Jump to content

Big Jaws

Site Contributors
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Big Jaws

  1. I'm probably the least patriotic person you could meet but I'm not allowing my national team to be hi-jacked by a bunch of amandans!
  2. Its still a loss though isn't it? Going into the winter break we were equal on points. Celtic pushed on in the second half of the season and improved their points tally. We had three less draws from three less games. Personally I don't think being neck and neck was enough of a challenge to worry a team used to winning titles. I think we needed to be in front going into the winter break, have made a serious challenge in the cup competitions, to have any impact on the title race going down the final straight.
  3. I'll try my best to get on more often in the future with even more little Easter eggs for you @Gaffer. :D
  4. No mate it wasn't. We're on the attack its played back to Flanagan and when the ball breaks Goldson is the one who steps up and is caught with acres of space in behind him. As I said Eduard to Ncham, Eduard runs around Goldson and gets it back from Ncham. Now Katic has to cover across and cuts off the inside run and possible pass to a runner forcing Eduard to go wide onto his left but Eduard cleverly plays it with the outside of his right boot to go past Katic on his outside. Katic adjusting to that at full pace looks pretty clumsy. Over those 5 yards Eduard had the turn of pace to go past Katic. IMO we're fortunate that Katic got a little on him during the exchange because it slowed him down and forced him wide enough not to shoot himself, its on his weaker foot and has to play the final ball again with the outside of his right boot, and for us to get bodies in the box to defend the second ball after Wes saves from Burke. If you're looking to blame anyone then John Flanagan for losing the ball and not tracking Burke and Connor Goldson for committing himself inside their half is where you should be looking.
  5. I agree with you that Katic isnt there yet and that he still has some learning to go through yet. However He's not responsible nor was he in the wrong position. The ball is charged down by Burke from Flanagan and breaks into Eduard in the centre circle. Goldson is drawn to the ball and gets caught between Ncham and Eduard who lays it off to Ncham who plays a ball over the top of Goldson back to Eduard. Goldson is towing a caravan well beaten for pace and 2-3 yards off it. Katic has to make up 50 yards because Flanagan doesn't track Burkes run and Katic, is where he should be, covering Burke. Once he realises the ball isn't going over his left shoulder to Burk he tracks 50 yards across the park to then cover Goldson. Eduard beats him in the turn and puts it across the box for Burke. Keeper saves, knocks it out Sinclair picks it up and Goldson clears. Goldson going absolutely mental at Flanagan after he heads it clear tells you all you need to know about that whole passage of play. Not that Goldson wasn't partly to blame but you get the gist.
  6. I really should let Steve mention this. When Willy trapped after the youth game we were already two hours into the recording with nearly 90+ mins of material to work with. Steve made his first podcast executive decision to cut the piece and reschedule it. Personally I'm looking forwards to hearing what Willy has to say.
  7. I do understand what you are saying. Kent is all over the place and more often than not IMO is in the wrong place to where he should be from the shape the team is supposed to be. Anyway I'm done for the night thats skunnered me.
  8. McCrorie might have been a better option than Jack at the moment, I feel Jack is carrying a knock, but thats not the type of player that Kamara is Pete he's a sitting mid. Both Kamara and Jack together are the types of players you want when you play in Europe or against Celtic but not against Aberdeen, Hibs or Kilmarnock at home mate. At home you'll have 60% of the ball in attacking positions and two sitting mids in those games is one too many. We dont seem to be able to play with our wide men narrow sitting inside their full backs in the channel.
  9. I understand that but Kent and Candeias arent playing as midfielders in that set up. They start wide and stay wide. if they were playing in the way you seem to be suggesting they should then they would be much tighter to Arfield breaking out to the wings. We'd get far more quality crosses into the box and they also contribute more goals too. We play with one AM and two wingers.
  10. I agree with you but we dont play with three attacking midfielders we play with one. Jack and Kamara are never going to be running through the lines finding space to receive the ball they are sitting mids. The only player we have that can do that is Arfield and its farting agaisnt thunder expecting him to do it, on his own, up against a packed defence/midfield.
  11. Funny you should say that Frankie as Aberdeen played with 5 in midfield and were particularly effective in breaking up play and condensing the space in the first half. So not really conceding the midfield at all is it? My opinion is that going with the two defensive type midfielders Jack, Kamara and one attacking midfielder in Scott Arfield at the head of the triangle is never going to return the type of play we require to break teams like Aberdeen down when they come to Ibrox as their game plan is to stack midfield and defence defend deep and hit on the counter. If SG is going to persist with the 4-3-3 in its many guises then he needs another quality attacking midfielder in there along with Arfield. Our two wide players were particularly poor tonight. Candeias final ball was astonishing for most of the game and Kent did as he has done most of the season, other than the odd game here and there, which is run across the field from left to right and vice versa and lose control of the ball eventually. All it takes for that to happen as a defender/ midfielder is a little nudge on him or get a little nick on the ball. Its not new stuff I'm saying here as you guys have heard me say it often when we're recording pods. We're far too predictable with a single game plan that more often than not doesn't succeed against these types of teams because we simply dont have the quality.
  12. We should be at least 2-3 up here if not for some last ditch defending from Hibs. And what can you say about the absolute spunk trumpet having a go at James Tavernier? At no point were the stewards in control of that situation not even after the initial incident absolutely disgraceful behaviour.
  13. UB representative Ross McGill interview on Heart and Hand with Cammy Bell.
  14. The truth is I don't agree with their politics either @Bluedell but I'll defend their right to have a political opinion regardless of whether I agree with it or not. Its a situation I have previous in. In my final year of Uni 92' I canvassed the University senate into hearing debate against SLAB Murphy position. He had just taken over as the president of the SNUS and had dictatorially refused to affiliate the RCP now RCS (revolutionary communist society). Incidentally theirs was and still is a political opinion I do not agree with. My position was that its not Murphy or new labours job to decide what political discourse undergraduates are entitled to read or discuss and I'll be damned if I'd allow him or his party to dictate to us what is. Other than the RCS president I was the only speaker. The senate agreed with my position and had them affiliated. It seems to me that the UB hold political views that some are are uncomfortable with hence their stance on them however there are others within the Rangers support who simply see them as an annoyance. Neither of these positions sit well with me.
  15. You're entitled to your opinion but as has been said already I find the political reaction to their fliers far more sinister. Its clear that the targeting of them by various politicians is why they've felt the need to cover up while marching to the stadium. From the arguments I've seen you make on these very boards playing with emotive language and argument is beneath you.
  16. As far as I'm aware the UB are a very visible and public group and not as you seem to be implying a proscribed organisation. I don't recall their name being attached or involved in crowd disturbance or violence. They stand in the same place every home game unmasked if you want to look at their fizzogs. If I were a young man and inclined to march in protest and/or political action I too would cover up my face and any other easily identifiable markings. When these UB cant go to the football together because they are monitored, filmed and photographed at every opportunity all done under the guise of security intelligence gathering when they've done very little of a threatening nature towards well anyone really other than write a couple of poorly worded fliers. When we take into account the modern fascination with facial recognition and the propensity of authorities to photograph and film its population at will, which I find far more invasive and sinister, then I have some sympathy. You're speaking to the wrong person if you think that you can find parity with me via that line. I'm still of the mindset that it is my, your and everyone elses right to anonymity and to go about our business without interruption or having to identify ourselves even when marching to a football stadium.
  17. You may not feel/think you are but you are marginalising them. As I said in my post I've no skin in the game as far as safe standing goes but in saying that there is a further rub in your post in that for example I no longer hold a season book but when I did there was nothing and I mean absolutely nothing that lead me to believe that I was entitled to keep the same seat over multiple seasons.
  18. That rules out the point I was making about being disingenuous if this has always been known to those involved.
  19. Seriously? I've read more than enough of this type of opinion across various different platforms in the last few days and its nothing more than a red herring. These are two separate issues and neither of them have anything to do with the other. The two issues being; 1) Successfully housing an organised fans group. 2) Cultural/Societal transition and change. First of all taking point two. Do you seriously think the board/decision makers in this situation simply reacted to the singing of certain words in songs the most recent being the Clark song and decided to punish the UB? If that was the case then who the f^&k do the board think they are? Do they think they are their [UB] parents putting their kids on the naughty step? As far as I'm concerned that's a ridiculous proposition and that also applies to any fans with the mindset that the UB are insolent children. Its a ridiculous proposition because although the perception is that ALL UB are youths and teenagers the reality is that they are not. Many are youths and some are adults with families. You cant just naughty step adult paying customers who've organized as a collective. The UB at the moment are in a small section BF1 but looking at various mobile phone footage on internet platforms there are many sub 30 year old supporters dotted through out the BF who also take part in the singing when it starts. From that I've formed the opinion they'd be equally likely to join with the UB during matches if the sections were opened up to accommodate more fans. If we're going for the Holy Wully angle of abstinence ONLY then we ALL need to have a serious look at ourselves because if TBB starts up when we're playing Celtic home or away I can guarantee 90% of the fans are singing it because rightly or wrongly and irrespective of the words it contains it has served as a tribal rallying call for the 48 years I've been attending Ibrox. Thats not just a UB issue! IMO the only way to resolve cultural change in communities is through dialogue. Instead of condemning them older bears, and I include myself in this demographic, should be helping the UB navigate this modern cultural transition.. Yet all I've seen on message boards and forums is a very polarized opinion of UB and there seems to be very little reasoned discussion from people who should know better. While I'm at it dialogue incidentally is a thing which Rangers have been notoriously bad at, with regards to the fan base, since Murray was Tzar. Going back to point one. The UB are no different to any other Rangers fan that attends Ibrox on a match day and should be respected as such by ALL of us including the board. In the 72-73 season my da along with 3-4 of his mates started the Spateston RSC and also ran the supporters bus which is sadly defunct today although some of the members still attend matches from Johnstone. He like many of the UB was under 30 years old at the time was he an upstart too? They organised held dances, dinners and POTY awards liaising with the club on player appearances for a number of years. However, as I understand it, when Murray took over that became a more complicated process as the club became less approachable.From the outside it appears this mode of operation has changed very little in the years that have proceeded Murrays tenure. I was always under the impression that CF was the area that UB had targetted to have set as safe standing? If that is the case then I can see a number of issues arising from it. Legacy seating being just one. Now reading their [UB] statement it appears to me that the clubs position has always been disingenuous as it tabled BF3 as an alternative. To my mind that is at best untenable and the club never intended for the situation to be easily resolved. Siting a safe standing area in that section of the stadium would not have been viable due to various logistics issues and don't forget that area was proposed long before the reduction in away fans ticket allocation. The ticket allocation is a fairly recent development and I urge you to remember that had it not been for the lobbying of special interest group and one person in particular that would not have come to pass either. Personally I've no skin in the game as far as safe standing is concerned however I am concerned about match day experience, atmosphere, catering and facilities. This isn't the 60-70's where a guy/girl with a strapped on serving tray walked through the terracing crowd shouting to sell their wares, macaroon and spearmint chewing gum, and drunk guys pissed, in empty beer cans, or on each other the contents of which then rolled down the terracing. This is the 21st century and things have moved on and are much more civilized thank f&*k! To those who say that the UB think they are better than the rest of us I'm calling bullshit they don't but they do lack the sophistry of the Main Stand wallers when they are being torn into by folk who really should know better. They're not asking for preferential treatment either but if the organisers of the UB feel that they have outgrown the section allocated to them and have approached the club to discuss the matter then it is entirely up to the club to find a solution with them and rehouse them in an efficient manner, in a suitable position within the stadium, and not string them along and treat them like naughty children as it appears they have. They clearly aren't children as they have enough disposable income to follow the team home and away no matter how far they have to travel, including Europe, which by today's standard isn't cheap. For that reason I'm annoyed by this marginalizing younger Rangers fans for having the temerity to ask!
  20. I'm with the manager on this one, from this post match interview, I don't like it when the players take their foot off the gas and showboat. Don't drop the tempo, keep pressing, move the ball quickly and the chances will come how many of those you score is down to composure and a degree of luck. However if you take your foot off the gas and slow the game down you invite the opposition to get a foothold in a game that has essentially flew past them in the first half limiting your opportunity to create and possibly score as was seen by the fact we only really created 3-4 chances in the 2nd half where Lafferty scores from only one of those. The more attacking possession football we play the more chances we should create. If you limit yourself then its not a surprise your conversion rate drops.
  21. I absolutely agree with you @craig and we need to stop doing it because rest assured the team sitting top of the league would be increasing their goal difference given half the chance. I don't want to put a downer on a great 0-5 result today but I'm feeling that it was an opportunity wasted to close that goal difference gap.
  22. To their credit Hamilton have set up fairly attack minded unfortunately they can't get near us today. Kamara as the sitting midfielder has been a yard off a couple of passages of play today but other than that has been excellent so I'm putting that down to the surface and the speed and bounce of the ball off it. In saying that I've been fairly impressed with his play neat and tidy and takes care of the ball very rarely gives it away regardless how it comes to him. His control and vision of the game gives Jack the opportunity to push 10 yards further forward than we've been used to without him in the team. If I was being fussy I'd like Kenty to take a little more care with his final ball but other than that we've completely bossed this today.
  23. Superb from Rangers tonight absolutely smashing them 5-0. Glen Kamara was excellent didn't do anything complicated won all his contests and played some nice football along with Ryan Jack and Scott Arfield. Tav and Candeias bossed the right hand side and Barasic and Kent did the same on the left. Alfie was deadly in front of goal.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.