Looks like Gilks starting Sunday

[Big Al 55 9,324]

1 minute ago, Turnberry18 said:

Or you don't do it in the first place, at least not formally.

Its common place, was obvious from the beginning the had made that choice and so good on him for sticking by his word when it really matters. Its easy to promise something when.it doesnt matter, it takes balls to keep yor word when it comes to the crunch.

[Big Al 55 9,324]

1 minute ago, K.A.I said:

Then that's absurd management in my eyes.

Again, does this mean Hodson is going to play ahead of Wallace or Fod? if so do we even want to win/taking this game seriously? not a dig at Hodson, I like him but I'm talking about the principle.

Has Hodson played every cup game? If so I'd fully expect him to start. I assume you mean Tav by the way.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

Just now, Big Al II said:

Its common place, was obvious from the beginning the had made that choice and so good on him for sticking by his word when it really matters. Its easy to promise something when.it doesnt matter, it takes balls to keep yor word when it comes to the crunch.

I would agree with him sticking by his word, I just hope no such promise has been made though.

[Bad Robot 21,513]

11 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

Good shout but I think the wording is a bit misleading mate (not intentional by yourself tho) ... it's the word deserving because even though I think the strongest team should play including the goalkeeper ... even I can see there's an argument for him deserving to play due to playing the rest of the cup games.

It should maybe just be who should be number 1 on Sunday.

Does this also mean Hodson will play ahead of Wallace or Tav?

I think this can be done with a keeper but outfield players to me are different as they need to be playing regular albeit I think DW will get a start.

[Dietspam 733]

Gilks is the cup Goalie. Same situation as McGregor and Alexander. 

[Inigo 32,733]

25 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

Nah not for me.

Nothing against Gilks at all. He's more than capable back-up but remember that's what he is (back-up)

Should be playing strongest team always - it's Celtic we are playing not East Stirling ffs.

I don't think Gilks will let us down per-say but this is the type of shit Warburton does himself no favours with.

I agree. I think if he's been told he's the LC keeper, then he has to be played, but that kind of arrangement shouldn't be made in the first place.

[markem 7,327]

23 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

Nah not for me.

Nothing against Gilks at all. He's more than capable back-up but remember that's what he is (back-up)

Should be playing strongest team always - it's Celtic we are playing not East Stirling ffs.

I don't think Gilks will let us down per-say but this is the type of shit Warburton does himself no favours with.

Quite a few posts on here a couple of weeks ago that basically said MW is a liar if he doesn't give Gills the jersey.  I'm not saying you are wrong, it does however highlight that MW has a tough gig pleasing the collective support. 

[Big Al 55 9,324]

16 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said:

I would agree with him sticking by his word, I just hope no such promise has been made though.

I dont have a problem with a manager saying to a keeper Fod is my number one for now but you will play all the cup games. After all if he makes a cunt of it the manager has a reason to change his mind, Gilks hasnt let him down, dropping Gilks now would undermine MW. So live or die he sticks by his principals and his judgement so

[Turnberry18 3,204]

Just now, Big Al II said:

I dont have a problemwith a manager saying to a keeper Fod is my number one for now but you will play all the cup games. After all if he makes a cu t of it the manager has a reason to change his mind, Gilks hasnt let him down, dropping Gilks now would undermine MW. So live or die he sticks by his principals and his judgement so

Just one more thing, do we know for sure such an arrangement exists?

[Turnberry18 3,204]

2 minutes ago, Inigo said:

I agree. I think if he's been told he's the LC keeper, then he has to be played, but that kind of arrangement shouldn't be made in the first place.

I agree with this completely, I think it's absurd for a club in our position to be promising anyone a guaranteed starting position.

[K.A.I 36,183]

2 minutes ago, markem said:

Quite a few posts on here a couple of weeks ago that basically said MW is a liar if he doesn't give Gills the jersey.  I'm not saying you are wrong, it does however highlight that MW has a tough gig pleasing the collective support. 

I just want what I've always wanted and that's him to play his strongest team. I've said a lot that part of his problem is that I don't even think he knows his strongest team himself - especially in defence which is worrying.

We need to establish our best players for every position and develop a real core and understanding. It's obvious we don't have that and a lot of people just can't see it.

[Dietspam 733]

1 minute ago, Turnberry18 said:

Just one more thing, do we know for sure such an arrangement exists?

Pretty much

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/14669830.Matt_Gilks__I_need_to_make_the_most_of_cup_outings_to_give_me_the_edge_in_battle_for_Rangers_No_1_jersey/

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/14756776.Cup_keeper_Gilks_hoping_for_chance_in_the_Old_Firm_spotlight/?commentSort=score

[Deanzmeanzheinz 4,312]

Gilks or Wes? That's one of the lesser dilemnas this Sunday.  

[Big Al 55 9,324]

3 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said:

Just one more thing, do we know for sure such an arrangement exists?

Absolutely not, other than it seems commonplace south of the border.

[The Mailman 330]

14 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

Yeah when McGregor was injured and he was called upon. Not the same thing here.

Mcgregor was fit when he was benched against st mirren in the league cup final . I like you have nothing against Gilks but if he plays and makes an error then Warburton will come under scrutiny .

[K.A.I 36,183]

Just now, The Mailman said:

Mcgregor was fit when he was benched against st mirren in the league cup final . I like you have nothing against Gilks but if he plays and makes an error then Warburton will come under scrutiny .

Yeah absolutely. It's a big call and he's putting himself under needless pressure IMO.

I know Gilks won't let us down but Fod is a superior goalkeeper. Imagine Walter Smith took the same route with Andy Goram and a back-up during his Celtic games the reason I say this is that Goram would make absolutel class saves against them that gave us points and cup wins .. that's the difference with a superior goalkeeper and one who simply "won't let you down"

Really not happy about this at all and it's nothing to personal to do with Gilks at all.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

It will be a brave decision, without a doubt, if he drops Foderingham with this defence getting its game together. Two cleans sheets and you drop the first choice GK? All the best with that one. If the manager is keeping his word to the player then well done, but no such promise should be given to any player at the start of a campaign.

[Big Al 55 9,324]

6 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said:

I agree with this completely, I think it's absurd for a club in our position to be promising anyone a guaranteed starting position.

Guaranteed, based on performances. Its hardly carte blanche to play every game regardless of how shite you are...come on everthing isnt so black and white.

[Poetry_In_Blue 1,043]

Gilks has done absolutely nothing wrong in the cup games so far so therefore he has done nothing that gives a reason to drop him.  As for comments about back up goalie, no he isn't, he is competition to Fod.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

Just now, Big Al II said:

Guaranteed, based on performances. Its hardly carte blanche to play every game regardless of how shite you are...come on everthing isnt so black and white.

I appreciate your point, but he would only have a bad performance by us getting put out the competition.

[mclovin9091 1,405]

If Gilks is the cup keeper he should play, bit of a slap in the face and basically a "I trust you but not in the big games" Good way to get people to leave the club.

If that was never part of the arrangement then the best keeper should play.

[Poetry_In_Blue 1,043]

2 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said:

It will be a brave decision, without a doubt, if he drops Foderingham with this defence getting its game together. Two cleans sheets and you drop the first choice GK? All the best with that one. If the manager is keeping his word to the player then well done, but no such promise should be given to any player at the start of a campaign.

How many goals have we conceded in the Cup with Gilks playing?  That is literally with the same defenders playing.

I will be more interested to see who plays at Left Back seeing as Hodson has played a few of the cup games.

[Big Al 55 9,324]

2 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said:

I appreciate your point, but he would only have a bad performance by us getting put out the competition.

Thats not true, not against lesser teams. Now it really amyter in the latter stages..yes. but thats why it would have been easy for MW to capitulate. He hasnt and i respect him for that. Time will tell if he was right.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

3 minutes ago, Poetry_In_Blue said:

How many goals have we conceded in the Cup with Gilks playing?  That is literally with the same defenders playing.

I will be more interested to see who plays at Left Back seeing as Hodson has played a few of the cup games.

The stats don't tell everything though, and this is the strongest opponents we are ever going to play this season. For me, that means the strongest 11. This is a game that if we win it could give us a trophy; it's too big a game to drop our first choice gk. This is the League Cup, which is renowned in the club's history. It's a very important game.

[Camshy 812]

From what I have seen he looks a good shot.stopper but distribution needs a little work.......wouldnt be disappointed if he was in goal for this one.