craig

1-0 Braga

You've misunderstood Bill. That "his remarks" comment was aimed at the quote Gonzo gave about Pamplona when Traynor was at the Record as a journalist, not as Level 5 consultant for Rangers

Given you yourself were set upon and hospitalized by Celtic fans for nothing more than being a Rangers supporter I would have expected you would have at least a modicum of empathy for someone being attacked for nothing more than having an association with our club. Very poor comment

But giving Polster license to get forward whilst in a back 3 makes the defensive line very unbalanced. You effectively have the right sided CB getting forward leaving the central CB and left sided CB having to shuffle over to cover - that could create no end of problems with players not knowing what is expected of them when out of possession. We get more attack-minded formation, shape and balance from having 4 at the back and allowing the full backs to offer support in higher areas of the pitch.

Polster in that team doesn't work IMO. I don't thinkhe is positionally sound enough to play in a back 3. Against Hearts he got caught very, very narrow a number of times. If playing a back 3 then, for me, it would be Goldson, Katic and Edmundson. But I wouldn't go a back 3 anyway because, strange though it sounds, we would be less attack-minded with a back 3. Our current formation is more attacking because, in possession, we effectively play with 2 at the back (Goldson and Katic) whilst the full backs off width on the overlap. With a back 3 the wide midfielders are going to have to do the tracking back which, as Rousseau says, negates their attacking threat.

Were you calling for his head 4 weeks ago ? How fickle you are

The thread shouldn't be closed as he is entitled to his opinion the same as you or I. That still doesn't mean I wont be ridiculing a ridiculous suggestion.

Posted with the pati Posted with the patience and understanding of a pre-pubescent pre-teenager

Get a grip FFS

The officiating is absolutely fucking brutal in Scotland. if it’s a free kick against Morelos where he scores then it’s a penalty a couple minutes before for the push on him. Absolutely fucking horrible officiating. I’m not convinced it’s incompetence either.

Is O Donnell not offside as he left the field of play and came back on ? Handball from McKenzie from the cross

Riquelme comfortably the best player on the pitch. Can't believe one of the BT Sports commentators says "a pass to his fellow mophead" when one AM player passed to Riquelme. So disrespectful.

Dear oh dear ??‍♂️

1. It was last weekend Celtic best Hamilton, not midweek. 2. They scored from a free kick, not a penalty. Craigan and Rae spike down our game because we weren’t playing very well. First half we had tons of possession but could easily have went into the break down 3-2 (Hagi should have scored but they also should have had a penalty and from the boy that was clean through). Talking our game down makes sense sometimes. It doesn’t show anti-Rangers bias, it’s called honesty. We weren’t good enough given the standards we showed pre-Xmas. Personally I would prefer commentators to be honest rather than show bias towards a club. And I think Craigan and Rae were just being honest. I prefer that to the bias Sutton shows, even when talking us down if it’s needed.

Didn't realise you were specifically talking about this season. Apologies.

As I said, mistrial or not, the reality is that the verdict was never in doubt. Never. As for Trump do you honestly think he cares that it is less than a "not proven" ? Do you honestly think he cares that it was a partisan judgement ? If anything it gives his ego even more scope because, supposing he was actually guilty, he has been acquitted and all because he knows that any impeachment proceeding is likely to be met with acquittal. Why isn't it satisfactory for the Republican Party ? They still hold the majority in the House, they still have the sitting President - they don't care - and if anyone complains about putting "party before law" they will just point right back across the aisle at the Democrats and say they did the exact same thing for Clinton - this is politics, it's a finger-pointing game whether you or I like it or not. The Democrats, as you say, are unsatisfied for more than just the reason you state. Not only did they screw it up but they almost guaranteed Trump another 4 years - that impeachment plus the petulance of Nancy Pelosi ripping up the State of the Union speech certainly didn't help their cause either. Trump will survive the impeachment. I agree that it has been a farce. The Democrats didn't play the long game well. Sure, they could pretty much ensure impeachment proceedings and the impeachment was almost certain to happen - where they didn't play the long game was in getting a conviction - it was never going to happen - the Republicans were never going to vote in enough numbers against their sitting President. Just wasn't going to happen. Trump is made of Teflon, the Democrats should have recognized that.

To be fair, Christie got a 2 game ban for grabbing Morelos' crown jewels. The fact he was injured during the ban has been completely ignored....

Willing to bet that the Rangers charges that have been postponed will magically be dealt with in the week leading up to the next OF game.

Pffftttt - ya bam

Same here BD. Must admit I'm a little surprised more of our generation wouldn't go for that one - some fantastic memories in that strip - Leeds, CL, McCoist scoring and wheeling away about to burst out crying. Tons of happy memories.

Petty, I wouldn't even expect a child to post that

He's also very good on RTV and BT Sport when they have him on.

Even had they heard witnesses they would have voted for an acquittal. It was a pointless exercise to hear witnesses. Same as it was for Clinton i.e. Democrats and Republicans would have voted along party lines. The trial aspect was a complete waste of time.

Was it though ? He was actually impeached, the acquittal was, from what I understand (and I could be wrong) nothing to do with mis-trial and more to do with Republicans (Mitt Romney aside) voting along party lines and as they had a majority in the House the acquittal was always expected.

I'm biased, but I could listen to Kevin Thomson's footballing insights any time. He is far, far better than Michael Stewart, he played to a higher standard than Michael Stewart, achieved more in the game than Michael Stewart and, importantly to me, he is impartial - has a fondness for Rangers despite being a Hibby, but will always call out deficiencies in the Rangers performances when he sees them. That is why he is so well-liked. People know he is being honest and without an agenda. He's a millionaire in his own right so isn't driven by money - his drive is a determination to reach the top.