Scott7

Edouard still had much to do after the mistake and the excellent pass. But what’s he doing? He runs to his own fans to celebrate. That’s not the celtic way. Kent’s goal and other aspects of his play reminded me of Lovenkrands. I suppose Jones will be his replacement next season.

2-0 to the Arsenal. Heard commentary on the last twenty minutes of an exciting game with what sounded like 20,000 Geordies making a helluva racket. Two collector’s items from the commentary: “what a tackle by the Arsenal defender” and “Osil battling hard for the ball”. Jings,

Correct in spades.

Fixed that for you, old chap.

I think your reply makes my point.

If Gilchrist’s claims are true, idiots have given her a free pass to victimhood.

Tav looks apprehensive in the video. I wish the ghost of Bobby Shearer would take possession of his mind for the afternoon.

I didn’t read that through but I suppose the chimp stuff comes from some psycho bloke who has a theory that we’ve all got an inner chimp that makes us behave badly. Cooponthewing will know about it. Think of the image of oor Willie on his bucket, his good inner self with halo pictured at one ear saying “no, William don’t do that” and his bad inner self with devil’s horns leering at the other saying “aye, go on Wullie”.

I didn’t get it right either, Compo. You’ll likely remember a time when this match could have been the old fashioned Division 1 league decider. You’ll maybe remember too when a burgeoning Liverpool beat Blanchflower’s Tottenham 5-2 on a Friday at Anfield with the scallies singing “London Bridge is falling down” then went down to the Lane on the Monday to get whacked 7-2

Seems like an age, indeed. Since I got more than half right. Fulham 0-4 City Brighton 2-2 Southampton Burnley 1-3 Wolves Palace 3-1 Town Brendan’s Blues 2-0 Bournemouth United 1-1 Watford West Ham 2-2 Everton Cardiff 0-2 Chelsea Liverpool 3-1 Tottenham Gunners 2-0 Mags Another good Championship game tonight when the Albion will trounce Birmingham.

That’s the final piece in an old fashioned half back line, you’ve got there. Nish, Punter and Tong. I like Punter in the middle. Some no nonsense clearances.

No sad loss. The team will need defenders for this game.

I heard the Red Army choir open a concert with an inspiring thundering of GSTQ. Then straight on to the old Soviet Union anthem. If Kruschev had been there and asked me to sign up for a party card, I’d have done it.

Great player but the tiar failure was due to a combination of circumstances.

Are you saying the line about your wee bit hill and glen doesn’t stir your spirit to the effusion of tears? I’m certainly near greeting every tme I hear it.

I think positive identification of the culprits is the problem.

Should hit the high notes no bother.

Correct. Turnbull played mostly inside left for the hiberanians but started as left half. Like JG he could do both positions in the same game.

I think you’re right about Dave Smith as the first official Rangers sweeper. His rôle at Aberdeen was that of a Baxter-style creator but he didn’t achieve that for Rangers. Whoever decided to move him backwards was a genius. The old ritual lineup at the kickoff was GK 1, RB 2, LB 3, RH 4, CH 5, LH 6, OR 7, IR 8, CF 9, IL 10, OL 11. No names or numbers on the jerseys in early times. The formation was more fluid than that during the game. The centre half in the three was really a centre fullback so the backline was RB, CH, LB. As play developed with a team attacking on the right, the RB advanced but rarely beyond the half line. The CH also came forward but not as far as the RB and the LB dropped back so there was a diagonal across the pitch. If the attack was on the left the diagonal swung the other way, pivoting on the CH, hence the description of the CH as the pivot, usually in journalese “the big pivot”. The weakness of the system is obvious. A clearance out of defence into the space behind a RB in an advanced position for a pacy winger to run onto caused problems unless Eric Caldow was there with his speed of thought and foot to come across to the rescue. Willie Telfer was the last of the old pivots. Bill Patterson was the nominal CH in a four man defence of RB, Shearer, RH, Davis, CH Patterson, LB Caldow with Johnnie Little filling the FB position when required. Davis played between RB and CH and slightly forward of the line. The half backs were theoretically defenders but one usually was more forward going and the other defensive eg Davis and Billy Stevenson. The inside forwards were attackers but one was often a fetcher and carrier - Sammy Baird, perhaps - and the other a craftsman to unlock the defence and unleash the wingers - McMillan the prime example. Rangers in the last of the fifties and the sixties played 4-2-4 before it was invented. Hearts were the first team to officially play that system with Danny Ferguson wearing 7 on his jersey playing RB. (“Gerrup yer wing, Fergyssunn”, cried the Gorgie afficionados.) If a team was very lucky and had John Greig, the defensive/forward distinction for the half back didn’t matter because he could play both in the same game. Is the spectacle better now? Yes if you’re watching City or Barcelona but for the most part, because of its flaws, the nominal 2-3-5 was more exciting and less predictable

Looks like a Rangers inside right in that photo.

The graph is spot on.

The Jimmy Mason?

With the greatest respect to Mr Brown, the best Wembley day was when Baxter and Wilson demolished England after Caldow had been carried off. Iron Curtain teammate Ian McColl was in charge.

Glamour boy of the Iron Curtain, flamboyant in style unlike his successors, Niven and Ritchie. By all accounts an utter gentleman and still a heartthrob for elderly grannies. Not a bad record as Scotland manager.

Not so sure about that. Salmond’s case is political and comes through the Edinburgh PF Office. The effigy case on the other hand has a different location. Any low level paper gatherers with access to material are likely to have preferences which have an influence on them greater than politics. Salmond's case is likely to fall because of the inadequacy of the witnesses rather than carelessness, shall we say, in the handling and storage of documents.