but again, his final ball has been wayward. We'll need to show patience today.

That could certainly be true, but I think he's just rotating the squad a little. Law hasn't really got into the team either recently. I doubt it means either are out of favour per se. Moreover, I think he's trying to juggle the front line a little also. With King and O'Halloran coming in he's trying to find a place for them (even Forrester), with McKay dropping into central midfield to accommodate them etc. I honestly think McKay is best wide-left, with O'Halloran, Forrester and Miller taking the other positions in the front line (with Waghorn missing). I don't see a starting place for King with McKay wide-left, whereas the others can fill-in. The central midfield roles should go to any of Shiels, Law, Halliday, Holt, Ball and Zelalem. Everyone will have their preference -- mine would be Halliday, Holt and Zelalem: a good, well-balanced mix.

Is there subtitles?

That was a much better, and more interesting, interview -- good questions leading into new questions on interesting areas, not variations on the same bloody question!

I completely agree with this. It's quite staggering that the two players who have made a real impact at first-team level never player at the U-20 level (namely, Wilson and McKay), so it can only be good to get the others out and playing at a 'decent' level -- at least playing professionally against hardened men. It can only be good that our U-17's will be playing against youngsters 3 years older also. It's about time someone made a change at youth level, because we've not really produced much for far too long. It really is so important to have a continuous stream of young players coming through.

Good point. I was thinking about it with regards to protecting our assets: that breaks down when you don't want the asset! In that sense, and Warburton's point, shorter contracts are better. Just make sure the buy-out clause is decent and there are rewards/incentives for performance and options for the club to renew.

Contract length is generally irrelevant, but hopefully we have sufficient buy-out clauses.

Ach, let both groups remain independent, from the club and from each other, and let them fight it out! I don't mean tit-for-tat name-calling and political games etc., but fighting to see who can accumulate the biggest shareholding. That's the ultimate goal. Why should it be hampered?

True. Perhaps half-decent touch and finishing? You know what I mean.

Being lightweight in itself is not that problematic IMO, as long as you have other aspects of your game that makes up for it. Like I said, Clark's movement is good, but his finishing and touch is not up to scratch. If he had the touch and finish to add to his movement, then being lightweight wouldn't be an issue IMO. Shame Hardie is away on loan: I would really like to see him get a few games. He might have got that with Waghorn out. I've got a horrible feeling Warburton doesn't fancy him. He's certainly not the 'type' (fast, running-type) that he prefers, but I'd hate to see another promising young player leave.

I always thought Clark's movement was very good, as he's always getting himself into good positions -- like we saw for the goal, running across the front post -- but his finishing is suspect unfortunately, squandering many chances. We could live with his sleight physique, because it's not all-important for a striker nowadays. If only he could find the net regularly. Maybe with Waghorn injured -- hopefully not! -- he'll get a wee run in the side.

I agree completely with Tannochsidebear. I'm not really interested in a merger -- or at least not at the moment. For me, the most important thing is for the fans to have as many shares as possible. I agree that this is probably best served by both groups remaining separate. Perhaps, when the fans have a decent shareholding (50%+), then there can be talk of a merger. The focus will have shifted to a more political role -- something RST seem to do well.

His touch has always been piss-poor; so has his finishing -- remember how many chances he misses. The only difference is that he's not scoring at the moment, whereas before he was chipping in with a few. It might not be tiredness, but a break might help him anyway.

Ach, c'mon. Great memories. (Did anyone notice, once he scores, he always seems to whirl away from the Rangers fans then realises where they are and turn back?) Incidentally, that's 14 assists for Tavernier in the League; 17 in all competitions.

There seems to be a lot of distrust between the two groups (RF and RST), even if it's not overt I see it in any innocuous comment. Until this is improved, I doubt a merger will happen.

Fair enough. It doesn't matter how you do it, just as long as you do I suppose. But to get so far with 10-men and fall at the last hurdle is gutting -- at least for the neutral.

Disagree with what?