robinsonmetcalf

it was sad to see a young boy aged 8 name of Nigel Pickup ... his life in front of him taken away just by attending a match just to see a football matcj. I wonder if his father or whoever was looking after him died or not .... tragic ... I was listening to the match on the radio and like everone else had no idea ...

celtic have conceded just 4 goals away compared to our 9.

did walter play any differently at parkhead? if he didnt I cant believe that he chose different tactics here .... hence it must be down to the players? I seem to remember that he played miller up front on his own then? so which is it? did he play the same at parkhead or did he not? and if the players didnt can we really say this is what walter wanted? you seem to assume, yes. but if not it is down to the players? celtic certainly did not deserve to win 2-0 but to be fair perhaps their defence has improved since we last played them. I dont know.

did we play any differently when we won 3-1 at parkhead?

I find it peculiar for skye to be doing this. if bbc scotland did this i would have thought they had had a brainstorm. perhaps it's what expected of skye and rupert murdoch since they know nothing about history and cannot compete with the BRITISH broadcasting company in terms of standards. It also says something about Lennon since I would have thought very badly of Walter Smith, Dick Advocaat, and Graeme Sounness had they done such a thing on the back of a victory of ours at Parkhead. what can I say about Lennon except he is frankly extremely empty headed - especially on the back of his neddish walk toward and acclaim of the Celtic support (which also I cant imagine Walter doing at Parkhead).

didnt look class to me they were stuggling against us for the first half last nite and it could easily have been worse for them and our side is far from quality True mate, but they just had a poor 45 mins, can happen to any team. McGregor still had to make a couple of good saves in the first half. In the 2nd half they cut us open easily and their finishing was deadly. Fabiano would get a game for most teams in Europe, and they had £10m players sittin on the bench! we had to play at the top of our game for 45 minutes to hold them. what happened in the second half was simply we could not sustain our effort in terms of stamina. then the difference in ability showed.

coral: celtic 4/5 to win the league now rangers 11/10

the fear is not nine-in-a-row. as walter says 4 doesnt impy 9 which is a whole difference level of domination. it is the implications of the presumed £30 million debt which is the greater worry and the implications for this if we dont secure the champions league group stage. We all hope that something will come of the two-tier premier league proposal (suggestion). Rangers (like Celtic) are a scottish institution and I would hope that any government committed to the union would put its considerable weight behind the proposal if things got desperate financially for us (just as it did on a much greater scale for the Royal Bank of Scotland).

Here's the obvious point to do with the future - which has nothing to do with the past. Walter Smith will not go on forever. Rangers have no money, will have no money in the foreseeable future barring major investment which looks unlikely. What will we do in that situation? The answer should be to do what Murray did at the time in hiring PLG: take on a coach of european or international status (no reason why he cant be scottish) who can coach a team of players of roughly medium ability and get them a team to play at a level that is greater than the sum of their parts. For that is the standard of players we can afford. But we would have to give the coach time - which is what the highly friable Rangers support (the term was often used of the Celtic support in their days of crisis but is now equally appropriate for us) did not do when Le Guen was coach. Rangers supporters should wake up and smell the coffee. There is no money now or in the foreseeable future: Murray knows even spending some of his own is not going to make much of a dent on the gap between Rangers and the top sides in the EPL or europe; investors are not going to happen - investors who are rangers supporters are still investors who are not a charity for rangers. We should learn from the PLG experience and if we are lucky enough to hire someone of similar status (unlikely after that fiasco) recognize that there will be teething difficulties and give the person time. What happened this season over PLG was disgraceful But will we do that?

The Rangers supporters who felt depressed about PLG's departure - I include myself here - are in my mind people who saw the writing on the wall as regards future investment in the standard of player Rangers could afford to buy. As long as we were to remain in the SPL the quality of player we bought in the past would be for the forseeable future a thing of the past. Murray must have watched the dross that McLeish served up was not merely McLeish’s fault (if it was at all) but at worst a combination of player and coach. Given the financial regime there was - and could not be (failing some reckless investor!) - a step up in quality. What to do? Vary the other factor: the coach. Bring in an acclaimed coach who could do what McLeish could not do: produce gold out of relatively mediocre players (players who would not be bought by any leading premier league team). In Murray's mind there was no alternative - there is no big money to spend nor will there be it seems (WS will buy the same standard pf player as PLG and he will be berated when as will happen some of them flatter to deceive or simply cannot play football to the required standard - so we will be left with the same standard of player barring the odd miracle here and there). Back to the point: Murray's plan was that PLG would take an ordinary bunch of players and get them playing TOGETHER to their maximum potential (achieve for example the kind of results that Rosenborg achieved at one time - beating teams like us who were at the time mucher richer clubs). He clearly did not expect that our results would put our CL place in jeopardy but still persevered with the notion that the team would come good. he was willing to give PLG time to achieve this - and barring real financial pressure brought on by such failure - would have persevered even had we not qualifed for the CL at the end of the year. To repeat: the only other alternative given the tight financial situation was to go back to the McLeish era (it is no coincidence I think that McL took over from WS at Scotland and vice-versa at Rangers). And I for one agree here: I would have given PLG 3 years even had we finished 3rd or 4th (even 6th as someone else suggested was impossible). Murray's bold plan might indeed have failed. We dont know. Some people clearly believe it had already failed. Their view may have turned out to be right. But Murray and others believed that PLG should have been given time because the alternative was simply unending mediocrity (under any coach of McL's ilk). This is what Murray and PLG thought that BF failed to understand -- along with KB, and PB, and perhaps AMcG. BF thought it was just about a game of football on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon. He couldnt see that there was no alternative to giving PLG absolute authority to make decision even when he disagree and even when he, BF, thought that these players were not good enough (in this he is right but to repeat: no alternative) and that he had to do their job for them (has that changed under WS?: note BF asking for [non-existent] funds to be released in the summer for WS to buy new - and much better - players. it is not going to happen). Had Richard Gough been the captain he would have grasped the bigger picture: that the alternative was perhaps the dark. This I guess is the reason PLG had a go at BF's questionable intelligence: it appeared he could not see the bigger picture (and I presume he thought the same of KB). With the departure of PLG Murray knew that his great plan had failed. He knows it might have failed anyway. We will never know. But he knew the certain alternative was a variation on the theme of McL. So he has lost his appetite for the future because at the present time there isnt one - or at least not one that recalls the halcyon days of the past. He knows that the best Rangers can do is win the SPL or ensure that they qualify for the CL every year and maximise their income at the group stages. But beyond that Rangers as a name on the European scene will gradually recede. WS knows he cannot work miracles with the players he has and he has no doubt that he is not going to be able to buy much better (he knows the reality behind Murray's recent statement on the strategy that Rangers will follow in the medium- if not long-term future). He also knows that unless we can vary the other significant factor in producing a great Rangers side - the quality of player - we will remain above the hearts and the hibs and the aberdeens but not much else.

Hmmm, now tell me there is not another personal vendetta? do you go through EVERY result, and disect the oppoisition starting line up and compare it too others? Pathetic to try and state what you just did.. Embaressing.... No, Hearts are in fact the only SPL team who Rangers have played 2 times at home and 2 times away and were specificaLLY cited for that purpose to make the stats comparable (well except that hearts were without 2/3 of their best players vs WS) once again naivety personified Don't know much if your saying that mate. 3 at home 1 away. Geez ur right my friend, So it makes PLG's results even better, he had to play them away :Animation44: Here is my highly conjectural reading of the situation. The Rangers supporters who felt depressed about PLG's departure - I include myself here - are in my mind people who saw the writing on the wall as regards future investment in the standard of player. As long as we were to remain in the SPL the quality of player we bought in the past would be for the forseeable future a thing of the past. Murray must have watched the dross that McLeish served up was not merely his fault (if it was at all) but at worst a combination of player and coach. Given the financial regime there was - and could not be (failing some reckless investor!) - a step up in quality. What to do? Vary the other factor: the coach. Bring in an acclaimed coach and strategian (is there such a word?) who could do what McLeish could not do: produce gold out of relatively mediocre players (players who would not be bought by any leading premier league team). In Murray's mind there was no alternative - there is no big money to spend nor will there be it seems (WS will buy the same standard pf player as PLG and he will be berated when as will happen some of them flatter to deceive or simply cannot play football to the required standard - so we will be left with the same standard of player barring the odd miracle here and there). Back to the point: Murray's plan was that PLG would take an ordinary bunch of players and get them playing TOGETHER to their maximum potential (achieve for example the kind of results that Rosenborg achieved at one time - beating teams like us who were at the time mucher richer clubs). He clearly did not expect that our results would put our CL place in jeopardy but still persevered with the notion that the team would come good. he was willing to give PLG time to achieve this - and barring real financial pressure brought on by such failure - would have persevered even had we not qualifed for the CL at the end of the year. To repeat: the only other alternative given the tight financial situation was to go back to the McLeish era (it is no coincidence I think that McL took over from WS at Scotland and vice-versa at Rangers). And I for one agree here: I would have given PLG 3 years even had we finished 3rd or 4th (even 6th as someone else suggested was impossible). Murray's bold plan might indeed have failed. We dont know. Some people clearly believe it had already failed. Their view may have turned out to be right. But Murray and others believed that PLG should have been given time because the alternative was simply unending mediocrity (under any coach of McL's ilk). This is what Murray and PLG thought that BF failed to understand -- along with KB, and PB, and perhaps AMcG. BF thought it was just about a game of football on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon. He couldnt see that there was no alternative to giving PLG absolute authority to make decision even when he disagree and even when he, BF, thought that these players were not good enough (in this he is right but to repeat: no alternative) and that he had to do their job for them (has that changed under WS?: note BF asking for [non-existent] funds to be released in the summer for WS to buy new - and much better - players. it is not going to happen). Had Richard Gough been the captain he would have grasped the bigger picture: that the alternative was perhaps the dark ('the bright day is done and we are for the dark' Shakespeare, Cymbeline). This I guess is the reason PLG had a go at BF's questionable intelligence: it appeared he could not see the bigger picture (and I presume he thought the same of KB). With the departure of PLG Murray knew that his great plan had failed. He knows it might have failed anyway. We will never know. But he knew the certain alternative was a variation on the theme of McL. So he has lost his appetite for the future because at the present time there isnt one - or at least not one that recalls the halcyon days of the past. He knows that the best Rangers can do is a) win the SPL every year and B) ensure that they qualify for the CL every year and maximise their income at the group stages. But beyond that Rangers as a name on the european scene will gradually recede. WS knows he cannot work miracles with the players he has and he has no doubt that he is not going to be able to buy much better (he knows the reality behind Murray's recent statement on the strategy that Rangers will follow in the medium- if not long-term future). He also knows that unless we can vary the other significant factor in producing a great Rangers side - the quality of player - we will remain above the hearts and the hibs and the aberdeens but not much else. it is interesting to note that WS has tried apply some leverage to the present situation regarding sectarianism in the form of holding out the carrot of a european league (protestant sectarians not wanted I presume). For that might be one of the few ways - barring the miracle of joining the EPL - out of the tight financial straits we find ourselves in and will go on finding ourselves in. Only if we can increase our income significantly could we buy a better class of player. At the present time we are stuck with the kind of player we have. The other alternative of taking non-stars and coaching them to a level beyond their individual abilities has all but gone.

Yes it is strange that some people look back to NIAR as exemplifying the most successful football Rangers played over the last twenty years. When Murray hired advocaat he said that it was in order to take Rangers to another level. By this he meant that Rangers' record in Europe under WS had been extremely poor even with NIAR (even with Gazza and Laudrup - think Juventus and Ajax to name but two [Juventus hammered us]). And Advocaat did do this. But now our ambitions are once again to emulate the success of WS's team in the nineties. ie a step down from the standard set by WS's successor. Unfortunately given the present flow of income into Rangers - whic is no different from what it was under Souness and Smith - is no longer capable of competing in a market place inflated by Rupert Murdoch's money: we simply cannot now buy some of the best English players that we could in the past eg Terry Butcher. So perhaps our ambitions are limited to the domestic game.

It's not a question of hating Boyd. But who would disagree with this assessment? "Got precious little service and that's what he lives for." [Fair enough] But it is this latter comment which if true is worrying: "But made a mess of one chance before half-time and allowed his marker to get in front of him too many times, something which did nothing to cool the temper of assistant manager Ally McCoist."

If and when I see Rangers play under Walter Smith the way we played against Hibs in the first half at Ibrox when we won 3-0 then I will change my mind regarding what was possible under PLG. The fact we didnt play like that on anything like a regular basis (frankly an understatement) - except in Europe - doesnt change the fact that there was potential under PLG. The reasons we didnt play to potential I think can be explained by other things that were going on at Ibrox .... I recall watching Rangers win 3-0 against Dundee United at Ibrox when the football was frankly tripe. A number of people I know were inclined to want to throw in their season ticket because of what was being served up under Alec McLeish. what we might expect to see is more of the same.

I think there are a number of supporters who were sickened by recent events. we want 11 scots - people who will play for the jersey (and where are Forfar Athletic insofar as they haved 11 scots playing for them?) we tried foreign coaches and it didnt work (Advocaat didnt work?). Boyd is a proven goalscorer ... yes I can see the English Premier League banging at the door for him .... he could get a run - and I mean a run - in the Championship but that is about it. It is really just twaddle and not worth responding to. The mentality of Scotland is lamentable. The idea of an independent scotland with a bunch of people who could not think their way out of a wet paper bag. While I'm at it: that is what the scottish parliament is - one mutual appreciation of mediocrity society - poeple who could not run a sweetie shop. The whole financial services in Edinburgh would up sticks in the night if we became independent. But the chattering classes go on about a release of cultural energy (Mike Russell, Elaine C Smith - what a joke) What happened at Ibrox is symptomatic of our country at large. Anyone who is really intelligent leaves - like Paul Le Guen. No one will touch us with a bargepole after Walter departs. Perhaps we can get John Lambie ... So in answer to your question. Walter will have no more money than Paul Le Guen. The difference is that where there was in the long term a chance for free-flowing footbal under Le Guen there is little chance of that under Walter. Walter will have rangers playing the way scotland played under him. Well-organized and giving little away - but that is all. If that is what people want then they can have it. But forget Europe and inventiveness. For people with short memories, even with money, Walter did very little there. Europe is over.