ascender 352 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Yeah spot on there in the first paragraph which is what ive said. If its one upfront then Cousin is the only man for the job. If its 2 up top then any 2 can play. Second point - what does that say about our current strikers if he has grown in stature!!! I think we're a fickle bunch really! TBH I wasn't so much talking about this forum as we seem to be a more, um, how do I put this, reasonable bunch and seem to be more willing to debate stuff in a reasoned manner. Man, that sounded pretentious. But going by other forums, many of our fans seem to have elevated Cousin to this amazing striker who can do no wrong and is the only reason we're top of the league. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderslieblue 0 Posted February 13, 2008 Author Share Posted February 13, 2008 i cant disagree there's a good argument for playing him, definitely cant. just against the idea that its the only decent one. I'm a lifelong Rangers fan. I KNOW what the term 'loyalty' when we're talking about Rangers means. Nobody more disappointed than me that it's come to depending on the form of a man who wants to leave Ibrox. Years ago he would've been hunted out the door FIFA or no FIFA. But 'loyalty' didny end with Cousin asking to leave. Other guys walked out the door and are STILL hailed as 'loyal heroes'. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Barry said, "ok, here is an argument for why we should be calling his mental state into question. tell me if you think its fair. everyone is aware of what we might call "the friendly mentality", a portion of which's lack of edge is the fear of being pointlessly injured. i dont think it needs too much backing up to say that a) Cousin has a very serious interest in not getting injured, and b) that this mentality can have tangible effects on a player's performance, therefore c) Cousin's performance may be affected." That's a good point that I hadn't thought of... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Cousin has the ability to play well but he's not the messiah. I prefer Darche, although by all accounts JC has not been on form lately anyway. Boyd is a great finisher but the rest of his play has been considered suspect by many, especially in the type of tactical games we get in Europe. He has that reputation for a reason and it seems for once WS agrees with many of the fans. Cousin, isn't great he's just potentially better than anyone else available for the role that is sure to be up for grabs. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 i would really, really like to see us play a 442 today to sidestep the cousin problem altogether. i really think the strongest case for him being played is that he is best suited to 451. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 i cant disagree there's a good argument for playing him, definitely cant. just against the idea that its the only decent one. It's definitely not the only decent one, just the preferred one for some fans, and the preference gets greater when we're threatened with McCulloch in that position... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 It's definitely not the only decent one, just the preferred one for some fans, and the preference gets greater when we're threatened with McCulloch in that position... It's no longer a threat of McCulloch playing up top himself. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 we absolutely cant play mcculloch in the lone striker role. it would be unfair to say he's terrible there as we have only seen a few games. being generous would be to say that he's unproven there, and if we are going for an unproven lone striker i would go for boyd. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Have to agree. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 we absolutely cant play mcculloch in the lone striker role. it would be unfair to say he's terrible there as we have only seen a few games. being generous would be to say that he's unproven there, and if we are going for an unproven lone striker i would go for boyd. I'm not a fan of the Boyd in the lone striker role but I'd rather him play up there than McCulloch. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.