[FT] Partick Thistle 2 - 2 Rangers (Morelos 19; Dorrans 77)

[union 0]

No they really wouldn’t no matter how hard you bend them.

[pete 2,499]

True. But we also shouldn't be overly pessimistic and saying the world is about to collapse on us, when it obviously is not.

 

Which game this season have we played and not actually deserved a result, all things considered ? I would probably only say Progres away.

 

Even down to 10 men at home to Hibs we should have got at least a draw. At home to Hearts it seems from what I have read (haven't watched that game back yet) that we should have won as they offered little threat - and even Friday night - 20 minutes aside it seems we were the better team.

 

Yet listening to some on here you would think we are relegation material.

 

These players have been together two months and we expect that everything should already have clicked - that is an unrealistic expectation.

 

Players don't get 6 months to gel in these days they are paid far too high for that. "Okay we will give you a contract for 2 years but you can be crap for the first 6 months and put it down to gelling problems" If players can't make a difference in 2 months then they shouldn't have been signed. Nobody has ever mentioned relegation material except you now but not getting 2nd place or beating teams like Partick Thistle are just as bad for Rangers teams.

[craig 5,199]

Players don't get 6 months to gel in these days they are paid far too high for that. "Okay we will give you a contract for 2 years but you can be crap for the first 6 months and put it down to gelling problems" If players can't make a difference in 2 months then they shouldn't have been signed. Nobody has ever mentioned relegation material except you now but not getting 2nd place or beating teams like Partick Thistle are just as bad for Rangers teams.

 

Hopefully you see the irony in what you posted above.... Nobody said they need 6 months to gel either, what WAS said is they have only been together two months. Only you are bringing in 6 months. Also, I didn't say that anyone suggested we were relegation material - what I DID actually say is that in reading the negativity in the posts you would be forgiven for thinking we were relegation material. The negativity is, IMHO, OTT.

 

When folks like yourself refuse to believe that there has been improvement and provided justification yet ignored other factors (eg, it has taken Rangers 5 league games this season to score 12 goals in the league, yet last year it took 12 games for that IIRC - you wouldn't consider that an improvement ??). I just think that there must be balance and objectivity to how we see things. From BOTH sides in fairness.

[der Berliner 3,292]

It's that kind of reasoning that will see us as also-rans for the forseeable future.

 

It is just stating our status quo ... and that is the thing I keep reminding folk of. We can also debate wishful thinking if we all agree that at the end of the day it is just that, wishfull thinking.

[der Berliner 3,292]

You forget one thing about the Battle of Britain. The British had far less planes but they had the new spitfire which was far superior to anything the Germans had. The pilots actually added one piece of equipment themselves. The rear view mirror of cars so they could see behind them. Simple and true.

 

Which would not have made the Galdiators (our current squad) equal to the BF 109E the Germans employed against the Gladiators, Hurricanes et al. At this moment in time, the Spitfire (and any fancy add-ons) is something we can but dream of.

 

Rangers do not have superior equipment than Celtic unfortunately but against them that does not always count so I am pretty confident we can win if the defence does not give away stupid goals.

 

I would say that hardly any of the goals we last conceeded against them was the fault of the defence, and while we are at it, we can go on and on about it, but we won't have - no matter which player - have a defence that will not make errors. And we never had. So we can but hope that they are all switched on and are concentrated for that match.

 

Likewise, I see no reason why we shouldn't come away with a point or three in these virtually one-off games. They will not make or break our season though, and surely not this early in the season. For ... all our current real competitors in the league will have a tough time against the Scum too.

[pete 2,499]

Hopefully you see the irony in what you posted above.... Nobody said they need 6 months to gel either, what WAS said is they have only been together two months. Only you are bringing in 6 months. Also, I didn't say that anyone suggested we were relegation material - what I DID actually say is that in reading the negativity in the posts you would be forgiven for thinking we were relegation material. The negativity is, IMHO, OTT.

 

When folks like yourself refuse to believe that there has been improvement and provided justification yet ignored other factors (eg, it has taken Rangers 5 league games this season to score 12 goals in the league, yet last year it took 12 games for that IIRC - you wouldn't consider that an improvement ??). I just think that there must be balance and objectivity to how we see things. From BOTH sides in fairness.

 

Burying your head in the sand is also a way to look at it. How many games has Pedro actually won since taking over? I don't think his points lost games are far behind. When you add that some of the results have been the worst in our history then you have to look who is at fault. It was said we should judge him when he brought in his own players but Herrera Dalcio and Pena have hardly been near the team. How many months do they need to gel? Warburton's players were considered crap but every week nearly 50% of the team is Warburton's players.. Pessimists is just a word optimists use to justify themselves not being realistic.

[Uilleam 5,507]

In The Sunday Times yesterday, Graeme Souness regaled the readership with the following story:

 

Top players work each other out. They don’t need a year together, they know each other instantly. After my first year in Italy with Sampdoria, they picked a Serie A select to play against Verona, who had won the league that year. We all turned up, shook hands in the dressing-room then went out and won 6-0.

 

OK it was a friendly, or similar, but the Select had absolutely no time to "gel". Mark you, Souness & Co could play a bit.

 

I guess that Pedro C's selections are based on match fitness, or erring on the side of caution. or -dare I say it?- on the premise of not showing the rest of them up.

[der Berliner 3,292]

... Pessimists is just a word optimists use to justify themselves not being realistic.

 

At times you think on here you only find people with glasses either full or empty, which the above statement indicates, IMHO. That is not the case though. We all have certain expectations and I would say that some are more wishfull than others, and some are more reasonable than others. I doubt you will find someone who is totally happy with what is going on, but you do find quite a few who a) seemingly think that those not pessimistic belong to that former group, and b) quite a few who simply can't get out of misery mode and spot bother with next to anyting that does not come off - be it a pass or selections or tatics, not to mention results. When most on here essentially are of the glass half-full and half-empty variety, at least more than anything else. And that kind of polarisation does not help any debate.

[craig 5,199]

Burying your head in the sand is also a way to look at it. How many games has Pedro actually won since taking over? I don't think his points lost games are far behind. When you add that some of the results have been the worst in our history then you have to look who is at fault. It was said we should judge him when he brought in his own players but Herrera Dalcio and Pena have hardly been near the team. How many months do they need to gel? Warburton's players were considered crap but every week nearly 50% of the team is Warburton's players.. Pessimists is just a word optimists use to justify themselves not being realistic.

 

For the majority it isn't burying heads n the sand though. You are making it "black & white" when it is varying shades of grey.

 

Again, you are trying to statistically justify Pedro is shite with the "nearly 50% of the team is Warburton players" - Do you automatically get rid of all the existing personnel just to say it is "my team" ? That would be foolish. Did Pedro have enough money to significantly upgrade on all the Warburton players ? I don't think he did. And look at the ones still getting a game :

 

Foderingham - More than sufficient for the league. A decent keeper. No need to replace him

Wallace - injury prone but still, likewise, sufficient for this league

Tavernier - gets a lot of flak and makes mistakes. But has done well for the most part this season

Miller - this one splits the support. Seen better days and, personally, would bench him. But still not convinced you would simply get rid.

 

The players that have been replaced, it could be argued, are all the ones that NEEDED replaced - players such as Kiernan, Wilson, Holt (though I disagree with this one), Halliday, Waghorn, Garner, Dodoo (again, I disagree as he is young and has potential). And I would think that even Miller, Windass, Niko could see less game time if/when Pena gets fully fit.

 

Either way though, surely you don't expect the manager to come in and change the whole team, particularly if there are some who can still do a job ? And surely you don't expect it to happen in ONE transfer window ?

 

Of the signings he HAS made - and try to ignore hindsight because none of us have it when making forward looking decisions... Did we not think Alves would improve the team ? Did we not initially think Cardoso improved the team and added a younger player with sell-on value ? Morelos ? Candeias ?

 

See, as I said, when you are so negative towards someone you immediately look for reasons to give them little or no credit. In this very thread you suggested that Jack was a Warburton signing/target. Do you honestly think that if Pedro didn't want him then he would have been signed ? It's all rather convenient that Jack, being one of our most consistent performers, is the previous managers target which therefore allows you do reduce the credit to the current manager. You suggested Dorrans was a Board signing, as far as you know... yet do you have any evidence to support that ?

 

For me the jury is still out with Pedro. However, it is difficult to see eye to eye with someone who flat out refuses to see ANY improvements in the team. And there needs to be an element of pragmatism too - we were NEVER going to be a "one window project". It was always going to take more than that. But if I look at what we have then I think that Alves is better than anything we had at CB last season (wasn't difficult to be fair), Jack has come in and is better than anything we had at CM last season, Morelos is better than anything we had up front last season, and Candeias is better than anything we have had on the right side of midfield for years.

 

The bit in bold doesn't make sense to me - so only pessimists are realistic ?? That is rather narcissistic of you pete. Only you are being realistic ? Is it realistic to be challenging Celtic when they spend more on two players than we spend on a team, from a position of already having multiple players worth over a million quid ? An optimist is no less realistic than a pessimist, regardless of what you say. An optimist looks at this team and sees that there are a handful of players who are better than what we had last year and can see the improvements. A pessimist doesn't see the optimism, but that doesn't mean the pessimist is right, nor does it mean the optimist is.

 

But I am bowing out of this one now because the pro-Pedro folks generally will never agree with the anti-Pedro group, It descends into nothing more than finger pointing. We all want the same thing, we just disagree on how we get there. Who could we get in, realistically, to replace Pedro, who would have us consistently challenging Celtic whilst significantly financially disadvantaged and, at the very least, be better than the rest by a margin ??? The only one I can think of is Walter - and yet, the very mention of his name, has a plethora of people screaming "Awww nawww".

 

I will stick to just watching us play and hope that we get results - but also be pragmatic enough to know that in football things have a tendency to not always go as planned.

Edited September 18, 2017 by craig

[Walterbear 557]

The core team doesn't contain almost 50% of Warburton signings. Core Warburton 1st team players are Fod, Tav and Windass (who is pysh). Fod and Tav are also not in the class of player we would hope is the final level for Rangers. We are actually scoring some goals and the defence isn't as bad as it was although it's still weak. The midfield is stronger (Dorrans, Jack). There is defintitely improvement to come in this team whereas Warburton had hit a glass ceiling. But is it going to be good enough to go on a 20 game winning streak to put us in with a shout of winning the league? Can it be significantly strengthened with 2 or 3m and get us back to winning some cups in the first instance? Yes. Do we have North of £15m and the time to rip it all up and start again? No. We have to go with this style of play and if we can make improvements in player and management staff en route then we should obviously do so.