bmck

McGregor Whittaker Broadfoot Cuellar Smith Burke Thomson Ferguson ------------Gow --------Boyd ----- Naismith

i would never boo a rangers player. i dont mind that people do though - i honestly think, as much as i couldnt do it myself, that if we didnt have people like this we wouldnt be a big club.

it seems to me that the exact same reason adam gets a game, boyd is left out. adam is one of those players who, in a way some players cant, a certain percentage of the time, actually scores or creates a good scoring chance. he done it last night. while a lot of the time he is beyond shit i cant recall how many times i've either said "aw, naw, what you bringing on him for at all?" or "he has been abject pish, surely he must be subbed" and he's done something brilliant as if to personally spite me. he is the classic percentages player - 90% or so of the time he is a passenger, but i think walter smith knows that there are going to be a few times every game or so he does something that could genuinly cause damage to opposition. and for that purpose he puts him in. but isnt this the very reason he doesn't play boyd? i realise they are different players in different positions but boyd doesn't seem to get a game presumably because he doesn't offer enough to the team enough of the time, even if, for a certain percentage of the time, he will score you a decisive goal. so, i dont really buy the "he doesnt do enough for the team" argument while adam seems to get played on the exact same grounds. it must be something personal with boyd. do you think we owe it to smith, a man who has in a dignified manner, completely turned our club from a laughing stock to serious contenders, to just accept him as knowing best about boyd?

it is a proven partnership, if only at killie level. certainly more proven than the thorougly ineffective mcculloch-as-lone-striker.

he was clearly trying, he was just not that good.

i'm like you, i have been very ill-disposed to criticising smith, but i think his conservatism in setting out a side breeds poor confidence, even if it does stem from his over optimism in his last period. i can understand why, largely, he does what he does, but tonight it seemed very clear to me that this side were there for the taking and were sufficiently poor not to need 4 midfielders who rarely got the ball.

no they wouldn't, and no we weren't. it was definitely a subpar performance but losing would have been rank rotten.

hemdani was terrible for the first time ever. it seems ridiculous that if you are going to play the long ball you play three or four central midfielders that you are going to completely bypass.

come on, man. i dont think this tie is anyway decided. they are pants.

^ i think he's trying hard, but i think the world in which he is a considerably better player than boyd is not this world.

^ you can understand him being cautious, but at what point is it caution and at what point is it lack of faith in their ability to win against this standard of opposition?

davis seems exactly like hughes. great ball for novo though. does it look to anyone else like if we really went at this mob they would fold? i think we are making them look slightly better than they are.

i'm nervous. i'm very nervous.

down with this sort of pessimism, saying we're going to lose a goal

no burke is a suprise. has he missed any of the previous games? i'm so suprised about novo. not to say its a bad idea, i think he should be played more, he has been spl topscorer a good few times, but i'm just suprised walter smith has done it. no matter opinions about whether this is a good or bad lineup, its certainly an untried lineup. going to be v/interesting to see how they play.

you can always bet on the universe conspiring against smart arses on forums who think they know better than professionals

not mcculloch lone striker please! you never know though, the same 11 could be put into a 442.

we absolutely cant play mcculloch in the lone striker role. it would be unfair to say he's terrible there as we have only seen a few games. being generous would be to say that he's unproven there, and if we are going for an unproven lone striker i would go for boyd.

i would really, really like to see us play a 442 today to sidestep the cousin problem altogether. i really think the strongest case for him being played is that he is best suited to 451.

i'm too scared to predict anything incase i jinx us.

im horribly poor at polite conversation then, taboos always seem petty to me

is he driving from the early 20th century? :fish:

i'll write a better reply, but i think one of the great joys of supporting a football team is the tribalism. as soon as you start to make football (and football supporting) too rational it quickly becomes just a few guys kicking a leather thing about a field, and a bunch of morons following them about.

i cant disagree there's a good argument for playing him, definitely cant. just against the idea that its the only decent one.

Rule Britannia! :uzi: