Rousseau

That's exactly what I said: they are decent squad players; I'm not suggesting they are starters! I just don't expect this rebuild to happen, or at least not in the manner we would all like. We have a basic squad, it needs improving, but that does not imply that we should be releasing everyone. IMO.

I don't think it does. The majority can play a role--I'm not suggesting they can compete with Celtic at all. I think there is a half-decent base there, which with some additions can challenge for top 6 or second. The squad needs improved. I just think, in our current situation, a complete rebuild is unrealistic. I would certainly want a Abramovich-style rebuild but I doubt it'll happen. We must build on what we have. Perhaps we should have, but it's not as easy as that. Man Utd had the biggest wage bill, does that mean they should have romped the Premier League. However, whereas many have been blaming the players--and to an extent they should be blamed because they haven't performed well enough--I was suggesting the main problem was the management.

Ha, Cricket! The gentleman's game.

I agree with the two premises: (1) we have a better standard of player; and (2) we have under-performed. However, I disagree with your conclusion. It does not necessarily follow that they are inherently not good enough--form is temporary, class is permanent etc. I believe a better manager can get better things from them. Secondly, money may indeed buy us a better calibre of player, but it doesn't then follow that they should romp to the title. I think we disagree on the basis of our failure. You imply that it's the players fault entirely, whereas I believe the fault lies with the management. Stories abound in football of poor sides being miraculously transformed into decent sides with a change of manager. I'm not disputing that, but I am stating that it can't be done without some serious expenditure (£35 Million in 1998-99). That sort of expenditure is wholly unrealistic in our current situation. The rebuilds you reference were forced because of retirements and contract cancellations. At this juncture we have a 'basic' squad and I think it would be naive, foolish and presumptuous to suggest we should be gutting the squad. I'm not denying it needs improving, simply added to, or refined. (And, actually on both occasions we won the league because there was no challenge--John Barnes and East Stirling!) Again, your opinion that the players have had their chance is based on our fundamental disagreement which I outlined above (on the basis of our failure). Yes, I agree we should be beating Motherwell; mainly because, as you said, we have the momentum, but it is not a certainty. I was suggesting your expectations in general are out of date, with regards to our league performance, not the Motherwell play-off game. Even with marginally better players with bigger wages, it doesn't then follow that we should be romping away with the league. Again, I think it's the management that should take the majority of the blame. Oh, yes absolutely! Keeping Jig was an error!!

Money doesn't guarantee you success. Like db said: does that not then belittle the titles we won previously? We have the same ambition, just perhaps differ in our appreciation of our current predicament. I think it's a bit unrealistic and arrogant to assume we should be cruising to the title--no matter how much I may wish it! Again, I feel you are a wee bit unrealistic in your expectations. They have most certainly under-performed, but I still feel they deserve credit for getting promotion--if in fact we do get promotion! They are not the class of player we had previously. They are average SPL players at best, yet you expect the same level as before. I agree. But surely he deserves credit for it his good performances, just like he deserves criticism for the bad? I agree. Our opinions of individual players are subjective, so it's difficult to be objective. I would actually keep most of them, except Daly, Simonsen and Hutton. Now, that doesn't mean I want them to be in the starting 11 next year, because I don't, but I believe it's unrealistic to assume we can completely replace them all. They'd be decent squad players. There could be a hint of a decent foundation there, if we can just improve the team with some new/better players. I think the main issue has been poor management; sort of the management and I think you'd see a completely different set of players. Most have the potential to be better with a better manager, and a smattering of new/better players to improve the squad. Is that not paradoxical that you see them as abject failures, not worthy to wear the jersey and with no redeeming quality, but you still expect them to walk through the play-off against teams that have battered us in the past? It has been an awful season, but I think your expectations are 5 years out of date.

That's not as bad as Merson with his pronunciations! 'Cinnamon' Jackson!

I think the management has a lot to answer for. These players obviously have some redeeming qualities, otherwise they wouldn't play. And I believe that; these guys have some good attributes, and many bad. I think there has been an upturn in performance since McCall took charge, which highlights the difference a 'better' manager makes. I'd keep many for a potential Premiership season, albeit not as starters but squad players. A total clearout is unrealistic IMO. We have OK players that can do a job. I think with some intelligent acquisitions etc., we can make it work. I dislike this 'black-and-white' attitude: they're either legends or abject failures. They've let us down a lot, and they should be criticised, but they should also be praised when they do us proud; surely promotion is praiseworthy? They're only embarrassing defeats relatively speaking. We don't have a squad of internationals like 5 years ago. We have a squad of average SPL players, who have failed to hit their peaks on numerous occasions this year. We expect better, but I think your judgment is quite harsh considering our situation. Who would have thought we'd be in with a chance of getting promoted--by beating the play-off sides--never mind actually getting a play-off spot, which did look shaky for a spell. This season has undoubtedly been a failure, but if we get up surely there is a hint of redemption there? I agree the damage has been done, but we still have to do it when it matters. Surely the players deserve a little credit if we get promotion? My point was that Miller has popped up with important goals at the end of the season, when it really mattered. I've criticised him as much as the next fan, but I recognise his influence over the last month or so. Of course he should have stepped up at the start of the season, but I'm ready to praise that he has stepped up at all.

I agree--and I've been more critical of Miller than most! My point was that his performances since McCall took charge have been average, but he has come up with very important goals during the big games against Hearts (twice) and Hibs (twice). It does not imply for a minute that I want him as our main striker; although I would keep him around.

Offt...that's a proper one as well!

I'm not saying he has had a successful season, I'm saying he has stepped up with some big goals when it mattered. I have been one of the most critical of Miller during the season, but I have been quietly impressed with his performances in big games--Hearts, Hibs, etc.

Like I've said above: he may be past his best, but he has stepped up in the big games with some big goals.

You gotta love the Gillette Soccer Saturday guys. Great banter.

5-0...wtf!?

He jumped over the advertising board and, arms outstretched, succumbed to the hands and hearts of the fans. The sheer joy or perhaps relief that compels a player to lose all inhibitions and jump into the grasping crowds I can appreciate as a fan, but the trust that must exist between player and crowd is harder to explain; even more so when you consider the animosity that had existed historically and more recently between them and this player. Kenny Miller has possibly experienced more with our club than another player would in their entire careers. He arrived fresh-faced with hopeful enthusiasm and left just as abruptly without so much as a groan or gasp from the fans. Crossing the old-firm divide caused relations to sour as he became the target of scathing vitriol. If you wear the blue jersey it's inconceivable that you'd ever consider wearing the hooped rag. He turned away from the dark side and, after another uneventful spell in England, returned under a chorus of boos. He quickly won us over with some of the best performances of his career, until again, he left, but this time we were gutted to see him go. A third spell soon beckoned and he arrived with the hope that his goals would fire us into the Premiership. His form since has been frustrating, mirroring the team in many respects. Kenny Miller's first spell showed promise and burned bright for a time, but quickly fizzed out. Miller arrived in 2000 for a then-modest £2 Million fee after winning the Scottish PFA Young Player Of The Year award. He started slowly and was restricted to a collection of substitute appearances. However, there was a spell in October/November of that year were he showed impressive form, scoring 9 goals in only 6 games, including a quite remarkable 5 goals in a single game against St Mirren. Unfortunately his form fizzled out and only one more goal followed during his first season, with injury, fall-outs with management and a certain Tore Andre Flo the main cause. Apart from that early golden spell, it was an average debut season. He finished with 35 appearances, the majority of which were from the bench. There were only 3 appearances the next season before he was loaned out to Wolverhampton, before moving permanently for £3 Million 2 months later. A spell across the old-firm divide--becoming only the third player to cross the divide since World War 2, following Alfie Conn and Maurice Johnston--threatened to sever relations for good. A £2 Million fee was agreed between Rangers and Derby, paving the way for his return, becoming the only player to cross the divide twice in the modern era. It was certainly not popular--especially after the antics after scoring against us at Celtic Park. There was an inherent hatred towards the man because of his actions, which was predictable and not entirely uncalled for: how much trust can one place in a man that had played for your most hated rival? Many fans tried to justify their opposition to his return by masquerading their hatred as objective judgement, suggesting he was a poor player, a 'headless chicken' and the like. At this time his critics were many and vociferous, and one always felt a chorus of boos was always on the tip-of-the-tongue. It takes a brave man to enter a hostile atmosphere willingly. Miller's second spell started the same as his first, slowly in terms of goal returns and, curiously, at home to FBK Kaunas. His critics abounded, but they were swiftly brought on side after Miller netted a brace in the first old-firm game of the season. A sublimely controlled volley into the far corner was the cause of wild celebrations as Rangers took the lead. It was telling that his first instinct was to whirl away and head straight for the jubilant fans, stewards flailing about trying to separate a magnetic attraction. His first season saw a disappointing return of 13 goals in 43 games, but that old-firm brace saw an upturn in his standing with fans. The second year saw a marginal improvement with 21 in 49 games, but crucially another 3 old-firm goals followed, including another brace. His final season was short, but was undoubtedly a purple patch in his whole career, notching 11 goals in his opening 7 games. He finished his season with 22 goals in 25 games, and, despite leaving for Turkey during the January transfer window, Miller finished top scorer in the SPL. The third spell has been nothing short of disappointing, and has in many ways mirrored the performance of the team as a whole: ageing, lacking confidence and lacking quality. Miller was tasked with spearheading a return to the top division. The first 15 games yielded 5 goals, and the team was merely ticking along without really setting the league alight. A goalless middle spell for Miller coincided with an atrocious spell for the team including 5 defeats and only 3 wins. The season started out with so much promise after an unbeaten season previously, and with a front pairing of Boyd and Miller it was expected to be more than enough to see us win the league at a canter. It wasn't to be. His critics resurfaced. Miller's game has evolved over the years. When he began it was all about pure speed; he was light-weight, but his speed could get him past anyone. His second spell saw him mature and become a lot stronger. Miller's purple patch in that final half-season saw him prowl the shoulders of defenders; he still had the pace, but his power during this spell was phenomenal, out-muscling many a defender to slot the ball into the net. Miller's first touch has always been lacking, but he always had the raw pace and strength to mitigate this failing. Unfortunately, these attributes have somewhat left him this year as his age has finally caught up with him. The last few months have seen an upturn in the performance of the team, and crucially, the results. A third place finish condemned us to the play-offs as our only route to promotion. The games against our nearest rivals in the league were big games; not so much in themselves because we couldn't overturn Hibs, but more for our own momentum. Big players step up in big games. Kenny Miller was one of those big players, scoring 4 goals in 11 games since the 2-0 victory at Easter Road in late March. In itself this is not a great record; it's not bad, but it's not great. What is great is the importance of the goals. The goal against Hibs sealed a win that gave us a chance of finishing second. A goal against Champions Hearts gave us another morale-boosting win, and another goal against Hearts followed as we drew at Tynecastle--disappointing considering we were 2-0 up with 10 minutes to go, but remarkable in the course of an extremely poor season. Miller's critics and detractors abound--and I have been one of them--as he has been symptomatic of a team that has failed in so many ways this season. He's an easy scapegoat. His pace and power may have left him, and his first touch has never been there, but he reads the game well and his use of the ball has been good. Kenny Miller is a big game player, and his experience and goals have been invaluable. Who else would have caressed the ball with the outside of his foot to win us a cagey play-off game against Hibs? Who else would we trust to take that chance? He jumped over the advertising board and, arms outstretched, succumbed to the hands and hearts of the fans. The trust exists because Miller has done it time and time again. Big players step up.

Is it wrong that I kind-of like the sound of it?

2 good results, surely?

It's certainly a long shot, but it can't be any less than he was on at Twente? He's the right type IMO.

What about Shteve McLaren? Good coach; looks like he's on his way out at Derby. Cheeky text/call from King?

I think most Rangers fans would agree, but I had to laugh at the above. Irony?

McCoist's managerial tenure was undoubtedly a failure; nothing more, nothing less. He shouldn't be criticised for it; he was doing what he thought was best. It just so happened to be a failure. Moreover, it shouldn't overshadow what he did as a player. There is a tension between what we want to believe about McCoist and his actions. We want to believe McCoist is a Rangers man. A Rangers man wouldn't take a salary; McCoist is taking a Salary, so McCoist can't be a Rangers man. I don't think we can reconcile those two issues. We want to see things as 'black and white': he's either a Rangers man and so wouldn't take his salary, or not a Rangers man and will take his salary; Angel or Devil. However, perhaps he's both? Perhaps he is a Rangers man, but also feels entitled to his salary; legally, he is entitled to it. I would like to echo the sentiments of others: we should wait for his side of the story before criticising, no matter how it looks. It's not a 'black and white' situation, no matter how much we think it is. No fan has ever been in that position.

The above from Calscot is absolutely key for me. The other points were spot-on also, but they're mostly a formality -- hopefully! What I don't want is for us to go back to what we were doing before: outspending Scottish sides to win the League but get nowhere in Europe. We need to go down a different route. We need to be a bit more intelligent in the way we spend our money. I'd like to see us adopt a more Ajax, Barcelona-type model; where we develop our youngsters technically so they (and the club) can compete with European teams; where we start playing a better brand of football. Scottish football is stuck in the past. We should take the lead.

I actually agree that Vuckic shouldn't play wide-midfield, but not for the not-tracking-back accusation. I don't think it necessarily matters whether a wide-midfielder tracks-back if we have three in midfield because there will be cover; in a 4-4-2 wide-players tracking-back is a must (Man City really suffered as a result). Nevertheless, I think Vuckic is most effective when he's further up the pitch, so, for me, he must play off a striker, or at the tip of a diamond; at the very least in the attacking third (LW, RW, AM, SS). I'd like to see him more central, perhaps even in a midfield three, with a free-er role. Shiels suffered out wide but has been a lot better since being played in central midfield. I believe he actually started his career as a out-and-out Striker. Perhaps we should try him up front?

We've only ever had Scottish Managers (except for two), and, omitting the 2008 UEFA cup run, they've hardly been outstanding in Europe. The football was poor. It depends what you define a 'good run'. I would suggest it's not going to be exactly challenging for titles. We should have an infrastructure in place to challenge for EU titles, or at the least get as deep as possible. FC Porto are a relatively small side, but punch above their weight in Europe. We seem to have 2 standards: one for domestic competitions, where we expect to beat everyone playing good football; then one for Europe, where we expect to defend games out and try to 'sneak it'. If the latter standard creeps into our domestic game it's 'not worthy of the jersey', but in Europe it's a tactical masterclass. Now, it may be pragmatic, but I want something better for our team. We need 1 standard where we play decent football and are able to match any European opponent. I think a Scottish manager is only going to get us so far as they are dependent on the quality of player, whereas a proper 'coach' (continental or otherwise) would be able to get us playing a decent brand of football, with players developed to be technically as good as most European opponents. (Sorry GS, that wasn't really aimed at you, just the first paragraph; it just sort of spilled out!)

Aye, true. However, we only beat Alloa once in 4/5 games so you can hardly say it was slackness, whereas we actually have a not too bad record against those two--relatively speaking!.

Alright: "I don't think it was overly negative, just pragmatic--we won; they [...] got a sniff." They went gung-ho, but we could also have scored at the end on the break--if it wasn't for some abysmal ball-control.