[FT] Rangers 4 (Forrester 1; Holt 47; Halliday 54; Wallace 83) - 0 Dundee

[ian1964 10,440]

I don't know why he was booked. When he scored he was directly in front of the Dundee support. If he would have celebrated there it would have probably been a yellow for gesturing towards them. As he made the celebration run he noticed this and so he curved his run round the back of the net towards the Rangers fans, he never crossed the advertising hoardings, never took his shirt off nor gestured to the away support, and from start to finish in total he was off the field of play for 8 seconds.

 

 

I know the rules BH posted above but I have absolutely no clue why that is a booking.

 

 

Its pure nonsense!

 

Maybe he fist pumped the air?,shocking that a player celebrates scoring a goal.......

[SteveC 150]

......who was reported to be fit again but couldn't find a place on the bench behind three Academy players.

 

Reported where and by whom? Your eagerness to put him down never falters. Even the word "behind" where "ahead" would seem to be your meaning. What is it like to so hate a Rangers' player? I reserve such feelings for those in hoops. Your post history on this young man, along with Gunslinger's on Vukic make me despair at there relentless hounding. They closely mirror things I remember from being an Ibrox regular. An old guy (younger than I am now no doubt but seemed old then) spitting endless fury at Tommy McLean. Game in, game out without fail - obsessive negativity poured on one of our own. It's not enough, apparently, to harbour private misgivings or to make the occasional negative comment. It has to be continual and it has to be personal. There's a goldmine for psychiatric studies here: "the fans who hate their players; the supporters who continually undermine".

 

 

EDIT: Just to be clear I am not saying players should never be criticised nor fans are not allowed to say that they had a bad game or even that, in their opinion, a certain player never can have. I am talking about the relentless denigration at every opportunity whether real, or as has been the case as recently as last week with you and GZ, invented.

Edited March 6, 2016 by SteveC

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Reported where and by whom?

 

It was on Rangers web site on Friday night and my point was that if three Academy players are preferred to him (I trust that choice of word is acceptable) then surely that tells its own story.

 

I don't "hate" Zelalem at all; I just don't think we need him and Rousseau's whose tactical opinions are well respected around here "concede(s) that Zelalem is not needed,".

Edited March 6, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[ian1964 10,440]

Reported where and by whom? Your eagerness to put him down never falters. Even the word "behind" where "ahead" would seem to be your meaning. What is it like to so hate a Rangers' player? I reserve such feelings for those in hoops. Your post history on this young man, along with Gunslinger's on Vukic make me despair at there relentless hounding. They closely mirror things I remember from being an Ibrox regular. An old guy (younger than I am now no doubt but seemed old then) spitting endless fury at Tommy McLean. Game in, game out without fail - obsessive negativity poured on on of our own. it's not enough, apparently, to harbour private misgivings or to make the occasional negative comment. it has to be continual and it has to be personal. There's a goldmine for psychiatric studies here: "the fans who hate their players; the supporters who continually undermine".

 

 

EDIT: Just to be clear I am not saying players should never be criticised nor fans are not allowed to say that they had a bad game or even that, in their opinion, a certain player never can have. I am talking about the relentless denigration at every opportunity whether real, or as has been the case as recently as last week with you and GZ, invented.

 

BH likes the attention mate!...........

[SteveC 150]

It was on Rangers web site on Friday night and my point was that if three Academy players are preferred to him (I trust that choice of word is acceptable) then surely that tells its own story.

 

I don't "hate" Zelalem at all; I just don't think we need him and Rousseau's whose tactical opinions are well respected around here "concede(s) that Zelalem is not needed,".

 

I missed that. I read in the build-up that he was injured though that was just on a fan forum so I don't know where the info came from. You seem certain that Warburton preferred those players on the bench, I am not. When he spoke in interview he implied that he had no choice. I'm afraid "it was on the website on Friday night" (can you provide a link, btw) is far from evidence I'd base an assertion like yours on.

I could also add Warburton extended GZ's loan deal, "surely that tells its own story." - but all that aside, my point was not on the rights or wrongs of your opinion, rather it was on the obsessive, relentless nature with which you parrot it .

Edited March 6, 2016 by SteveC

[rbr 1,247]

It was on Rangers web site on Friday night and my point was that if three Academy players are preferred to him (I trust that choice of word is acceptable) then surely that tells its own story.

 

I don't "hate" Zelalem at all; I just don't think we need him and Rousseau's whose tactical opinions are well respected around here "concede(s) that Zelalem is not needed,".

 

 

They weren't preferred to anyone , MW stated in midweek that there would be 3 youths on the bench , given that was said on Wednesday it makes sense for Zelalem to be the one to miss out , no great mystery

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I missed that. I read in the build-up that he was injured though that was just on a fan forum so I don't know where the info came from. You seem certain that Warburton preferred those players on the bench, I am not. When he spoke in interview he implied that he had no choice. I'm afraid "it was on the website on Friday night" (can you provide a link, btw) is far from evidence I'd base an assertion like yours on.

I could also add Warburton extended GZ's loan deal, "surely that tells its own story." - but all that aside, my point was not on the rights or wrongs of your opinion, rather it was on the obsessive, relentless nature with which you parrot it .

 

Yes indeed he did extend or more correctly did not activate the break clause in Zelelem's deal. That surprised me because leaving recent injury aside, Zelalem had very little game time in the league since the beginning of the year and none at all in the three matches (prior to injury) since being subbed in the home cup tie v Kilmarnock.

 

I read that Templeton was still out but that Zelalem had returned from injury, I'll try to find the link.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

They weren't preferred to anyone , MW stated in midweek that there would be 3 youths on the bench , given that was said on Wednesday it makes sense for Zelalem to be the one to miss out , no great mystery

 

He stated "“Two boys will be on the bench on Saturday. They have deserved it and if we have to call upon them then I have no hesitation using them.”

 

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/i-can-call-youth/

 

But perhaps Zelalem was still injured or suffered a recurrence which is why there were three?

[ranger_syntax 3,790]

Not another Zelalem thread . . .

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Not another Zelalem thread . . .

 

I didn't start it, LB did that.....

Edited March 6, 2016 by BrahimHemdani