54andcounting 0 Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 Troubled by wind? Must have been the bridies. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 Could that be because he doesn't have a load of moaning fans to answer to when he loses - never mind when he actually wins? Maybe, but are you suggesting that it is a legitimate excuse for a professional manager with full-time professionals to suggest that the wind caused them more bother than their part-time opponents, whilst your team plays in a manner which ensures that the wind WILL cause problems ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 Are folk actually trying to justify the wind excuse? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,231 Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 Forfar plays there week in week out. They know how to deal with it, we and most players have usually played in more closed-up stadiums. No ifs and buts. That is no excuse of not adapting to it, btw. Forfar are also well-drilled on their pitch and no matter how often you train on something similar (and these pitches vary in type as well), trying it in that wind and against opponents who deem this to be a full-blooded cup game is something different. Either the players are able to adapt to that or they don't. If they don't, they should at least win the game. Which we did. Can we expect that sort of pitch and weather and line-up from now till the end of the season though? Nope. Hence you'd expect a bit more objectivity than what can be read in here. It sure does not look all rosy, far from it. But by the sound of some, we are next to meltdown already. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted September 25, 2013 Share Posted September 25, 2013 We shouldnt have been lumping it long anyway. Did McCulloch not play up top against Forfar in the Cup defeat ? One of McCulloch's biggest attributes is his aerial prowess too - it clearly didnt work then... so why would McCoist think it would work now - Daly for McCulloch, not that much of a change. Dods and Andrews.... MONSTERS in the air (more so big Marv but Dods is no slouch in the air)... however, Dods and Andrews on the ground.... (almost) slower than me (and I am SLOW !!!) - so why go with Daly up top on his own and punt it long to him ? At least have Shiels, Little or McKay playing in behind him (preferably one of the former two... and use McKay wide), get the ball to feet and have Shiels/McKay forcing Dods and Marv to have to turn - when the game is played in front of them all day then they will lap it up. I am no Pro Licence coach but I DO know that slow CB's are at their most effective when not having to turn and can just put their head on the ball and lump it back from whence it came. Tactical naivety for sure. Sorry SA, quoted you... but my post really isnt a rebuttal of yours.... Apologies Yeh agreed. I'm just not a big fan of Shiels. Will probably score a worldy of a goal or get an assist every game but flatter to deceive for the remaining 89 mins and 50 seconds of the game. Based on how the game panned out, previous experience, the physically dominant but potentially susceptible to speed and movement defenders etc etc the best front pairing for me may have been Little and Clark and as everyone says play football and not Martin O'Neil ball. However, it seems pretty clear to me that McCoist will always play one of Daly or McCulloch upfront and have route one as a specific tactic. Not to say we wont also try and play some football but the manager obviously wants to have the option of going long. Frustrating, but if I dont acknowledge that it's going to be a long season for me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waltersgotstyle 297 Posted September 25, 2013 Share Posted September 25, 2013 RANGERS’ bid to sign Marius Zaliukas is all but over after the Lithuanian turned down the club’s contract offer to pursue other options. http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/5159-zaliukas-bid-all-but-over 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted September 25, 2013 Share Posted September 25, 2013 At least we know we have funds there for 2 centre halfs and possibly a striker not that we need to spend it of course. Though if we don't spend it on the team it will most likely be ate up by some greedy director somewhere. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted September 25, 2013 Share Posted September 25, 2013 There was a rumour last week that we had offered him £4k p/w, but that he wanted £8k. Obviously it's only a rumour though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,254 Posted September 25, 2013 Share Posted September 25, 2013 RANGERS’ bid to sign Marius Zaliukas is all but over after the Lithuanian turned down the club’s contract offer to pursue other options. http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/5159-zaliukas-bid-all-but-over would have been a decent signing in the short term over the next couple of seasons but not when we get back into Europe. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted September 25, 2013 Share Posted September 25, 2013 There was a rumour last week that we had offered him £4k p/w, but that he wanted £8k. Obviously it's only a rumour though. He was supposedly given a stupid contract by Romanov not so long ago of £10k per week. Must have been his last renewal. 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.