Eustace not coming. Zelalem to extend his deal

[Frankie 8,150]

Zelalem was arguably our best player at Ibrox a fortnight ago so not sure where some of the criticism is coming from. Like the rest of the team I suspect he's suffering from a stop-start month or two with international breaks and postponed games.

 

You can replace him with Law for sure but if we think Law is more reliable in terms of a consistent contribution then I think people were fast asleep last season.

[Bruno55 0]

For what it's worth I'll agree with a couple of guys here; Law is a scoring midfielder. But only if he turns up. Imo he has the ability. However he seems to have some sort of mindblock and goes hiding far too often.

 

The same applies to shiels..

[JTP 0]

I would only add that I'd have Shiels absolutely nowhere near our starting 11.

[Bruno55 0]

I would only add that I'd have Shiels absolutely nowhere near our starting 11.

 

Personally id like to see a fit Templeton fight for his ibrox career. It baffles me that temps came to us a cracking wee player..

[MacK1950 2,231]

Yes came to us as a good player but did not cut it in the lower divisions so can't see how when and if fit could cut it in the Championship.

[Tannochsidebear 2,314]

"Our game", as in the Scottish game? An attitude that explains our diminishing status on the European stage. This obsession with, to quote Germinal -- who has made my point for me --, "Effort! Fitness! Work rate! And if they can pass, that's only a bonus", is out-of-date. An all-round box-to-box player is a great addition to any side, but shouldn't be the main complement. I accept I like the "metronome", but I've not said it's absolutely necessary in our team. The benefits are clear. I prefer to see us dominate possession rather than go back to the 'run harder', 'hit-and-hope' type nonsense we are all used to in Scotland. No wonder Scottish sides fail in Europe.

 

Zelalem is a terrific wee player; a modern player with a bright future. Any scout, pundit, analyst will say the same. Is he absolutely necessary to our side at the minute? Perhaps not. But he's a big influence IMO on our possession, which is nine-tenths of the modern game. Dominate possession and you go along way to negating the opposition. From that base you then need the box-to-box midfielder, or an attacking-midfielder to go and make things happen. A mix is what is required.

 

I think you need to ask more people 'in-the-know' before suggesting you know which type of player is more valuable to a winning team. (I'm certainly no expert either.) And as for which one is better to watch? That's a personal opinion. I prefer the slower, possession-based, 'chess' game than the clueless, running-about that is Scottish football; give me Barcelona-Bayern over any open, end-to-end game.

 

At the end of the day, we have differing opinions on the game. We'll never see eye-to-eye, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Nowhere have I mentioned that it is all about effort, fitness or work-rate. I think our current side has all of those three in abundance. My issue with Zelalem is that for all his quality at retaining possession, there is no end product. That pivotal role in the side HAS to be a creator of chances. He should also be chipping in with goals. Our inability to score in recent weeks (Alloa aside) I believe I covered in an earlier post, and it is about the pace we move the ball from side to side at, and the angles of triangular passing into areas that cant be defended easily. We are making it to easy for opponents and I would suggest (unscientifically of course!) that Zelalem is quite happy to keep the ball moving without ever looking for the killer pass, or if he has a chance to shoot. If that is all he is going to bring to the side, he should be the link up man to the defence, not the link up man to the attack.

 

He may have a bright future in the game and he is here to learn and I hope he does, but I believe he needs to add a more cutting edge to his game before he can ever think about playing at a decent level regularly.

 

Again, you put words into my mouth when saying I prefer clueless running-about, but slow getting nowhere possession football is not what brings punters through the turnstiles.

 

Barca-Bayern do not play the same football as us, so the comparison is nonsensical. The pace they move the ball at, and in fact move themselves without the ball, is light years away from what we are doing. Would I like us to play like that, absolutely. Would Zelalem get anywhere near either of them, never.

 

I think it was mentioned by another poster, but Zelalem reminds me of the last couple of years of Barry Ferguson's career, where he made 100 passes a game and none of them hurt the opponent. If that is truly what you want to cheer, fair enough.

 

We most certainly do have differing opinions on the game, and that is what these discussion forums are all about. I enjoy reading your interpretations, I just don't agree with them, but I respect that you take the time to give it such detail and thought and share it and defend it on here.

[craig 5,195]

"Our game", as in the Scottish game? An attitude that explains our diminishing status on the European stage. This obsession with, to quote Germinal -- who has made my point for me --, "Effort! Fitness! Work rate! And if they can pass, that's only a bonus", is out-of-date. An all-round box-to-box player is a great addition to any side, but shouldn't be the main complement. I accept I like the "metronome", but I've not said it's absolutely necessary in our team. The benefits are clear. I prefer to see us dominate possession rather than go back to the 'run harder', 'hit-and-hope' type nonsense we are all used to in Scotland. No wonder Scottish sides fail in Europe.

 

Zelalem is a terrific wee player; a modern player with a bright future. Any scout, pundit, analyst will say the same. Is he absolutely necessary to our side at the minute? Perhaps not. But he's a big influence IMO on our possession, which is nine-tenths of the modern game. Dominate possession and you go along way to negating the opposition. From that base you then need the box-to-box midfielder, or an attacking-midfielder to go and make things happen. A mix is what is required.

 

I think you need to ask more people 'in-the-know' before suggesting you know which type of player is more valuable to a winning team. (I'm certainly no expert either.) And as for which one is better to watch? That's a personal opinion. I prefer the slower, possession-based, 'chess' game than the clueless, running-about that is Scottish football; give me Barcelona-Bayern over any open, end-to-end game.

 

At the end of the day, we have differing opinions on the game. We'll never see eye-to-eye, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

I like the metronome too - but to dominate possession is pointless if there is no end product.

 

I like Zelalem too, and if his role in the team is simply to retain and recycle possession then he is the right guy for us. If so though then the manager's issue and concern has to be how to create chances. We have the players to do so, but not the players to do so when teams stick 10 men behind the wall and play in two very tight banks of 4 and 5.

 

As for Law, I don't see BH's infatuation with the guy. He passes backwards more often than Zelalem and, from what I have seen, has been playing in a more advanced role than Zelalem so his scoring rate SHOULD be higher anyway. He abdicates responsibility any chance he gets. If his passes aren't sideways then they are backwards - and he looks to get rid of the ball as soon as he can. He also hides in games too - he has no spine. I don't think the same can be said of the 18 yr old.

 

Worse is that we are looking at choosing between Shiels and Law.... makes me want to cry. Shiels I think is the better option of the two as he doesn't hide, looks to keep play ticking over and looks to make possession count and quickly. But if our choices are those two then we need replacements soon.

 

Shiels played up front for Killie did he not ? Why not play him as a central striker with Waghorn and McKay operating beside him ? Or simply give Hardie a game beside the other two and go with a midfield 3 of Halliday, Holt & Zelalem/Shiels.

 

As for calling Zelalem a "terrific wee player" I personally am tired of hearing all these superlatives about players. Terrific ? A kid who has played less than a handful of games for Arsenal and is plying his trade in Scotland's 2nd tier..... and we label him terrific ? Nope, not for me. Terrific was an 18 yr old Leo Messi playing for Barcelona, not Gedion Zelalem playing in Scotland's 2nd tier. Superlatives are used far, far too freely these days.

Edited November 23, 2015 by craig

[Rousseau 9,371]

Nowhere have I mentioned that it is all about effort, fitness or work-rate. I think our current side has all of those three in abundance. My issue with Zelalem is that for all his quality at retaining possession, there is no end product. That pivotal role in the side HAS to be a creator of chances. He should also be chipping in with goals. Our inability to score in recent weeks (Alloa aside) I believe I covered in an earlier post, and it is about the pace we move the ball from side to side at, and the angles of triangular passing into areas that cant be defended easily. We are making it to easy for opponents and I would suggest (unscientifically of course!) that Zelalem is quite happy to keep the ball moving without ever looking for the killer pass, or if he has a chance to shoot. If that is all he is going to bring to the side, he should be the link up man to the defence, not the link up man to the attack.

 

He may have a bright future in the game and he is here to learn and I hope he does, but I believe he needs to add a more cutting edge to his game before he can ever think about playing at a decent level regularly.

 

Again, you put words into my mouth when saying I prefer clueless running-about, but slow getting nowhere possession football is not what brings punters through the turnstiles.

 

Barca-Bayern do not play the same football as us, so the comparison is nonsensical. The pace they move the ball at, and in fact move themselves without the ball, is light years away from what we are doing. Would I like us to play like that, absolutely. Would Zelalem get anywhere near either of them, never.

 

I think it was mentioned by another poster, but Zelalem reminds me of the last couple of years of Barry Ferguson's career, where he made 100 passes a game and none of them hurt the opponent. If that is truly what you want to cheer, fair enough.

 

We most certainly do have differing opinions on the game, and that is what these discussion forums are all about. I enjoy reading your interpretations, I just don't agree with them, but I respect that you take the time to give it such detail and thought and share it and defend it on here.

 

It's nice to see a respectful response, without anyone being offended. Thank you.

 

I agree Zelalem has to make more of a killer pass, but I don't see every midfielders role is 'to score goals'. He needs to assist more, sure, but I think he contributes a lot, and can continue to without needing to score goals. I like the idea of him playing deeper, as the link-up between the defence -- it's lets me have his control in the team, while freeing up a space for your box-to-box player. Perhaps Halliday would have more of a 'killer' influence in the final third? He's certainly more likely to take a shot at goal.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Rousseau

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

Personally id like to see a fit Templeton fight for his ibrox career. It baffles me that temps came to us a cracking wee player..

 

When has he shown any inclination to fight for anything since his arrival?

[Rousseau 9,371]

I like the metronome too - but to dominate possession is pointless if there is no end product.

 

I like Zelalem too, and if his role in the team is simply to retain and recycle possession then he is the right guy for us. If so though then the manager's issue and concern has to be how to create chances. We have the players to do so, but not the players to do so when teams stick 10 men behind the wall and play in two very tight banks of 4 and 5.

 

As for Law, I don't see BH's infatuation with the guy. He passes backwards more often than Zelalem and, from what I have seen, has been playing in a more advanced role than Zelalem so his scoring rate SHOULD be higher anyway. He abdicates responsibility any chance he gets. If his passes aren't sideways then they are backwards - and he looks to get rid of the ball as soon as he can. He also hides in games too - he has no spine. I don't think the same can be said of the 18 yr old.

 

Worse is that we are looking at choosing between Shiels and Law.... makes me want to cry. Shiels I think is the better option of the two as he doesn't hide, looks to keep play ticking over and looks to make possession count and quickly. But if our choices are those two then we need replacements soon.

 

Shiels played up front for Killie did he not ? Why not play him as a central striker with Waghorn and McKay operating beside him ? Or simply give Hardie a game beside the other two and go with a midfield 3 of Halliday, Holt & Zelalem/Shiels.

 

As for calling Zelalem a "terrific wee player" I personally am tired of hearing all these superlatives about players. Terrific ? A kid who has played less than a handful of games for Arsenal and is plying his trade in Scotland's 2nd tier..... and we label him terrific ? Nope, not for me. Terrific was an 18 yr old Leo Messi playing for Barcelona, not Gedion Zelalem playing in Scotland's 2nd tier. Superlatives are used far, far too freely these days.

 

Yes, I like the possession, which I feel Zelalem brings, but I then think it's wrong to blame him for the next stage, of scoring goals. Yes, he needs to make more assists, but I think he influences the team in other ways.

 

Yes, in comparison to Messi, "terrific wee player" is superlative, but it's all relative. Perhaps promising? Can we agree on "wee"?

 

For all his flaws, Law naturally drifts further forward. I agree that he 'should' score more being further forward, but I can also see that he has a goal-scoring knack, which very few in our side possess, and therefore could be beneficial. It's all about using what we have at the minute. Eventually, we will need to acquire better players. Shiels is too slow to play further forward IMO, and is better as a link-up player.