Jump to content

 

 

Graeme Murty will Stay in Rangers hotseat for Old Firm showdown


Recommended Posts

Agreed no matter who comes in they need to get a good backbone to the team. That was Warburton's downfall. We all saw it I just can't understand why he never saw it or failed to correct it. That 1-8 million for Garner should have been spent on a good solid defence. That is where you start to build a team.

 

If I was to be kind to Warburton (which, with every day that passes, I am increasingly disinclined to be), I should propose, in his defence, that he was unable to sign the big DM who went to Leeds, and at least two centre backs, including the guy who had tea with David Weir in the Italian cafe in Hyndland Road.

The assumption at the time was that the financial packages on offer were insufficient. If that is the case, then Warburton, maybe, is not entirely to blame.

 

The signing of Garner, for whatever amount (and is it not £1.8M. in total, if certain conditions are triggered?), remains a mystery, wrapped in a fortune cookie, and which presents itself as a tactical conundrum.

Edited by Uilleam
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hodson does absolutely nothing for me, I think he is a very poor player. Tavernier is no center-mid he ball watches far too often. and I agree with UIlleam below he is tactically un-suitable.

 

Hodson is no better than Ricky Foster but best we've got just now. I still think Tav is best option in Def MF. Halliday has been found out this season in that role unfortunately

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was to be kind to Warburton (which, with every day that passes, I am increasingly disinclined to be), I should propose, in his defence, that he was unable to sign the big DM who went to Leeds, and at least two centre backs, including the guy who had tea with David Weir in the Italian cafe in Hyndland Road.

The assumption at the time was that the financial packages on offer were insufficient. If that is the case, then Warburton, maybe, is not entirely to blame.

 

The signing of Garner, for whatever amount (and is it not £1.8M. in total, if certain conditions are triggered?), remains a mystery, wrapped in a fortune cookie, and which presents itself as a tactical conundrum.

 

Presumably the spine was supposed to be a.n. other centre back, Barton in midfield and a less shit version of Garner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably the spine was supposed to be a.n. other centre back, Barton in midfield and a less shit version of Garner.

 

One of the ch targets, at least, and Barton alongside the big African guy who went to Leeds. I really can't remember pursuit of a striker, to be honest, other than Garner, who scored a good goal on Sunday, but otherwise manages to look both energetic and dud. I am told that Garner would be good in a two, up front; at some point we may see the reality of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the ch targets, at least, and Barton alongside the big African guy who went to Leeds. I really can't remember pursuit of a striker, to be honest, other than Garner, who scored a good goal on Sunday, but otherwise manages to look both energetic and dud. I am told that Garner would be good in a two, up front; at some point we may see the reality of this.

I'm sure Garner was who we went for but meant we thought we were getting the version who scored loads in Div 1 rather than the version who struggled in the championship. Agree on the energy without impact: like Sebo without the finishing. And I've heard folk say he's better in a two as well which begs the questions:

(a) why did we buy a player who likes two up front to play in a front three ?

(b) what is it about a two that will suddenly allow him to link up play and finish in a way he evidently can't at the moment? and

© even if he's a bit better in a two, is he ever going to be good enough to make it worth changing the whole formation of the team to suit him?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure Garner was who we went for but meant we thought we were getting the version who scored loads in Div 1 rather than the version who struggled in the championship. Agree on the energy without impact: like Sebo without the finishing. And I've heard folk say he's better in a two as well which begs the questions:

(a) why did we buy a player who likes two up front to play in a front three ?

(b) what is it about a two that will suddenly allow him to link up play and finish in a way he evidently can't at the moment? and

© even if he's a bit better in a two, is he ever going to be good enough to make it worth changing the whole formation of the team to suit him?

 

Given options at the

Moment I think garner has the makings of a centre back. He is pretty good in the air and I assume he can play the ball on the ground and he puts himself about. He certainly isn't a 'modern' or effective forward. Clint could bring him on. I haven't given up completely on kiernan. The biggest problem our centre backs have had all year is exposure on the flanks due to tav out of position constantly and losing the ball in midfield because we are not good there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the ch targets, at least, and Barton alongside the big African guy who went to Leeds. I really can't remember pursuit of a striker, to be honest, other than Garner, who scored a good goal on Sunday, but otherwise manages to look both energetic and dud. I am told that Garner would be good in a two, up front; at some point we may see the reality of this.

 

Do you mean Toumani Diagouraga? A defenensive midfielder who has now been loaned out by Leeds to Ipswich? Or do you mean Joleon Lescott or Adrian Mariappa as the centre halves we went for before signing Senderos?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean Toumani Diagouraga? A defenensive midfielder who has now been loaned out by Leeds to Ipswich? Or do you mean Joleon Lescott or Adrian Mariappa as the centre halves we went for before signing Senderos?

 

Diagouraga and Mariappa, those guys.

They may have made a difference, we can't say, as they went elsewhere. It is tempting to suggest that they could not have weakened the side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.