Rousseau

I think there are a few more players, of higher calibre, that we need. However, I also think that our problems are not so huge that they can't be rectified now: we need to be aware of how a team will counter, so our defenders need to cut the passing lines instead of trying to out-run or defend the space; we also need a proper DM/pivot.

Yes, but 15 minutes at full-back, not as a winger, his 'natural' position. Warburton obviously feels Aird has the attributes to play that role. (Oh, he has got Tavernier ahead of him: how much is any full-back in our squad going to play with Tavernier in front of them?)

I don't think a Pivot needs great pace, but needs to read the game well and have good distribution. Murdoch was a good wee passer so could do the job -- don't know about his reading of the game, though? It's amazing how much an opinion of a player differs. I don't really care for Walsh, as he's not really shown enough for me on the wing or in the centre, but I do like Murdoch, as I think he is one of our best passers, and his movement and interplay was great to watch. I think we expect too much of players. Instead of demanding Murdoch do everything in midfield, I'd prefer him to just concentrate on doing a smaller role well. I think he'd be good at Pivot; he's got a look of a metronome about him too.

Age and all-round ability is irrelevant IMO. A player doesn't have to be a well-rounded, complete player to do a job well. I think if someone has the ability to play a role well, without being a complete player, then they should get a shot. Take Aird: far, far from a well-rounded, complete player, but Warburton has identified skills in him that suits the full-back role.

He's been charged, so I can't really defend him anymore. I trust the opinion of a panel over fans and pundits any day. I admitted he crossed the line, but I maintain that I do not, in general, have a problem with a player 'cheating' to win. Is every form of cheating not in the spirit of the game? What about when a player, with no chance of getting the ball, takes out another who has got a free run at goal? Is that cheating or pragmatic play? Gary Neville and Jamie Carragher regularly talk about the need to obstruct players in a game situation. Is that cheating or pragmatic play? I don't think 'cheating' is as black and white as it's made out to be. Would you rather see your team cheat a little and win, or play with impeccable sporting integrity and lose?

Again, all true. However, I stand by my opinion; and it is an opinion at the end of the day. We may have to agree to disagree. I'll admit that Costa crossed the line, and has been charged accordingly. Koscielny and Gabriel didn't cover temselves in glory either, but here we are talking about Costa as this absolute disgrace to football. It only ruins the game for neutrals. If one is a Chelsea fan one is delighted to win the game. It's all about winning. There are a lot of these niggling duels between players on the pitch, that can be considered cheating, but go on all the time. Like I said, in general, I do not mind a player doing all he can to win the game. Chelsea are poor, and won't do much; maybe comfortably top 4 in the end, but I doubt they'll be challenging for trophies. Most of their best performers from last year have been very poor. I think they have an ageing squad that needs to be freshened up. This is what Mourinho struggles with.

Dykes and Thompson could be good options long-term. I'd certainly like to see them get some game time. It would allow Halliday to play further forward also.

Good move. Why must every piece include the '140 year old' in it? Trying far too hard.

All true...except the chest bump. They both come together there, and there is no way it's enough to cause Koscielny to fall; he's embarrassingly collapsed like a rag doll, trying to get Costa sent off. Costa won the game. Very sneaky indeed; I'd even call it cheating. Diving is 'cheating', but there is a difference between a blatant dive and drawing the foul. A player would get roundly criticised by his team-mates and fans if he doesn't go down. I remember Gary Neville doing a piece on it for MNF, where is suggests it's OK for a player to 'dive' if there is sufficient cause. Neville blames the defenders for rash, naive challenges in that situation. Costa has possibly crossed the line at the weekend, but in general, I do not have a problem with players doing all they can to get their team an advantage to win the game. I have tempered my opinion somewhat after seeing it again. I was just a little too quick in trying to defend him. I still feel he is an easy target.

I'd agree with that. We don't really have a destroyer-type player. A destroyer with good distribution would be a great combination for us as a Pivot.

Zelalem is a metronome, won't burst a gut, but is very important for keeping the ball in rotation; Law is more of a runner, arriving late into the box, taking shots at goal. Different players, both give something to the cause IMO. Shiels is a metronome also IMO. Not sure what Holt is -- all-rounder? Halliday plays a regista type role. I think my point is comparing these midfielders is difficult because they have different game-styles and roles, with each contributing something different. We don't really have a destroyer a al Gattuso...

Your right, but I see Ferguson as a DM; Halliday is an AM playing deeper. Ferguson never bombed forward IIRC and was defensive by nature, whereas Halliday is offensive by nature. Pirlo is a strange case because he was deep-lying playmaker (Regista), so was offensive without bombing forward. I suppose Halliday could perform that role, but would need to sit deep all the time. It's paradoxical, but I think one can be an offensive player while also being a defensive midfielder.

No way was I comparing them! Leagues apart.

I agree with you. However, we don't really see both teams wearing Home kits. Is there some rule in place?

The Pivot can incorporate different skill-sets. Pirlo played that role for Juventus when they played 4-4-2 (diamond), coming deep to make a 3-man defense, pick up the ball and play those long pin-point passes; he was a attacking pivot in that sense. Or, like you suggest, Tymoschuk, who was more defensive. Ferguson would be a more offensive type.

I agree with you. Craig has said elsewhere that as long as the communication is good, we'll be OK with the 3 rotating midfielders this year. I was thinking more long-term, and in the games against better opponents.

The prevailing mood watching Rangers these days is invariably one of confidence and excitement. Ibrox has been packed to the rafters every other week, and a strong contingent eagerly travel to those far off places up and down the country. Rangers fans have been treated thus far to a brand of football often foreign to Scotland: fast, dynamic and relentless. But with the increase in positive play, there has been an increase in nerves and tension during one particular phase of play: when the centre-backs split and the 'keeper has the ball at his feet. Grimacing faces anticipate mistakes, followed by a collective gasp or relieved sighs when big Foderingham miss-places the ball, or safely manages to pass the ball on to a team-mate. There is a preponderance of complaints in this country when 'keepers mess around with the ball in defence; when the ball goes astray, or leads to a chance for the opposition, one will find a section shaking their heads and pointing their fingers, railing against the very notion of 'keepers attempting anything other than lumping it long. It is an old-fashioned view that 'keepers -- and defenders -- should not be attempting anything complicated in defense. The old-guard go apoplectic when stray passes lead to chances. Despite these old-fashioned views, it is surely not in doubt from modern audiences that this is the right way to play? Split centre-backs have been pioneered by those sides respected and applauded for playing football the ‘right way’ -- Guardiola's Barcelona and Bayern Munich; the Spanish National Side; and any side that Marcelo Bielsa has coached in recent years, like Chile and Athletic Bilbao. It involves an inherent trust of the ball playing abilities of your central pairing and 'keeper. Making the shift from the long ball to passing is difficult. Not only does it require technical ability, but it takes bravery, confidence and unwavering faith from the management team. Mistakes will be made, but they need to be endured. The best example of a traditional long ball team making this change is Wales. It was the confidence and faith shown by Gary Speed, and then Chris Coleman, that forced Wales into a good passing side, enabling them to go from 116 in the world to 9 (with a little help from Gareth Bale). Wales' Dutch number two for Speed's tenure, Raymond Verheijen, suggests that the methods used were not easy to implement in a side that was not used to passing the ball from the back: “We started with the position of the players and we forced them to keep passing in training and competitive games. [...] As a head coach you have to be strong. Accept that you will lose, sometimes you lose two or three nil, then at some stage the players will improve.” By splitting, the two centre-backs occupy positions vacated by the full-backs to the left and right of the penalty box providing the 'keeper with two passing points (LCB and RCB) by which to move into Phase 1. The full-backs also then have freedom to push forward from a position of possession. The two centre-backs have more space to pick a pass into Phase 2, with 5 potential passing points (RB, RCM, DM, LCM, LB). The primary benefit of splitting the centre-backs is to facilitate ball retention in a controlled way. A lumped ball up-field removes this aspect of control, leaving the team with a 50/50 chance of winning an aerial dual to retain possession. The secondary benefit is what it can force the opposition to do. When the 2 centre-backs have possession it can force the opposition to press. Two centre-backs are relatively easy to press, if the opposition have two strikers or are well drilled. However, if worked quickly, it drags the opposition out leaving more space for passing into Phase 2, with 5 potential passing points against 4 opposition midfielders. Of course, if the opposition decide to sit back, then the team in possession have time and space on the ball to build slowly from the back; Phase 1 is easy to reach, but Phase 2 is a little trickier. This has worked well for us thus far. Teams have tended not to press as high, allowing us to retain possession relatively easily. However, when we eventually come up against better opposition we can be sure they will look to press a little higher, trying to disrupt our possession. We've seen teams press sometimes, forcing the centre-backs to pass back to Foderingham, forcing a few grimacing faces from fans. This will only become more common -- the next game against St Johnstone could show the difference. Ostensibly, we play 4-3-3, but with our possession and pressing game, we really end up more like a 2-5-3, with both full-backs acting as wingers. This creates an obvious risk. Time and time again we have seen teams defend deep and break with pace and purpose, exposing our centre-backs. We have lost a few goals already this season and could/should have lost more. Again, a better calibre of opposition will cause more problems. It is with this in mind that a Pivot is needed. The player that most encapsulates the role of the Pivot is Sergio Busquets. Dropping deep, Busquets vacates the default defensive midfield position to create a temporary back 3, which increases the horizontal space across the back line, providing Valdes with 3 potential passing points (LCB, Pivot, RCB). Moreover, by dropping back, Busquets creates massive amounts of space for Xavi and Iniesta in midfield. With Busquets between the centre-backs, the 3-man defence are able to spread play effectively, while also covering that central point which is a key space for opposition counter attacks. Rangers unfortunately do not have a natural Pivot. Our three-man midfield are naturally more attacking-type players. They rotate position so one drops deeper than the others but, as we have seen time and time again this year, we are very vulnerable on the counter, suggesting that the defensive midfielder is not coming deep enough. However, somewhat more optimistically, Eustace could be the answer. Eustace is a natural defensive midfielder: a good passer of the ball, strong in defense, and doesn't roam about. It would be easy for him to drop deep to create a 3-man defense while in possession, providing Foderingham with 3 potential passing points, while also allowing more space for our midfield and full-backs. He would also provide cover in the central area to block a counter-attack. There is little doubt that splitting our centre-backs is the right way to play. It has worked well thus far, whether opponents press or sit back. However, it will only get more difficult when we come up against better opposition, and our vulnerability on the counter will only get more exposed. We need a Pivot; one that can create a 3-man defense to increase our ball retention, negating any pressing tactic by the opposition; one that can drag opponents out of position, creating more space for our midfielders, full-backs and attackers; and, crucially, one that can cover our defensive line when teams counter. http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/current-affairs/441-split-centre-backs-and-the-need-for-a-pivot

It sounds like marketing. However, I'd suggest that teams nowadays need third kit which is slightly out there. A team should wear a Home shirt at Home matches and Away kits at Away matches. When a team reaches Europe then if an Away strip clashes with the Home Kit of the opposition -- or vice versa -- then I think one needs a slightly different third kit. Although, I like the tradition in what BH said: "...Rangers should always play in some combination of red, white and blue." I suppose red (Third kit) and White (Away kit) would be sufficiently different to negate any clashes?

Aye, fair enough. My point is I've seen these situations before where players flail their arms about connecting with an opponent and haven't seen a red card drawn. You see it for anyone else and it's 'he's a lucky boy', with Costa it's 'he's a disgrace'. No one's talking about Gabriel's behaviour. I see double standards. However, I am willing to admit, perhaps, maybe, that I'm seeing it through blue-tinted specs. Maybe.

I agree Costa could/should have been sent off, but not for the incident with Koscielny. Do we not see the 'deliberate' failing arms from others quite often? I don't think it's necessarily a red card offense. I feel Costa gets unfairly picked on. He's not innocent, far from it, but others do similar things and they're not picked out at as much. Perhaps it's just my blue-tinted specs? West Ham have been exceptional. However, they are more of a counter-attacking side; It's worked well, but they need to find a way to win at home, when the onus is on them. Great result yesterday. Bilic is a very good coach. I do have a soft spot for West Ham -- great historic, traditional club -- and I'm looking forward to seeing what the new stadium does for them.

I think if you take away the aggression you take away a big part of the player.

Really?! Argument dismantled in 6 words... (They certainly weren't blue tinted glasses.)

There's no point in debating the points: we're both looking at it through blue and red tinted glasses. (There's no way his body weight knocks him down there; clear fall.)

The second-half was dull, but I thought the first-half was good. There was a good 30 mins where it looked like the Chelsea of last season. Red card(s) spoiled it.

Seriously, everyone's biased when it comes to Chelsea and Mourinho. Marmite. Any fan can find excuses for anything 'dirty' Chelsea/Mourinho do, likewise any that dislike Chelsea/Mourinho can find something 'immoral' in the most innocuous incidents. There's a clear divide on this forum.