Rousseau

We look a bit clueless as to what we're trying to do. I have no idea what we're trying to do?

They're so terrified of doing anything. We get in behind, then Kent keeps hold of it for another half and hour, letting them get set, then loses it by trying to beat everyone. I'd say get Kent off, but I've got him as fgs.

The Cricket has been more exciting, and that's been rained off for the last three days.

There we go: Helander broke forward taking two men out of the picture, opening up space. Shame Arfield then gave it away...

I'd like to see us commit men a bit more. We're letting them stay in their position, in a deep block. Kent, Jack and even Goldson should be drawing players out before passing.

Oh-- it's Crocker and Walker... Mute!

Someone's started early...

I was thinking that last night. I don't know if it's because of the teams left, the disruption, and different stages of preparedness of the teams - or the One-leg knockout. I have really enjoyed it. I wonder if they could make it more permanent? Expand the competition to include all champions, and have a one-leg tie. Anything could happen!

Can they, though? Norwich beat them at the start of the season when they had Silva, Aguero and the other Silva (Bernardo). They did have Stones and Otamendi at the back! Again, my point was, it's not as simple as 'this side is better on paper, so should win'. Tactics play a huge part.

I agree on the whole, but it's not so simple. Man City started to create pressure when they went back to their 4-2-3-1 type formation and bringing on Mahrez. They scored, but, they also conceded more goals. Gurardiola went with a back three to cover the two Lyon forwards. It was a logical move, and it worked because they only conceded one, which was unlucky situation (wonderful finish). Imagine how much joy Lyon could have had if Man City started with only 2 CBs? The issue for them was that they couldn't find any solutions in the final third to score. Their midfield couldn't find the space, partly because it was a change in formation, partly because Lyon smothered them. My point is, it's not as simple as 'on paper Man City are better so should win'. The game is much more complex.

That was a great few nights of football, for me. I can't stand Atleti, Barcelona, nor Man City. All got pumped. (I was rooting for Atalanta too, but you can't have everything.) The arrogance of the pundits and commentators last night was annoying, as if City just had to turn up - they were even saying that Man City will have a field day against Bayern because of the high line the Germans were playing against Barca. It's all so naive; as if teams just play one way. Bayern would not have played with a high line against Man City. Matches are not played on paper. You have two teams, two managers looking to out-do the other; different tactics, different approaches, difference ways of playing. We had a Lyon side who got their tactics spot-on: playing quite a deep block, but aggressive to close down; and then pinged ball over the top for their quick forwards. I think Steve McManaman was saying it's not arrogance, they just now what City can do. Yes, at their best they are superb. But can they do it when they are stopped from doing it? It's not even an English thing: the same thing happened in the Atleti-Leipsig match. Historically there's only one winner; on paper you'd say Atleti have the better calibre of player. But again, the game is not played on paper. Atleti are very stubborn in their approach; there's no real attacking impetus; they defend deep and counter. In contrast, Leipsig are managed by a tactically astute coach, Nagelsmann, and they play some of the most wonderful attacking football you'll ever see; the pace and movement is superb. Another good thing: We pumped Lyon a few weeks ago, so we're basically the 4th best team in Europe!

Livingston 0 - 2 Rangers FGS Kent

Don't leave me down here! Corrected.

I think McLean fits in nicely. He tends to play as the more advanced of the '2', in a 4-2-3-1. Despite playing in a deeper role, he has an attacking intent, I think. He won't get bullied and will drive us forward.

But, but but.. we don't need 2 DMs against diddy teams!

Kamara was solid, again. He's so much better when he keeps is simple: covering, winning the ball, passing it on. He has a good understanding of space and angles too: he's movement to receive a pass is underrated. I would sometimes like more vertical passes into the forwards, though.

Barisic was superb, contributing a goal and a wonderful assist. I thought Helander was very good when he came on, making a couple of important covering tackles. Kent was lively. Aribo less so, but was good in parts and, again, picks up another goal. For me, it has to be Barisic.

What's your thoughts, folks?

I kind of cringed every time Alex Rae said, "I agree with the guys". Is that PC? Is 'guys' gender neutral? Tanner was a bit bland. I'm really enjoying Clive Tyldesley. (KT is alright...)

Look at the state of that; languishing in 21st place... pretty much out of the title race already.

Another high scoring round. It's either 1 point or 5 points. Correct Result (1 pt): Everyone who entered. Correct Number of Rangers Goals (1pt): Stevie, One, Dado, Malang, Devil, BD, Yorkie, 26th, TB and T-1000. FGS (2 pts): - Correct Score (3 pts): One, Dado, Malang, Devil, BD, Yorkie, 26th, TB and T-1000. Latest Standings:

3 goals, another clean sheet and 3 points. A win's a win. We're so slow and ponderous at times, though. It was after that 5 man change which could not have helped.

I'm not really happy. It's so slow and ponderous. I feel for Itten, Roofe (not match fit, at all) - and even Hagi, even if he's not been great - because they're not being given the ball despite constantly showing for it.

Difficult when there's 11 men in the six yard box... I was pleased to see that when crosses went over the other side or knocked out the box, there were a few of our players ready to pick it up. It was great because there was more players in and around to box to take shots but also just to retain and keep the pressure up.