calscot

One thing I'm really concerned about for this match is that Warburton has supressed any big game mentality in our players. I've always thought that was unwise as in my opinion, you can't raise yourself to the same level for every game, the human body and mind just don't work that way. As a title contender I believe you should train to peak physically and mentally for the big games against your nearest rivals and try to keep a good level that is high enough to defeat the lesser sides, without the same intensity of energy expendature and mental focus. If you're a relegation side, I think you'd be better peaking for those teams around your level and accept you're going to get defeated by the bigger sides. Other sports realise that you can't peak all the time, and there are physiological cycles where you create training stress, but also training fatigue. The former makes you fitter, but the latter stops you from performing. To be at your best for the most important competitions, you therefore have to induce the training stress and fatigue beforehand and then taper off before the big event, to allow fressness to come back, and performance maximises due to high fitness and low fatigue. These sports therefore spread the most important competitions through the season to allow the participants to peak for them, but still compete for lesser titles while they are in the build phase of training. That can be seen in sports like tennis as a good example. In cycling itself, the grand tours are so difficult that really you can only peak for one a year, or at best go for the first and third but miss out the second ie enter the Giro and Vuelta but ignore the Tour. This doesn't happen so much as the Tour is the most important and prestigious, so the top riders tend to ignore the Giro. In football you have one or two games a week, pretty much every week, and so ironically, players are probably peaking about two weeks into the close season due to the rest - which is where a two week break in winter could produce some good quality matches when the fixtures resume. So for me, I think they should take a leaf out of other sports and monitor fitness and fatigue. We could tailor it for us to peak for the big games and also instill the big game mentality so that we are able to compete. This could also be an argument for a larger squad with rotation, so that you always have a couple of players in the team who are peaking and at their best. When you play with mostly the same side, it suggests they will start well and then everyone will tire and get mentally jaded around the same rate, and you will eventually experience big a slump in form due to the whole team being fatigued in both aspects - which looks like what has happened to Rangers. The big game mentality is slightly seperate from the physical fitness issue, but in a similar way, we can only raise our mental focus periodically - when applied every week there is no way to stop our focus from fading and becoming less motivated than our best. That's why smaller clubs give us a harder time than expected and some people are mystified as to why our much more expensive players don't look much better than the journeyman at these clubs. They don't seem to realise that the real difference between the sides is not what you see on the pitch on the one day, but instead it's what you see in the league table over a season. These sides will go through the mundane process of playing other sides and then suddenly put their motivation up several levels against us. That can put the two sides closer together, especially if the bigger side are on a motivational low. That's when we can draw or lose against a much lesser side - but it also depends on luck on the day. However, these teams go back to their normal game as they can't raise their game to this level every week and the motivation is not there. So while we rack up points, while sometimes making heavy weather of pumped up lesser sides, those same sides are dropping points all over the place and we end up dozens of points ahead. But then it comes to the closest rivals - and with Rangers they realise they also really have to bring on their big game mentality. As they are already closer to our level generally, that's when the gap can really close - which is why we need to match that mental focus. We've now seen it against Falkirk and Hibs and, although luck still plays a part, it takes less of the bad version to push us towards a loss. It's like playing a game of highest card and we normally have a king against the lower sides and so they need to turn up a rare and unexpected ace to win. But with their motivation high and ours low, we end up with a jack. With Falkirk, we'd normally have a queen but the big game mentality means we end up with a ten, and with hibs, we go from a jack to a nine or maybe even an eight - which makes it a 50-50 chance of losing. Actually, with their form and confidence, combined with the big game mentality, they may even have a seven or less. However, if we applied the same level of mental focus for big games, as well as training to peak for them, then we'd always have about a jack or queen against our nearest rivals in this league, which means we can still lose due to a bit of bad luck, but it's not so likely to happen.

And also our grilled sandwiches?

When you really think about it a bigger league just makes all the top teams poorer - unless as they say it attracts more money. If you think about it logically the answer (which no-one would ever go with) should probably be an 8 team league playing each other 4 times each and then splitting into two groups of 4 for champiionship/Europe and relegation fights - that's 34 games and all symetrical. There is always something to play for, you get 6 OF games as well as 6 games each of other top clashes, the money only gets split 8 ways and pretty much every game is meaningful. You only also only have the top teams probably with the biggest supports. I think we almost did something like that once but it failed and we went the other way going from 10 to 12 due to the revolt from the middling clubs. It really makes the most sense logically but not emotionally, and I realise no-one would vote for it except perhaps the two Glasgow sides. The biggest problem (apart from self interest) is familiarity and boredom of seeing the same sides meet again and again, and perhaps again in the cups. The problem is that there is no acceptable solution and we really should have merged into a British league when the FL was struggling. If Newcastle adn Carlisle can do it, we're not that much further away and fans have more opportunity to use cheap flights than northern English clubs' fans.

Once again we seem to be the only club who are concerned about the game as a whole, and not just selfish interests. Really shows up Celtic for their, "we only care about Celtic attitude" and shows their men on the Scottish football boards are about as damaging as you can get. The scary thing is that the rest of the people involved in running Scottish clubs are so blind to that obvious point, and keep voting them in. They seem oblivious to the warnings from the continual sound bites. With all the damage Celtic continue to do to all clubs in Scotland in pursuit of their selfish agenda, you really have to wonder why they are all continually led by the nose, and why it is Rangers that are continually hated.

For me, this wasn't much more than a faux pas...

Every time representitives from other clubs talk, it's all about selfish gain, and never about the good of the game or what is right. Did Aberdeen vote us out because it was the right thing to do or good for the game? No it was about Aberdeen having a better chance of *second* place while having the enjoyment of putting the jealous boot into a rival club. Do they want us back up for the good of the game or because it's the rightful place of a club that's been harshly treated? No, it's because they want more TV money for themselves.

The thing about Alexander is he wouldn't play for us for the wage he's currently on...

The thing about buying shares from an issue is that you get a double benefit of the club getting money AND the fans get more of a say in the running of the club. It seems a really beneficial way to spend the money.

I think that was the pledges rather than the actual cash...

I trhink the game was at a low in the early 80s except for the emergence of the New Firm - maybe related to the misfortunes of a certain club in blue at the time. There came a boom in the 90s, however and if you take a team like Kilmarnock who had an average attendance of about 1500 in the early 80s going up to about 9500 in the 90s, down to about 7000 in the noughties and now about 4000. We went from about 20k in the early 80s to 44k and 48k in the 90s which depended on the capacity of the stadium which was pretty much 97% full. The teens have seen as at about 44k for reasons we know, as well as a steady decline throughout Scotland.

It seems for a substantial and expensive legal team, they missed a couple of tricks re getting DK and maybe also JW on the stand... Don't think it would have changed the verdict though. There wasn't a case to be answered.

I don't really understand the complexities but surely you can only be in contempt of court if you did something deliberately or negligently, but breaching the agreement accidentally or unknowingly could be done without actual contempt of the ruling? Just trying to make sense of it...

It does sound like the SD QC is taking a pounding from the judge... Quite enjoyable...

I think he's been quite clever in creating a bit of a fracasse the first time which means he can sit back and ignore future specualtion and when questioned he just needs to say something like, "I think you already know the answer to that", followed by, "I'm not going to comment on every bit of speculation."

I think what's more interesting in who (unless they actually sign) is the question of who from? I'm wondering if the likes of a middling SP club could even have someone we're interested in without having reports of being some kind of sensation. If they do have a good enough player, the good side is that with the stock of Scottish football so low that he could be reasonably priced, and of course will have no qualms about jumping up and down at the chance to sign for Scotland's most successful club - probably on an affordable wage. Other considerations is whether it's a good or bad thing to weaken your opponents in an already weak league - on the one hand it makes a less competitive, less attractive league for television as well as testing our players and keeping them at a competitive level for Europe, countered by the fact that we're working our way back to the top and don't need any banana skins lying around. But then, perhaps it's also good to keep the transfer money in Scotland as SP clubs are struggling without the blue pound to prop them up. I've mostly, throughout the years, wanted Rangers to be a very Scottish side, with the best players our country offers, augmented by a judicous number of excellent foreigners and other Brits (although there was a time under Advocaat where I was seduced by the array of foriegn stars). I think the greatest heights of that scenario in my memories, will be the games against Leeds United, where we played 9 Scots and 2 Englishmen in both games. Proudest moments for me. However, the paucity of home grown talent combined with the topsy turvy world that the football money game has become has skewed things drastically, but ironically I think we might end up being that kind of squad (by nationality not by talent) by financial necessity more than anything.

Always preferred it when the final was done by November. It distinguished the competition from the Cup by rewarding early season form (and pre-transfer window squad form) and gave something to cheer about just as the mid season tedium is starting to make an entrance.

I agree, I'd prefer if we aligned with Scandanavia/Baltic states - it certainly seems to help them in Europe. But it's far better to go to a game in a Scottish summer than the middle of winter, and as said lesser injuries, easier to keep the surface good, no need for under soil heating expenses, and we could get a better telly deal.

I think the trick is to leave the break a bit late, like early Feb, and then if the weather is ok, you could always play a postponed game or two to ease the congestion instead of a break. But even if that doesn't happen and the whole winter is mild - it's still going to be nicer to go to a game in July than December to February - especially an evening game, and the chances of postponement/injuries etc are much lower.

Come on Craig, where's your admission in your spat with Gunslinger in another thread where you logic was false? I can't even see how you can specify that DB is wrong as this is something that is opinion and seems plausible even if you disagree. Unless I've got it wrong it seems DB is saying that the likes of the record never mentioned the term "soft loan" when talking about Celtic, but now they've been investigated, it's pretty up front when talking about Rangers. I don't personally see it as out of their MO to do this to soften up any negative opinion on Celtic surrounding the term soft loan. In your opinion it might be stretching it, but it doesn't mean that the supposition is definitely wrong.

You can disagree with him as much as you like, but it doesn't change that part of your reasoning just doesn't add up which is why you went round in circles. Just trying to help...

I think Gunslinger is saying MW continues to play Zelalem in order to keep getting loan players. Continuing to play GZ is not only consistent with that thinking, it's required for it... So playing Zelalem doesn't prove Warburton doesn't agree with GS (but also doesn't prove he agrees).

I think you are being far too kind to the media who these days are very, very rarely journalists with the original definition. They mostly come across as delusional, agenda driven bloggers with no objectivity, no in depth knowledge, no rationality and no integrity. As Warburton said there is bugger all research or substantiation, it's mostly just plain bullshit or rumour mongering, with a bit of Chinese whispers. Some may not be as raving mad as they seem but instead could be carefully using that persona to acquire a following of delusional people who desperately want to hear the stuff that is fed to them as all part of their wishful thinking. It's all about clickbait these days and negative, controversial stuff about Rangers sets the country aloud with a immense, cacophonous tap dance - clickety, clickety click.

I'd like us to bring in 2 or 3 players with an eye on next season. Agree they should be pretty much first team players who are higher in quality than what we have for that position. I'd like a striker who can play on the deck as well as a able to be a target man and good with the head, an experienced holding midfielder who can read the game, and a solid central defender, as we're going to lose Ball and Wilson doesn't inspire confidence. The usual "spine" of the team players.

I think at the moment the Rangers job is far more attractive to this particular manager than a Championship one for a few reasons. At the moment he has a free hand to what he is doing and has the job security to have time to do a job. I think he can see that he can really do a good job at Rangers, that notwithstanding the satisfaction of that, will make him very marketable to solid Premiership clubs, which is where I think we will eventually lose him. Right now he's not done THAT much to put him in the shop window and is really more of a shrewd punt than anything. That made him perfect for us with the timing, and also perfect for the likes of Fulham. However, a big Premiership club is unlikely to take the risk as his track record is not long enough. Other problems with a Championship club is that it is a very difficult league to get it right in as there are a lot of club speculating to accumulate, and then paying for it if they don't succeed, then their place of profligacy is taken by others. It means if you keep your finances sensible, you're already at a disadvantage. Then there is the job security - sackings are rife in that league, and the owners can be more interfering, as he found out at Brentford. He could therefore fail due to no fault of his own, get sacked and no longer be attractive to other clubs, and have to start again down the divisions. Rangers would not be so attractive these days to many managers, but it's a fit for Warburton. He realises he's at a massive club, despite the paltry finances compared to the EP. He can probably see he has some space to develop his own skills, with a different type of pressure - a more enjoyable one, the pressure to win every game, rather than say just survive above the relegation zone. He has been able to bring in his own choices of staff at every level, which is probably slightly unusual. The standard of opposition isn't great but there is the allure of Europe which is not something he'd have much of a chance of for the type of club that would be interested in him. The board and the fans are 100% behind him, and he knows he will get funding when it is required. There is fun to be had at Rangers and I think it looks better for him if he finishes the job - at least his 3 year contract, and leaves on a high as an SP champion with a decent European run.

I'm sure they would fill it up for the only show in town...