Rousseau

He's certainly got a nasty side, but I still think he's a good player. Hibs know what they want to do (even if they're struggling to do it), but Utd do not have a Scooby.

I thought it was the wrong decision in real time, but the replay shows he got it spot on.

I was watching the first 30 minutes or so of the Scottish Cup semi-final -- until the proper EPL game started -- and I was confident there was little, or no, gulf in class between the leagues, in terms of quality, but I was wrong: The top of the Championship are far superior to the bottom of the Premiership. Dundee Utd are awful, with no idea how to build up from the back. Hibs are far superior -- despite players simultaneously being too confident and lacking confidence -- building out from the back very well, and dominating possession; they're technically and tactically superior -- It's embarrassing. I'd take Fyvie in a heartbeat (I always thought he was a quality player -- Roberto Martinez is not normally wrong, technically speaking -- and is still fairly young) and I'd like a player like Bartley protecting the back-four (he looks very good; simple, but effective). The strange thing is, Dundee Utd will win it through a fortunate bounce of the ball or a set-piece; ridiculous.

The discussion was in regards to the front line. We agree we're OK up front in terms of numbers -- quality is another question! Yes, you're right with regards to the back-line; I agree it is too lightweight and we need more options. I still don't think we're too lightweight overall, though. Broadly, I think we have the numbers he wants. Yes, we need more options at the back, but I don't think that changes the equation too much. Yes, we'd struggle when a first-team player drops out, but you can say that about any first-team player: it changes the tactics a touch, but the overall strategy will be the same. We can get by, with youngsters etc. (I think Ryan Sinnamon is back, for example). It's about adding quality, rather than numbers. Anyway, it's not important: we agree we need more options in certain areas.

Someone in charge with half of Warburton's guts and intelligence and we'd be in a much better situation. For many, the answers are obvious, but for some reason the individuals that matter are reluctant to change. It's really quite sad.

I disagree that the squad is too lightweight. Yes, we're missing two players and we're now struggling to find replacements. But add the ineligible M'OH and King to that and we're missing 4 players. In an ordinary run-of-the-mill season (with no ineligibles), then we're quite comfortable losing two players. It's a perfect storm situation: 4 players ruled out through for several reasons, and all in the same third of the pitch. On the too lightweight issue (player-wise): I don't think it's necessarily a big problem, because if Zelalem et al -- I don't think for a second that Zelalem is starting -- can shift the ball quickly, then Brown will be bursting a gut to catch F-all, and he'll not get a sniff -- If we play it right. I don't believe the 'too lightweight' argument is entirely credible in a modern game. A player can barely tackle anymore without getting booked for it. A more technical player, with good passing ability, should be more than enough for their dated antics. That doesn't mean a 'destroyer'-type player wouldn't be useful in this game, or in general, because it would; but, we have what we have. I've swung back and forth, from quiet optimism that we can beat them, to outright dread that we're going to get a mauling. As always, the truth will be somewhere in between. I'm not as worried as the last time. We certainly have something to offer, with players and a style that can cause them difficulty. The unknown variable is the 'derby' aspect, because form goes out the window, and anything can happen. I'm looking forward to it though.

When Forrester plays deeper (LCM), we've had O'Halloran and King to come in; because they're not eligible, Forrester's position would have been RW. From that the only replacement can be Clark IMO (Clark up top with Miller wide). I don't see Warburton changing radically -- with Halliday or Shiels playing as a winger -- it'll be something he's done before. DB picked the side correctly above IMO. The midfielder replacements (Shiels, Law and Zelalem) cannot play RW; only Clark can come into the equation IMO.

Nooooooooooo...!! I can't see Warburton making any significant changes, so it'll be a change we've seen before; Clark seems the obvious choice, despite not being the most encouraging.

This made me laugh: "All he can do is tackle and run, which the Dutch rank just slightly above turning up for the match on time." That is Scottish players in a nutshell! Interesting how little it counts in the Netherlands! That was a good read Pete, thank you. He's not a striker, but a midfielder with decent athleticism, running ability and strength; he's not technically gifted, but has knack of assisting and being in the right place at the right time. He could be a decent asset. Ideally, we'd want someone a little more rounded as a player, but I'm all for acquiring players that can do specific jobs: getting a big, tall, physical midfielder -- with some aggression -- would be a good alternative. (We've been crying out for a more physical threat from midfield!)

I think we'll find it tricky to find someone who fits the bill. As has been stated, a traditional 'striker' is not going to cut it; we someone a little more creative. Hardie is clearly prolific, but Warburton obviously thinks there is something missing -- and you can see it. It's more beneficial for us to have 4, 5 players scoring a decent amount (10/15), than any one striker scoring 25+.

I get your point, but I wouldn't define him as a striker; a forward certainly, being able to play those roles you stated, but I would still class him as a midfielder, albeit a very attacking one. He's certainly versatile, so defining him as either is a stretch!

His father Dean was a striker; Josh is a Midfielder. I think you've just misread it CS. Although, as TB says, facts don't count for much on these publications.

Nice touch Ian; very kind of you.

Bournemouth have some on the inside of their stands; looks quite good, adding to the atmosphere and covering what is an awkward aspect of a stand. Where else are these banners going?

There were some good moments in the game where we did get in behind; some of the passing and link-up play to do so was splendid. To be fair, the performance isn't indicative of our form, or ability, as we never got out of first gear.

I thought that was a ponderous display; slow and lacklustre. I agree Miller was at the heart of everything, but I still thought his touch was poor and he was slow to pass. Of course, the pitch did not help the performance for anyone! The result was never in doubt -- simply because Peterhead couldn't string two passes together and their only tactic was get a free-kick and lump it into the box -- but we dominated possession, and controlled the ball well. It was all about the victory today: It feels great to finally get this Cup in the trophy room; full-sweep! It's always tricky against teams that stick 10-men behind the ball. It'll be more open next week IMO, so we might see better/more goal-scoring opportunities. The reverse is we may get exposed at the back. It'll be interesting.

He can, but it'll be detrimental to our continuity. I'd prefer to see us go down the Southampton/Swansea route, whereby any potential candidate has to conform to the system already in place. It's not great to have to start again every time a new manager is announced. If we had a manager that could've built upon what Advocaat started, then we'd be in a better position IMO.

Well, my team prediction was well off! Looks like he's going as strong as possible. Possibly a tester for next week? No youngsters on the bench either. Foderingham; Tavernier, Kiernan, Wilson, Wallace; Ball, Halliday, Holt; Forrester, Miller, McKay. There are no major surprises on the bench either, with Cammy Bell, Dean Shiels, Nicky Law, Gedion Zelalem, Michael O’Halloran and Nicky Clark joining the aforementioned King. http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/one-change-cup-final/

Any potential manager needs to be similar to Warburton. In other words, any potential candidate must be able to fit seamlessly into the system that Warburton has started/built. That would rule out McInnes IMO, because he's nothing like Warburton. (Not that he's a candidate, but Brendan Rodgers would be a fit.) A candidate must fit into the system, rather than us renewing the whole system every time we change manager.

I'll miss BBC Alba and the unintelligible commentary. In saying that, I hope never to need it again.

Does a sentence count as a paragraph?

Yes, I was thinking of you when I posted that! I think the poem works: It's about stepping back outside the 'nitty-gritty' to remember why we do things. In our case, winning trophies. The Challenge Cup is a trinket compared to what we've won in the past, but it is a trophy nonetheless. The performance was indeed "lacklustre", but the victory was "rousing"...IMO. Historic would be a nice way to go. You should have a go at a preview sometime!

It says it all when an innocuous and pleasant comment is followed by such hatred and bile. It's getting ridiculous -- it is ridiculous.

I saw a little of the game and it was embarrassing to be honest. Neither side could string two passes together and, as has been said, the ball spent most of the time in the air. There is just no control. It's like Sunday League football but with 'better' footballers; there's still no tactical awareness or coherent game-plan IMO. We were just waiting for the ball to bounce fortunately! For this to be a top-of-the-table clash (or 2nd and 3rd) is unreal. I agree with Craig, that despite us having control of the ball, a coherent game-plan etc. that doesn't necessarily mean we'll trounce every side; that's not how football works. If we can control games, and look like we're approaching things the way they should be approached (tactical, technical, with a coherent game-plan and philosophy), then I'll be content; even if that means we loose a few. I believe that with our philosophy we only need better players than we currently have to get to the stage we're we are trouncing teams. We're doing things the right way; I'm delighted with that. It's a shame backward football can still be 'effective' in this country.

Really? I had no idea Bell was back. Corrected. I agree Miller may be rested, but I just couldn't see Clark, O'Halloran and King playing. I think the latter two will be included because of their situation next week. Ball could come in also. It's a tricky one to call: we expect a few decisions to be made that he hasn't made before.