Kris Boyd must stay!

[Del 667]

We will have to agree to to disagree. I suppose I am dreaming with what I want for the future of the Rangers team. It may be a very long time before we see attractive football played by fit players with a bit of technique at Ibrox.

(unless they are pumping us 4-1 in Europe)

What's that got to do with Boyd?

Manager picks the tactics, formation, personel.....this thread is about Boyd, and a new deal.

The man put's the ball in the back of the net like nobody else, at this moment in time, we aint going to get any better, and we don't have anything better at the club. He isn't on big wages, he's consistant.....even I can see that!

I have explained what it has to do with Boyd, imo the future style and quality of football we can play is dependant upon (among other things) the striker we have at the head of our attack. If that striker is Boyd then imo it will lessen our chances of being able to produce attractive, quick, attacking football.

For some reason you dont like replying to me but i will reply to you anyway again...

A football team is built from the defense forward...to be able to play good football you need to have defenders that are both capable and comofrtable on the ball. Of our full back 4 i would say we have 2, Bougherra and maybe Whittaker.

Then you need to have mobile, technically gifted players that are again comfortable on the ball but can spot a pass and have the technique to take a good first touch and play a 1-2 to link the play. Of all our midfield options i would say that only Mendes and Davis come into that category...maybe Edu and maybe Thomson but noone else even comes close.

There are 2 sections of the team that need be involved a lot more in the style of play than the strikers do, but football isnt about one specific area its about the balance of the team and IMO the reason we dont play attractive free flowing football isnt because we have Kris Boyd leading our attack, its because we dont have the defenders or the midfielders capable of playing that style of football.

You only need to watch 1 Rangers game to see how annoyed Boyd gets at the ball being lumped upto him from Weir and Papac etc!

Although you like to bring other factors into play, as Muff said, Kris Boyd is nowhere near the top of our worries list...and the only way he even makes it near the top is when you talk about him being left out the team or talk about his contract not being renewed!

[gsa 3,906]

We will have to agree to to disagree. I suppose I am dreaming with what I want for the future of the Rangers team. It may be a very long time before we see attractive football played by fit players with a bit of technique at Ibrox.

(unless they are pumping us 4-1 in Europe)

What's that got to do with Boyd?

Manager picks the tactics, formation, personel.....this thread is about Boyd, and a new deal.

The man put's the ball in the back of the net like nobody else, at this moment in time, we aint going to get any better, and we don't have anything better at the club. He isn't on big wages, he's consistant.....even I can see that!

I have explained what it has to do with Boyd, imo the future style and quality of football we can play is dependant upon (among other things) the striker we have at the head of our attack. If that striker is Boyd then imo it will lessen our chances of being able to produce attractive, quick, attacking football.

For some reason you dont like replying to me but i will reply to you anyway again...

A football team is built from the defense forward...to be able to play good football you need to have defenders that are both capable and comofrtable on the ball. Of our full back 4 i would say we have 2, Bougherra and maybe Whittaker.

Then you need to have mobile, technically gifted players that are again comfortable on the ball but can spot a pass and have the technique to take a good first touch and play a 1-2 to link the play. Of all our midfield options i would say that only Mendes and Davis come into that category...maybe Edu and maybe Thomson but noone else even comes close.

There are 2 sections of the team that need be involved a lot more in the style of play than the strikers do, but football isnt about one specific area its about the balance of the team and IMO the reason we dont play attractive free flowing football isnt because we have Kris Boyd leading our attack, its because we dont have the defenders or the midfielders capable of playing that style of football.

You only need to watch 1 Rangers game to see how annoyed Boyd gets at the ball being lumped upto him from Weir and Papac etc!

Although you like to bring other factors into play, as Muff said, Kris Boyd is nowhere near the top of our worries list...and the only way he even makes it near the top is when you talk about him being left out the team or talk about his contract not being renewed!

Nothing personal! When the professor is involved in debate I feel he deserves my full attention. You are right about it being the whole team rather than just the strikers but the point I am trying to make is that the team we have now will change. Weir won't be here beyond this season and Boughy looks like he will prob leave, especially if he has a good world cup. Wilson can pass the ball out from the back.I am not thinking about the here and now, I am thinking about the future team, next season and betyond.

[NOLUWDC 1]

Got to love an old Boyd debate.

[nvager 498]

We need KB to stay despite what gsa may think. he is far from perfect, but not that bad and scores goals for fun. Replacing him will be extremely difficult when you have little money unless Campbell can make it from the reserves.

[Bakbear 3,586]

What a bizarre debate, the OP is 100% correct.

I was a huge supporter of Boyd for a very long time and then his ongoing insipid, lazy, downright pathetic performances started to turn me off... He was overweight and looked like he was totally miserable and not enjoying his football at all. His attitude was shocking.

Since October he has totally changed, lost weight, working hard on trying to improve his game. It is interesting that he says doing his coaching badges might have had an impact? Maybe Ally is finally getting through to him? Maybe the prospect of leaving his boyhood heroes has been the wake-up call, whatever... he has really kicked on and may just be back on track to emulate Ally's scoring record

Don't know gsa and I am not making any judgements but he got stuck right in to both Boyd and Muff at the start of this debate and then tried to totally reframe the debate into one about Walter Smith and the rest of the team...

Boyd has vastly improved in the last 3 months? Yes or no?

Boyd, at a signing on fee of 400k has been a bargain? Yes or no?

Having Boyd sign on to a new contract based on current form would make more sense than bringing in untried, untested alternatives on the same or bigger wages. Yes or No?

Having a 3 Million rated player leave for free at the end of the season would be bad business. Yes or No?

My support of Boyd took a very long time to wane and will take a good bit more to win back, that he should get a new contract is not in doubt. However as Muff and others have said in the past, we have had false dawns before. But if this guy can maintain this level of performance and indeed continue the improvement then I hope he stays for the rest of his career

[Gaffbear 4,174]

6 months ago i would have said get him tae fuck but he has improved his all round game and he could get better and in my opinion we would be mad to let him go now..espacially as hardly anyone else is scoring......Miller's attempts on Saturday were abysmal and that's the norm with all our strikers bar Boyd.

[GovanFrontGers 1]

Agree 100% would be a scandal if he leaves.

[RM Monitor And Standards Officer 112,979]

qsa is an arrogant fucker and how hes lasted so long on this site is beyond me. He never replies to many threads other than a boyd one. Is henriks record slipping away hurting?

[Ryan_1 1,136]

I think I'll change the tune of this thread, and ask a question.

Now I am in the same boat as Muff regarding Boyd, but do we think that his performances will last?

[RM Monitor And Standards Officer 112,979]

I think I'll change the tune of this thread, and ask a question.

Now I am in the same boat as Muff regarding Boyd, but do we think that his performances will last?

i dont know but his goals will

[Muff 245]

I think I'll change the tune of this thread, and ask a question.

Now I am in the same boat as Muff regarding Boyd, but do we think that his performances will last?

Lasted longer than previous times, IMO. He has to keep it up, I just feel this time, he's finally realised what he's got to do - either that or he's at it, which I very much doubt.

Until a new owner comes in, and money is made available to buy players, then we are not going to get anyone better than Kris Boyd - Miller, Naismith, Velicka, Lafferty, Novo....are our other options, and some of them are horrific. Plus there are far more important areas needing addresses; RB, CB, LB, RM/W, LM/W, and I'd say we need a big target man. One who can hold up the ball, bring others into play, throw defences about, and chip in with goals - a Daniel Cousin type player.

Boyd has also done pretty well in the so-called bigger games, although he missed a number of good chances, his all round performances have been a lot better.

I used to think that if other players were played in hs position, then they'd take the chances aswell. Well I don't believe that to be the case any longer. Naismith has no composure infront of goal, Miller is not a goalscorer, Novo aint good enough, Velicka is injured, crap, and Kyle Lafferty lack's the very basics, and even if played up top, I doubt he's manage to bag half the chances Boyd does.

Kris Boyd is the best of a bad bunch, he's a goalscorer, and he's improving.

[Ryan_1 1,136]

I think I'll change the tune of this thread, and ask a question.

Now I am in the same boat as Muff regarding Boyd, but do we think that his performances will last?

Lasted longer than previous times, IMO. He has to keep it up, I just feel this time, he's finally realised what he's got to do - either that or he's at it, which I very much doubt.

Until a new owner comes in, and money is made available to buy players, then we are not going to get anyone better than Kris Boyd - Miller, Naismith, Velicka, Lafferty, Novo....are our other options, and some of them are horrific. Plus there are far more important areas needing addresses; RB, CB, LB, RM/W, LM/W, and I'd say we need a big target man. One who can hold up the ball, bring others into play, throw defences about, and chip in with goals - a Daniel Cousin type player.

Boyd has also done pretty well in the so-called bigger games, although he missed a number of good chances, his all round performances have been a lot better.

I used to think that if other players were played in hs position, then they'd take the chances aswell. Well I don't believe that to be the case any longer. Naismith has no composure infront of goal, Miller is not a goalscorer, Novo aint good enough, Velicka is injured, crap, and Kyle Lafferty lack's the very basics, and even if played up top, I doubt he's manage to bag half the chances Boyd does.

Kris Boyd is the best of a bad bunch, he's a goalscorer, and he's improving.

Agree totally, I just can't see him going back to his old ways - aslong as he is played week-in-week-out.

I wonder if Boyd would work with a target man next to him?

[outlaw69uk 123]

We will have to agree to to disagree. I suppose I am dreaming with what I want for the future of the Rangers team. It may be a very long time before we see attractive football played by fit players with a bit of technique at Ibrox.

(unless they are pumping us 4-1 in Europe)

What's that got to do with Boyd?

Manager picks the tactics, formation, personel.....this thread is about Boyd, and a new deal.

The man put's the ball in the back of the net like nobody else, at this moment in time, we aint going to get any better, and we don't have anything better at the club. He isn't on big wages, he's consistant.....even I can see that!

I have explained what it has to do with Boyd, imo the future style and quality of football we can play is dependant upon (among other things) the striker we have at the head of our attack. If that striker is Boyd then imo it will lessen our chances of being able to produce attractive, quick, attacking football.

Sorry to be rational, but, surely having a fantastic finsher on the end of this flowing attractive football would actually yield an end product, and, make it worthwhile? Or, do you aspire to having the kind of lovely footballing sides with zero end product such as, say, Tommy Burns had?

[outlaw69uk 123]

I think I'll change the tune of this thread, and ask a question.

Now I am in the same boat as Muff regarding Boyd, but do we think that his performances will last?

Lasted longer than previous times, IMO. He has to keep it up, I just feel this time, he's finally realised what he's got to do - either that or he's at it, which I very much doubt.

Until a new owner comes in, and money is made available to buy players, then we are not going to get anyone better than Kris Boyd - Miller, Naismith, Velicka, Lafferty, Novo....are our other options, and some of them are horrific. Plus there are far more important areas needing addresses; RB, CB, LB, RM/W, LM/W, and I'd say we need a big target man. One who can hold up the ball, bring others into play, throw defences about, and chip in with goals - a Daniel Cousin type player.

Boyd has also done pretty well in the so-called bigger games, although he missed a number of good chances, his all round performances have been a lot better.

I used to think that if other players were played in hs position, then they'd take the chances aswell. Well I don't believe that to be the case any longer. Naismith has no composure infront of goal, Miller is not a goalscorer, Novo aint good enough, Velicka is injured, crap, and Kyle Lafferty lack's the very basics, and even if played up top, I doubt he's manage to bag half the chances Boyd does.

Kris Boyd is the best of a bad bunch, he's a goalscorer, and he's improving.

I think that has been the gist of the Boyd debate through the ages, unless its GSA or PB, who just dislike him with no rational reason behind it, and, over time, we have sat and watched while he was benched, and, others failed to deliver time and time again, and now we have gotten to the point where I think most sane people can see his value now, ironically at a time when we may lose him.

[FlippinEck 3,844]

We will have to agree to to disagree. I suppose I am dreaming with what I want for the future of the Rangers team. It may be a very long time before we see attractive football played by fit players with a bit of technique at Ibrox.

(unless they are pumping us 4-1 in Europe)

What's that got to do with Boyd?

Manager picks the tactics, formation, personel.....this thread is about Boyd, and a new deal.

The man put's the ball in the back of the net like nobody else, at this moment in time, we aint going to get any better, and we don't have anything better at the club. He isn't on big wages, he's consistant.....even I can see that!

I have explained what it has to do with Boyd, imo the future style and quality of football we can play is dependant upon (among other things) the striker we have at the head of our attack. If that striker is Boyd then imo it will lessen our chances of being able to produce attractive, quick, attacking football.

Who played up front in our two 4-1 "pumpings"?

[boomershat-trick 0]

I too have been branded a Boyd Hater, but I can tell you something right now; I am fucking delighted to see Boyd performing as a footballer and a goalscorer. Thats the exact sort of player every club needs. Big congrats on the 150 big man, not lets beat that wee rhat's record!

And to add to the discussion, it was confirmed today at the AGM that Boyd is in contract talks.

This is good news. Only 7 more to go big man

[outlaw69uk 123]

I too have been branded a Boyd Hater, but I can tell you something right now; I am fucking delighted to see Boyd performing as a footballer and a goalscorer. Thats the exact sort of player every club needs. Big congrats on the 150 big man, not lets beat that wee rhat's record!

And to add to the discussion, it was confirmed today at the AGM that Boyd is in contract talks.

Absolutely matey, and, hardly a surprise. Seems only about 2 people in the world, both on here, dont want Boyd at the club.

[ShootSpeedKillLight 0]

I'd be interested to see stats from this season of how many goals we've scored with Boyd starting, and how many we've scored without him starting. I know in the past we've averaged slightly higher without him in the team, but I reckon the opposite will be true this season.

[StuartM6 279]

got a question for u gsa, Would it not make more sence to punt kyle lafferty who is on 17kpw and is far more less productive than kris boyd?. Another question would it make more economical sence to punt lafferty for 1.5-2 million at sum point in the future (preferably soon) than kris boyd for only 500k due to his contract expireing?, if he turned down 36kpw- not confirmed but i 2 heard that, surely he would do it again.

[Jimbo. 952]

got a question for u gsa, Would it not make more sence to punt kyle lafferty who is on 17kpw and is far more less productive than kris boyd?. Another question would it make more economical sence to punt lafferty for 1.5-2 million at sum point in the future (preferably soon) than kris boyd for only 500k due to his contract expireing?, if he turned down 36kpw- not confirmed but i 2 heard that, surely he would do it again.

Who on earth would buy lafferty from us now?!

He's struggling in the SPL, what EPL team would take a punt on him now?

[outlaw69uk 123]

got a question for u gsa, Would it not make more sence to punt kyle lafferty who is on 17kpw and is far more less productive than kris boyd?. Another question would it make more economical sence to punt lafferty for 1.5-2 million at sum point in the future (preferably soon) than kris boyd for only 500k due to his contract expireing?, if he turned down 36kpw- not confirmed but i 2 heard that, surely he would do it again.

Who on earth would buy lafferty from us now?!

He's struggling in the SPL, what EPL team would take a punt on him now?

Thats not the point though is it

Then again, at the same time, see Charlie Adam, Chris Burke, Ross McCormack for examples of players apparently not good enough for us, yet turning it on down there.

[keithgersbear 3,225]

He needs to stay because he scores goals. Simple as that. Can't win games if no one is their to put the ball in the back of the net.

[Bradfield 35]

I'd be interested to see stats from this season of how many goals we've scored with Boyd starting, and how many we've scored without him starting. I know in the past we've averaged slightly higher without him in the team, but I reckon the opposite will be true this season.

I'd always be cautious about those kind of figures. I'm no statistician, but I don't think you can judge Boyd's goalscoring worth to the team based on how many goals we score when he doesn't play. For example, Boyd hasn't featured at all in only three of our last 50 league games; of those three games we scored 7 goals (4 vs. Celtic, 3 vs. Hibs, both away). However, we failed to scored against Celtic in the third of those three games. It would be easy to argue that the first two games prove we score more goals away against the likes of Celtic without Boyd, but we have so little evidence of how many goals we'd score over the course of any prolonged period without him that the data becomes a little skewed.

[outlaw69uk 123]

I'd be interested to see stats from this season of how many goals we've scored with Boyd starting, and how many we've scored without him starting. I know in the past we've averaged slightly higher without him in the team, but I reckon the opposite will be true this season.

I'd always be cautious about those kind of figures. I'm no statistician, but I don't think you can judge Boyd's goalscoring worth to the team based on how many goals we score when he doesn't play. For example, Boyd hasn't featured at all in only three of our last 50 league games; of those three games we scored 7 goals (4 vs. Celtic, 3 vs. Hibs, both away). However, we failed to scored against Celtic in the third of those three games. It would be easy to argue that the first two games prove we score more goals away against the likes of Celtic without Boyd, but we have so little evidence of how many goals we'd score over the course of any prolonged period without him that the data becomes a little skewed.

Indeed. Then again, surely the simple view, would be, count how many goals we scored over a season, and, subtract how many he scores, then you see what the entire rest of the team does

[ShootSpeedKillLight 0]

I'd be interested to see stats from this season of how many goals we've scored with Boyd starting, and how many we've scored without him starting. I know in the past we've averaged slightly higher without him in the team, but I reckon the opposite will be true this season.

I'd always be cautious about those kind of figures. I'm no statistician, but I don't think you can judge Boyd's goalscoring worth to the team based on how many goals we score when he doesn't play. For example, Boyd hasn't featured at all in only three of our last 50 league games; of those three games we scored 7 goals (4 vs. Celtic, 3 vs. Hibs, both away). However, we failed to scored against Celtic in the third of those three games. It would be easy to argue that the first two games prove we score more goals away against the likes of Celtic without Boyd, but we have so little evidence of how many goals we'd score over the course of any prolonged period without him that the data becomes a little skewed.

It wouldn't prove anything either way, but I think it would suggest there's been a big difference between this season and last season.