the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 14, 2014 Share Posted September 14, 2014 I don't agree. If we get back to the top division next season a top three finish(although ideally first) should be perfectly achievable getting us into the EL at worst.The top division is not some super league. It has declined and is continuing to decline since we left it. i think i understand why your happy with things as they are rab. you have no concept of how bad we are. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted September 14, 2014 Share Posted September 14, 2014 I don't agree. If we get back to the top division next season a top three finish(although ideally first) should be perfectly achievable getting us into the EL at worst.The top division is not some super league. It has declined and is continuing to decline since we left it. And what are we Rab? We are a joke of a club and a midden of a football team. We have also declined, immeasurably. I wouldn't be too sure of the top 3 Rab, not that that should ever be just enough, it's 1st or last for this club. Anyone with intentions of making 2nd or 3rd acceptable can get to f*ck right now. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman 9 Posted September 14, 2014 Share Posted September 14, 2014 6 October 2012 Last updated at 17:47 GMT Stirling Albion 1-0 Rangers Rangers: Alexander, Argyriou (McKay 67), Perry, Emilson Cribari, Wallace, Faure, Black (Naismith 85), Macleod, Aird (Kyle 71), Shiels, McCulloch. Subs Not Used: Gallacher,Crawford. Booked: Aird, McCulloch. Remember this period. They(the youth players) were getting most of the game, and we still had Heggarty, Hutton,etc. to come. If I remember correctly , that's when the boos at the end of the games started. They just couldn't handle the chest-high tackles and how to fashion a win against the part-timers. Interesting that. That was the last time Rangers LOST a league match away from Ibrox, 30 odd games ago. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted September 14, 2014 Share Posted September 14, 2014 I don't agree. If we get back to the top division next season a top three finish(although ideally first) should be perfectly achievable getting us into the EL at worst.The top division is not some super league. It has declined and is continuing to decline since we left it. For me getting into Europe means getting past the summer qualifiers. There is only one team in that division that has a chance of making the group stages of either competition and even they had to get lucky this year. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted September 14, 2014 Share Posted September 14, 2014 Interesting that. That was the last time Rangers LOST a league match away from Ibrox, 30 odd games ago. Aye, this Bundesliga is a skoosh. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,411 Posted September 15, 2014 Author Share Posted September 15, 2014 Just read this article by Waddell. Sounds as if it could have been written by the likes of the Union of Fools. When will the penny finally drop that Dave King has not got and is not going to invest this mythical £30million? He's disappeared. Won't be back. Won't hear from him again.Lets move on..... Shocking comment!,I hope you are embarrassed with that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 I don't agree. If we get back to the top division next season a top three finish(although ideally first) should be perfectly achievable getting us into the EL at worst.The top division is not some super league. It has declined and is continuing to decline since we left it. It has declined? We were probably English championship level before admin and league 2 now. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/198570246 October 2012 Last updated at 17:47 GMT Stirling Albion 1-0 Rangers Rangers: Alexander, Argyriou (McKay 67), Perry, Emilson Cribari, Wallace, Faure, Black (Naismith 85), Macleod, Aird (Kyle 71), Shiels, McCulloch. Subs Not Used: Gallacher,Crawford. Booked: Aird, McCulloch. Remember this period. They(the youth players) were getting most of the game, and we still had Heggarty, Hutton,etc. to come. If I remember correctly , that's when the boos at the end of the games started. They just couldn't handle the chest-high tackles and how to fashion a win against the part-timers. In that starting lineup there are two youth players. Perry was 22 so shouldn't count. Faure joined at 21. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 In that starting lineup there are two youth players. Perry was 22 so shouldn't count. Faure joined at 21. In a lot of sports, "young" usually refers to under 26, eg the Tour de France has a white jersey competition for the best "young" rider of those under 26. Fudging the semantics and focusing on only the starting aspect to skew your statistics wouldn't go down well with Mark Twain. In any case, starting two youths for a club like Rangers is pretty reasonable. A starting line up of four under 23's is unusual and any more would be generally very risky and starting to get into ageism territory. Bringing three on a subs seems very good too. Playing 7 under 23's on the day is way above average for a team with ambitions of winning a league with a fair bit to spare. But it all gets really illogical as if you expect every team to start a load of "youths" (say five?), what happens to those players when they reach 22? To keep this going, they HAVE to be put on the scrapheap and replaced with younger guys. With that logic there is not enough starting places for the young players to take up when they get older - if you have 5 starting places for 18-21 then you have only 6 for 22-33 for which there are obviously three times as many players. The numbers just don't work. I've explained this before but you seem to keep repeating the same illogical stuff. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted September 15, 2014 Share Posted September 15, 2014 In a lot of sports, "young" usually refers to under 26, eg the Tour de France has a white jersey competition for the best "young" rider of those under 26. Fudging the semantics and focusing on only the starting aspect to skew your statistics wouldn't go down well with Mark Twain. This is football, not cycling. Rab used the word 'Kids'. In any case, starting two youths for a club like Rangers is pretty reasonable. A starting line up of four under 23's is unusual and any more would be generally very risky and starting to get into ageism territory. Bringing three on a subs seems very good too. Playing 7 under 23's on the day is way above average for a team with ambitions of winning a league with a fair bit to spare. Ageism territory . Are you for real? We have been playing in part-time leagues and needed to save every penny we could. Focusing on youth development was essential. Even last season when we had officially won the league, we still played hardly any youth players. But it all gets really illogical as if you expect every team to start a load of "youths" (say five?), what happens to those players when they reach 22? To keep this going, they HAVE to be put on the scrapheap and replaced with younger guys. With that logic there is not enough starting places for the young players to take up when they get older - if you have 5 starting places for 18-21 then you have only 6 for 22-33 for which there are obviously three times as many players. The numbers just don't work. The logic is that hopefully by 22 they are of a superior standard to the rubbish we have had in recent years. They can then either hopefully be sold for decent money (again, essential for us) or they can help us develop as a team and club. I've explained this before but you seem to keep repeating the same illogical stuff. Yet more trolling from the master of 'illogical stuff'. I really should just start ignoring your constant trolling but it's hard to resist. 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.