Rangers Announce Match Pricing

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Yeah, the next 90 minutes is all that matters. Until you go 25 matches in Europe and win only three games. It's safe to say a longer term philosophy might be required.

 

With regard to Arsenal they won the FA cup last season and continually finish in the top 4. They have far less resources than City, Man Utd and Chelsea so start off with a huge disadvantage.

 

Unfortunately you are an example of the short shortsightedness in Scottish football that has us light years behind the rest of the world.

[Hildy 0]

Arsenal have been long credited with being an attractive, passing team - what have they won in recent years???

 

There were a few games last season where we generally played well, yet failed to get a good result - maybe just scraping a win or at least a draw. Playing attractive passing football means absolutely nothing if you don't win the game.

2008 - we played some terrible football, yet still got to a European final.

 

The most important thing in ANY football match is scoring more than the other team - anything else is a bonus.

Anything else is a bonus?

 

Why bother attending then?

 

They can check the result and cut out the too often miserable experience of actually being there.

 

If the result is everything, and watchable football is considered to be a bonus, it is wholly understandable that people are reluctant to pay good money to watch Rangers.

 

People pay to attend an event that they hope will be enjoyable. When they are told that entertainment is a bonus, and with an implication that they should be grateful for it, they cannot and should not be blamed for packing the whole thing in.

[Hildy 0]

Terrible argument. The better the team perform (ie playing better football with higher passing completion rate, more creative attacks, dynamic play etc) the more successful they will likely be. Teams that cannot pass a ball are never going to be very successful.

 

Has a side ever won the Champions League that plays horrific football, is poorly organised, struggle to maintain possession for more than 2 passes at a time etc? Do you think Germany would have won the world cup were they not so good at maintaining possession and creative in the final third?

 

Not sure why performance and results are seen as mutually exclusive by some.

 

And when I go to Ibrox, yes I want to see the team perform and be capable of retaining possession. If route 1 football was good the top sides would be playing it.

 

PS - Perhaps if we were capable of performing better and actually attempted to play football, we might not have had so many embarrassing results under Ally.

 

It's such a bizarre, ill founded, dated Scottish attitude to have.

 

'Winning is all that matters' - Aye that's all well and good until we get embarrassed and out passed year after year in Europe and in international tournaments by far better drilled, organised and informed foreign sides.

This is a good post.

 

Well said.

[Darthter 542]

I think there is a difference between playing unattractive football & just plain bad football.

 

Playing defensively & trying to hit on the break is unattractive, but you can still play well.

Rushing up the park @ every opportunity can be exciting, but can be done badly.

 

I don't disagree that at times we played VERY poorly - unable to string 2 passes together - that is just outright bad play. We must tighten up on the basics for next season. If we do that it will probably result in less frustration for the fans.....this may then result in a better match experience.

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

Really that's bizarre...

 

Not bizarre at all, section GR5 @ £22 a game ST and paper tickets bought for £21. This season, it has been addressed with the new pricing structure.

 

Although our central B72 seats still require a few home cup games to be cheaper than MtoM. But McCoist is good for long cup runs, so....

[True_Ger_1872 2]

Before the World Cup there was an article on the BBC website that went into detail on the Belgian FA and how they altered their approach to football from grass roots level and how this was paying dividends now. Now i realise that Belgium's performance in the World Cup can be seen as either good or bad depending on your POV.

 

However, the main aspects that they changed was the fact that they moved away from the 'winning is everything' mentality and brought in a mindset of 'seeking continual improvement' on an individual basis. This would include early promotion of younger players to the next level in their football hierarchy if they weren't being challenged enough in the Under 12's for instance. Players on every team were given a minimum amount of gametime to ensure that players were given the opportunity to develop within games the same as most others which would eliminate the possibility of just opting for a strong starting 11 and having less than adequate backup (which IS an interesting point when you consider some of the results from Belgium's tactical substitutions that were made in the World Cup).

 

Another aspect of change that was implemented to facilitate a stream of high quality players was the adoption of a standard formation: 4-3-3. From a young age, players were taught how to play within this system which would reap benefits as it allowed for a more free-flowing style of play which would allow for a more substantial level of improvement in players to be nurtured throughout their careers.

 

All in all it was an interesting read and when i noticed some of these traits (mostly the substitutions) in the World Cup - i thought back about this article and it did ring home some truths in that the national game in Scotland is not good one bit.

 

However it wasn't all rosy - the chap who instigated these changes was slaughtered at time during the transition and it never went down well with fans and the general public. But it has came good in the end when you consider the number of Belgian players in the EPL / Champs League and also how highly rated the Belgian squad were prior t the World Cup.

 

Bringing this back to the topic at hand - i do think that Rangers still operate with a 'win win win' mentality and to an extent, i can appreciate that. But i cannot help but feel that perhaps there needs to be some sort of radical change made to the football operations at the club that will ring in benefits to the quality of youth players coming through and a significant improvement to the quality of the product on the park.

[Super Cooper 0]

Belgium were huge let downs. Poor manager and players with a dreadful "look at me" attitude. They have however in the last 5 to 10 years brought through some undoubtedly good players though but their stinking attitude almost reminds of the Dutch of old.

 

Continual improvement won't work at Rangers, not whilst Celtic are topping up their trophies and titles as we "continually improve" We must be able to improve at the same time as being successful and dominant.

 

I have watched our kids play 4-4-2 and then graduate to the first team and be expected to play 4-5-1. it's unfair on them.

[True_Ger_1872 2]

Belgium were huge let downs. Poor manager and players with a dreadful "look at me" attitude. They have however in the last 5 to 10 years brought through some undoubtedly good players though but their stinking attitude almost reminds of the Dutch of old.

 

Continual improvement won't work at Rangers, not whilst Celtic are topping up their trophies and titles as we "continually improve" We must be able to improve at the same time as being successful and dominant.

 

I have watched our kids play 4-4-2 and then graduate to the first team and be expected to play 4-5-1. it's unfair on them.

 

They were indeed let downs. Lots of individual talent but i agree with the players attitude letting them down. I also feel if they had been managed by one of the other managers on show at the World Cup (possibly the Chile, Costa Rica or Columbia Managers) then i think they might have put on a greater showing on that stage.

 

Your point about the kids playing 4-4-2 and having to adapt to 4-5-1 being unfair is totally on the mark. If we are to expect a smooth transition from the youth set up to playing for the first team - then there needs to be some overarching consensus that ensures that these two meet. I dont really like the fact we always end up with so many players who are more like 'utility men' as they have had to adapt to different roles in order to 'do a job' for the team.

 

This issue may have been minimised with the Director of Football Operations Role or whatever it was being called. But we all know a lot of work is needed in this area.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

It's all well and good putting the prices up to what they were pre admin but we were paying to watch championship winning internationals then.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

I think there is a difference between playing unattractive football & just plain bad football.

 

Playing defensively & trying to hit on the break is unattractive, but you can still play well.

Rushing up the park @ every opportunity can be exciting, but can be done badly.

 

I don't disagree that at times we played VERY poorly - unable to string 2 passes together - that is just outright bad play. We must tighten up on the basics for next season. If we do that it will probably result in less frustration for the fans.....this may then result in a better match experience.

Some teams play counter attacking football, some teams play attacking football, we play brutal football.