JohnMc

Ridvan won't get a look in because he's not very good, or at least hasn't been in the matches he's featured for us. I don't think we are obsessed with 'the edges', of the 4 gilt edge chances last night, one was a move through the middle when Dessers hit the post, the other 3 were all crosses from wide. We have full backs who are good at getting forward and crossing, we were at our best last night when we created the environment where they could do that. As for last season our first goal was Colak from a Tav cross, our 2nd a fluff by their keeper and in the away leg again it was a mistake in their defence that led to our goal. Currently none of our forwards are playing particularly well, maybe that'll click before Tuesday, but I suspect it might take a little longer than that. Forwards not reading runs, misplacing passes and failing to hold up the ball forces us wide, as we keep giving up possesion in the middle.

Barasic's crossing is the best in the league and he showed again last night, with our goal, just how important that can be. Along with his willingness to overlap and attack the final third those are his strengths. As long as we play to those strengths then he's an asset to the club. If he was great defensively then he wouldn't be playing for Rangers, he'd be in Spain or England, the harsh truth is none of our defenders are top class. All have failings, Souttar was at fault for the goal, Goldson had some shaky moments, and half of our support think Tav is past it, apparently. The only way we're going to get a top class defender is if he's at the very beginning of his career or the very end. Personally I'd be happy to keep Barasic. He's the best left back at the club, but if we can bring in a better one I wouldn't shed a tear if he moved on. Ridvan isn't better, no matter how many might wish he was. Robbie Fraser doesn't look like he's going to make it with us.

Beyond a few zoomers on Twitter I've not actually read anyone sane suggest Beale might be the problem. Until this thread. A couple of defeats in pre season friendlies, one to a sports-washing financially doped PR vehicle who'll spend more on a back-up full back than we'll spend on our entire squad and the other to a club we'd expect to be on a similar level to ourselves. The Olympiacos performance was really disappointing and our next match away to a Bundesliga side will be a challenge too. Another defeat wouldn't be a big surprise. But ultimately it's about beating Kilmarnock, then Livi, then Ross County and then Celtic. I guess we'll know more by then.

We're not disagreeing. What i'm trying to get to is your (and others) intent here. It reads like criticism of Beale and fairly damning criticism at that. You seem to be suggesting that our players don't know the formations they're meant to be playing. And if they do then the formations and tactics are poor. That seems harsh to me. Surely this is simply new players who haven't yet learned their roles or found their form and existing players getting to know new colleagues?

Well, quite. But is anyone expecting a change in tactics or formation though? Isn't it just a case of waiting for the new guys to learn their jobs in our existing formation and tactics?

Surely the tactics we employed in the second half of last season, but carried out by better players, would be enough to see us qualify for the Champion's League (which we managed last season) and win the league, or at least put a proper challenge in? I mean against Celtic, under Beale, our main problem was individual errors. Won't our better players make fewer errors? Haven't we brought in better players? I thought second half of last season our tactics were pretty good, it was error prone defenders, keepers who wouldn't leave their line and goal shy forward players that cost us. What am I missing here?

My first trip to Ibrox this season, with my Dad and my 2 sons, I was looking forward to a pleasant summer evening watching Rangers fine tune our new team. There were some positives. Souttar continues to impress both as a stopper but also his ability to carry the ball out of defence. If, and I accept that's a big word in this context, he can stay fit he could have a big season ahead. Reading this thread I suspect not everyone will agree but I thought Lammers played quite well. His touch, his movement, his link up play all impressed me. He was unlucky with a chance in the second half from our best move of the game too. I think he and the players around him just need to get to know each other a bit better and he could be a really good signing. McCrorie didn't do anything wrong, he was blameless at the goal and looked comfortable in the first half. I didn't think Tav did much wrong either. He was a bit quieter going forward but his short passing and link up was decent, nothing we didn't know before of course. Raskin was comfortable, missing a bit of sharpness but he looked like he's a week or so away from the season starting, so right on course. However, the negatives far outweighed the positives. Cantwell hasn't found the form of last season, hopefully that happens soon. In a competitive match he'd have been lucky not to be sent off last night. Sima gets into good positions but doesn't yet seem to know what to do with them. His career to date suggests he doesn't score many goals, nothing I've seen so far contradicts that. So far he doesn't feel like an improvement on Kent, but it's still early days. Dessers hasn't played 90 minutes of football for us yet, I can't judge him on what I've seen. He's less mobile than I thought he'd be, for a big guy he was easily dispossessed last night, but he doesn't look fit far less match fit. Again, he needs a bit of time to bed in and find form. I liked Dowell in the previous two games, but he was a bit lost last night. Barasic is getting a lot of flack, much of it justified, but Dowell didn't do much defensively last night to help. I'm inclined to agree that Cantwell and Davies were most culpable for their first goal, but no one covered themselves in glory and the Greeks were getting a lot of joy down our left and really should have scored before hey did. This isn't news to anyone who has watched Rangers in the last few seasons, that it hasn't been addressed yet is a concern. Yilmaz reputation continues to benefit from not being Barasic, but from what I've seen before, and again last night, he's just as suspect defensively. He's not the answer. Lundstram and McLoughlin had particularly bad cameos, Matondo and Sakala had better ones. There's only one side in Scotland as good as Olympiacos, however Kilmarnock have been in Cup duty and will be sharper come kick off. There's still a lot of work for us to do.

Just me that thought Roofe looked like the best forward at the club during his 20 minute cameo? Oh for a fit Roofe all season. Thought big Lammers looked okay when he came on too. I'm sure Dessers and Sima will improve with games. Still not sure what any of you are seeing in Ridvan. Sakala brings something to the squad that currently no one else does. He's fast, he's direct, he's energetic and he can cut inside or outside. His shooting and decision making need work as does his grasp of the offside law, but I'd keep him in the squad if we can afford it. Like the look of Dowell and quietly impressed by Rice. I'm not sure how much game time he'll get this season but you wouldn't be concerned if you saw his name on our team sheet now, can't say that about many 16 year olds. Our 'homegrown' requirement for European football will be interesting this season. Assuming they're fit then Jack and Soutter are obvious. Perhaps a keeper, if McCrorie moves on then maybe Keiran Wright. Rice, Devine and Lowry probably. Yfeko won't qualify so we're into guys like Lovelace and McCausland who don't look like they're ready for the 1st team. It's a surprise to me we've not moved for some Scottish players. We could have afforded Nisbet, maybe Kenny McLean, after all we've signed every other Norwich player, maybe even James McArthur who could play the games Jack can't.

I don't know guys, feels like a lot of wishful projecting going on with Ridvan. He's not Barasic seems to be the main thing he has going for him. Ridvan didn't look like a better defender last night, or, frankly, any other time I've seen him, and Borna sets a low bar on that score. He is young(ish) and perhaps a run of games will help him find some form and confidence, but the fact he can't dislodge Barasic as our first choice left back, despite his repeated lapses, tells it's own story. We'll see...

Does he bring energy or does he just run around a bit with no real purpose? Borna is only useful in the opposition's half, his defending is continually poor. He needs replaced, but not with Ridvan who seems equally hopeless in either half.

No, I believe it's important to Maasai warriors and Snow White too.

What does everyone see in Ridvan? I'm at a loss why anyone thinks he's an improvement on Barasic. Borna can't defend but at least he can cross, Yilmaz can't even do that. There are rides at the shows he can't get on, my heart sinks when I think of what we paid for him. That aside not sure there's much to take from the match. Newcastle have better players than us, perhaps not unexpected when they spent £415 million assembling them, but the gulf wasn't cavernous although it felt like they had another gear if they wanted it. With the exception of the keeper our defence is unchanged, that might be a worry. Lundstram looks like he's starting this season like last season. Hopefully someone will convince him it's actually March and he'll find some form. A bit early to judge the new guys but as I'm a Rangers fan I won't let that stop me forming hard opinions and fighting to the death for them. Butland is too handsome for a goalie, get him punted, I've taken an instant dislike to him and that's unlikely to change. A midfield of Dowell, Raskin and Rice should carry us to glory. The big Dutchman looks like a handful and Sima is certainly strong, hopefully he's got a bit more than that too. Big season ahead for Lowry, whether it's on loan at St Johnstone or in our first team he needs to start playing regular football or his career will be one of what might have been.

I've not seen that much of him, but what I have seen of him suggests he's got a real chance. He's clearly got ability and a decent reading of the game and he seems to have his head screwed on. I know Motherwell were really disappointed to lose him. He was the best player on the pitch in the cup final against Celtic at the end of last season despite being one of the youngest playing. The small caveat I'd make is he has the physique of a grown man. That's a huge advantage in age group football, it really helps a young player stand out if they're physically stronger than pretty much every other player on the pitch. It will allow him to move on to 'adult' football quickly . Rangers haven't been good at nurturing the talent in the youth teams, so that's against him, but it would be fantastic if he made an impact this season.

No, it's to further emphasise why they're different from Ferguson. The team certainly didn't fail while Duncan Ferguson was with us, we won the league in 93/94 and 94/95 the two seasons he was with us. I'd also argue his signing spurred Hateley, the man he was supposed to succeed, onto greater influence, Hateley was our top scorer in each of those seasons. Duncan Ferguson is one of the great 'what might have been' of the last 50 years. He was the victim of David Murray's ego, SDM was angry that Jim McLean was reusing to sell him to Rangers. He should have bided his time, perhaps arranged a 'Gough' and got someone down south to buy him for a season then sell him to us. We were powerful enough then to do that. But instead he arranged for friendly journos to write stories about how hard done by Ferguson was and ramped the pressure on Dundee Utd until eventually they agreed a very acrimonious sale for a then British record fee. That simply put enormous pressure on Ferguson from day 1. For all his undoubted talent Ferguson was a big daft lad, and the glare of publicity and expectation that came with the move wasn't a great mix with a young man filled with confidence and bravado. With hindsight I think Ferguson should have gone to Bayern Munich, who apparently made a bid for him after he'd terrorised the German defence in one of his few games for Scotland. What a player he could have become with the level of coaching and technical input they had. He's still have to come to us eventually, but he'd have been older, wiser and a better player. Anyway, there are number of labels that could be justifiably put on Ferguson, but a dud most certainly isn't one I'd use.

Nah, Duncan Ferguson was sold for what we bought him for, he was no dud. Ferguson was treated differently from pretty much every other footballer in Britain it remains a disgrace he was jailed for what happened in that game. The other 2 players were paid off by us.

I'm not sure it's fair to say someone who got a serious injury is a dud. Kuznetsov, Rosenthal, Helander and even Roofe have been unfortunate, the former two had their careers completely derailed. No one thinks Michael Mols was a dud, but he was never the same player after his injury. For me a dud could be someone who simply wasn't up to the job despite the all realistic expectations. Basil Boli for example looked like a truly world class defender at Marseille but like a comedy act with us. Guivarc'h had won the World Cup but looked like he'd struggle in the Challenge Cup with us. Salenko had set goal scoring records in the World Cup but looked like he'd won a competition to play when he was with us. Even Maurice Edu, lionised for scoring a last minute winner against them from 2 feet out, never came close to living up to his price tag or expectations. But all of those players had to move country, learn a new language, or try and settle into a new culture. As supporters we probably under estimate how difficult some players find that and what affect it can have on them. The real duds are those who simply never tried. Kyle Lafferty, particularly second time round. A total waster who will no doubt spend years appearing at fan forums and pub openings in the future. Grezda, Pena and Negri fall into this category. Andy Webster is another, he didn't cost us a transfer fee however he was waste of a wage. Alan Gow is another who I always felt could have done so much more. Those who simply weren't good enough. Konterman, Sebo, Billy Urquart, Beattie, i'm not sure you can really blame them for that, the club needs to take the blame. They at least tried their best.

As my son said to me last night with this proposed change to offside Sakala will be worth £100 million next season... I hadn't realised that Dessers is actually Belgian, so hopefully Raskin and Lammers being at the club will help him settle. He's had a peripatetic career, not sure what to read into that, still, if he has a couple of good seasons then moves on that might be okay. He seems to fit Beale's plan to make us a much taller side. Every one of our summer signings so far has been over 6 foot so far, I suspect Beale felt we were being bullied by physical sides before. Looking forward to seeing some of these guys on the pitch now, the side will have a very different feel to last seasons.

Anyone else get the feeling we've decided to park our tanks on their lawn? The action against the SPFL can't be about money, it must be about creating change at the top of that organisation. Leaking it to the media, along with uncomfortable truths around employment contracts, during a quiet sports news period, feels deliberate too. It feels like we're ramping up pressure on Doncaster, his paymasters, and the other clubs in the SPFL who might be swithering over where to fall on this. The spin around the SFA backing us on it only helps create division and uncertainty, must make it fun when they all bump into each other in the lift at Hampden. Cantwell publicly mocking Celtic's pet broadcaster might be coincidence, but again it feels like we've decided to get in their faces from the off. Beale clearly annoyed Celtic's last manager with some rather innocuous comments, perhaps we've decided to go all in on that this season. It's a strategy that should please many in our support, but does run the risk of making us look foolish if it only helps galvanise them.

No relegation in the major leagues as far as I'm aware. I've also read that some teams will deliberately lose so they can get an early pick in the draft. It's probably not a good comparison actually, while players do move teams the transfer market isn't like football's.

I imagine it's partly due to the precarious and public nature of a manager's job. In England the average tenure for a manager is now 477 days, I can't imagine it's very different in Scotland. If you know at the outset that you've pretty much only got 18 months in the job then I imagine the people who have the greatest affect on your role are the ones you're most likely to come into conflict with. Players cost manager's their jobs, it's probably easy to blame the person who chose those players, rather than yourself. Add in the public nature of a manager's job, constant scrutiny from the media and clueless fans waiting for the kettle to boil before starting work writing about them as if they have the first idea what they are talking about. Few jobs are so public and watched by people who think they know better. It's a wonder managers aren't in conflict with everyone all the time. in American sport the average MLB baseball coach tenure is 3 seasons, and in American football it's 4.3 seasons, in the NBA it's 3.7 years. It's not always easy to compare sports but structurally the American system seems to be what's coming into European football, so maybe we'll see a time where managers are given longer.

I read English's article and it was hardly a hatchet job, I'm surprised how touchy Celtic are. If Celtic don't start the season well it won't be long before the media and some of their support turn on them. I look forward to that.

They had to buy quite a bit of land adjacent and around the old stadium. They somehow even managed to get a compulsory purchase put in place on a decent sized steel fabricating business nearby, how they got that through I'll never know. The new stadium is adjacent to the old one and does overlap, but it's not exactly in the same place, a bit like us building a new stadium on the site of the Ibrox primary school across Edmiston Drive.

I don't think there's anything 'bad' about them, they're simply getting older and as buildings get older they incur increasing maintenance costs. I imagine they'll be fine for another 20 years albeit the money required to maintain them will take up a larger percentage of our costs. They're too small, demand outstrips supply currently, we'd sell another 10,000 or so seats based on season ticket demand. That of course could change in the future. I wasn't comparing our finances with those English sides, simply the reported costs of their new stadiums. They seemed more relevant than Danish or German stadium costs. I don't think I need to point out that the club haven't actually asked me to explore this, I was just a little bored while having a cup of tea earlier.

The cost of building a 'new' Ibrox is worth investigating, the Copland, Broomloan and Govan are over 40 years old now even if there have been changes to each over that time. Everton have estimated £500 million for their proposed new stadium. Spurs apparently spent around £1 billion on their ground. Brentford built a new stadium for £71 million. Some fairly big differences in costs there. I suspect we'd want to keep the Main Stand, so it's a 3 sided bowl or similar we'd be looking at. We wouldn't need to buy land, unlike Spurs and Everton, so that's a saving right away. We'd clearly need to borrow the money for the project, and if we assume the 'new' Ibrox would have a higher capacity and more corporate boxes to pay for the build. If we needed £250 million then in simple terms we'd be looking for £10million a season plus interest over 25 years. Not impossible if we add another 10,000 seats plus more hospitality. The danger is that the initial cost grows. That happened when we rebuilt back in the late 70s and it had a huge effect on the quality of the team on the park. Match day revenue continues to be our most important source of income, so investigating how to increase that makes a lot of sense.