DMAA

Excellent article.

Amidst the optimism I have two main concerns for the game. First is, as I've said before, they have a huge advantage in that a draw is a win for them.

Sure it doesn't fit their narrative of being on a different planet to us but at the end of the day a draw virtually wins them the league lets face it.

Tactically that is huge because it means they don't need to take risks but we do, allowing them to play on the counter. This can work out to our advantage if we're clinical with our finishing because we're likely to have more of the ball.

Second concern is the number of players now who aren't really in best shape for the game anymore. Alves, John and Murphy have all now had less than ideal preparation. The rest of the squad should be in ideal shape having played so many games in a row, but those 3 are a bit of a concern because we need to be at our best.

It will be interesting to see if Celtic go with Gamboa at RB or a 3-5-2.

44 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

The reason I used that word is because my understanding is that he took ownership of Murray park, etc and then rented them to Rangers at an inflated cost

I'm conscious there may be a knowledge gap with some of this, I've never heard of this for example and I hope Bluedell is right in that it's not true.

42 minutes ago, Frankie said:

Murray did put some of his own money into the club but it's not entirely clear how much - not to mention how much he gained from his association with Rangers over the years.

I was always of the impression he ploughed his own money into the club early on and set us up. He's certainly credited to that effect by the media, even in the piece in question. It doesn't help that we don't have hard facts in front of us.

44 minutes ago, Frankie said:

Ultimately, the decisions he made as custodian were risky, often over-ambitious and eventually caused more harm than good

Very true and he has to take the blame for what happened for that reason. He's clearly a gambler and risk taker by nature.

44 minutes ago, Frankie said:

To sell to Craig Whyte is also completely unforgivable in my view

Without the full facts I find it hard to go quite as far as unforgivable. Nobody would have suspected Whyte's motives. Why on earth would anyone want to put Rangers into liquidation. He seems to have been tricked and given the benefit of the doubt when he shouldn't have done so. However he seems to have done that out of desperatation. For me deliberate actions are unforgiveable but mistakes aren't. Whyte, Green and his cohorts and Ashley can never be forgiven for me.

56 minutes ago, Frankie said:

I think you're missing the point.

 

The last time it wasn't his money to burn and that's why he ended up being forced to sell to Craig Whyte.  Our club almost died as a result.

 

We do need money - lots of it - but surely we have a bit more pride than going back to this selfish liar?

I'm sure I've read that he did put a lot of his personal money into the club over the years which largely enabled 9 in a row, as well as giving us favourable loans.

His decision to use EBTs later on brought us down, but at the time he begun using them he wouldn't have known that a retrospective court case by HMRC would damage the club so badly, nor did others who used them. Tax experts showed them a loophole so they exploited it to benefit their companies.

My view was just that if it was true he wanted to stop 9 in a row and put money into the club to achieve that, I'd be in favour of it. We all know he'll never have the decision making power he had before and I didn't get from the story that he wanted anything like that.

I got from the story that he wanted to use his personal fortune to make a difference to the club on the park. His mistakes left us where we are but for me they were mistakes and he was never a "parasite" like Whyte, Ashley/Green etc. I understand those who could never let him near the club again but when there's the prospect of benefiting the club's fortunes there will always be different opinions.

Doesn't appear to be true anyway.

I'm hoping it's true.

He won't be enjoying seeing Celtic going for 9 in a row so soon after he led us to 9 in a row. He will have personally taken a lot of the credit for that achievement and he'll surely be gutted that this is where we are 20 years later.

Now that his fortunes have turned and he's apparently got money to burn again this may be him looking for a way to win the fans back by stopping Celtic's 9 in a row.

That's me very much putting a narrative to the story but I hope it's true, we don't have enough money.

1 hour ago, Frankie said:

Do we really think a businessman of SDM's standing or his banking associates weren't aware of Whyte's bona fides (or lack thereof)? 

I think that's exactly it. He is a well connected man, and he'd certainly know of a fellow Scot who was so wealthy, never mind the fact he was apparently a huge Rangers fan.

SDM had run the club since 1988! He would surely question how Whyte could be such a huge fan and so wealthy and having never met him or have any knowledge of him putting a penny into the club before then.

The decision to sell to Whyte without due diligence having been done on him is surely the turning point in the whole saga.

He was later (if I remember correctly) revealed to have previously made a fortune from liquidating companies. The newspapers eventually alleged he would personally make £5m from HMRC as a "liquidation payout".

For all the blame we can put on others, why on earth did David Murray sell to this man without doing due diligence on him? It seemed as though all Whye had to do was repeat "I'm a huge Rangers fan" and all the questions went away.

A wee graphic showing how we've been scoring in the league this season. We've taken off as they've plateued in the last 3-4 games.

Well done on the analysis. This is what we need more of. I really hated when Caixinha and our players would come out with vague excuses for not performing. The favourite one is always "we just need consistency". If you can't find consistency it's because you're not good enough!

This analysis is really good, and it's very exciting that it's Rangers you're talking about and not Man City. I'd be really interested to hear who's ideas are at work here. How much of it is Murty, how much Johanssen.

Celtic's defence is pretty poor but they defend by keeping possession. Their possession stats are way higher than ours, crazy high. And I think that's the big reason they concede so few. A big part of our strategy will need to be about winning the ball back quickly and effectively. This probably means getting right on top of Scott Brown and not allowing him to dictate. We'll need to be able to keep the ball well too, moving it around without losing it. Otherwise they will stop us scoring by keeping the ball off us like they have with everyone else.

1 hour ago, Rousseau said:

If you play two strikers you lose the midfield battle. The way teams break against us, I find playing two very dangerous; against Celtic that seems completely unthinkable.

I'd actually be tempted to bring in Holt  and move Docherty to the central attacking midfield position. That way he would be right on top of Brown. With Holt and Docherty in there they wouldn't have much time on the ball in the middle, and Goss would be freed up a bit from the physical side of the game.

Very unlikely I suppose, but I do wonder about the wisdom of playing with 4 attacking players against Celtic. Maybe that would be showing more respect than we need to I'm not sure.

Murty has a selection headache. Cummings is such a quality finisher it's going to be hard not to start him. We really need to be clinical against Celtic. They don't concede many at all, they don't gift you many clear cut chances. So you need to takes the ones you get, and you probably need to score what are more half chances than chances. I'd start him ahead of Windass if Murphy is back for those reasons.

17 minutes ago, ian1964 said:

DJ gives us pace in attack down the left.

And pace in defending! James Forrest is Celtic's fastest player and he's now up against Halliday instead of John. I think that's a worry for us.

I'd caution against being too confident for a few reasons;

1. Celtic only need a draw
   1. This is huge thing. If Rodgers has any common sense he will take full advantage of the fact that they do not need to win the game but we do. He can ask his team to bide their time, don't take too many risks and wait for our pourous defense to open up. However there's a decent chance Rodgers doesn't have this common sense and will set up to attack out of pride.
   2. We on the other hand need to win, and if we're stuck at 0-0 for too long we'll start to take risks and throw men forward. The prospect of us pushing up and taking risks and Celtic playing on the counter is not a good one
2. We're at home
   1. Should be an advantage but it isn't. There's something about the psychology of playing at home that just isn't working well with this group of players. Whether it's the big sighs for misplaced passes or just the sheer expectation I don't know, but the fact is this group of players have been worse at home than away by some margin
3. Murphy may be out
   1. Murphy is a huge player, not just in terms of his ability but what he offers to our system. He is unique in the squad in terms of what he offers the team and how he fits in
4. Halliday at left back
   1. He's been good in the last couple of games but that's what you'd expect from an attack minded left back in two 4-1 wins. He hasn't been tested in a game where our full backs are under the cosh and for me he will not be as good as Declan John at this 

For me it's all about taking our early chances (before we need to take any risks). We will almost certainly have good chances in the opening half hour. If we take them then the fact they only need a draw isn't a big a problem. However if we aren't clinical and spurn our chances they can take full advantage of that and start to punish us on the counter as we start to take more and more risks as the game goes on.

I too think it’s too early to say. I think people were a bit unfair to get on his back when he was thrown in as caretaker and lost to Hamilton and Dundee. He had inherited a team who weren’t producing and he hadn’t had any time to get to know the team and fix what was going wrong. 

Since then (December onwards) the signs have been good. He had 4 big tests in December and passed 3 (Hibs away, Celtic away, Aberdeen away). Lost Killie away. He deserved a lot of credit for those results because they were with the same team Caixinha had. 

Post transfer window there have really been 3 big tests and 2 have been passed (Aberdeen and Hearts at home). Lost to Hibs. 

However aside from those 3 tests there has clearly been a lot right about the side which suggests Hibs was a blip (and let’s be honest they had a huge stroke of luck to get a penalty from nowhere). 

Looking forward to seeing how the rest of the season goes now, lots of big tests still to come. 

"When I was at QPR I was told I wouldn't fit into the way the manager wanted to set up the midfield and the way we were playing at the time.”

If it’s a matter of style rather than just match practice and quality then we may be in luck. Might mean we could snatch him for about £2m in the summer. 

To be honest I think they’re entitled to as long as a significant minority of our fans keep singing about “****** blood” and the pope at our games

Holloway has always been a bit mad. But it does kind of change things because now we know he really rates him. Doesn’t look like bluffing because he didn’t have to go so over the top about it. Looks love we’ve been priced out. 

Surprised they’d want a game so soon before the old firm. It’s another chance for injuries and niggles with not long to recover. Less time to prepare for the game too. 

We’ve also become the top scorers in the league again, this time with a 3 goal cushion. And aren’t far off 3 times Aberdeen’s Goal difference now (27 vs 10). 

Celtic’s game being postponed is the kind of luck we can do with. 

1 hour ago, Rousseau said:

Halliday did well at LB; nothing special, but he did nothing wrong. 

Apart from his yellow card. He was caught on the wrong side of his man and hauled him down in a dangerous position. 

1 hour ago, Rousseau said:

as a #10 I though he didn't make any good runs like Windass, or had the vision or running ability to break the lines

I think it’s unfair to draw conclusions because we don’t know how Cummings would have done in the goalscoring period of the game. He came on when the game had gone pretty flat, and then we lost Murphy. 

23 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

Docherty is an absolute steal at 600k

Couldn’t agree more. What a player. And you’re right I would say Goss and Docherty are our strongest pairing. Though Dorrans has a claim ahead of Windass for me, at least at home. 

I hope Alves will work his way back to full fitness. Tbh I’d much rather him in ahead of Martin Martin is decent but he was solely at fault for the goal. He’s not good enough in the air. And Alves’s long balls are great. We saw one of them last night. Excellent technique. It will be good to see him playing in a strong Rangers side. 

And one mitigating point on the ref, he at least gave the free kick that led to the goal when all the BT pundits were saying Davidson got a touch, despite the replays clearly showing he didn’t.

There’s real quality in this side now and that’s why we’re winning consistently. Poor results for us over the past season and a half were put down to “lacking consistency”, when they should have been put down to lacking quality players and tactics. 

Goss, Docherty and Murphy are quality and they’ve made a huge difference. Morelos is quality too even when he doesn’t score. Great to watch these players just now. Wish there was a way to sign Goss in the summer, only 22. 

Really good stuff. Docherty does a great job in the middle. He’s the kind of guy you hate marking you, rapid and strong. You just can’t get more than a few yards away from him. Fantastic assist from him too. 

Team looks very organised and with good shape. 

1 hour ago, buster. said:

I'd agree with much of that.

 

We have to take responsibility for our results against other teams and not point towards things that comes down to making excuses. 

 

The way celtic loan players to other various top tier sides is something that strikes me as something that amounts to an 'unfair advantage'.

 

Whether it be Ajer/Kilmarnock, Allen/Dundee/Hibs, Christie/Aberdeen or whoever.......it means those teams are stronger when they play all other teams except Celtic and it also means forced changes for that opposition going into the game against Celtic.

 

The same happened with O'Hallaron at St.Johnstone ealier this season, so it's not just Celtic who have done it, although they are by far the biggest benficiaries.

 

I think the rule should be changed and teams shouldn't be able to loan players to teams in the same division.

 

You’re right, it’s something that benefits the top club above all. They have the funds to buy players like Allan and Christie who they don’t need, and the Hibs or Aberdeen they face will then be different to the Hibs or Aberdeen everyone else faces. And those teams

are then disadvantaged when they face the loaning club because they have at least one very big change to make to their team and strategy for that game. 

39 minutes ago, craig said:

Agreed.  However, other teams approach Aberdeen in a different way they do Rangers.  We are far superior to them in every facet, taking the playing pitch aside.  Playing Rangers is a Cup Final for all these teams, playing to full houses either at home or at Ibrox.  The same can't be said when they play Aberdeen.  The effort levels against us are higher than effort levels against any other team in the league.

 

We DO need to alter our form against the lower teams though.

I think there's truth in that Craig but I'm not sure it has quite as much to do with it as you suggest. I think Aberdeen have a winning formula that we hadn't found. They play basic yet effective football that scores goals. I would be especially interested to see how many headed goals they have scored this season and last compared to us.

As for the disparity between their results against 4th-12th and 1st-2nd, there must be a lot of reasons. One simple one to partially account for the Celtic losses is that they can't play their best player against them, Christie. Their attacking play revolves around him in the rest of their games, it's a huge change to adjust to when they play Celtic. It didn't help that Shinnie was suspended either for that last one having been an ever present.

Personally I think Murty's very good big game record plays a part in their poor results against us. We don't know how he does it but he does. After all Aberdeen had a 50-50 record vs Warburton and Caixinha. It's only fallen apart for them since Murty's been in charge. They would claim the double header in November was due to the McInnes saga of course, and that probably did play a part though it obviously wasn't the sole reason as they claim.

1 hour ago, buster. said:

the sheep are the only other club to have got 4IAR league wins this season

It's hard to believe how much better they have been than us against the rest of the league.

If you discount their games against us, they'd be 9 points ahead of us!

If you discount their games against Celtic, they'd be joint top with them.

If you discount games between the three teams they'd be 4 points clear of Celtic and 10 points clear of us.

They've only dropped points against a bottom 6 side twice all season, and one of them was Motherwell who were top 6 at the time and high flying. Only 1 loss against a non-old firm side to our 6.

Hopefully this disparity between our ability to beat the 4th-12th sides no longer exists - as we're starting to hope - and we will get 4 in a row ahead of the game against Celtic, and with that new found winning formula finally open up that much needed gap with Aberdeen.