Rousseau

McGregor was a stand-out last season, but most of his game was on the back-foot, making last ditch tackles, outmuscling players etc. His touch and distribution with the ball was poor, so doesn't conform to Warburton's preferred player profile. However, his physicality might have been useful to retain, and he might have been decent dealing with those troublesome counter-attacks. I think it comes down to his distribution and ability on the ball: Warburton prefers an offensive-type centre-back, one that will step out and begin attacks: McGregor doesn't fit.

It was one of the very few games where we were able to show what we could do on the counter and with space to exploit. McKay has really matured: his touch was always good, but his decision making and execution has been top-notch. He's got all the attributes to play the No.10, which we might see more of.

CAPPIELOW -- A ponderous attacking display was slightly redeemed by an improved defensive performance and mental fortitude. When in possession, Rangers were lifeless, lethargic and wasteful with the ball; several players were guilty of giving the ball away. The 'germanic' flavour to the Morton defensive set-up posed problems, and a willingness to break with numbers could have had its rewards. The game turned on its head following a farcical red-card for an 'over-enthusiastic' celebration. The subsequent game was in complete contrast to the usual Rangers game, where they finally got to show what they could do on a counter-attack, creating several glorious opportunities. Rangers ostensibly lined-up in their usual 4-3-3. Holt missed out through injury, with Law coming in to join Zelalem and Halliday in central midfield. A back four of Tavernier, Wilson, Kiernan and Wallace played in front of Foderingham in goal. McKay, Miller and Waghorn made up the front three. Morton, who had won just one of their three games since the 2-2 draw at Ibrox in December, had to overlook on-loan Ranger Luca Gasparotto for the game; O'ware dropped into the vacant centre-back position, with Bobby Barr stepping in to a 4-4-2 come 4-5-1 formation. Morton pressed with a front two when Foderingham or the Rangers centre-backs had the ball, potentially causing problems. Rangers' first phase circumnavigated the press successfully by splitting the centre-backs and dropping Halliday deep to make a makeshift back-three, which allowed the ball to be played around. From there the Rangers passing only deteriorated: several players were guilty of gifting the ball to Morton. Generally, this was Rangers' own fault, with a lethargic start to the game and sheer complacency in the pass, but Morton must be given credit for the 'Germanic' style of their defensive block. The Morton second-striker often dropped deep to make a 4-5-1 when the first press was unsuccessful. Instead of staying compact, with the wide midfielders tucking in, they adopted a Borussia Monchengladback-style defense, whereby the wide players stay wide, to cut off the easy pass wide -- a common occurrence when a team needs to switch play. Morton's midfield three then shuttled across to the ball side. As a result, Rangers struggled to to play the pass wide, which is generally their first move to get the wingers and full-backs in the game. Tavernier and Wallace were forced deeper to get the ball, which left Waghorn and McKay isolated. Theoretically, the space is then in the inside channels, as the wide players stretch the pitch to cover the flanks. Rangers could never move the ball quickly enough to expose this space (Holt would have been ideal with his positional awareness). The Rangers central three were too narrow also, adopting a 2-1 shape, with Zelalem at the tip and Law dropping deeper beside Halliday. With the wide pass cut off, the ball was forced centrally into a congested area. Even the long diagonal was restricted as the full-back tracked McKay closely. Morton were keen to attack with numbers on the break, but a combination of adequate defending and poor passing meant Rangers dealt with everything. Kiernan has improved visibly of late: his distribution was always decent, but his defensive ability left a lot to be desired. He has started to track his man more, instead of getting drawn into space. He was quick to cut out forward passes from the Morton midfield, stopping attacks dead. He's still too eager to make a challenge, when staying on his feet would be better. Generally, the possession was good at 60-70%, but it was safe passes across the back line. Eventually, the ball was moved a little quicker and Zelelam and Miller started to find the space in the channels which allowed a few attacks to develop; Miller missing a guilt-edged chance. The goal was fortunate, but Halliday did well to find that yard of space in the inside-channel by moving the ball quickly. His shot deflected into the path of Miller, who out-muscled his defender to poke it home. Rangers never built on this at the start of the second-half, returning to the slow, lethargic play in the early stages of the game. Morton in contrast pressed harder, and were more confident. This forced a change from Warburton: switching to a 4-2-3-1, with Forrester coming on for Zelalem -- who had a decent game, but was wasteful like everyone else -- to take a wide-left role and Shiels, dropping into a holding-role alongside Halliday, coming on for Law. McKay moved into the No. 10 position. Morton continued to press, however, and despite dealing with attacks adequately enough, they did look like scoring. The double-pivot acted as a half-decent shield, forcing Morton wide and into attempting long-range shots. This allowed Rangers to counter: something we've had to defend against consistently but never really had opportunity to do ourselves. And this they did with good movement and speed. A well organised, three-pronged counter, with Waghorn and Forrester stretching the play and the ball carrier (usually McKay) driving into the central area, created the opportunity for the pass wide or a shot from the middle. The second goal came from this counter, with McKay playing a one-two with Miller (a goal and an assist, but still some think he's useless!), before clipping the ball into the top corner. Halliday was red-carded in farcical manner for celebrating a little too enthusiastically. In retribution for the way Morton celebrated at Ibrox after getting a point, Halliday raised his fist to the Morton end before turning to bask in the euphoria of the Rangers support. This all happened in the middle of the pitch: hardly provocative behaviour -- It was certainly nothing like James McClean for West Brom, goading the Sunderland fans from 5 yards away! Ball came on for Miller, and slotted into the holding role alongside Shiels and McKay to make a three-man defensive block. Waghorn and Forrester played wide, tracking back when needed, but always trying to press. Forrester was hard-working but still looks off the pace. The game followed the same pattern, as Morton pressed for a goal and Rangers sat back to counter. The cool head of Shiels was important to keep possession at times, draw fouls and create a couple of chances. His work-rate was brilliant, along with McKay, Forrester and Waghorn. The four were instrumental in creating several glorious goal-scoring opportunities. It shows what Rangers can do when there is space. Wilson, as usual, was calm and composed (although wasteful at times), winning back the ball a couple of times. One wants the calmness and composure, but he's often too calm, and not quick enough to cut things out. It was a slow and technically deficient game from Rangers; slow and lethargic for most of it. Morton deserve credit for their ingenious defending, and their willingness to press for a goal with the man advantage. The pleasing aspect was the clean-sheet, and the mental fortitude to see us hold on -- and continue to create several chances -- in the face of outrageous refereeing decisions. It's a learning curve with these players, and they're certainly growing in stature. It's not what you do when your playing well, but what you do when you're playing badly: it's the scrappy 1-0's (or 2-0) that wins titles.

It was only clear from the replay that there was no contact. At full speed it looked a certainty. Diving and 'drawing the foul' are ubiquitous in the modern game, for good or bad. However, what on earth is Mertasacker playing at? Lunging into a last-ditch tackle when he's the last man, when he has no chance of getting the ball? Would it not have been better to lose a goal but retain 11 men? Mertasacker is at fault. I always agreed with Gary Neville's analysis of these situations: don't dive in, because the player is going to go down; stay on your feet.

Although I'm fairly disappointed to miss out on Toumani Diagouraga -- especially after finally being able to spell his name! -- but I'm quite pleased that we haven't gone over our valuation. Brentford's asking price was several 100k's over our bid was it not? Leeds have certainly over-paid, and for a player that will have no resale value. I don't want us to start paying over-the-odds on players. There are many players at this level that we can approach that match our valuation. We do not have the money to throw about, so it makes sense to get value for money. Whether these guys are good enough for the Premiership or not is a different question. Ultimately, we'll not know until they are tested. We can make an educated guess, based on the fact that the English Championship/League One is presumably of a higher standard than all but one of our Premiership sides. I still believe that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. While we may be assembling a team of players that on the surface may not be of the same standard -- and certainly not the same 'value' -- as those acquired by Celtic, it doesn't necessarily mean that we won't be able to challenge them. Moreover, just because a player is playing at a certain level, doesn't mean he is of that level. We look to be acquiring players with a certain ability or skill-set to contribute to our philosophy, while also possessing potential to improve. Bournemouth and Brentford etc. have done very well at acquiring players from lower leagues, and utilising their skill-sets to improve their teams as a whole.

Can't comment on the veracity of the source (that O'Halloran has agreed personal terms), but I do believe that personal terms can be agreed before a fee agreement between clubs. Arsenal did it with Sanchez, and Man Utd with Pedro (before that deal collapsed). Most recently, Pato has agreed personal terms with Chelsea, despite no agreement of fee between clubs.

Could he not be another Holt? Not wanted because he doesn't fit, but could perhaps fit our philosophy?

You're absolutely right. I am guilty of defining the guys in question as 'journalists', when in fact they're more like columnists; exactly the thing I was trying to argue (D'uh!). 'Journalists' should "be able to write something without having to twist the truth to some nefarious agenda", but I just don't think that's what these guys are. Of course, a definition is not the real problem, which I think you've hit upon: that it's not just some bias, but a "Goebbels style propaganda using lies, fallacy, exaggeration and systematic omission to attempt convince the reader of a completely false representation of the truth". It is 'yellow' journalism, exacerbated by the internet. If internet users are 'savvy' enough to recognise click bate, then why are we bothering about it? Shouldn't we just ignore it for the tripe it is, and let it destroy itself?

I wonder if bears would take him back? I would say he fits the philosophy, but he's shown no loyalty and might be getting shafted by a side bottom of the premiership (that's not necessarily a bad thing as he maybe doesn't fit Mixu's style).

I disagree with banning journalists. The moment we -- or anyone -- starts banning the press, it is a very slippery slope. I firmly believe in the freedom of the press. However, as the prejudice in this guy's coverage is clear, I don't see why we can't just fight back in the same way. Pull him up on it. Rangers should release statements detailing where he is wrong and why/where they believe he is distorting the truth. I'm not sure how effective it would be, but surely it is better than banning the press.

I have always questioned the label 'journalist' when it comes to our own press (sport). What these guys produce just doesn't align with my conception of Journalism. It seems to me they are merely commentators, writing their regular opinion piece that just happens to contain a item of news: in short, they're columnists. For what it's worth, every reporter (in the broadest sense of the word) is biased; no matter how objective one tries to be, prejudice will rear it's head. I think our problem is that we obviously don't agree with their anti-Rangers perspective, inevitably so. I don't think hiring/encouraging a pro-Rangers reporter will overcome the deficiencies of the anti-Rangers cabal -- despite us probably agreeing with it/them. It's still the same medium. It's hardly necessary to provide a pro-Rangers feed, for there is already a Rangers twitter feed. Moreover, other game reporters -- in terms of reporting incident by incident: "Zelalem scores a 25-yard free-kick" etc. -- are hardly biased one way of the other: it's basic reporting of a game incident. It's when they start 'judging' on the off-field problems that their bias becomes hard to stomach. I think what we need is a better standard of writer. We need to demand journalists that'll state, as eloquently and as objectively as possible, what happened. Leave the opinion-pieces to the columnists. That is what they are there for, to provide their opinion. If you don't agree with it, don't read it. Cricket writers are a better breed, I think, simply because they don't descend into opinion; they merely report what happened in a supremely eloquent manner. 'Journalist' seems to be a catch-all term. There needs to be greater demarcation between roles: columnists shouldn't be the only 'reporter'. (Good read BTW. I got a mention!)

"What squad number will Michael O'Halloran have?" What a question. Quality investigative journalism in action...

A pan-European league would be very exciting, but how would European qualification work? Would the CL and EL just do without some of the 'biggest' teams? And would clubs be happy to forget about Europe?

To be honest, I didn't think Law too bad last year, relatively speaking. The stats confirm he contributed a disproportionate amount. However, the overall standard was poor, so in absolute terms he's not at the level we ultimately need. I still think he can still contribute this year and next -- hopefully more of a squad player next year though!

A quick goal-per-game calculation has McCoist on 0.6, Forrest on 0.7, therefore Forrest's record is better. But, surely longevity must count? I couldn't possibly comment on 'quality' of striker as I missed both (or the majority of McCoist's). Interestingly, Boyd comes out at 0.7 also (if the 2nd stint is excluded)... Just saying.

I would've preferred Falkirk to win, as they're more likely to drop points IMO. But, a draw is not bad. A nice wee 5-point cushion. We need to build on it now.

He showed flashes of brilliance, but they were all too rare unfortunately. He's a decent prospect, and I suspect he may do quite well for an English side; perhaps Championship level or lower. Of course, it doesn't help when players are not given protection against the hatchet-men in this country -- and it certainly doesn't help when the media are egging them on! As we all know, Warburton likes a lean squad, so with Forrester coming in -- and perhaps O'Halloran? -- he doesn't even make the bench. No point in him sticking around really; not good for his career. I wish him all the best.

No worries. I wasn't clear. OK, well I'd hope to see us get a European spot, or at least give it a very good go. I'd be delighted with 3rd.

Sorry, I did mean 2 goals and 9 assists; which means he's contributed 11 goals. That's a good return IMO. He'd be a good addition. However, I do agree we need a natural 'goal-scorer'. I would certainly hope to be competing with Hearts etc., but they've had a year to get used to the league, so I don't see why we'd be a shoe-in to out-perform them; likewise Aberdeen. Like I said, I would like to compete with them, but I'm not 'expecting' to finish above them. Top 4/5 would still get European football, would it not?

Can anyone provide a link to Rangers financial accounts pre-2012? I was interested in comparing.

I think O'Halloran is exactly the type we need. Yes, he's not a goal-scorer, but his running is impressive and his versatility is excellent. Waghorn was never a goal-scorer, but has 25 goals this year already. O'Halloran has contributed 11 goals and assists in 19 games this season; a good return. I do hope we are not expecting a 2nd place finish next year. Yes, our budget is higher than most, but that's not indicative of ability, and it certainly doesn't guarantee success. It's also disrespectful to Hearts and Aberdeen. I would hope to be challenging these teams, but would settle for a top 3/4/5 tbh. I'm a little disappointed at the way we are writing off players without having seen them play; or seen them for 1 game in the case of Forrester and Diagouraga. Give them time. They obviously have certain qualities that'll fit with our philosophy, and while it doesn't guarantee they'll be a success, it does guarantee they have something to contribute. Again, give them time, and trust in the Manager. Warburton's record -- with Brentford -- would suggest he knows what he's doing. What a fickle bunch we are.

Generally I agree, but there's no reason why we shouldn't be scooping up young Scottish prospects. There have been a few in the recent past, where we've done very well: Naismith, Whittaker, Thompson, Boyd etc.; and we've missed out on Gould and Robertson etc. Soutar is such a prospect IMO.

Yes, I think so. Wouldn't it be nice to get one over them (and Dundee Utd)? Perhaps unrealistic, but here's hoping! He's the one player I'd take from your list, given the chance.

I'd take Soutar -- Ball-playing centre-back, only 19 and a good prospect.

This whole process was mismanaged, and to be fair, embarrassing; with too many presumptions. However, there's nothing sinister there -- RF genuinely want to help -- but just messed up on this occasion. They'll learn from this, and hopefully implement a better process next time. Transparency is a tricky issue. In principle one would want all members to know what's going on, and for an organisation to be honest and up-front. But, one doesn't want every Tom, Dick and Harry knowing all the in's and out's. It can lead to the unveiling of every little problem/issue and damage confidence, while giving ammunition to enemies, but can also be the means to correcting these problems. It's a fine line, made even more difficult in a modern, social media society.