Rousseau

The Book Review alluded to in the OP was a good read; out of date in many respects, but quite balanced. Other journalists clearly see his anti-Rangers agenda, and indeed his whole life shouts anti-Rangers; it's quite unbelievable, it's like a parody: "There is little too that is ordinary about the book’s author, Phil Mac Giolla Bhain, a Glaswegian of Irish descent who has chosen to live in Donegal for the best part of the last 20 years and who, along the way, elected to use the Irish Gaelic version of his surname." His whole life has been guided by a certain point-of-view that almost makes his animosity towards Rangers inevitable.

To be fair, I don't care. There are many that hold that opposite views, and they're equally contemptible and sad. Ultimately, he is a blogger. His words pass the eyes of too few people for him to be of any consequence. Let him jump on his soapbox all he wants: No one is listening. In fact, by challenging him we are giving him a bigger platform. I appreciate his words are offensive and insulting, but do they have any influence?

http://www.scottishreviewofbooks.org/index.php/back-issues/volume-8-2012/volume-eight-issue-four/522-what-s-the-score-kevin-mckenna

I want this bloody Cup. It's meaningless, more of a diddy Cup than the League Cup, but I want it...

I agree Wallace has been poor, and he isn't at the level we would want, but I think he deserves to stay, if just for his dedication and application. I think he's doing his coaching badges, or something suchlike, so I think he's got a good brain; perhaps W&W can get more out of him. To be fair, I'm thinking similarly with all of the players: poor last year, but I'm confident a better coach can get more out of them; they're surely better than they've shown?

I hope Warburton realises how poor a lot of these players are. The likes of Bell, Zaliukas, Crawford, Law, Shiels, Templeton, Clark, Miller etc are nowhere near good enough.

I agree, but I think they're better than what they've shown. Perhaps a new manager can transform them. Too optimistic?

Think Davy Moyes will see that as a good pre season work out

and lots on interest playing us and them

Do you think he'd let us take a few of his players? I wouldn't mind taking a few of his players on loan...

Just a pity his football nowhere near the same standard

I actually think he's not bad: good movement, decent touch and can pass, but my issue is that he's still quite weak. If he could bulk up he'd be a decent player.

You beat me to it! I was thinking it was time to have a little fun speculating on a potential starting XI.

I think we all agree it'll be 4-2-3-1:

Our whole forward line needs strengthening. I don't expect those I've put in to be starters; decent squad players, but not starters. We also desperately need a striker, and a Number 10.

Where does Holt play? Halliday would be an OK acquisition.

Was that some sort of endurance test in the video? Last one standing type thing? I would've liked to have seen who won.

Fredricks and Winks would be decent signings, but I'm not convinced loan signing are the way to go; It's hardly building for the future, is it? I'd much rather we got permanent signings.

I always like Aird's enthusiasm; in any training picture he's always there working hard -- shame he's shite. Clark trying to lift the diddy weights! The Warburton pictures fill me with hope though.

Wallace relaxing in two pictures...

Take note Rangers PR, this how you spin, bullshit and lie. Rangers fans my arse. It came from the area with Motherwell supporters, after they scored, it was the same colour of flare they used at Ibrox,

I never read it right through so I missed it: "But it is thought a group of Rangers fans, who were sitting among the Motherwell support, were responsible for the flare." How can they possibly come to that conclusion? Should they not collect evidence before they pass judgement?

Calm down. I think it's fair to say Leeds have a significant place in history. However, to say that they were just below the top 4 sides in Britain is stretching it IMO. How does one measure history? I checked the number of trophies won (a decent measure, I think). The top English sides are:

1 Manchester United 62

2 Liverpool 60

3 Arsenal 42

4 Chelsea 28

5 Aston Villa 24

= Everton 24

= Tottenham Hotspur 24

8 Manchester City 17

9 Newcastle United 13

= Nottingham Forest 13

= Wolverhampton Wanderers 13

12 Blackburn Rovers 12

13 Leeds United A.F.C. 9

Then the Scottish sides:

1 Rangers 115

2 Celtic 98

3 Aberdeen 19

4 Heart of Midlothian 16

5 Queen's Park 10

6 Hibernian 9

Leeds are joint-13th in the English table, and that would be joint-19th (?) in a British table.

Perhaps I took your 'argument' a bit too far, but I thought it was an interesting point. How does one measure history? It's mostly subjective. And, of course, 'history' is unrelated to current form. Then, does one apply greater weighting to English sides because of their greater challenge, or greater weighting to the rank of trophies won? Tricky question. (I think I took it too far...)

Yes, 'secret' were they?

I'm in favour of giving the players another chance. Most, if not all, have not stepped up at all, but to be fair we've not really had a change in approach. The three Micks were of the same mold. A fresh approach, fresh eyes and ideas, might just spark the players into life. It's patently obvious that a managers philosophy has a huge affect on how a player performs. I say, lets wait and see.

I agree with the criticisms leveled at Bell -- he doesn't command his box etc. and that we probably need a better 'keeper -- but I cannot possibly comprehend how Robinson is better than Bell? Robinson played a few games, but was never that great; I remember him conceding silly goals. Bell, ignoring the stupid mistake against Motherwell, was always decent; not spectacular but decent. Like I said, I'd like a 'keeper to dominate the box like Courtois, but Bell always did OK to me. I remember we were praying for his return after the injury. Do we have so short a memory?

Stevie May

http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/2015/06/22/rangers-eye-sheffield-wednesday-striker-stevie-may/

He's just had double knee surgery and hardly featured last season. At almost 36 I can't think of many recent midfielders who have played on until they are 40, at what to us is a level considered a decent standard (SPL).

I understand your reservations. He hardly played last year because of the injury. I don't think Warburton (and Sheffield Wed and Leeds Utd for that matter) would even consider signing him if they thought the injury was going to inhibit his ability to play next year. He played 39 games last year at 34; I don't think another year is going to make a difference. It's undoubtedly a short-term acquisition. We have a lot of young players, and the new signings would appear to be young also, so I think we need that experience. I think he'd be useful next year and possibly the year after. It's a free transfer, so it's not as if we're taking a big gamble.

I'm really quite content with us going for Eustace. Everything I hear is good. Warburton rates him. If he can play for another few years it'd be worth it. Like he said, "you want young, hungry players in the team — however, they need guidance."

Disappointing -- if true -- that we're not going after the young Dane; just the kind of signing I'd like to see.

In terms of professionalism, surely it's only right that anyone not having their contract renewed should be told so. However, he must have known it was unlikely. It's hardly professional bitching about it afterwards though -- he's just trying to get his name in the papers.

He's almost 36, I don't see him playing regularly for us in the SPL, if at all. As such I see no point whatsoever in signing him. Can we not get promoted next season using a younger player? I don't see the point having any player over thirty unless they're a standout and worth taking a hit on (no resale value).

I think we differ on whether he can play regularly in the SPL. If he can't, then yes, overlook him, but I think he could contribute something. He is a free, isn't he? So it's not much of a hit. We can only wait and see.

He's judged by whether his manager thinks he had a good game or not. The stats may be a help to him if they are used in conjunction with watching the game live and then on tape afterwards but that would be down to the individual. The game seems to have been over-complicated.

I agree with that. It was more for me than a Manager. I haven't seen him play other than the times he played against us. I wanted to see his stats so I could get an idea of how well he's done. Looking at a performance is subjective, and you'll get a different opinion from each person you ask -- 'He's shite', 'He's class'. 15 Assists in 30 games seems a pretty good stat that suggests he has an influence on the team.

I think football hipsters should be shot.

 

A successful 2 yard pass when surrounded by three opponents is different to a 2 yard pass with nobody nearby. The bare stats don't appear to have any context to them.

I agree, but surely a midfielder needs to be judged on something?

I never have taken the time to find out the parameters of these in-depth stats.

 

Is a successful pass judged the same whether it is 2 yards sideways or a 20 yard slide rule pass that guts the defence and leads to a goal?

Good point. I suppose it would need to be split into short-pass-success-rate and long-pass-success-rate. Obviously the difficulty is different, but I would argue the short pass is still a very important pass. Xavi is renowned for the short pass; Pirlo the long pass. Which is more difficult? probably the latter. Which is most important? Both, I'd say. Although pass-success-rate doesn't take into account difficulty, I still think it's an important stat with which to judge a midfielder -- It suggests the importance of the player to the team.

What do you think?

I agree with you on Allan. As I said in another post theres a long list of players like him who are the better players in Scottish football and who weren't good enough in England. He's a lot better than what we have but if he was that good he would have broken through at Birmingham and WBA. That said, I want players like him much more than someone like Eustace. What is the point in signing players just for this division? A captain no less?

 

Given the position we are in, I definitely want us to sign players like Allan and Wilson. They are decent SPL level players, though long term we need better, ideally focusing abroad and developing our own.

I appreciate where you're coming from, and if we could get another 'younger' sitting-midfielder with experience, than I'd prefer to go down that route. However, I think he could be a shrewd acquisition. He's experienced, he can pass a ball, tackle, etc. -- he's certainly not short of admirers! --, and if he plays for the next 2/3 years he'd be a success. If we can go younger, then, yes, that's the way to go, but he's a realistic option just now, so I'm ok with it. I'm not too excited, but I can see the logic.

Well, this is not the US of A and American Football, where people are measured by yards run and thrown and whatnot. Yet, you do get decent enough stats over at transfermarkt, both for Scott Allan

 

Overall

 

Goals, assists, cards et al (Leistungsdaten)

 

... and of course Eustace too

 

Overall

 

Goals, assists, cards et al

 

Haven't checked but there sure is an English version out there too. Tor means "goal", Torvorlage means "assist".

 

Same obviously goes for Rangers -> http://www.transfermarkt.de/glasgow-rangers/startseite/verein/124

Thanks for that.

Of course it's not American Football, but we judge strikers by goals scored etc., so it makes sense to judge a midfielder on assists and passes, pass success rate etc. no?

Incidentally, Allan contributed 15 assists in 30 games last year. I think that's decent; it certainly makes me more interested in signing him.