Jig

[RANGERRAB 3,677]

An interesting OP but I've two brief comments about LeeMcCulloch:-

 

1) he is not good enough to play CB for Rangers

2) if he is currently earning £18k p.w. or thereabouts then that is a scandalous amount of money to be paying someone as things stand at Rangers. That money could be much better spent elsewhere at Rangers. Ditto his pal McCoist too

[Rousseau 10,640]

An interesting OP but I've two brief comments about LeeMcCulloch:-

 

1) he is not good enough to play CB for Rangers

2) if he is currently earning £18k p.w. or thereabouts then that is a scandalous amount of money to be paying someone as things stand at Rangers. That money could be much better spent elsewhere at Rangers. Ditto his pal McCoist too

 

1) I agree. But I think he is a useful presence. Using him in a back three works well because we get his experience and cover in Zaliukus and Mohsni - who also require cover! I think we'd miss his influence on a game. We must remember he is 36; I think he is remarkably consistent and still able to keep up - for the most part! - with the rest of the team for an old man.

 

2) Again, I agree, but I don't know for a fact what he's on. I'm not going to criticise him based on an assumption. McCoist should have waved the salary; it's scandalous that he is still getting paid.

 

Thanks for your comments.

[limeburner 0]

His behavior yersterday fell well short of what you describe.

[Frankie 8,570]

I think sometimes Rangers fans do exaggerate about Lee McCulloch and too easily dismiss the contribution he has made.

 

I'd sum up my feelings by saying that the lad has probably suffered from two main problems:

 

1. Being 'too' versatile and thus used everywhere except goalkeeper.

2. Being overpaid

 

This means at times he is an all too convenient scapegoat for when we struggle on the park. The fact various managers have cleared rated his abilities means he must have something we don't always see.

 

In saying that, I'd say he's well past his best now and it puzzles me that McCall wants to continue playing him.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Frankie

[der Berliner 3,747]

Could you be more specific - I would like to know where i'm going wrong so I can rectify it.

 

I was in particluar aiming that reply on Tannochsidebear's reply above mine*. You have adressed it in post #10 yourself. Each to his/her own, but it would do well if we lay off the extremist views and wording that more often than not creep into nigh any debate.

 

*I have included the quote in my reply above.

[Scott7 6,013]

It's a damn fine piece of writing though, in my opinion, McCulloch's past merits are over-stated and his current standard of play is glossed over, which emphasises what a good job Rousseau has done as Jig's apologist/advocate.

 

I look forward to the next one.

[craig 5,199]

1) I agree. But I think he is a useful presence. Using him in a back three works well because we get his experience and cover in Zaliukus and Mohsni - who also require cover! I think we'd miss his influence on a game. We must remember he is 36; I think he is remarkably consistent and still able to keep up - for the most part! - with the rest of the team for an old man.

 

2) Again, I agree, but I don't know for a fact what he's on. I'm not going to criticise him based on an assumption. McCoist should have waved the salary; it's scandalous that he is still getting paid.

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

Only his negative influence. He really is a wasted jersey now. I was at the QotS and Livvy games and it is scary how he slows the game to a snail's pace even when we are shifting the ball from left to right or vice versa. He is done. He doesn't motivate team-mates, gets caught for pace, isn't particularly strong in the air defensively, plays too slow, poor first touch, looks for the long aimless ball far too often. Which part of his influence are we missing again ?

 

As for his age..... tough. This is professional sport. No opponent slows by a yard because you are 15 years older than him. Davie Weir played with us till he was 41 and we very, very rarely talked about his age other than to consider how remarkable it was that he was still playing so well at the top of the game. In McCulloch's case you seem to be making it an excuse for him - if that is the case then he really DOES need to hang up the boots. The minute age becomes an excuse is the minute you should consider retiring....

 

He really cant keep up with the rest of the team though. He now lacks mobility alongside pace he never had anyway, which makes him a liability especially when playing at the back.

 

He has served his time, but his time should be at an end.

[jhunter 0]

[inappropriate comment removed - Frankie]

 

but in his defence he didn't and doesn't pick himself, the old boys act sees to that.

 

he is not and never hasbeen a CH

Edited April 6, 2015 by Frankie

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

I think sometimes Rangers fans do exaggerate about Lee McCulloch and too easily dismiss the contribution he has made.

 

I'd sum up my feelings by saying that the lad has probably suffered from two main problems:

 

1. Being 'too' versatile and thus used everywhere except goalkeeper.

2. Being overpaid

 

This means at times he is an all too convenient scapegoat for when we struggle on the park. The fact various managers have cleared rated his abilities means he must have something we don't always see.

 

In saying that, I'd say he's well past his best now and it puzzles me that McCall wants to continue playing him.

He has never excelled in any position in his entire career. He was mediocre on a good day, now he's just not close to being fit to play professional football.

[craig 5,199]

what a load of wank.

 

but in his defence he didn't and doesn't pick himself, the old boys act sees to that.

 

he is not and never hasbeen a CH

 

Can we perhaps tone down the comments please.