der Berliner

https://www.footballtransfertavern.com/rangers-fc-transfer-rumours/glasgow-rangers-rival-interest-riquelme/

That looks like this over-statistic garbage the US make so much fuss about in American football ... yet, at the end of the day, points on the board matter, don't they? Obviously, domination of the ball et al should by default win the day in any given game ... and perhaps we saw something new in the Roofe & Itten as well as Barker & Kent attack line-up. We have to wait and see how that developes and how we get on against the brickwallers on their soil.

It is also said that Rogic and Ntcham are for the off. But honestly, when I saw their "team sheet" the last time, 4 or 5 of their guys were utterly unknown to me. While one should know his enemies, I try to stay clear from that shyte, so I don't get dirty ... Regarding Morelos, he was a great servant and as I said, his head has been turned and so be it. Farethee well ...

If you click on the direct youtube link, you get the "poster" and that's indeed the SPFL.

Highlights by the SPFL Why Itten got a yellow card for the collision only Clancy will ever know ...

A number of factors come into play, as always. We may or may not accept a certain sum for any given player, the player may or may not decide to leave. There was word that there is a release clause in Kent's contract, with other people denying it (wonder how either would know). Good on Alfredo to tell the gaffer that he was not in the right frame of mind - after all, he's quite young still and millions of pounds flittering around your head are bound to unhinge you somewhat. Some will claim that as a professional footballer you should be able to cope with that, but again, he's also still a young man with a young family. We've got adequate (at this moment) replacements for him right now and while people will call it a big big mistake if Kent leaves (too), there are other players out there that can do a similar job.

Hladky has joined Salford, Dykes now QPR ...

Clancy the bigger danger than Killie today, yet we won 3 good points. Roofe and Itten always keeping them busy, Barker and Kent full of pace and willingness to shoot. Defence solid and both fullbacks with good crosses too. If we get that on a consistent basis ... Would have liked to see Stewart earlier. Every time he is there, he's got a chance or puts some good crosses and touches in, vital against tiring defences. BTW, those 2 "goal-line clearances" ... would have liked to them closer and better.

Sorry, I don't read through 10+ pages before posting a comment ... ?

Is that Roffe on Roofe's back?

Well, we are quicker to release the ball and play it up front, but Killie is better than Livi to thwart the chances. It is the expected game, TBH, and we probably have to wait a fe games before Itten and Roofe really click. Barker looks not too bad, one would hope we play quicker balls from the back though. We still take too many touches before playing the ball, be that Davis or Jack. The latter plays more like a right sided midfielder than his usual DM role.

A) we play with JacKamara and thus, 4 (defenders) - 2 (JacKamara) - 3 (inside left & right plus one through the middle) and 1 striker. Whether the players take up other positions like our fullbacks, does not matter. If you maintain they do, then our line up would be 2-7-1 or whatever. B) as Roofe and Itten are strikers, it is only natural to say it looks like a 4-4-2 with kent and Barker playing on the wings.

This looks more like a 4-4-2 with Roofe and Itten up top, but we shall see. Hopefully, come 5 o'clock, I will be smitten bei Itten ?

IMHO, it is more about tactics than the odd individual player. And has been for quite some time. I reckon Killie will be similar to St. Johnstone, defending deep but having a couple or more waiting for the counter. As I cannot see us going without either of the fullbacks, you would hope that the JacKamara becomes a Jack or Kamara and we play Itten and or Roofe from the start alongside Morelos, who also looks somewhat undroppable.

Rangers Football Club @RangersFC SG: Ryan (Kent) is a player we admire very much here and we have seen him develop. He is progressing very quickly and is a player we want to keep hold off. We very quickly rejected an opening bid that was nowhere near his valuation. So 10m is not enough ...

BTW, aside from Benteke, the name Harry WIlson also popped up yesterday. Given what they raked in for Solanke (who done next to nothing after his transfer), the fee mentioned was 20m. Which would probably even be value for money. Should we see the back of Morelos and even Kent, well ... Just as food for thought. I saw Kent (just before his transfer) and Wilson together at the start of last season in a friendly for Liverpool and they were different class. Wilson was doing well on loan last season and Liverpool said that they'd sell him, no more loans. One also wonders whether SG can convince Klopp of a loan for Rhian Brewster for our right flank ...

Read the Plymouth match report and found it bizarre that they did not mention a single player name, though it was said (on FF) that this was asked for by us. With regard to said trialist.

Same why we would want Kent et al: they see the potential of including a player like Kent in their line-up. His style, directness et al. We 8the support) have seen what he can do and where he is not as useful "as any other player that is cheaper". Hence the comment. Dunno what Leeds got for getting back up there straight away, 180m or the like?

That is the crux. Not that he disagrees, but that he keeps the tactic.

Plenty of similar sentiments still raging in the Livingston vs Rangers match thread. Much of that has been said time and again, and what irates me most is that this is not the first time. There was a stat somewhere that the plastic pitches at Livingston and Killie cause many teams problems and we have scored few goals there and left many points in return. You start asking whether such pitches are actually up to UEFA or FIFA norms. Of course, we are Rangers and we should not "look for excuses" ... as a well drawn out mantra says and one that is repeated by quite a few folk too. Interestingly enough, it is more often than not those very same people that lay into our players (some more, some less) for being not good enough on the day or in general. It is also the very same people that more often than not simply disregard the fact that there actually is a well drilled (their manager must be "a joy" to have, from his looks at least) team out there trying to thwart any decent attempt at football. Usually, it is a fine mix of all the above, and one more fact that for some reason we stick to line-ups that simply do not help us against such tactics. And we trial that line up for the best part of two seasons, going into a third now. In retrospect, SG can thank Morelos for having been the lethal striker that he was, or else we would most likely have looked miserable in goal-scoring stats ... and consequently results. I find it absolutely baffling that we use the same approach that we saw in Europe against teams who try to play football being thrown at the walls of Kilmarnock, Hamilton, Livingston and Co. as if these side would even attempt to play open football - unless they smell blood or have to claw back a meagre 1-0 deficit. In fact, I find it almost bizarre that SG bemoans the lack in the final third when he actually plays a striker who has currently a wavering form, a pacy Kent whose pace does not really help when facing 2 or 3 defenders and whose goal-scoring return is more that of an average winger than a full-blooded striker SG apparently wants him to be, a Hagi who is de facto still accustom himself to the world of the brickwall brigade and an Aribo who tries his best through the middle. The latter three are constantly roving along a line of 5 to 7 defenders, trying to dance or short-pass their way through, only to time and again be thwarted by that "leg too many". The art of shooting from the edge of the box or even beyond has gone missing ... and as long as Morelos does not hit the target regularly, we stutter and stumble through games where we don't have the fortune of scoring early. Having brilliant possession stats is fine, methinks Jack and Kamara had most passes again on Sunday, but they offer not much going forward and as such do not help the team. Or rather, keep someone more attack-minded out of the team. And speaking of shooting, Barasic can do that, yet Tavernier would be more usefull for rugby penalty kicks when it comes to shots or even free kicks that are aimed directly at goal. Which is why I, every now and then - given the lack of defensive work he had e.g. on Sunday - remark that we would probably be better off with a true winger out there, who will surely have as many if not more assists and goals in his locker than Captain Undroppable. I also simple don't see what he offers to the team that can't be done by either DM or a winger who tracks back every now and then? Going that the season will be decided by results, against such entrenched teams like Livingston, why not throw "caution to the wind" every now and then and use what we have? I know that even before I write the following, people will lean back and the word "but" forms in their throats, yet, the fact is that we have tried the current formation with roughly the same people for 2 seasons and the end result is a fine monetary return and no silverware were it matters. So we do have Roofe, Morelos and Itten now, with the latter the main target man. Put the others either side of him and let them loose. behind them, a 4-man midfield, with 1 DM as anchor/destroyer, one creative guy like Aribo, and 2 guys on the wings. The big problem there is, that we seemingly have two irreplacebles out there in Kent and Tavernier. Only injury will apparently make them sit out a starting line up. I would send Barasic on the left, in true wingback fashion. And someone with some ability to hit the line and send in a cross on the right. Might even be Hagi or Aribo (with the other taking central spot. Behind them a line of three "defenders", one of which would be sweeper. Since we often play but 2 at the back, one may actually make that a Goldson - Helander - Barasic back-3, with the latter allowed to go forward, while someone else takes up his left-wing role. Many buts will form in people's brains, possibly about cohesion or strength in midfield and whatnot, we do not get anywhere productive if we keep it as it is. Yet, the above would keep the oppositions' defence under constant pressure with those 3 attackers, plus any "wingers" chasing back when need arises. We'd still have 3 or 4 people in defensive roles to cover any attempt at forward movement the opposition would / may throw at us. Oh dear, no-one stopped me from hijacking the thread ...

I actually don't know whether that's irony, but these three don't face up to 7-9-man defences every other week.

When the clock was ticking away fast at the end, we had essentialy 2 striker in Roofe and Itten up front and were raining crosses and shot in from all angles. Granted, Livi were tiring, but we had more chances and more chaos in their area than the 90 before. It would do no harm to at least test a 4-4-2 with but one DM but 2 real wingers to hit the line and rain crosses into an area occupied by 2 strikers. With our fullbacks in support more often than not, it would sure create a more attacking threat than what we see now, as the main striker as well as any inside left / right is well covered by one or more defenders. Said inside left / right guys are far too often out of position to establish a good link with the respective full-backs. Likewise, what good it is to have 60 - 80 % of possession each game, but that possession is mainly our CHs and DMs? They don't hurt the opposition and the latter know it.

Moreover, it was quickly clear that they weren't needed ... like they weren't against both Saints teams.

No solutions that were used ... up till the last mins of extra time. We know what will unfold, so why not pack the attack and midfield. I do not know what SG expected from Livi today, but after 30 mins it was clear that nothing was the answer. We should have removed one DM from the fray early doors, send on a winger and/or striker. Likewise, Arfield brought no threat whatsoever, why keep him or actually play him? Of course, you do expect a fight from Livi, but there was none forthcoming. I dare not to hear his comments on the game, for I reckon they will be the same as ever after such games. Which makes it even more frustrating. The only consolation is that they will make it equally hard to the Scum.

The world is not black and white and one can show more dignityt han what you posted. Stubborn would do well enough at this point in time.