the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 i was told yesterday we have 31 first team players. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,286 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 i was told yesterday we have 31 first team players. Have a look then: First team squad, strike Gallagher, Argyriou, and Naismith off. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 it came straight from mp. probably a few youths have been moved up. doesn't really matter 27-31 etc it's all the same and it's to many imho. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 I think some people forget we are Rangers. We are not like other clubs and you can only really compare us with the top few sides of any country - and even then their relative success pales in comparison to the world record holders. There is NO club in the world where domestic success is expected of them to the same extreme as Rangers, and that includes Barcelona and Man U. Rangers are not renowned for playing a load of youths and yet we have won the most championships; could there be some cause and effect there? We have far less scope for playing youngsters and with all the pressure to do it, when we actually played about 5 or 6 home grown players with a few more coming on as subs, the fans spat the dummy out with the type of football we played and the manner of the success of winning the league by a mile. People may say that it was the experienced players that let us down, but in a team game, how do you really know what the effect is on experienced players with half a team of inexperienced guys. Add in less successful players not used to the demands of a 45k crowd and the goldfish bowl of playing for Scotlands biggest club and perhaps we're better off with more season pros in the team. The ironic thing is with this argument going on is that around half that squad are home grown - are people not seeing the wood for the trees? As for goalies, isn't this a special situation? You need someone as number 2 who doesn't mind possibly not playing a competitive game but can do a good job with no nerves when called upon occasionally. Is that the best way to develop a keeper? There seems to be a bit of a paradox here - people want us to develop youngsters and then using their own argument, they want to "ruin" them by sitting them on the bench for a season. Seems to me we need a guy who is skilled and experienced enough but also happy to collect the money while not getting much of a game. An older player looking for a pension seems to be the best fit. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) it came straight from mp. probably a few youths have been moved up. doesn't really matter 27-31 etc it's all the same and it's to many imho. Are you saying we need to axe five or six youngsters? If we cut all the U21s then we'd have 8 less... I don't think it would do the wage bill that much good though. Or maybe we have a smaller squad than people think but we are now counting U21s... Edited July 16, 2013 by calscot 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Davison 0 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 I think some people forget we are Rangers. We are not like other clubs and you can only really compare us with the top few sides of any country - and even then their relative success pales in comparison to the world record holders. There is NO club in the world where domestic success is expected of them to the same extreme as Rangers, and that includes Barcelona and Man U. Rangers are not renowned for playing a load of youths and yet we have won the most championships; could there be some cause and effect there? We have far less scope for playing youngsters and with all the pressure to do it, when we actually played about 5 or 6 home grown players with a few more coming on as subs, the fans spat the dummy out with the type of football we played and the manner of the success of winning the league by a mile. People may say that it was the experienced players that let us down, but in a team game, how do you really know what the effect is on experienced players with half a team of inexperienced guys. Add in less successful players not used to the demands of a 45k crowd and the goldfish bowl of playing for Scotlands biggest club and perhaps we're better off with more season pros in the team. The ironic thing is with this argument going on is that around half that squad are home grown - are people not seeing the wood for the trees? As for goalies, isn't this a special situation? You need someone as number 2 who doesn't mind possibly not playing a competitive game but can do a good job with no nerves when called upon occasionally. Is that the best way to develop a keeper? There seems to be a bit of a paradox here - people want us to develop youngsters and then using their own argument, they want to "ruin" them by sitting them on the bench for a season. Seems to me we need a guy who is skilled and experienced enough but also happy to collect the money while not getting much of a game. An older player looking for a pension seems to be the best fit. Unlike many clubs, Rangers have a specialised goalkeeping coach on the payroll and if he is doing his job properly, I find it difficult to accept that we can justify bringing in someone else who will be an improvement on the three guys who are already there along with Bell. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,299 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 it came straight from mp. probably a few youths have been moved up. doesn't really matter 27-31 etc it's all the same and it's to many imho. before the end of next month I do think this squad will be reduced in size by 2 or 3 players leaving & younger players going out on loan 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 So to recap we have around 30 players. Around 50% are home grown. About 33% are under 22. 10% cost a transfer fee. Average age is about 23.5. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Are you saying we need to axe five or six youngsters? If we cut all the U21s then we'd have 8 less... I don't think it would do the wage bill that much good though. Or maybe we have a smaller squad than people think but we are now counting U21s... I would lose foster smith mculloch black and cribari before I worry about any of the kids. Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk 4 Beta 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 So to recap we have around 30 players. Around 50% are home grown. About 33% are under 22. 10% cost a transfer fee. Average age is about 23.5. That's quite interesting actually, but those stats will probably look considerably different when calculated with just the main core of 20 to 22 players in the 1st team squad. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.