Aberdeen v Bayern Munchen

[Gribz 743]

Aberdeen are also a far far far lesser team than Munich while we are on par with Panathinikos at the moment. But we should be a better team than the greeks and I expect Rangers to give them a tougher game that what we did.

[calscot 0]

Aberdeen went out to score a goal or 2. We went out not to concede.

 

When you're at home you should go out to score a goal or 2. When you're away from home you go out to keep a blank sheet.

 

Rangers didn't go out score? What game did you watch?

 

Rangers had about 8 very high quality chances and many other lesser ones. If that's not going out to score then what is?

 

Pana had about 2 with a load of row zz shots from 35 yards.

 

In contrast, Aberdeen had about 4 or 5 but put two of them away, while Munich had quite a few.

 

Clean sheets are invaluable in Europe and we are now in a far better position than Aberdeen despite them scoring two goals. The trick in Europe is to score one or two at home while not conceding any.

 

Rangers were close to doing that, the clean sheet was achieved with aplomb and the lack of goals was not down to lack of effort but possibly a lack of luck and striking that was just off the mark.

 

The biggest criticism you could possibly have for Walter's line up is that despite the team defending stalwartly, dominating the game in midfield and creating loads of chances in attack, he didn't pick a top class finisher...

[calscot 0]

PS A clean sheet is far more important at home in Europe due to a wee rule called the "away goals rule".

[Gazza_8 233]

Rangers didn't attack Pana which personally, I think's a mistake especially since we were at home and playing an average european side. I'm not saying we should've went all out attack but a wee bit of adventure in uor play wouildn't have gone a miss.

[craig 5,199]

You are right calscot about the away goals rule and it being very important not to concede at home - but it can also be as vital to at least take a slender lead on your travels.

 

When you look at the two results ours is obviously better than Aberdeen's as Aberdeen need to score whilst we dont (although I am not sure I would want a penalty shoot out).

 

You have to be controlled and I guess we were, but when you are playing an average team you want to hammer home that advantage, especially as they may not be such an easy task in their own stadium.

 

Pana were average or having an off game. If average we have to think we have a good chance of beating them over there. If it was an off game and we could only draw with them then they will have oodles of confidence.

[calscot 0]

I still think the point people are missing is that while we didn't score it wasn't from the want of trying; the multitude of near misses provides evidence of that.

 

That seems to be ignored and people seem to be changing history by saying we didn't attack. The truth is we attacked a lot of the time but we didn't score.

 

I'm sure if you look at the stats for possession, territory, shots on goal and off, they will back my premise that it wasn't as defensive a game as most seem to remember.

 

A 0-0 draw isn't brilliant, but there is no way we played for it.

 

Again for me the problem was a combination of lack of killer edge in front of goal and a bit of poor luck, rather than a negative game plan.

 

Like I say, Aberdeen are being praised for attacking when they were far less attacking than Rangers. It's double standards.

 

Bears seem to be having a moan at Rangers these days without really being fair to the team or the manager.

 

I'm actually shocked at the undue criticism for a very solid team when after the last 4 years, we've absolutely no right to expect a Barcelona type of football.

 

The criticism for Eck and Le Guen was justified, but we seem to have got into a habit of criticising and are now doing so when its not justified at all.

 

We've been crap for about 4 years including when we last won the league and now we have a team that can win quite a bit all within our own hands. I just don't get what all the hoo-ha is about.

 

And I get agitated when people seem blind to the actual game just because of the score and the fact the line up wasn't to their taste.

 

I have arguments all the time with the Tims on the Scotsman site, as they are perpetually casting a shadow over everything Rangers do, but now I seem to be doing it here too.

 

The negativity is no longer on the pitch, it's now in the stands.

[calscot 0]

Rangers didn't attack Pana which personally, I think's a mistake especially since we were at home and playing an average european side. I'm not saying we should've went all out attack but a wee bit of adventure in uor play wouildn't have gone a miss.

 

I'm sorry, but you must have gone for a pint every time Rangers went up the pitch...

 

"Rangers didn't attack" - totally and utterly untrue! Just what game were you watching?

 

I'm I the only person who thought Novo could easily have had a hatrick, if not more? Davis had a great shot saved, McCulloch and Cousin were both unlucky with headers etc, etc?