Rousseau

We may have to agree to disagree.

Sounds like he did not want to work with DoF (Philosophical differences). No?

I don't think he's "way out of our league", but I agree it is highly unlikely. I'll not be losing any sleep in any case!

Yes, the Owner wants a DoF which doesn't fit with Warburton. It's the same issue is it not? I want a DoF, so Warburton is not really the right guy.

Cathro would be an excellent choice IMO. I wouldn't say no to Wotte, or Magath. We would still need a youth coach, but he'd report to the DoF.

I'll concede that we can never know, but I still maintain that work rate is nothing unique. Again, i'd prefer a DoF, so he would not be acceptable for me.

Yes, you are right, it would be difficult. My point was that it's not a case of competing with money (buying out his contract), but competing on "project". I don't think he is experienced enough to get a PL job, so I think "theoretically" we could challenge a Championship club for him. But, like I said, I'm not interested in him because i'd prefer a DoF.

I agree we would do well domestically, but i'm thinking longer term; i'm thinking about Europe. We wouldn't stand a chance because the high work rate and organisation is a basic trait; we'd need something more.

I'm watching Brentford just now and, yes, they are hardworking and well organised. But, thinking about it, they remind me of Burnley; Burnley were exactly the same last year, but as we saw, once they come up against better PL sides they are lacking. If -- and it is a big if -- Brentford go up, that work rate and organisation will count for nothing in the PL.

He's leaving Brentford at the end of the season so we could theoretically get him I think. However, I am not interested in him because the reason he is leaving is he doesn't want to work with a DoF, which is something that I would like to see at Rangers. For me, a DoF-type appointment is important.

And Gallagher for that matter. Good young players with pace and creativity; they should be given a game. However, saying that, is Barrie McKay not still on loan at Raith? Or was he recalled? I know Gallagher is back rotting in the youth teams... Even Gasparrotto (How do you spell it?) is not getting a chance.

I thought we were quite competent during the first half; energy levels were ok. But we couldn't create chances which was down to the tactics (i.e. being outnumbered in the centre and no full-backs getting forward etc.). What we set out to do was pre-planned. There is no way a player can be blamed for doing what was pre-planned, they're simply doing their job, and it was the job that was ineffectual not the players' execution of it, if you get my meaning? Once we conceded the second we collapsed mentally, and then i'd agree we were slow, lethargic and resorted to those long-balls etc which were never going to work.

QotS vs. Rangers: Review DUMFRIES -- Palmerston Park is an old-fashioned ground, tight and intimate, from the standing area to the wooden stand facade and little clock; residential buildings nearby loom large over the low terraces. The Rangers fans were packed like sardines tightly together in the standing area, wrapped in their blue scarfs and tammies on this pitch-black, cloudless night. The pitch is a thing of wonder; it is like a bowling green, pristine and well-defined. Artificial surfaces get a bad press but many have commented on the 3G surface at Palmerston as being "a lovely playing surface;" at least we weren't going to get bobbles. Rangers lined up with a standard 4-4-2. Bell had a muscle strain so the diminutive Robinson deputised; Mohsni replaced a suspended McCulloch in defense; and Templeton replaced Shiels. It was a flat-back-four of McGregor, Zaliukus, Mohsni and Wallace; Law and Murdoch placed central midfield, flanked by Templeton on the left and Vuckic on the right; Miller and Clark led the lines. Queen of the South lined up in a 3-5-2 formation, but it was more like a 5-3-2 with the Wing-backs rarely getting forward. They are known for being a hardworking and energetic side with lots of pacey players, and in previous games were comfortable sitting back and countering with pace. Initially I saw a problem in central midfield: we would be outnumbered 3v2 so we would need to be sharp on the ball and get it wide quickly. Rangers started well, passing it around comfortably. It was clear we would have the majority of possession with QotS happy to soak up pressure and counter when they got the chance. We tried to get it wide to our wingers, but QotS's Wing-backs and Wide-centre-midfielders doubled-up quickly; When Vuckic got the ball -- which was rarely -- he has ushered wide to prevent him getting on his strong left-foot; Templeton received the ball often early on but cut inside on too many occasions and couldn't deliver a good cross or find the target, or he was robbed. With no penetration on the flanks we resorted to the much maligned long-ball. At first there seemed some method to the madness as it looked like we were trying a pre-planned long-diagonal. Alas to no avail. For me, to start with Clark precludes playing those long-balls; he is too slight and small to win headers. The same goes for Miller who can't hold-up the ball. Their strength is their running game, but they never got in behind; mainly because our midfielder never got time on the ball in the centre because they were outnumbered. QotS rarely threatened, but on the one occasion they did, they scored. A simple long ball was launched over the top on the right-hand-side and Wallace got in front of the attacker but was pushed to the ground -- illegally in my view, but he was easily pushed -- and the ball was squared and bobbled up nicely for veteran Derek Lyle to half-volley it into the opposite side of the net to a thunderous roar from the home fans. 1-0. Nothing changed; it was the same pattern of Rangers dominating the ball but with no penetration. The fans were still pretty confident going into the second-half, but not 19 seconds in that bubble was burst. QotS broke down the left and whipped in a ground-cross in behind the defense where the unmarked Kidd fired a tame shot across goal; it was going wide until an off-balance Wallace couldn't adjust his feet and scuffed it into his own net. 2-0. This is when the Rangers players lost it mentally. Their heads went down under the realisation that they weren't going to win this game; 1-0 is fine, but 2-0 is near impossible with no real chances created apart from a Clark header that went wide in the first-half. Mohsni summed it up by trying to get us back into the game by forcing difficult passes and getting wound-up by the crowd and punching the ground in frustration to loud cheers from the home fans. He deserves credit for trying and he showed what winning means to him; it's a good trait, but he must learn to ignore the crowd. The team retreated into the same long-ball game that had no chance of succeeding. QotS continued to press and got their reward when substitute Crawford dawdled on the ball and lost it; a quick 1-2 allowed Reilly a one-on-one chance and he calmly slotted it low into the inside of the near post. 3-0. All the substitutions were man-for-man with no change to the formation, so nothing was going to change. Boyd came on and looked like he could hold up the ball better than Clark and Miller, and he did win a fair share of flick-ons, but his poor first touch let him down on too many occasions. He did get some space when a nice deep cross found him at the back post, but his header was too central and the 'keeper tipped it over the bar. Apart from a looping Miller header earlier on in the second half, Boyd's header was the only real chance. I think Boyd should have started, if we were going to play the long-balls; he'd certainly have fared better than Clark and Miller in that respect. What a fickle and capricious mind the Rangers fan possesses. A few months ago we were at our lowest ebb, pessimistic about getting promotion and complaining that the players had no redeeming qualities and they must get put down. The last few weeks saw a complete reversal after two impressive wins over nearest rivals Hibs and then Champions Hearts, who by all accounts have strolled to this title with barely a whisper of a challenge from us. Now the morning after the night before brings more pessimism: "Will we get promoted?"; "We need to get another manager for next year"; "[so-and-so] is finished". One defeat -- and we must remember it is only McCall's first -- does not define a career. McCall was not my first choice but I was pleasantly surprised with his tactical awareness against both Edinburgh clubs. He just got it wrong last night; he is allowed to make mistakes. Moreover, I wouldn't place the blame on the players. We started very well, passing it around -- albeit with no end product -- and easily dominating possession. There is certainly cause for Wallace to be blamed for the first and second goals. Too easily out-muscled for the first, but he could also have been given a foul; and he knocks the ball into his own net for the second after a tame shot is heading wide. Again, Templeton -- or is it Tempelton? -- can be criticised for an ineffectual display where on a day he finally got a chance to shine he was too easily dispossessed or couldn't find an end-product, from numerous crosses that never quite reached their man, to shot that were powerful but lacked any accuracy and too often kept rising high over the bar with too much back-spin. If he could just hit the ball flatter he'd cause more problems for the 'keeper because he gets a lot of power behind his shots. Case in point was a very tame, long-range shot from Mohsni that because it was on target forced the 'keeper to parry it. But I don't want to blame the player because I think the strategy was wrong. We were outnumbered in central midfield 3v2; that simple numerical advantage meant that it was going to be very difficult to get through the middle or have any time and/or space on the ball. When a team plays three at the back you need to stretch them and that was what, I think, McCall was trying to do with the two wingers, but QotS had their Wing-backs, Wide-midfielders and the Wide-centre-backs to cover. The only way to counter this is to get the full-backs to make deep overlapping runs, but it never materialised so our wingers were constantly marked 2v1, sometimes 3v1. The ineffectual -- or non-existent -- runs by the full-backs compounded the problem. McGregor never ventured forward, but Wallace did quite often. Unfortunately it was never an overlapping run from Wallace but more like the 'underlap' that Baines has made famous, but that was no good because they dominated the middle of the park, so Wallace just ran into more defenders and no one could thread a pass through to him. If we were going to combat QotS last night we had to go 4-3-3, with the two wingers pushed high to press the Wing-backs, and the full-backs making overlapping runs to stretch the back-three and get in behind. An extra man in central midfield would have allowed us to match the Queen's midfielders. It was a disappointing result to say the least, but I don't blame the players too much other than a few individual errors. In my view we were doomed from the start when the formations were announced. McCall got his tactics wrong, but it is not the end of our season. It is a lesson learned.

If he plays in defense then we should expect mistakes. That's a fact. Midfield? I'm not convinced. I think we have better options. I would give him a go at wing-back; I hadn't thought of it. The man is a complete enigma. Exceptional at times, and a complete liability. Crazy.

I expected that. I agree he's nowhere near our best defender, but I think we miss him; jig just being there adds something, but i'm at a loss to explain it because every rational analysis of his game precludes that conclusion. I really cannot explain it. I think Jig would have fouled someone well before the second goal went in. Mohsni was away on his usual walkabout, so Wallace was dragged inside and then wasn't covering the deep run from the Wing-back. It was causally linked. As for the first goal, yes, perhaps it wouldn't have made a difference. (I still think Wallace was fouled!)

Say what you want about Jig, but he would not have ducked out of the way of any shot for the first and would have been in position for the second -- or fouled someone to stop the play! If Jig played, the first and second goals would not a gone in. I think we missed him; which says more about the cover we have than him to be fair. IMO. (let me have it...!!!)

McCall was not my first choice but I have been pleasantly surprised. The main question for me is whether he would work with a DoF? If he can, then allow the DoF to rebuild infrastructure and let McCall have a go at team affairs for the next few years; see how it goes. If he can't, then get someone else in; someone modern, technical, and progressive. I think we need a DoF. To take the middle ground in this thread, I think Cathro would be good. Young, modern, progressive coach based very much on the continental style, but he is Scottish. Simples! And I do agree that we should be aiming higher than a run-of-the-mill Scottish manager; they are too old-fashioned; times have changed.

Mohsni certainly showed what winning means to him, but he must learn to stop getting wound-up by the crowd; too often he responds. I thought Boyd should have started. It looked like we were playing the long-ball game which does not suit Miller or Clark; Boyd on the other hand would have won his fair share and would have held the ball up better. I was mostly disappointed with the mental deficiencies. We just collapsed after the second goal and resorted to the long-ball more and more.

We seem to be reluctant to play youngsters in defense. He's the senior defender because he is senior. He is certainly flawed, but apart from McGregor he has been the most consistent; Mohsni makes too many mistakes charging all over the place, and Zaliukas is also prone to making mistakes. But then again all these guys have been played alongside Jig! we'll see how the do without him...

The comparison with Weir was simply about pace - Weir is in a different league compared to Jig as a defender. Weir was exceptional at reading the game, but the team had to compensate for his age and not let him become exposed. I don't think Jig has been given enough support in that respect. My main point is that Jig has been taking an unequal share of the blame, when it was a team problem. Saying that, I do think he is too old to play for us now. We could maybe use him if we are in the Championship next year, but he should not be given another contract if we get promoted.

There is a degree of subjectivity, but there is also a degree of objectivity: these players are of a standard irrespective of how they have performed. Boyd has been rotten since returning, but nevertheless Kilmarnock - a team that play in a league above us! - are interested. Boyd is a decent player, but just hasn't shown it with us this year, which could be said of most players. Moreover, like someone else said: we have beaten SPL teams over the last couple of times. How could we have done that with league1/league2 players? One-off game maybe, but we've done it a couple of times.

I do wish we'd stop using that word ("imposter"). They are not bad players. Yes, they are not of the standard we expect, but they are decent players. I think the main problem has been that they have not been managed or coached correctly. We've seen under McCall a real improvement. If they were - and i'll admit they have not done it too often - to work their socks off for 90 minutes it wouldn't necessarily give us success because there has been no direction. A runner that conserves and directs his energy is going to perform better than one that expends it all with no direction (apologies for the poor analogy!). Anyway, back to the thread. I agree the season is a failure which is probably a big factor in lower attendance. I suppose the proof will be next year - whatever league we are in.

On reflection I agree with you about age; it should never be an excuse. That wasn't my point though. My point was that he is actually in good nick for a 36/37 year old, and I didn't think anyone could challenge his fitness. It seems I was wrong. We never criticised Weir when he was done for pace - it happened on occassion - but we are quick to criticise Jig for the same thing. I think he's taking the brunt of it. He's never been a great player, but neither was Novo, but Novo doesn't get criticised. Also, he is too old to play, so I think it would be best to let his contract run down. But he should be thanked and praised for his service.

I have been thinking about this since yesterday and Gavin Rae came to me; surely Rae was a worst appointment than Jig? I'm interested in how you define a good captain? Is it leadership and presence? or is it performances? I agree with your earlier posts about Jig not being a great player, but I would argue his presence is beneficial, and therefore has been a decent captain; again, certainly not the best, but I do not think he is the worst.

1) I agree. But I think he is a useful presence. Using him in a back three works well because we get his experience and cover in Zaliukus and Mohsni - who also require cover! I think we'd miss his influence on a game. We must remember he is 36; I think he is remarkably consistent and still able to keep up - for the most part! - with the rest of the team for an old man. 2) Again, I agree, but I don't know for a fact what he's on. I'm not going to criticise him based on an assumption. McCoist should have waved the salary; it's scandalous that he is still getting paid. Thanks for your comments.