Rousseau

I trust all of them to do a 'job', except maybe Jig who's too old. I'm not saying they'd excel, merely do a 'job'. Bare in mind that my definition of 'job' is not that broad. For example, Black has done a 'job' over the last few play-off games and done ok sitting deep and shielding the back 4/3. I make it 9 transfers that had an impact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9315_Heart_of_Midlothian_F.C._season#Transfers). We can certainly do that easily enough. However, you must remember that they had a base of players that got relegated; they didn't 'gut' the team, but built on what they had. I think the difference has been the coach. Like I've said on numerous occasions: If we can get a proper coach, we'd see a completely different set of players.

By that logic any player that has got near our squad has 'failed' too. You've also extended the definition of 'job' from what I implied.

Och, it's a bit of a gag post anyway: it's just a rumour. Like I said: I was encouraged by his background.

Apparently, yes.

Rangers want to sign the biggest name in European football - Julen Etxabeguren Leanizbarrutia, the 24-year-old former Real Sociedad defender who has left East Fife after five months with the League Two club - but six Premiership clubs are also interested. (The Sun, print edition) http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32926539 Joking aside, he appears to be the right type: technical and can play in a variety of positions; he's obviously been taught how to play the right way in the Real Sociedad B team. It's certainly one of the most encouraging rumours I've seen.

I trust them to do a job. Broadfoot was an awful player, but he did a job; same with Ian Murray etc. (I can't recall others, but I'm sure there were a few that were poor individually but were decent enough squad players.) I'm not getting drawn into a 'black and white' judgement where they are either world-class or piss poor without any redeeming quality and wouldn't get a game for Tranent Juniors; no, they each have their abilities and can each do a job. Like I've said on numerous occasions: I think a better coach would be able to get a lot more out of this group.

Of course, I agree. However, I doubt that we can sign 24 new players better than we have during 1 summer. I think it'd be much more realistic to keep most of what we have and sign better calibre players to add to our squad. The 'coach' is absolutely key.

Of course, I agree. However, I doubt that we can sign 24 new players better than we have during 1 summer. I think it'd be much more realistic to keep most of what we have and sign better calibre players to add to our squad. The 'coach' is absolutely key.

Bench. We should get rid of the higher earners: a squad player shouldn't be on more than a starter. But then again, a squad player is not going to be on peanuts. I genuinely feel these players would perform better with a good coach. We lack ideas going forward, but I think that's coaching. If someone could coach them into making better runs, or to move better etc. we'd see a better product on the park (of course that doesn't translate into finishing, which has been abysmal). We were caught on the counter several times last night, but IMO that's not a failure of the players, or their work-rate, but a failure of the tactics: having 1 sitting and and 2 CBs and the rest 'going for it', it was inevitable really. I couldn't fault their work-rate. I would criticise their creativity, and finishing; the former is the coaching, the latter the individual.

Yes. As squad players.

We don't have the variety or size of squad we need. That's partly the reason why I've said I would keep most of the players we have, because I think they are OK--I certainly couldn't question their work-rate last night, just their decision making and finishing--, and with more acquisitions, more variety in the positions we would perform better with a decent coach (McCall is not the answer--too similar to McCoist--, but should be thanked for the work he has done: he can only work with what he's got).

No, I don't think that's realistic. But on a purely hypothetical level, he would get us to a certain level, bringing in players to do a job and I have been impressed with his work at the backroom level--there are a few stories about his excellent work to modernise Bolton with modern departments etc.--but then he wouldn't bring the 'good' football we would like. I think I'd prefer someone like McClaren: more of a coach, and a talented one at that, who can get us playing the right way, and he's certainly capable of rebuilding our backroom departments. Both are unrealistic.

He's a good passer, but that is irrelevant if his potential teammates don't run off the ball. I'd like to see him in a Rangers jersey, but it'll only be successful if we can get a proper coach.

Initially you're right, but I think we can more than compete commercially (with the increased revenue streams).

I agree completely. We are quite light in midfield if you want to get rid of Black and Shiels.

Of course, I agree with what you say. I would add though that although these players have under-performed it does not imply that they are not good enough and that we need to cut them all loose: surely we all agree that they are better than what they've shown this year? I think we should keep what we have and then add some real quality, rather than go for a complete rebuild. (See post #52 and #53.)

I'm pleased that you keep more players than you release, which is more realistic--the complete opposite of what others are implying on here. I agree with your choices. I make our basic squad (assuming a basic 4-3-3?): Bell Foster (Sinnamon) - McGregor - Zaliukus (Gasparotto) - Wallace (Smith) Crawford (Shiels) - Murdoch (Black) - Law Gallagher (McKay) - Hardie (Clark) - Walsh (Aird) It's a very light squad--we'd ideally want 2 for every position. After going through them I'd keep Smith as a replacement for Wallace; Shiels for a replacement midfielder; and--god help me!--I'd keep Black as another replacement. I'd also keep Miller around. I understand your point about getting rid of the high earners; depends whether we can get somebody better for less money? Potential acquisitions should be: 2nd GK; RB; CB (2); LB; CM (2 or 3); ST (2); maybe another winger, but I think those positions could be taken with youngsters--fast and energetic etc.--like Gallagher, McKay, Walsh etc.

Fair enough. I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't sign anyone--I don't see how anyone could defend that position! I just think it's unrealistic to expect a complete 'clear-out'. I don't think we have the money. Moreover, I don't think it's necessary. I think we have a base squad that is average, or decent at best, which we can build on by acquiring better players. I honestly think the manager is key: get a decent coach and we see a completely different team (from the players we have). I don't necessarily agree that the highest paid squad wins the league. The best team wins the league, but that doesn't necessarily require huge expenditure. Barcelona developed an exceptional team barely spending a penny. I agree with the 'stepping stone' type situation where you have to upgrade your team to progress, but I think that system in perpetuity is unsustainable. We should improve the side by spending, but we should also be putting more emphasis on Scouting, Youth Development and coaching the players we have. We got into this situation because we wanted to outspend Celtic, which was pure hubris; and we have fallen for it. It's time to put more emphasis on the long-term aspects of squad development.

Ha! I'm more worried about the Wicket-keeper!

I think if we do it your way, we'll be in the same situation in a few years time. Short-term pain for long-term gain is what I'm prepared for; we need to build long-term.

That's exactly what I said: they are decent squad players; I'm not suggesting they are starters! I just don't expect this rebuild to happen, or at least not in the manner we would all like. We have a basic squad, it needs improving, but that does not imply that we should be releasing everyone. IMO.

I don't think it does. The majority can play a role--I'm not suggesting they can compete with Celtic at all. I think there is a half-decent base there, which with some additions can challenge for top 6 or second. The squad needs improved. I just think, in our current situation, a complete rebuild is unrealistic. I would certainly want a Abramovich-style rebuild but I doubt it'll happen. We must build on what we have. Perhaps we should have, but it's not as easy as that. Man Utd had the biggest wage bill, does that mean they should have romped the Premier League. However, whereas many have been blaming the players--and to an extent they should be blamed because they haven't performed well enough--I was suggesting the main problem was the management.

Ha, Cricket! The gentleman's game.

I agree with the two premises: (1) we have a better standard of player; and (2) we have under-performed. However, I disagree with your conclusion. It does not necessarily follow that they are inherently not good enough--form is temporary, class is permanent etc. I believe a better manager can get better things from them. Secondly, money may indeed buy us a better calibre of player, but it doesn't then follow that they should romp to the title. I think we disagree on the basis of our failure. You imply that it's the players fault entirely, whereas I believe the fault lies with the management. Stories abound in football of poor sides being miraculously transformed into decent sides with a change of manager. I'm not disputing that, but I am stating that it can't be done without some serious expenditure (£35 Million in 1998-99). That sort of expenditure is wholly unrealistic in our current situation. The rebuilds you reference were forced because of retirements and contract cancellations. At this juncture we have a 'basic' squad and I think it would be naive, foolish and presumptuous to suggest we should be gutting the squad. I'm not denying it needs improving, simply added to, or refined. (And, actually on both occasions we won the league because there was no challenge--John Barnes and East Stirling!) Again, your opinion that the players have had their chance is based on our fundamental disagreement which I outlined above (on the basis of our failure). Yes, I agree we should be beating Motherwell; mainly because, as you said, we have the momentum, but it is not a certainty. I was suggesting your expectations in general are out of date, with regards to our league performance, not the Motherwell play-off game. Even with marginally better players with bigger wages, it doesn't then follow that we should be romping away with the league. Again, I think it's the management that should take the majority of the blame. Oh, yes absolutely! Keeping Jig was an error!!

Money doesn't guarantee you success. Like db said: does that not then belittle the titles we won previously? We have the same ambition, just perhaps differ in our appreciation of our current predicament. I think it's a bit unrealistic and arrogant to assume we should be cruising to the title--no matter how much I may wish it! Again, I feel you are a wee bit unrealistic in your expectations. They have most certainly under-performed, but I still feel they deserve credit for getting promotion--if in fact we do get promotion! They are not the class of player we had previously. They are average SPL players at best, yet you expect the same level as before. I agree. But surely he deserves credit for it his good performances, just like he deserves criticism for the bad? I agree. Our opinions of individual players are subjective, so it's difficult to be objective. I would actually keep most of them, except Daly, Simonsen and Hutton. Now, that doesn't mean I want them to be in the starting 11 next year, because I don't, but I believe it's unrealistic to assume we can completely replace them all. They'd be decent squad players. There could be a hint of a decent foundation there, if we can just improve the team with some new/better players. I think the main issue has been poor management; sort of the management and I think you'd see a completely different set of players. Most have the potential to be better with a better manager, and a smattering of new/better players to improve the squad. Is that not paradoxical that you see them as abject failures, not worthy to wear the jersey and with no redeeming quality, but you still expect them to walk through the play-off against teams that have battered us in the past? It has been an awful season, but I think your expectations are 5 years out of date.