Rousseau

I'll repeat my points: McCoist has a better Win-rate, and joint-best loss-rate, but the performance on the park was poor; McDowall has the worst of all, but he did come up against the 'better' sides; McCall has an average win-rate, but joint-best loss-rate, and the performance is better. McCall has actually done better against the 'better' sides. I think it illustrates that they all have a similar record, if you extrapolate a full season. One's opinion of whom is best just depends on a subjective judgement on the performance on the park.

Oh, he has to take the blame, but I'm just saying it's not as simple as Boyd suddenly becoming incompetent. At Kilmarnock he wasn't at the level he was at us during his first spell, but still performed better than he has during his second spell.

The comparison is not as simple as that, but yes, I agree. He was always just a poacher. He scored more with Kilmarnock in the SPL than he has with us in 2nd Division, so it's not all down to him, surely? My point was that he's cumbersome, and was never quick, but that doesn't mean he's not 'fit'. I think he can last 90 minutes? And those players said he was a 'bad' trainer, not unfit. He's just not a good trainer.

It never mattered when he was banging the goals in! I wouldn't care now if he was scoring. You always get some players that just don't train well. I recall stories of Matt Le Tissier being a poor trainer, but a genius on the pitch. When Alan Ball took over at Southampton, the team barely trained, and it was Le Gods best spell in football. There are certain players that don't train well, but they don't need to to play well. We are only criticising Boyd now because he's not doing it on the pitch--correctly IMO.

He's gasping!

I trust all of them to do a 'job', except maybe Jig who's too old. I'm not saying they'd excel, merely do a 'job'. Bare in mind that my definition of 'job' is not that broad. For example, Black has done a 'job' over the last few play-off games and done ok sitting deep and shielding the back 4/3. I make it 9 transfers that had an impact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9315_Heart_of_Midlothian_F.C._season#Transfers). We can certainly do that easily enough. However, you must remember that they had a base of players that got relegated; they didn't 'gut' the team, but built on what they had. I think the difference has been the coach. Like I've said on numerous occasions: If we can get a proper coach, we'd see a completely different set of players.

By that logic any player that has got near our squad has 'failed' too. You've also extended the definition of 'job' from what I implied.

Och, it's a bit of a gag post anyway: it's just a rumour. Like I said: I was encouraged by his background.

Apparently, yes.

Rangers want to sign the biggest name in European football - Julen Etxabeguren Leanizbarrutia, the 24-year-old former Real Sociedad defender who has left East Fife after five months with the League Two club - but six Premiership clubs are also interested. (The Sun, print edition) http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32926539 Joking aside, he appears to be the right type: technical and can play in a variety of positions; he's obviously been taught how to play the right way in the Real Sociedad B team. It's certainly one of the most encouraging rumours I've seen.

I trust them to do a job. Broadfoot was an awful player, but he did a job; same with Ian Murray etc. (I can't recall others, but I'm sure there were a few that were poor individually but were decent enough squad players.) I'm not getting drawn into a 'black and white' judgement where they are either world-class or piss poor without any redeeming quality and wouldn't get a game for Tranent Juniors; no, they each have their abilities and can each do a job. Like I've said on numerous occasions: I think a better coach would be able to get a lot more out of this group.

Of course, I agree. However, I doubt that we can sign 24 new players better than we have during 1 summer. I think it'd be much more realistic to keep most of what we have and sign better calibre players to add to our squad. The 'coach' is absolutely key.

Of course, I agree. However, I doubt that we can sign 24 new players better than we have during 1 summer. I think it'd be much more realistic to keep most of what we have and sign better calibre players to add to our squad. The 'coach' is absolutely key.

Bench. We should get rid of the higher earners: a squad player shouldn't be on more than a starter. But then again, a squad player is not going to be on peanuts. I genuinely feel these players would perform better with a good coach. We lack ideas going forward, but I think that's coaching. If someone could coach them into making better runs, or to move better etc. we'd see a better product on the park (of course that doesn't translate into finishing, which has been abysmal). We were caught on the counter several times last night, but IMO that's not a failure of the players, or their work-rate, but a failure of the tactics: having 1 sitting and and 2 CBs and the rest 'going for it', it was inevitable really. I couldn't fault their work-rate. I would criticise their creativity, and finishing; the former is the coaching, the latter the individual.

Yes. As squad players.

We don't have the variety or size of squad we need. That's partly the reason why I've said I would keep most of the players we have, because I think they are OK--I certainly couldn't question their work-rate last night, just their decision making and finishing--, and with more acquisitions, more variety in the positions we would perform better with a decent coach (McCall is not the answer--too similar to McCoist--, but should be thanked for the work he has done: he can only work with what he's got).

No, I don't think that's realistic. But on a purely hypothetical level, he would get us to a certain level, bringing in players to do a job and I have been impressed with his work at the backroom level--there are a few stories about his excellent work to modernise Bolton with modern departments etc.--but then he wouldn't bring the 'good' football we would like. I think I'd prefer someone like McClaren: more of a coach, and a talented one at that, who can get us playing the right way, and he's certainly capable of rebuilding our backroom departments. Both are unrealistic.

He's a good passer, but that is irrelevant if his potential teammates don't run off the ball. I'd like to see him in a Rangers jersey, but it'll only be successful if we can get a proper coach.

Initially you're right, but I think we can more than compete commercially (with the increased revenue streams).

I agree completely. We are quite light in midfield if you want to get rid of Black and Shiels.

Of course, I agree with what you say. I would add though that although these players have under-performed it does not imply that they are not good enough and that we need to cut them all loose: surely we all agree that they are better than what they've shown this year? I think we should keep what we have and then add some real quality, rather than go for a complete rebuild. (See post #52 and #53.)

I'm pleased that you keep more players than you release, which is more realistic--the complete opposite of what others are implying on here. I agree with your choices. I make our basic squad (assuming a basic 4-3-3?): Bell Foster (Sinnamon) - McGregor - Zaliukus (Gasparotto) - Wallace (Smith) Crawford (Shiels) - Murdoch (Black) - Law Gallagher (McKay) - Hardie (Clark) - Walsh (Aird) It's a very light squad--we'd ideally want 2 for every position. After going through them I'd keep Smith as a replacement for Wallace; Shiels for a replacement midfielder; and--god help me!--I'd keep Black as another replacement. I'd also keep Miller around. I understand your point about getting rid of the high earners; depends whether we can get somebody better for less money? Potential acquisitions should be: 2nd GK; RB; CB (2); LB; CM (2 or 3); ST (2); maybe another winger, but I think those positions could be taken with youngsters--fast and energetic etc.--like Gallagher, McKay, Walsh etc.

Fair enough. I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't sign anyone--I don't see how anyone could defend that position! I just think it's unrealistic to expect a complete 'clear-out'. I don't think we have the money. Moreover, I don't think it's necessary. I think we have a base squad that is average, or decent at best, which we can build on by acquiring better players. I honestly think the manager is key: get a decent coach and we see a completely different team (from the players we have). I don't necessarily agree that the highest paid squad wins the league. The best team wins the league, but that doesn't necessarily require huge expenditure. Barcelona developed an exceptional team barely spending a penny. I agree with the 'stepping stone' type situation where you have to upgrade your team to progress, but I think that system in perpetuity is unsustainable. We should improve the side by spending, but we should also be putting more emphasis on Scouting, Youth Development and coaching the players we have. We got into this situation because we wanted to outspend Celtic, which was pure hubris; and we have fallen for it. It's time to put more emphasis on the long-term aspects of squad development.

Ha! I'm more worried about the Wicket-keeper!

I think if we do it your way, we'll be in the same situation in a few years time. Short-term pain for long-term gain is what I'm prepared for; we need to build long-term.