Rousseau

The loan system is great if you are the loaner, not so much the loanee, unless it gives you a better calibre of player. However, if one is trying to build a team then loans would just be destructive IMO. It's great that we've got Zelalem, but what happens when we move up a league and haven't got him? It'll be very difficult to get a similarly-skilled player for a reasonable amount of cash.

It looks like I'm in the minority here. I think you are right, after checking: the Ref did signal for them to go on. I still think it's naive and poor game management/awareness. If it's a serious injury, then sure, get on the pitch as quick as possible. However, the medical team is there to help the team be successful. I think it was pretty obvious it was fatigue -- quite common at the latter stages of a game. Nothing serious, and could cost the team points (I think it was 2-2 and they were down to 10 men?). I would certainly also blame the player for going down in that situation, for the same reasons: Naivety and poor game management/awareness. I also said the demotion was quite harsh. She (and He -- I don't know why it turns into a sexist issue?) should have been criticised in private, not in public.

I think you've jumped the gun with your judgement there. Of course if it is a serious injury, she should be straight on the pitch. However, it was fatigue and he would be fine after running it off; it happens all the time. Because the doctor came on the pitch, the player then has to leave, leaving Chelsea with 9 men. It can cost points, and potentially titles, if one considers how close the season finishes. Like I said, perhaps demoting the woman was harsh, but I still think he was right to criticise her.

Am I the only person who thinks Mourinho was right regarding the doctor? Perhaps demoting the woman was harsh, but she did deserve to be criticised IMO. He is a bad loser, but he's not used to it. Chelsea need a few fresh faces. It is the one criticism of Mourinho's career: he hasn't quite managed to re-fresh a team like Ferguson used to do; usually he adds finished players, then moves on before the team gets past their peak.

Another couple of assists for McKay. He's been exceptional this season. I'm pleased he's getting his chance and delivering the goods. I've always been a big fan of his style of play.

Such is the standards set this season that 3-0 is a little disappointing. Awesome.

I'd second trublu: Gourcuff is awesome. Not sure if he'd fit into our offensive third because he's quite lethargic and doesn't have the work-rate for our team, but he could sit in the DM Pirlo-role pinging balls left, right and centre, and would always be a danger at set-pieces. (No chance whatsoever, but I can dream!)

As far as I'm concerned very few pundits actually have a clue. Apart from Gary Neville and Jamie Carragher, most pundits provide a very subjective analysis. It's good to get a personal interpretation or opinion of what the pundit would do in a given situation, but I prefer more objective analysis. Most pundits are of an age whereby their views are out-of-date. The game has moved on, so it not just a case of 'show more desire in the tackle', 'show hunger for the ball', or 'there's no pressure on the ball' etc. It does seem that the defensive side of the game is easier to analyse because it's just a case of looking at organisation and shape, where the roles are well-defined. The attacking side is more complex and much more fluid. I can't really recall any good objective analyses of a teams attacking play. Even Neville and Carragher tend to focus on the defensive side, which is no surprise considering they are defenders. Henry gives a little insight now and again. Ally will not bring anything new, but we may get a laugh, and perhaps a more Rangers-sided view on things for a change; not a bad thing at all.

If Templeton can become injury-free for more than a month, I can see him getting a run of games and doing well in the team. Law is decent enough, but of course Zela is far superior so he's not got a chance, but he's a good back-up IMO. Shiels is getting on a bit, and was never, IMO, going to be first-choice; again, decent enough back-up.

Great read. Geography is insignificant; It's in the blood. (Would've liked a bit of poetry...)

It doesn't make up for the unethical queasiness of the last year, but we do forget that he was on nothing for a while and then took a 50% cut. It's not as bad as it looked, at least for me; but I'm not sure if I'm seeing what I want to see? As for his dalliance with Green, surely most of us -- I realise not all -- thought he was the 'saviour' at that time. Why wouldn't McCoist get sucked into that? He probably doesn't have a scooby about the business implications. And buying shares, which most of us did, was a good move at the time, putting money into the club. The profit he made from the shares, like everyone else who bought shares, is irrelevant IMO. Again, I'm not sure if I'm seeing what I want to see?

He's a good character. It'll be good to get a few laughs beside the 'analysis'.

Quite impressive considering the squad was relatively young. Was Dykes the one that the Manager said had to be given a run in the team? Or am I mistaken?

It was like watching Rangers last night: possession, work-rate, enthusiasm, passing, and a slightly shaky defense. Shame it was Germany. Scotland games annoy me. We hear the same comments from the commentators, regarding work-rate and atmosphere which are usually quite good. Then we hear things like, "Scotland are unlucky to go behind there," and "Scotland don't have an out-ball." No wonder! If you are defending on your own six-yard box, then of course you are going to loose 'unlucky' goals, but they're not unlucky because you can avoid it by pushing up when the ball goes back; and of course there isn't going to be an out-ball: everyone's in their own box! For me, the commentators epitomise a complete lack of understanding in the Scottish game; the views are out-of-date. Wotte was a step in the right direction, but many in authority don't have the understanding or foresight to appreciate what he was doing. Of course, that was only one step; much more has to be done. Alas! Nothing will change as long as the same idiots are in charge. In all honesty, I think the Scotland squad would be better if it was a mix of Rangers and Hearts players. However, they'll continue to be overlooked until they move to the English Championship or Celtic.

Loaning several players to one club is farcical -- for the side receiving the loanees --, but I don't think having 30 out on loan is farcical. Italian sides have much the same number of players out on loan, and sometimes more; although some are joint-ownership situations. It can be considered anti-competitive, but if one is developing the players, one is entitled to retain them and loan them out to gain a better player later, or simply to make a little money. Moreover, surely it improves player development?

I liked Miller's attitude to the celebration: he makes sure they all acknowledge that Oduwa was the player to get them the 5th goal even although Waghorn scored the penalty. Great attitude.

He's not a great player, but I think he's a good squad player. He works hard, high energy, enthusiastic. Like Pete says, he could be a decent back-up WB.

Our Striker is top scorer in the league, but what is scary is that our 2 fullbacks are joint-second! Holt typifies my opinion on players. Every player has qualities, but not every team can bring them out or use them. Hearts didn't need his type, and so he never played and was released, looking quite average. In many ways he has made a step up into a team that can use his qualities and he has been a revelation.

I'm not saying there is a conspiracy here, but the team seems to be picked on where they play (EPL, EC, Celtic), rather than how well they play together. It's like they are shoehorned into the team regardless of how they play, their style, or their form. Anya is a perfect example. He's a decent player that comes into plans out of nowhere because he played a good role in Watford's promotion. He is a WB for Watford, but Strachan has him playing LM and drifting inside (not entirely different but it is a different role). Morrison is more an attacking player, but is shoehorned into a defensive role. Maloney is a decent player, but I think he's wasted on the wing. A team of average players that work well together are surely better than a group of individuals that may be better players individually? If one forgets for a second that Wales have Bale, they play a 3-5-1-1 (sort of?) because it suits the players they have: decent CBs, couple of players that play well at WB, and have very good CMs in Ramsey and Allen etc; the system has been developed to take advantage of their players strengths. Their Striker is a worker rather than a goalscorer to allow Bale that free role. A Bale gets you to 9th in the World!? Once again, Scotland are out-of-date.

Warburton says he wants an impact player on the bench: that's why Miller is dropped, which makes sense. Pleased to see Thompson get a place on the bench -- we may see him get game time. Quite an exciting front three.

Is there an injury update for the game? Wallace, Bell (no point asking about Templeton!) etc.?

We are just not good enough. Poor collection of players, and a poor manager. However, I still think, as Warburton has shown, a decent manager could get something out of that squad. We should be trying something different, not the same old stuff. Georgia played 3-5-2 last night, with 3 really attacking and pressing. Their back three would suggest there was space on the flanks, but we maintained the same formation. We set up one way; the oppositions system doesn't factor in, which is so out-of-date. We could have played a 3-5-2, because we have a decent enough WBs in Hutton (not great defensively but quite good going forward), Robertson, or Anya; decent couple of forwards in Fletcher and Martin; Maloney or Adam are decent enough to play in the hole; and we've got decent, high-energy CMs. I actually think we've got decent enough players, but they are not being used properly.

Ha! I've been justified by the Manager: McKay is a forward, not a midfielder (although he can play behind the striker).

I don't think the midfield 3 are RM, CM and LM; it's more like 3 CMs. The Attackers are LW, RW, ST. Aird can play RB, RW (and LW, I suppose), but not ®CM, IMO. Same with Clark: no way is he going to play ®CM.

By definition 'lean' suggests we are, not down to bare bones, but close to being short. If we do get a few injuries -- as is likely with the aggressive nature of the envious opposition -- then we will be in trouble. However, like I said above, our versatility will go some way to mitigating that problem.