craig

Unless the same amount of games they had played were 38 (ie ALL games) then taking things as they stand shouldn't be an option - with one other caveat being if it is mathematically impossible for the leaders to be caught and/or 2nd and 3rd bottom from being caught by bottom and 2nd bottom.

I would contend that the fight against Celtic being awarded the league is the club's, not Gerrard's. That said, he is the most front-facing, most famous face we have to be contending otherwise. We could also do with other high-profile ex-players making their voice known too.

Don't know him so do we believe he will be good in this role - we need someone strong for sure.

Polster got caught out by the same player that Tavernier hadn't been caught out by. Let that sink in a second. What has the "Scottish game" got to do with the managers tactics last night in a European game against non-Scottish competitors ? Indeed, what has that got to do with the manager pointing out Polster was at fault for the goal ?? So, you now know more about the game than the person charged with guiding us ? Someone that has been in the game at the professional level for over 20 years ? You just can't let it go, can you ? Polster was at fault for the 3rd goal. As DMAA said, Tavernier not only provided the assist for our goal last night but also created our best chance of the game. He also did nothing wrong defensively. I don't mind you wanting Polster to replace Tavernier... but in this thread, with regards to Tavernier's performance last night, given the mistakes the replacement you want made.... nope, on last night's showings it makes very little sense. Tavernier deserves his fair share of criticism this season, absolutely. But for his performance last night ? Absolutely not.

No, it isn't. I don't think Gaffer is suggesting that - depends on the way you read his post.

I think we could do very well if Morelos, Barisic and Tavernier went - the fear, obviously, would be that we would be losing three of our best performers - we need to ensure we get top money for them though. Barisic, for me, is a better player than Tierney and, whilst he is older, he is entering his prime - so 20 million should be the least we expect. That is good money and a healthy profit given we only spent 2 on him. Tavernier has been a fine servant - I would be expecting more than the 4 or 5 million being asked of him too. It is EPL clubs looking at him where they spend 80 million on Harry McGuire ? - 5 million is peanuts - we should be holding out for double that IMO. Which would also give us decent enough money to replace him. Morelos I would still be expecting 20+ million even given his recent struggles. That would give us about 50 million in the bank (or at least to be banked) - we wouldn't spend all of that on players clearly as we would look to retain money in the bank. But that would be a sizeable pot of money. Hagi and Kamberi would cost about 5.5 million between the both of them. We would then need a replacement for Tavernier (unless Gerrard thinks Polster and Patterson are sufficient - depends on what he is looking for given he would lose Barisic's attacking/crossing on one side and Tavernier's on the other) and Barisic - you just have to hope we can find another Barisic, possibly again in the Balkan leagues for a fraction of the income we get from him. Kamberi would potentially be a Morelos replacement but I would say we would also need a prolific striker. Hagi could be the #10, but I would also like to see someone on top of that who can beat an opponent and thread a ball. At the end of the day, it is never easy to lose your best players but a) Morelos and Tavernier have lost form of late so aren't providing as much as we could be doing with b) it would be a lot of money to leave on the table potentially and c) that money could provide more than adequate replacements as well as strengthen the squad. It all comes down to our recruitment - and I like the moves that Ross Wilson made in January - Hagi and Kamberi have made immediate impacts - as of now, I trust Wilson to get the recruitment side of the football operations right.

If he cost us the goal why can't you blame him ? Saying he cost us the goal IS blaming him. And it WAS his fault. However, I don't dislike Polster and, in fact, think he could do well for us with a run of games in the team. However, what I am not prepared to do is to concede to dB when he basically blames Tavernier and says he should be replaced by Polster…. in a match thread where Tavernier didn't do anything wrong defensively (dB loves to say how being a defender is the first thing a defender needs to do....) and then wants Polster in who actually cost us a goal. It makes absolutely zero logical sense based on both player's contributions last night.

Take a look at the 3rd goal again without your anti-Tavernier specs on..... Polster over-ran the ball, considerably, in the opponent's half. Then never fouled the guy to prevent a swift attack.... and then allowed the guy who scored the opportunity to turn him in the box. I will take solace in the fact that the manager agrees with me, but thanks for your input Tavernier is still a better option than Polster - doesn't matter how many different ways you try to dress it up. Tavernier was playing injured, neither of the first two goals came from either his mistakes or his side of the pitch.... Polster comes on and makes TWO mistakes in the same build up and the goal is scored by a guy who steps inside him to finish (fine cut back and finish though it was, it came from Polster's side.....).

I would argue that the teams we have played in Europe have actually come out to play against us, which helps us. We have dominated Celtic in 5 of the last 6 OF games.... they come out and play against us..... everyone else sits in and parks the bus. It isn't that they aren't good enough, it is that we haven't found a solution to the teams that park the bus.

Same. I thought he put in a great shift, with little support roundabout him. We shouldn't forget that Bayer really are a class team though. Difficult playing against those teams. I suspect that Gerrard actually wanted us to play with a low block, give them plenty of possession until they got to the final third where the space would be squeezed. Worked well until the penalty in fairness.

I wasn't worrying. Was responding to dB looking to say Tavernier should be replaced by Polster (or Patterson). Polster did worse than Tavernier when he came on, and Tavernier was playing through injury. But dB has this thing about Tavernier being his go-to punchbag.

There IS a logical reason. Those co-efficient points are earned as you play in the Europa League, as are the bonuses. You don't, however, get awarded the Europa League for having the most co-efficient points or, indeed, for having played the most games in the competition this season (sadly)…. Celtic have earned the points they have in the SPFL this season... but they haven't yet earned enough to be awarded the league.... so you can't give them the title.

The EPL is now suspended till first week of April - and the suspension could be extended beyond even that..... so it becomes ever more difficult to see the season being able to be completed. Null and void HAS to be the only choice - you cannot hand a title to a team just because they are 16 points ahead (13 if we win our game in hand) with so many points still on the table. If we were to win the two remaining OF games that deficit is 7 points - not insurmountable - just ask Marvin Andrews..... They can't award them the title - doing so would add the biggest of asterisks ever in the game. Sadly (and I say this as an Arsenal fan with no real love of Liverpool), the same has to be said of Liverpool because, presently, they aren't mathematically guaranteed to win the league - they only need one more win I believe and no doubt would get it.... but if it is mathematically possible for them to be caught then they cant be awarded the title.

I would contend that to deserve it you need to be mathematically impossible to catch.

Polster cost us the 3rd goal and gave it away needlessly a few times. Hardly covered himself in glory when he came on. Tavernier didn’t do much wrong tonight, at least defensively. And offensively didn’t get much of a chance. But some just have this want to throw him under the bus when it is unnecessary.

Not sure how they can claim it though... surely would need to be mathematically impossible to be caught before that was even considered.

We’ve done much better second half. Yes, we’re lacking quality but we need a sense of realism here.... in our financial state and recent toils we are punching well above our weight just getting to this stage. And there goes this tie too.....

And yet strangely enough in the second half they are the ones hanging on.... thus far

Cruising they may have been a bit that doesn’t negate the fact they haven’t troubled McGregor. They were the better team first half but they didn’t force McGregor into one save.

McGregor has had nothing to do. As good as they are they haven’t actually troubled us

Leaking goals ?

lol, no worries mate

Rangers Twitter just announced game goes ahead and with crowd in attendance.

Put your specs on Les bud - I said I fancied Spurs and Chelsea to go out (post #21) I forecast only Liverpool and City to go through. Pool would have went through had Allison played last night

Our spell in the lower leagues was a chance missed for sure. And, even though I would agree with you regards being poorer than Celtic in terms of youths making the first team, I would contend that our top league hiatus helped them with that because the league title was never in any doubt - they could afford to bring in 3, 4 or 5 youths because they were always going to win the league by a landslide. The question would be how many of their youths have made the step up since we returned to the top flight - and I don't think they are in much better shape than us in all honesty.