Who Ate All the Pies.....Rangers v Kilmarnock Preview

[RANGERRAB 3,739]

Boyd would have done what he always did and got himself offside a dozen times.

McCoist was at fault for much, but don't blame him for Boyds laziness.

Pretty soon Boyd is going to realise that he wasted a career.

Lazy, idle bassa.

 

McCoist signing Boyd & Miller two years ago was a major contributing factor to costing him his job IMO

[pete 2,499]

Boyd would have done what he always did and got himself offside a dozen times.

McCoist was at fault for much, but don't blame him for Boyds laziness.

Pretty soon Boyd is going to realise that he wasted a career.

Lazy, idle bassa.

 

I agree totally to a certain point and Boyd was a lazy person:). I am no Boyd fan and probably one of his biggest critics but sometimes I wish now there was a bloom'n striker that was always in the box. The likes of Clark was the opposite for me, he worked far too hard for a striker. I suppose it is how you want to play but if you want a hard working striker then you also have to have a midfield who want to get into the box. That is our problem when Miller is the main striker when he drops deep we have nobody in the box. I will also say Boyd was probably the reason Miller scored so many goals in the year that they played up front together. When Miller dropped deep the CH's stayed with Boyd giving Miller room to run the channels. I can't believe I am defending Boyd.

As Cruyff would say every positive has a negative and every negative has a positive.

[boabie 230]

I agree totally to a certain point and Boyd was a lazy person:). I am no Boyd fan and probably one of his biggest critics but sometimes I wish now there was a bloom'n striker that was always in the box. The likes of Clark was the opposite for me, he worked far too hard for a striker. I suppose it is how you want to play but if you want a hard working striker then you also have to have a midfield who want to get into the box. That is our problem when Miller is the main striker when he drops deep we have nobody in the box. I will also say Boyd was probably the reason Miller scored so many goals in the year that they played up front together. When Miller dropped deep the CH's stayed with Boyd giving Miller room to run the channels. I can't believe I am defending Boyd.

As Cruyff would say every positive has a negative and every negative has a positive.

 

Nobody can argue with Boyds record Pete. But I've always wondered just how good that boy could have turned out if he hadn't been so unprofessional and heart lazy. He didn't even have the sense to analyse where he was making mistakes in continually wandering offside or to keep his hands off when jumping with a defender. Game after game he did the same thing. The rest of the squad must have hated playing with him - everybody bursting their erses only for that dumpling to get caught offside yet again.

[limeburner 0]

Big Boyd was what he was,he didnt have much of an engine but knew where the goal was.What might have beens are pointless.

[JFK-1 1,693]

The most significant thing about Boyd on Saturday was the respectful welcome he got from our crowd when he came on despite the fact the last time we played them he was instrumental in robbing us of two points. Contrast that to the abuse Kenny Miller gets at two clubs who shall remain nameless he previously played for.

[calscot 0]

Really enjoyed the Russian Rangers highlights, that was how we expected to play this season, at least against those outside the top three.

 

I did notice some good use of the long ball with a couple of them bringing very good attacks - one from the back up to Garner to knock down, and the Windass one diagonally out wide to O'Halloran. The great thing was the accuracy of the pass and the skill in receiving. There were others that didn't quite pay off but it certainly gives us another dimension and consequently a bit more space to play our main style.

 

We seem to have tweaked out tactics and it worked, at least for this game. I really liked the role that O'Halloran played and it gave us a great attacking option. Miller seemed to be pretty good at the free role he had, linking with midfield, while allowing Garner to take on the main striking role.

 

Defensively we looked reasonably solid but it's hard to say too much about that when the highlights show us mostly attacking right from the first minute.

 

It's also hard to say how much Kilmarnock contributed to our good performance as they seemed to be one of those in between teams that actually have the guts to try to play up the park rather than just sitting back and parking the bus, while not being quite good enough to go toe to toe with us. I think these are the kind of teams that will be more enjoyable to watch us against, but they'll probably learn the lesson and be more conservative next time.

 

It's a relief to finally get to second place although I'm not going to react too much to that - there's a lot of capitulation by our current (but hopefully temporary) rivals - and only in the Scottish league would all three teams competing for second or third, drop points two matches in a row. As I said before, the goal of just securing second in this league for a club like Rangers with our resources, is a very low bar, and the meme when McCoist was around was that anyone's granny could do it.

 

The gap to Celtic definitely adds a sour note, and it's not too exciting to be just at the front of a very distance chasing pack.

 

The best news is that Warburton seems to have transformed the team for one game, I just hope it's the start of something that will continue to improve for the rest of the season.