Match Thread [FT] Rangers 4 (Lammers 10'; Danilo 78'; Sima 84'; Dowell 90') - 0 Livingston

[RANGERRAB 3,271]

Was it not strange that the referee gave the Cifuentes goal but then disallowed it without even checking the TV monitor?

Edited August 13, 2023 by RANGERRAB

[CammyF 6,807]

4 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

Was it not strange that the referee gave the Cifuentes goal but then disallowed it with even checking the TV monitor?

Standard procedure. If its a hand ball when a goal is scored it is automatically chalked off - no need for an "on-field" review. 

 

What was weird was that once it was established Cifu handled the ball and goal was disallowed that Robertson wasnt then asked to look at the foul on Balogun that was a definite penalty IMO.

Edited August 13, 2023 by CammyF

[yuddie 1,013]

3 hours ago, Rousseau said:

I'm a big fan of Tavernier, but he was rinsed a couple of times. He looks sluggish; slow in thought and action. 

 

Barisic was good. 

I think if we're being honest as a support Tav's legs went half a year before Seville, or at least started going then. He's been towing bigger and bigger caravans since.

[CammyF 6,807]

8 minutes ago, yuddie said:

I think if we're being honest as a support Tav's legs went half a year before Seville, or at least started going then. He's been towing bigger and bigger caravans since.

He did score in every round on the run to Seville (and not all were pens) and wasn't he our top or 2nd top scorer last season? 

 

Not bad achievements for a right back towing a caravan. 

 

If our strikers, wide players and forwards scored and / or assisted as much as Tav, we'd be in a far better position. 

[RANGERRAB 3,271]

14 minutes ago, CammyF said:

Standard procedure. If its a hand ball when a goal is scored it is automatically chalked off - no need for an "on-field" review. 

 

What was weird was that once it was established Cifu handled the ball and goal was disallowed that Robertson wasnt then asked to look at the foul on Balogun that was a definite penalty IMO.

Was that at the same corner when Cifuentes ‘scored’ ?

[CammyF 6,807]

5 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

Was that at the same corner when Cifuentes ‘scored’ ?

Yeah, Balogun was behind Cifu and the defender had a handful of his shirt / dragged him back. 

 

About 1min in these highlights 

 

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/12938795/rangers-4-0-livingston-scottish-premiership-highlights

 

Edited August 13, 2023 by CammyF

[Rousseau 9,407]

52 minutes ago, CammyF said:

What a weird statement - you do realise most football managers get sacked or move on before they get sacked! im sure there will be stats somewhere to back that up 🙂

 

So we've moved from "very few" chances created to "quality" of chances created. What is your definition of a "quality" opportunity?

 

Would you agree that the 4 goals were obviously quality chances (as they were converted into goals). The Cifu disallowed goal was also a "quality" chance as it was a "goal" but then chopped off. 

 

Or that the the pens we should / could have had would also count as "quality" chances as they are basically 1 v 1 and Tav has a decent record from 12 yards.

 

What about the Dessers shot in the 2nd half was this also a "quality" opportunity as it took a brilliant defensive block to divert it for a corner? 

 

Think it's safe to say, on reflection, that we created both quantity and quality chances yesterday. Don't need XG to confirm it, just watch then game. 

Just making the point that we've covered this before, and I turned out to be correct in my worry. 

 

Did I not say 'bugger-all', initially, in regards to chances? That's not specific, but I always meant quality - quantity is part of it, I suppose. 

 

No - they were not 'quality' chances: Dowell's, for example, was a worldie, where the xG is 0.04, or something. We're not scoring those every time; it's not a high quality chance. Quality goal, but not a 'quality' chance. Danilo's was a high quality chance. The Dessers shot was a high quality chance.

 

I think 1.8 xG in that second half was much better. If we can hit 3.5 - 4 xG over a match, that would be better. I'd be more optimistic. If we're taking 20 shots from 40-yards, I'd be very worried - we're not that bad, though.

 

However, the majority of those chances were towards the end of the game, when Livingston opened up. We've taken advantage of the state of the game, which is great, but my concern is still a lack of quality chances against the low block; that's our bread-and-butter. We need to be able to churn - see what I did there? - out chances against a low block, both quantity and quality. 

 

I don't include penalties. I don't include set-pieces either. Set-pieces are important, but as a top team in our league, we can't be relying on set-pieces for our goals. That's just a bonus, IMO.

 

I don't need xG to confirm it. I watched it with my own eyes. We didn't create enough against the low block. I'm sorry, that's just a fact. 

 

You're too caught up on results. It's football: a team can dominate for 89 minutes with 90% possession and lose the game 1-0 to a fluky, scuffed shot. You're the type to say, 'job done' if it's Rangers that won. I'm the type to be concerned about needing a fluky, scuffed shot to win the game. It's just a matter of interpretation. I think I'm right, over the long-term. If teams are consistently lucky, it'll come back to haunt them. 

[yuddie 1,013]

12 minutes ago, CammyF said:

He did score in every round on the run to Seville (and not all were pens) and wasn't he our top or 2nd top scorer last season? 

 

Not bad achievements for a right back towing a caravan. 

 

If our strikers, wide players and forwards scored and / or assisted as much as Tav, we'd be in a far better position. 

He also got slaughtered home and away against Celtic and played like he was half asleep in the final in Seville.

 

Do you disagree that he's been on the wane physically for 18 months? He can still strike a ball and put in a cross but he just can't recover at all.

 

I feel like the clubs made a rod for its back giving him the HoF when they did to be honest, it has made him infallible.

[CammyF 6,807]

1 minute ago, Rousseau said:

Just making the point that we've covered this before, and I turned out to be correct in my worry. 

 

Did I not say 'bugger-all', initially, in regards to chances? That's not specific, but I always meant quality - quantity is part of it, I suppose. 

 

No - they were not 'quality' chances: Dowell's, for example, was a worldie, where the xG is 0.04, or something. We're not scoring those every time; it's not a high quality chance. Quality goal, but not a 'quality' chance. Danilo's was a high quality chance. The Dessers shot was a high quality chance.

 

I think 1.8 xG in that second half was much better. If we can hit 3.5 - 4 xG over a match, that would be better. I'd be more optimistic. If we're taking 20 shots from 40-yards, I'd be very worried - we're not that bad, though.

 

However, the majority of those chances were towards the end of the game, when Livingston opened up. We've taken advantage of the state of the game, which is great, but my concern is still a lack of quality chances against the low block; that's our bread-and-butter. We need to be able to churn - see what I don't there? - out chances against a low block, both quantity and quality. 

 

I don't include penalties. I don't include set-pieces either. Set-pieces are important, but as a top team in our league, we can't be relying on set-pieces for our goals. That's just a bonus, IMO.

 

I don't need xG to confirm it. I watched it with my own eyes. We didn't create enough against the low block. I'm sorry, that's just a fact. 

 

You're too caught up on results. It's football: a team can dominate for 89 minutes with 90% possession and lose the game 1-0 to a fluky, scuffed shot. You're the type to say, 'job done' if it's Rangers that won. I'm the type to be concerned about needing a fluky, scuffed shot to win the game. It's just a matter of interpretation. I think I'm right, over the long-term. If teams are consistently lucky, it'll come back to haunt them. 

But you've conveniently glossed over the chances we did create in 1st half. Cifu's disallowed goal, Dessers header, Souttars shot over the bar to name just 3 (outwith the goal). 

 

I'm not caught up in the result. To get a 4-0 win, you have to create chances and convert them and we did.

 

If you can't (and are not willing) to remember the chances we created, then that's up to you. 

 

As for the 4th goal, off course it was a great finish, but it was a chance and it was brilliantly created. 

[CammyF 6,807]

4 minutes ago, yuddie said:

He also got slaughtered home and away against Celtic and played like he was half asleep in the final in Seville.

 

Do you disagree that he's been on the wane physically for 18 months? He can still strike a ball and put in a cross but he just can't recover at all.

 

I feel like the clubs made a rod for its back giving him the HoF when they did to be honest, it has made him infallible.

But he wasn't the only one - why single Tav out?