Rousseau

Yes, that's what I thought, but I was thinking as squad players. Like I mentioned: I don't tend to look at potential targets from this league, or even the Premiership, because I don't consider them good enough. However, they are young, pacey with a lot of energy and stamina -- good/half-decent squad players?

Queen of the South have ripped us apart a few times with their pressing and energy. I came across the above on the BBC Sport website. I don't pay much attention to player transfers from other Scottish sides, or players in general from this level, but their age stood out: 21, 22, and 24; young players with a lot of energy. Could they be targets for us? They've been quite good this year, could they add something to our squad? Don't know about cost, but could it be worth a punt?

Can someone remind me what the reason for the rejection of an expanded league was? If it was simply to get 4 Old Firm games, how that in accordance with 'sporting integrity'?

Law was never an easy pick for me because, as I mentioned, I don't see him as a destroyer, but I thought he had great energy which you need in there too. I cannot think of any other player we currently have that could play the destroyer role with lots of energy - Gattuso in is prime at Milan. I like Walsh a lot, but his ability is based on pace, so I don't see him as a creative player as such for the number 10 role; he's a good winger. Again, I cannot think of any other creative player -- with the ball at his feet -- that can thread passes through. I discounted Vuckic (a) because we are not sure whether he'll be here any length of time -- hopefully --, and (b) I don't think he has the deftness of touch or the passing ability to play the number 10 role; he's more individual, with the ability to beat a player and score, rather than one that is going to create chances for others. I like Walsh and Vuckic a lot, but I see them more as Wingers than central midfield players. Another Caveat would be that I don't think these players I've mentioned are the best to play these roles, but they are certainly the best we have at the minute. My point was not that these guys should be playing these roles, but that we need the roles, along with wingers; central midfield domination and width. I like the outline of your team. I'd like to see Gallagher and Sinnamon get a chance. And, on reflection, Walsh might not be unable to play that number 10 role: he's quick, got good control, and young enough to learn. I'd certainly like to see a young spine with the time to improve.

Aw shucks...

I have indeed missed out on a great deal of great sides. I caught the tail end of 9IAR - if that! On reflection, the only period of sustained success I experienced, or remotely enjoyed in terms of the football played, was perhaps the McLeish sides (The Shame...).

I did mention that in another post: outnumbering the midfield in itself is meaningless if we don't have width or forwards who are willing to run in behind. It's as if we play either/or, when we should be aiming for central dominance with width, whether by fullbacks bombing forward or proper wingers -- we have neither, really, Shiels and Vuckic are not proper wingers, and only Wallace bombs on.

Hardie, Gallagher sounds like a very promising front line for many years to come. Quite exciting really.

Players make formations in the sense they're suited for them; but a formation can also ruin a player. De Bruyne (Spelling?) was average at Chelsea out wide, now look what he is doing centrally with Wolfsburg. You do get these tales of very good squads that include very average players; it's because the player suits the formation and can contribute to a role, but will achieve little elsewhere. Bosingwa comes to mind: decent at Porto because he played a suitable role for him and the team to get a big-money move, but was absoloutely awful in the PL.

Agreed, but I think a DoF should be appointed to produce these player, so it would not matter if a manager did not get the time; there'd be a long-term production line in place irrespective of manager -- or coach. I like that a lot. The players seem to be playing in better positions, and at least we'd outnumber teams in the middle. Not sure about Templeton's ability in that role though. Perhaps, move Shiels into that free role, and play Law in the middle?

Our midfield 4 -- as you say -- is ineffectual because teams just match up and therefore, generally speaking, it's easy to defend against us. I disagree that it is the players. If you look at them individually, they are decent. But the system does not play to their strengths. Law does lack backbone, but needs someone else centrally to work with. Murdoch is a DM, so he can't -- or shouldn't -- be helping out with the attack, except helping to keep the ball moving and supporting attacking players. Vuckic, I think everyone can see, is much better further up the park; to me he is a forward the plays wide because he like to come inside, but he is not a LM as such. Shiels is better centrally where he can instigate attacks. Vuckic and Shiels can get isolated out wide. Because we can't dominate the central area -- because we get outnumbered -- we can't get the better attacking players into the game. Shiels is not a wide man, so the system fails him; Law doesn't get enough support, so the system fails him; Vuckic gets isolated and gets no support, so the system fails him; Miller is pointless coming deep, but he feels he has to because there is only two there, or one to attack, so the system again fails him. (I sound like a broken record...!) It's like we want width or midfield control, when I think we need both: Dominate the midfield with Murdoch, Law and Shiels -- those three should be able to pass through most other midfield's in the league -- to allow the wide players to get into the danger areas where they can do damage. We did that with the 3-5-2, almost inadvertently; we dominated the middle, and had width. Even the diamond we played against Hearts achieved this. I don't understand why we've reverted to 4-4-2? A 4-4-2 could work if we played proper wingers, with rampaging fullbacks, and left a central two back as support -- like Mancini at Man City; the wide men went about attacking, but the central players stayed back --, not leave Murdoch alone when Law tries to attack. Wallace goes forward on the left, but Shiels comes inside so we don't outnumber on the flanks; Vuckic attacks wide, but he has no attacking fullback as support, so again we don't outnumber. It's like we are trying to do too much without really achieving either. The best managers in the world -- I'm thinking of Guardiola -- try to outnumber in a key area, depending on the team. The great Barcelona team seemed to be able to do both! Soapbox over. Apologies, it turned into a bit of a rant! Oh, incidentally, you keep getting my name wrong on the main site: it's "Rousseau", not "Rosseau". (Sorry...)

Give Us The Tools And We'll Finish The Job On the day that Jurgen Klopp announced his intention to leave Borussia Dortmund at the close of the season, my mind drifted to the team he has developed: Exciting, Dynamic, Creative, Pacey, Powerful, Relentless. At their best Dortmund were one of the best sides in the world, winning 2 Bundesliga titles, a German Cup, 2 German Super Cups and reaching the Champions League final, all over a period of two years. It was all the more impressive considering they had to contend with one of football histories behemoths: Bayern Munich. The man who rightly got the credit was Klopp. Considered one of the most talented young coaches in Europe, the charismatic German can't fail to put a smile on ones face, whether by his press conference outbursts, touchline enthusiasm, or by simply sitting back an admiring his side glide through opposition teams in a captivating dance. The success of Dortmund was predicated on a quite remarkable midfield. Their three-man midfield consisting -- generally speaking -- of Sven Bender, Ilkay Gundogan, and Mario Goetze had everything: the defensive shrewdness in Bender, the metronome and energy in Gundogan, and the creative genius in Goetze. It occurred to me that other great sides of recent times have had a similar make-up in midfield. Barcelona, who could never be omitted from any list of great sides and in fact are possibly going to head up any list, also had a three-man midfield consisting of a defensive destroyer in Busquets, a metronome in Xavi and the creative genius in Iniesta; and then the great AC Milan side of the early 00's also had this mix: The metronome in Pirlo, the archetypal destroyer in Gattuso, and the creative genius in Kaka. All three sides had this mix, not necessarily in the same positions: the metronome could play deep, like Pirlo, or further up, like Xavi; the destroyer could play deep, like Busquets, or again, further up like Gattuso. And then my mind drifted, somewhat unnaturally, to Rangers -- as tenuous a link as you'll ever see. I had assumed that over the years Rangers probably had individuals that played these roles, not necessarily at the same time, and albeit not at the level of Barcelona, Milan or Dortmund. On reflection I actually don't recall that many. It seems to me that we are preoccupied with big, strong, powerful Centre-Halfs; quick, tricky Wingers; or Goalscorers -- probably in reverse order. Perhaps it's just my age, but I am struggling to recall any individuals that played these specific roles. Even the defensive destroyer which is ubiquitous in Scottish football, and British football in general, is missing from my memory. I never saw Gattuso play, but I recall him playing with a bit more attacking threat rather than as a destroyer with us. Souness comes to mind as a destroyer, and then Kevin Thompson in more recent times. Barry Ferguson was always very good at that metronome role. And we've certainly had our fair share of creative midfielders, but they have always been wide players. Anyway, it does not matter if I can't remember any players from the past that played these roles, because I think I can state with certainty (almost?) that we have not had that mix of roles in the same starting eleven. The problem at Rangers is that we have not played a three-man midfield for any length of time. Managers are too entrenched in the rigid 4-4-2 system. The only deviation from this is the 4-4-1-1, which does allow for a number 10 but we have often played a striker there which negates the reason creating that role in the first place: added creativity; dropping a forward into a creative position does not necessarily imply that they will create. The 4-4-2 (or the inventive 4-4-1-1!) means we can have that destroyer and metronome role, but we've often failed to include a proper number 10. The irony is we have actually produced some splendid number 10's over recent seasons. Off the top of my head I can remember Charlie Adam, John Fleck, Andrew Shinnie and even Lewis McLeod. Every one apart from McLeod struggled at Rangers. Fleck was a great talent and had to leave to get first-team football. He's now a key player in an otherwise disappointing Coventry side. Shinnie was another that struggled to get games despite his obvious talent. Again, it was only when he left that he got games and started to show what he could really do, with a string of impressive performances at Inverness CT eventually getting him a move to a decent Birmingham City side. Perhaps the most impressive player was Adam. A player that played a several times for Rangers, showing glimpses of what he could do, but was never quite given the role he needed to flourish -- It was Le Guen that gave him a decent run in a number 10 role which lasted only as long as he was in the job, then Walter Smith preferred to play him out wide -- but a move to Blackpool followed where he pulled the strings in an impressive attacking side that reached the Premier League; and a £9M move to Liverpool followed. It begs the question: why can't these players produce for Rangers? They are demonstrably talented, but it's only once they leave Rangers that they show it. I think the answer is illustrated in Lewis McLeods career. An exceptional young talent, he ran the team for the first half of this Championship season. But the fans were acutely aware that he was not being played in his best position. His ability to run with the ball, effortlessly glide past players and, crucially, thread balls through for others made him a diamond among a pile of coal. McCoist had him languishing out wide, to the frustration of fans, where he couldn't get hold of the ball. It's a testament to the lad that when he did get the ball he was the main creative force. What could he have done if he was played centrally? The historical problem at Rangers is that we have tended to play creative players out wide, where they are often isolated. The Scottish game is based on power, pace and workrate -- and we're not even that strong or quick on the European stage, never mind the world stage; just compare a Scottish side with Atletico Madrid! The make-up of Scottish games have no place of prominence for metronomes or creative number 10's, but there is plenty of destroyers; in fact I would suggest that most Scottish sides have their destroyer, and perhaps even that entire central midfield's are made up entirely of them --perhaps I go too far, but you get the point. The Scottish game is all about long balls, fast wing play and counter-attacks. Its all very predictable. There is no room for possession football or controlled passing. The game has degraded or retreated into tried and tested tactics. And that is what has happened to Rangers. We feel the need to combat these workman-like styles by matching them, relying on our "better" players to get us through, but now that we don't have those better players we are struggling to match the workrate of the so-called lesser sides. It would be easy to presume that a golden triumvirate in central midfield would be out of our reach in current circumstances, but you'd be wrong. It is my contention that we actually have three players each possessing the necessary skills to play these roles. And, moreover, we actually have a good mix of style in which to pick and choose. Andy Murdoch has been a rare light in a season beset by failure. He is a small but well-proportioned and a deceptively strong young player whose ball-control, passing ability and movement is far superior to any other player in the team. He doesn't do much, and he certainly won't always be remembered at the end of a game, but what he brings to the team is invaluable: keeping the ball moving with short passes, and moving to protect the back four and to receive the back ball again. He reminds me of Joe Allen, an unprepossessing passer of the ball but instrumental in a good technical Swansea side. In short, I think Murdoch is the perfect player to be the metronome, and in many ways he already is. The second of a midfield triumvirate would need to be the legs, the box-to-box player that presses, covers and joins in with the attack. I may take some slack for this but, for me, Nicky Law has those attributes. He has certainly not set the team alight this year, but when he is good, he is very good. He is quick and has good stamina. His performance against Hearts was phenomenal. With the team tiring against the relentless possession and pressing of a Hearts side smelling blood, Law broke a few times at pace beating players and carrying the ball into the final third. I was astonished at his stamina; while the others were dead on their feet, he was still running well into the final minutes of the game. There are question marks over his ability to "get-stuck-in", but I think he has the raw attributes to play that role -- a Gundogan role if you will. The creative number 10 role is key. I've mentioned that we have produced several over the years without actually playing them in the number 10 role. At the minute we don't have many, but if I can overlook Vuckic, because I'm looking more long-term and I don't think he has the deftness of touch to play that role, I think the only one who can play that role is Dean Shiels. Shiels is another example of a talented player that has not been given the role to suit him. Again, McCoist played him out wide where he couldn't get the ball and was often bullied when he didn't have options off it; in short, he was isolated and marginalised. In fact, his father stated last year that Rangers have ruined his career and I'm inclined to agree; at the very least Rangers have failed to take advantage of his qualities. McCall has moved him inside to play a proper number 10 role and he's been reinvigorated. Shiels was always a decent player with a deftness of touch, able to glide past players easily and has a knack for scoring sublime goals. Moreover, his performances have been good when he's played in a three-man midfield, when he has the support behind and freedom to create in front. I am not suggesting for a minute that replicating a midfield triumvirate would allow us to achieve the success of Dortmund, Milan or Barcelona, but I am suggesting that this three-man midfield has obvious benefits. It allows for simultaneously greater control of the ball and a greater attacking threat. It also allows the individuals a freedom to carry out roles that suit their game. We have let players down over the years by sticking religiously to the 4-4-2, and we then blame the players when it doesn't work; we've seen recently that workrate is not enough to win. Winston Churchill once said: "Give us the tools, and we'll finish the job." Well, I think we have the tools. It's up to McCall to be brave enough to give the players the freedom to finish the job.

We may have to agree to disagree.

Sounds like he did not want to work with DoF (Philosophical differences). No?

I don't think he's "way out of our league", but I agree it is highly unlikely. I'll not be losing any sleep in any case!

Yes, the Owner wants a DoF which doesn't fit with Warburton. It's the same issue is it not? I want a DoF, so Warburton is not really the right guy.

Cathro would be an excellent choice IMO. I wouldn't say no to Wotte, or Magath. We would still need a youth coach, but he'd report to the DoF.

I'll concede that we can never know, but I still maintain that work rate is nothing unique. Again, i'd prefer a DoF, so he would not be acceptable for me.

Yes, you are right, it would be difficult. My point was that it's not a case of competing with money (buying out his contract), but competing on "project". I don't think he is experienced enough to get a PL job, so I think "theoretically" we could challenge a Championship club for him. But, like I said, I'm not interested in him because i'd prefer a DoF.

I agree we would do well domestically, but i'm thinking longer term; i'm thinking about Europe. We wouldn't stand a chance because the high work rate and organisation is a basic trait; we'd need something more.

I'm watching Brentford just now and, yes, they are hardworking and well organised. But, thinking about it, they remind me of Burnley; Burnley were exactly the same last year, but as we saw, once they come up against better PL sides they are lacking. If -- and it is a big if -- Brentford go up, that work rate and organisation will count for nothing in the PL.

He's leaving Brentford at the end of the season so we could theoretically get him I think. However, I am not interested in him because the reason he is leaving is he doesn't want to work with a DoF, which is something that I would like to see at Rangers. For me, a DoF-type appointment is important.

And Gallagher for that matter. Good young players with pace and creativity; they should be given a game. However, saying that, is Barrie McKay not still on loan at Raith? Or was he recalled? I know Gallagher is back rotting in the youth teams... Even Gasparrotto (How do you spell it?) is not getting a chance.

I thought we were quite competent during the first half; energy levels were ok. But we couldn't create chances which was down to the tactics (i.e. being outnumbered in the centre and no full-backs getting forward etc.). What we set out to do was pre-planned. There is no way a player can be blamed for doing what was pre-planned, they're simply doing their job, and it was the job that was ineffectual not the players' execution of it, if you get my meaning? Once we conceded the second we collapsed mentally, and then i'd agree we were slow, lethargic and resorted to those long-balls etc which were never going to work.

QotS vs. Rangers: Review DUMFRIES -- Palmerston Park is an old-fashioned ground, tight and intimate, from the standing area to the wooden stand facade and little clock; residential buildings nearby loom large over the low terraces. The Rangers fans were packed like sardines tightly together in the standing area, wrapped in their blue scarfs and tammies on this pitch-black, cloudless night. The pitch is a thing of wonder; it is like a bowling green, pristine and well-defined. Artificial surfaces get a bad press but many have commented on the 3G surface at Palmerston as being "a lovely playing surface;" at least we weren't going to get bobbles. Rangers lined up with a standard 4-4-2. Bell had a muscle strain so the diminutive Robinson deputised; Mohsni replaced a suspended McCulloch in defense; and Templeton replaced Shiels. It was a flat-back-four of McGregor, Zaliukus, Mohsni and Wallace; Law and Murdoch placed central midfield, flanked by Templeton on the left and Vuckic on the right; Miller and Clark led the lines. Queen of the South lined up in a 3-5-2 formation, but it was more like a 5-3-2 with the Wing-backs rarely getting forward. They are known for being a hardworking and energetic side with lots of pacey players, and in previous games were comfortable sitting back and countering with pace. Initially I saw a problem in central midfield: we would be outnumbered 3v2 so we would need to be sharp on the ball and get it wide quickly. Rangers started well, passing it around comfortably. It was clear we would have the majority of possession with QotS happy to soak up pressure and counter when they got the chance. We tried to get it wide to our wingers, but QotS's Wing-backs and Wide-centre-midfielders doubled-up quickly; When Vuckic got the ball -- which was rarely -- he has ushered wide to prevent him getting on his strong left-foot; Templeton received the ball often early on but cut inside on too many occasions and couldn't deliver a good cross or find the target, or he was robbed. With no penetration on the flanks we resorted to the much maligned long-ball. At first there seemed some method to the madness as it looked like we were trying a pre-planned long-diagonal. Alas to no avail. For me, to start with Clark precludes playing those long-balls; he is too slight and small to win headers. The same goes for Miller who can't hold-up the ball. Their strength is their running game, but they never got in behind; mainly because our midfielder never got time on the ball in the centre because they were outnumbered. QotS rarely threatened, but on the one occasion they did, they scored. A simple long ball was launched over the top on the right-hand-side and Wallace got in front of the attacker but was pushed to the ground -- illegally in my view, but he was easily pushed -- and the ball was squared and bobbled up nicely for veteran Derek Lyle to half-volley it into the opposite side of the net to a thunderous roar from the home fans. 1-0. Nothing changed; it was the same pattern of Rangers dominating the ball but with no penetration. The fans were still pretty confident going into the second-half, but not 19 seconds in that bubble was burst. QotS broke down the left and whipped in a ground-cross in behind the defense where the unmarked Kidd fired a tame shot across goal; it was going wide until an off-balance Wallace couldn't adjust his feet and scuffed it into his own net. 2-0. This is when the Rangers players lost it mentally. Their heads went down under the realisation that they weren't going to win this game; 1-0 is fine, but 2-0 is near impossible with no real chances created apart from a Clark header that went wide in the first-half. Mohsni summed it up by trying to get us back into the game by forcing difficult passes and getting wound-up by the crowd and punching the ground in frustration to loud cheers from the home fans. He deserves credit for trying and he showed what winning means to him; it's a good trait, but he must learn to ignore the crowd. The team retreated into the same long-ball game that had no chance of succeeding. QotS continued to press and got their reward when substitute Crawford dawdled on the ball and lost it; a quick 1-2 allowed Reilly a one-on-one chance and he calmly slotted it low into the inside of the near post. 3-0. All the substitutions were man-for-man with no change to the formation, so nothing was going to change. Boyd came on and looked like he could hold up the ball better than Clark and Miller, and he did win a fair share of flick-ons, but his poor first touch let him down on too many occasions. He did get some space when a nice deep cross found him at the back post, but his header was too central and the 'keeper tipped it over the bar. Apart from a looping Miller header earlier on in the second half, Boyd's header was the only real chance. I think Boyd should have started, if we were going to play the long-balls; he'd certainly have fared better than Clark and Miller in that respect. What a fickle and capricious mind the Rangers fan possesses. A few months ago we were at our lowest ebb, pessimistic about getting promotion and complaining that the players had no redeeming qualities and they must get put down. The last few weeks saw a complete reversal after two impressive wins over nearest rivals Hibs and then Champions Hearts, who by all accounts have strolled to this title with barely a whisper of a challenge from us. Now the morning after the night before brings more pessimism: "Will we get promoted?"; "We need to get another manager for next year"; "[so-and-so] is finished". One defeat -- and we must remember it is only McCall's first -- does not define a career. McCall was not my first choice but I was pleasantly surprised with his tactical awareness against both Edinburgh clubs. He just got it wrong last night; he is allowed to make mistakes. Moreover, I wouldn't place the blame on the players. We started very well, passing it around -- albeit with no end product -- and easily dominating possession. There is certainly cause for Wallace to be blamed for the first and second goals. Too easily out-muscled for the first, but he could also have been given a foul; and he knocks the ball into his own net for the second after a tame shot is heading wide. Again, Templeton -- or is it Tempelton? -- can be criticised for an ineffectual display where on a day he finally got a chance to shine he was too easily dispossessed or couldn't find an end-product, from numerous crosses that never quite reached their man, to shot that were powerful but lacked any accuracy and too often kept rising high over the bar with too much back-spin. If he could just hit the ball flatter he'd cause more problems for the 'keeper because he gets a lot of power behind his shots. Case in point was a very tame, long-range shot from Mohsni that because it was on target forced the 'keeper to parry it. But I don't want to blame the player because I think the strategy was wrong. We were outnumbered in central midfield 3v2; that simple numerical advantage meant that it was going to be very difficult to get through the middle or have any time and/or space on the ball. When a team plays three at the back you need to stretch them and that was what, I think, McCall was trying to do with the two wingers, but QotS had their Wing-backs, Wide-midfielders and the Wide-centre-backs to cover. The only way to counter this is to get the full-backs to make deep overlapping runs, but it never materialised so our wingers were constantly marked 2v1, sometimes 3v1. The ineffectual -- or non-existent -- runs by the full-backs compounded the problem. McGregor never ventured forward, but Wallace did quite often. Unfortunately it was never an overlapping run from Wallace but more like the 'underlap' that Baines has made famous, but that was no good because they dominated the middle of the park, so Wallace just ran into more defenders and no one could thread a pass through to him. If we were going to combat QotS last night we had to go 4-3-3, with the two wingers pushed high to press the Wing-backs, and the full-backs making overlapping runs to stretch the back-three and get in behind. An extra man in central midfield would have allowed us to match the Queen's midfielders. It was a disappointing result to say the least, but I don't blame the players too much other than a few individual errors. In my view we were doomed from the start when the formations were announced. McCall got his tactics wrong, but it is not the end of our season. It is a lesson learned.