calscot

Eh? What realism? Who can't bear to hear a bad word about their team? BTW Overly-criticising is not realism - never has been. Realism has far more of a chance when looking at both sides. Some people are bored with people needlessly moaning at everything all the time - which even goes as far as the attractiveness of Whyte's bird. How is suggesting someone not look for something else to moan at, not bearing to hear a bad word against your team? Nicola Mimnagh is jealous she's not dating Doran Goian...

Maybe that should be subtly changed to "If you don't like it, why don't you ignore it?" :fish:

Methinks you've completely missed the point...

That should be glib not global. Autocorrect + unable to edit.

Firstly I got my numbers from the police statement to the press - if they are wrong then what are the real numbers? Secondly I was being deliberately global about partners leaving - the point being that what is a more realistic solution to domestic violence, that or moving a highly watched football match to a Monday morning? Seems obvious to me that the latter seems crazy compared to the former - but look how quick people are to jump on the pc band wagon...

I haven't heard any evidence it's got anything to do with football - including any domestic arguments. Why would a couple argue about football. It's more likely the guy gets drunk watching the game, comes home (or is at home), gets a bit arsey, wife complains, argument starts, results in violence. The fact that more men get drunk and abusive during OF games is neither here nor there, just like you can't really blame Christmas, birthdays or New Year for increased violence due to drinking. The stupid thing is that the numbers are so low, the government want to totally mess with the OF to stop something like 12 to 30 people (out of what 200,000?) committing a domestic crime... talk about disproportionate. If women actually just left abusive husbands and vice versa, the problem would drop to bugger all. I don't know why the rest of us who don't abuse their partners have to suffer and also be labelled as wife beaters just because of our nation of birth.

1 offshore tax avoidance payments to players during Advocatt era. 2 Could be that amount after penalties of 50% or.more plus interest. 3 They did know hence 1 pound price. 4 It is not a debt yet and may never be. 5 In which universe have you been hiding? :fish:

I'm sure they are fine as long as they win. I don't think they will have enjoyed the Rangers games - until Henry put the ball in the net with his arms. Was that the beautiful game? Should we be coaching that? That was the real definition of "anti-football" - and they were happy about it. Should we be coaching kids to score with their arms to entertain the crowd? I'll say again, Barcelona don't try to play "nice" football. They just have excellent players who do things so well, the game is more aesthetic to watch. I'm sure there are still many boring games in Spain. The best teams in the world used to be Italian, but boy was that boring a lot of the time. The stupid thing about the whole argument is that Rangers play some decent football quite often when I watch - and I find it a million times more interesting than Barcelona games no matter how nicely they play (unless we're playing them). I used to have Setanta which showed live Rangers games and live Spanish games including Barcelona. Guess which games I watched... I watch because I find it interesting, not because I want to be entertained. The interest in the game and how Rangers are doing is all the entertainment I need. The biggest criticism seems to be when our players don't display the skill the fans would like - however that's a fact of life when you can only afford a lower level of player. The players are still a notch above the opposition in Scotland but you're still not going to see the skills of Xavi or Messi or Ronaldo any time soon. That's just a fact of life that people need to wake up to. If that's really so important to people to see the kind of stuff played by the top players in the game, then it's best they to switch from Rangers to Barcelona or Man U. Rangers are not going to play like them any time soon. I don't think there is a team in Scotland as good to watch as Rangers right now so I don't know why you're comparing with Barcelona - who have not historically always been a great side. If any side can match them for ability to win, flair and entertainment on OUR budget then show me them - and show Craig Whyte. I've watched Div One play offs at MK Dons with the best in that league and been bored to tears, and not for the first time seen Tore Andre Flo as a complete waste of space. If there is a team in England who are comparable to what you are talking about, on our budget then they will already be promoted to the Prem and their budget will be out of our league. But even most teams on an EPL budget would not rise to the expectations of our fans. So your comparison with Barcelona is at best, mischief making, and at worst, mere mindless havering.

I've been entertained by the news at ten, doesn't mean I should expect to be and it's not really why I watch it. The Olympics are pretty much sold out and about 80,000 will probably watch the 100m sprint final. Are they looking for a runner to entertain them? Do they think the winner should change his style to be more entertaining? I don't think so. The straddle is probably more aesthetic than the Fosbury Flop, but what do all the high jumpers do these days? We could watch all the Olympic results on the news, but somehow, I think millions will watch - even though the participants are far more worried about winning than entertaining. Should boxers make sure they don't knock someone out in the first round as it spoils the entertainment? The ironic thing is that the players you mention were not out to entertain and a lot of the time they were frustrating players. They did what they could to win and for some, if they could show-boat now and again, they did. I've been frustrated by most of those players and often not entertained at all, should I have had my money back? Perhaps you should sit at home and watch DVD's of your favourite players of the past and be entertained? For most people, that's not what sport is about - they want to see what is happening now and how it pans out. Last week's game is history. I think you're incredibly naive to think a sporting occasion is about entertaining the crowd - especially when you consider there can be only one winner, that leaves a lot of people unhappy about the result. Should you only pay if your team or man wins? You will normally only see entertainment in football if it is conducive to winning - the main problem is that doing something "entertaining" usually has a high element of risk.

I doubt the Hearts result would have happened under Jefferies. Tactical naivety from a continental manager against significantly more gifted opposition.

Rumour on twitter that Sion will be allowed to play this year and banned NEXT year. Tims will be raging if true. Perhaps UEFA will start to see what they are really like when their hate is turned on them instead of us.

Ho ho. Well I think it was a joke but have a disappointing feeling that you just don't grasp my points: 1. Youngsters are not a magic wand - there is an obvious reason players reach a peak in their value. Experience counts - as the 8-2 result at the weekend shows. 2. Building for the future is a utopian fantasy that rarely works in reality. Large crops of excellent youngsters filling championship winning teams happens by a happy coincidence, not by strategy. Everyone cites that Man U team (which actually averaged about 26 and only had one teenager), but how come they haven't repeated this, year on year? It just so happened they had a supernormal crop of young players - albeit they have an excellent youth system which raises their odds. 3. I have nothing against good, young players but I want our manager to pick a team for their ability to win the game, NOT their age. Young players tend to be inconsistent and so I don't like to have too many in a team. 4. It is extremely unlikely we will have a team of youngsters that can replace the first choice team - that's what the U21's and U19's are for - and our youngsters rarely win those leagues, never mind the SPL. The chances of us having 11 young players capable of wining the Scottish championship is astronomical... The chances of developing such a team in 5 years is just as remote. 5. We ARE building a team for the future but with slightly older, more experienced players who are not all from the youth system with the likes of MacGregor, Whitaker, Davis, Ness, Edu, Wylde, Lafferty, Jelavic, and Fleck. And due to that experience and non-reliance on Murray Park, we are doing so while still winning the league. However, quite a few of them get the ire of those calling for us to build a team for the future... 6. The fact we've been sporadically playing Fleck, Ness, Wylde, Hutton, McMillan, Perry and Hemmings suggests that enough youngsters are getting a chance. Adding more inexperience is hardly going to help us win the title. 7. It's a bit strange to give up the title - to build a team to win the title...

Outside of the likes of gymnastics, ice dancing, diving - and the Harlem Globe Trotters. I don't think any sport is dominated by people who see aesthetics as more important than winning. Highly competitive people do what it takes to succeed, not what they think looks nice. Form usually follows the function of winning and not the other way around. Teams that look good do what they do because it wins games - and they also scrap it out when necessary. As soon as we start thinking about playing "nice" football, we are lost as a successful club. You'd think we'd have learned the lessons of Burns, Mowbray and Yogi. The only reason teams like Barcelona and Man U can play great football is that they have the most talented players in the world. There are no teams at our level who can play them and no successful clubs at our level who are as good to watch. You just have to look at World Cup finals to see that aesthetics are but an occasional, fortunate by-product. You are naive if you go to any sporting event to be "entertained", that is not what you are paying for. You are paying for the privilege of watching a sporting contest in action and nothing more. The only way to make a sport more appealing is by changing the rules - not by getting participants to worry about how much the crowd is entertained - unless you want football to follow the American wrestling model - or the Harlem Globe Trotters.

Didn't we get our first choice manager this summer? Then there was Walter before that and PLG before that, Eck before that, Advocaat before that, Walter before that, Souness before that. Go back before that and Wallace was our third choice. Greig was our first choice before that, Wallace before that... So you should probably be asking when was the last time we didn't get our first choice and as far as I can see that would be about 27 years ago...

Maybe we need to learn to enjoy the ride...

What a load of repetitive nonsense - Ferguson's *experienced* team of favourites just humiliated Wenger's young team 8-2. That's Arsenal's end product after blooding youngsters cost them the title for five years. Sounds like a great model to follow... I think you need to have look at the reality of what Sir Alex has been doing rather than just making stuff up. Youngster's have a place but they are not a panacea - I think Arsenal have proven that for sure.

Can't get too excited over a third tier youth from a team who, when they play a few of their best young players, get completely humiliated - and that's a club who have been "building for the future" for five years...

I am of the understanding that Metlika is correct - and I checked it the other day. To go straight in we'd have to be 13th in the rankings (and the champions would also have to have already qualified normally). However, we're 15th so the SPL winners go into the champions qualifier 3 out of 4. Unless the rules change next year...

I have a feeling we'll sign Cuellar in January or for free at the end of the season. I don't think he'll be fit until close to Christmas and so why pay more money for him when we can't play him and there is a chance he might not recover well - like buying a car which needs a repair and has no MOT, it's risky. On his side of the fence, why take a pay cut when you can't even play, when you can pick up a bigger pay cheque while recovering at your current club? Players milk everything they can these days so a tactic like that wouldn't surprise me. There is also the continuity of treatment - and maybe Villa can afford better specialists... If he is only fit by December and we get him in January for �£1M then it will have been a canny bit of business sense. Sometimes it seems people want Rangers to work in a way that if their mates acted like that, they'd be calling them, "pure mugs".

There's a couple of reasons - at 2-1 from the first leg a 1-0 home win would have done it, we had to be careful of a goal which would turn the need for 1 goal without reply to 3 goals with no reply - a huge difference and a tight rope to walk. After the goal things changed in two ways - we had to go for it regardless as we needed at least two goals before full time and also Maribor realised they'd be better sitting back and defending as they had a two goal cushion. When you get that situation it always looks like one team is bombarding the other but it's the circumstances that dictate. It's why the English went on and on about Leeds bombarding our goal which they seen as proof of their true superiority; however, we were so far ahead that it was better to defend than risk a flurry of goals while we try to add to the score. The difference with that game and this is that we dominated Maribor from start to finish and they just got in a lucky sucker punch and actually rode the storm for pretty much the whole 90 minutes as it was there regardless of the goal. The goal just meant that we had to take more risks.

One silver lining could be that Whyte will surely see that we really need to speculate to accumulate. We still need a couple of big signings - marquee players (well for us) that can make that difference between creating lots of chances and actually putting a couple away - every time. Celtic had that in Larsson and their European record was so much better then. Unfortunately for us, Laudrup and Gazza weren't so reliable in Europe. However, we can't afford that kind of quality, but we need as good as we can possibly afford.

If this was a lower European league of 10 clubs (a bit like the Atlantic League) playing each other four times, I think it would be a bad start but we'd have time and ability to bounce back and finish above those two. Unfortunately it's cup games and we're not of a level high enough to almost guarantee a win. These clubs are better than the also rans of the SPL and we sometimes lose to them. Our main crime is to lose two cup ties in succession.

BTW Very good post, Gribz.

Was Advocaat a good coach? He had the most expensive team in Scottish history and had two disaster seasons. The team sometimes played very well but if we took a comparably expensive and technically gifted team of players today, you would get a hell of a lot more quality even under McCoist. I can't imagine Advocaat would have achieved much with Walter's squad in the last four years. Maybe he wouldn't have chosen those players but there weren't many alternatives on our budget; however, if he's such a great coach it wouldn't matter. Advocaat is a very good team builder when he has a lot of money to spend; a couple of years after he builds one, it all goes pear shaped. I don't think it's his coaching skills that win him stuff.

I would say this is a far truer perception than anything to do with our training.