Jump to content

Dorrans


Redwhiteandblue

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 hours ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

The one pass (long cross field one) which came off for him was in the 2nd half so you're probably right statistically at least.

Never said he was great but he did grow into the game as did everyone 

I understand the reason for playing him even if it didn’t really work 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, .Williamson. said:

I don't think Kranjcar was ever a "great" player.

Don't get me wrong, he was good, but he wasn't great.

Quite right. Always had a great technique but was never more than just a decent player whilst in England. Arry Redknapp rated him and signed him three times I think but he never really put down roots anywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 31/12/2017 at 16:36, K.A.I said:

Never said he was great but he did grow into the game as did everyone 

I understand the reason for playing him even if it didn’t really work 

Am only saying that statistically I'd imagine he WAS better 2nd half. Shows at times stats ain't worth the paper they're written on.

I think I get why he played him too though felt before the game it was the wrong option.

I was actually more pissed off he didn't replace him at half time than I was that he started him, then was raging as the 2nd half progressed and we were in ascendancy despite imo being effectively a man down.

We'll never know but gut feeling is Pena or Barjonas could easily have contributed as little as Niko did, and likely more which could have got is that win. They almost contributed as much from the bench.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, .Williamson. said:

I don't think Kranjcar was ever a "great" player.

Don't get me wrong, he was good, but he wasn't great.

Totally disagree. Was a cracking player back in the day. Loved watching him on motd. 

 

If that kranjcar was playing in the spl you would realise just how far ahead he was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2017 at 11:48, CM 1234 said:

Murty signaled to the bench at 54 mins for barjonas and Pena to warm up. Didn’t put him on until near enough 80 

Don't see why he would have made a change at that time considering how good things were looking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Marky. said:

Don't see why he would have made a change at that time considering how good things were looking.

That's the crux of it.

Change what's working well despite Niko not contributing or change and it could potentially disrupt it as much as it could help us become even stronger.

For me, it was a player down unnecessarily and ultimately points lost as I think 11 contributors would've pushed us on to victory.

We'll never know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 31/12/2017 at 09:32, KeyserSoze said:

Shoosh you this is a Niko thread now, just leave it out will you 

:lol:

It’s ok, cos neither are contributing to the cause, so they’re perfectly interchangeable.

Just wish we had such versatility in playing matters.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dee9 said:

Totally disagree. Was a cracking player back in the day. Loved watching him on motd. 

 

If that kranjcar was playing in the spl you would realise just how far ahead he was.

So you’re basing his quality on highlights.

When you get the full 90 minutes, in the flesh, he looks more & more like a drunk stumbling around, trying to trap a balloon!

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

That's the crux of it.

Change what's working well despite Niko not contributing or change and it could potentially disrupt it as much as it could help us become even stronger.

For me, it was a player down unnecessarily and ultimately points lost as I think 11 contributors would've pushed us on to victory.

We'll never know.

Yeah, I think things were just looking good and had it looked more even, we would have brought on one of the two players warming up way earlier.

He only brought off Kranjcar after our attacking flurries died down a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’d be interesting to see/know if there was some mastermind plan behind keeping Krancjar on so long, i.e. that even though he contributed the net amount of hee haw, he was actually taking up a position that meant someone in the micks was pulled out of position or wasn’t able to do what they normally do but he was too much of a potential threat just to leave on his own. Or maybe I’ve just got too good an imagination and giving too much credit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CM 1234 said:

Maybe because Niko was blowing out his arse no? 

But was that affecting us? Was he even really? Taking the time to make a sub would have slowed it down massively. We were very much on top and if anything it was good game management by an inexperienced manager in my eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

That's the crux of it.

Change what's working well despite Niko not contributing or change and it could potentially disrupt it as much as it could help us become even stronger.

For me, it was a player down unnecessarily and ultimately points lost as I think 11 contributors would've pushed us on to victory.

We'll never know.

Not making a change because nothing's necessarily going wrong is classic Walter Smith style management.

We should've been pro active, realised at half time Niko wasn't working at all and got someone with some legs on

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Marky. said:

But was that affecting us? Was he even really? Taking the time to make a sub would have slowed it down massively. We were very much on top and if anything it was good game management by an inexperienced manager in my eyes.

Playing with a passenger wasn’t effecting us? The guy is fucking hopeless and shouldn’t be anywhere near our starting 11. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Marky. said:

But was that affecting us? Was he even really? Taking the time to make a sub would have slowed it down massively. We were very much on top and if anything it was good game management by an inexperienced manager in my eyes.

Thats up there in terms of nonsense I’ve read on here. 

It’s considered good management to leave  a player on the park for 20mins offering nothing other than blowing out of his arse because making the 1minute substitution to replace him would break up play or slow play down? 

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.   Restore formatting

  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.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 21 April 2024 14:00 Until 16:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hearts
      Hampden Park
      Scottish Cup

×
×
  • Create New...