Jump to content

Is Boab right?


nvager
 Share

Recommended Posts

McCulloch is strong, but lacks pace and is cumbersome. He is never a winger/midfielder. He is a striker.

Is Boab right and do we play much better and more fluid football when Lee is NOT in the team?

Correct me if I'm wrong but Lee was also absent against Motherwell when we played poorly.

So no, Boab is not right if that's the logic you're using :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have mixed feelings towards mcCullogh. I realise we may well be more fluent without him. I do think he does an unsung job for us both defensively and physically. Earlier in the season it was obvious Wattie didnt fancy playing 2 "weaklings" in the same team. Rarely did he start with more than 1 from Beasley, Novo and Naismith.

Link to post
Share on other sites

McCulloch is strong, but lacks pace and is cumbersome. He is never a winger/midfielder. He is a striker.

Is Boab right and do we play much better and more fluid football when Lee is NOT in the team?

Good morning Nvager,it could be,but I still figure we play only as well as our captain plays. :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

McCulloch should never play wide for us ever again (unless it's a second half plan B or C tactic), and he should only ever start as a striker. Against Celtic, he should be on the bench for me.

Same team as today. Cousin up top, but for goodness sake, he needs quick support, and that means Burke, Naismith or in future the likes of Novo and Beasley. Not Adam, McCulloch or Whittaker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon Boab - lets hear your viewpoint.

I think its not that clear cut, but tend to think Boab is more right than wrong.

Sorry Nva but thought I'd stay out the thread for a little while.

I think the reason we've played better Football without McCulloch in the team is that there has been less of an option to play the long ball (upto LM) and IMO the withdrawal of the 'long ball' option has led to our play and style actually to be more effective and entertaining. While some would argue that the long ball is also effective I'd argue it often wasn't/isn't as the 2nd ball wasn't being won more often than not.

And with personnel like Naismith, Burke and Buffel we have been 'forced' to play more on the deck but it has also been effective and entertaining.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many reasons we played better football with more fluency today. The absence of McCulloch on the left might be one of them, but the main reason is that Hibs were absolutely f*cking p*sh. Lets not get carried away by the performance, Hibs could barely string two passes together. They looked lost, lazy and disjointed, which made things a hell of a lot easier for us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Boab right and do we play much better and more fluid football when Lee is NOT in the team?

Of course we do.

McCulloch, and Adam to an extent, gives players the easy option when looking for a pass. They simply punt it up the park and hope for the best.

Without them we are forced to keep it on the carpet and thus play more attractive football.

However, I think we can all agree that results come before performances, and if Walter Smith believes we have more chance of getting a win with McCulloch in the team then who are we to argue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

McCulloch is strong, but lacks pace and is cumbersome. He is never a winger/midfielder. He is a striker.

Is Boab right and do we play much better and more fluid football when Lee is NOT in the team?

EXCUSE ME ( <_< ) but i started a thread on this last week before my fellow independence follower!

But Boab is right!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we played better football without McCulloch and surely now WS must see that his best contributiuon comes when he plays through the middle.

However I think that the inclusion of Hemdani over Adam played an equally, or perhaps a more significant part in how we played today.

Look at Adams characteristics: slow, lack's pace and ability, poor temprament and a lack of awareness.

On the flip side look at Hemdani's charateristics: intelligent, cultured, aware of his surrondings and experienced.

Our play today almost mirrored Hemdani's style (intelligent and cultured) wheras in recent weeks it's been more Adamesque (slow and predictable)

Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon Boab - lets hear your viewpoint.

I think its not that clear cut, but tend to think Boab is more right than wrong.

Sorry Nva but thought I'd stay out the thread for a little while.

I think the reason we've played better Football without McCulloch in the team is that there has been less of an option to play the long ball (upto LM) and IMO the withdrawal of the 'long ball' option has led to our play and style actually to be more effective and entertaining. While some would argue that the long ball is also effective I'd argue it often wasn't/isn't as the 2nd ball wasn't being won more often than not.

And with personnel like Naismith, Burke and Buffel we have been 'forced' to play more on the deck but it has also been effective and entertaining.

Agree as usual mate!

With Lee not playing the easy option of punting the ball long isnt there and so it forces us to play the ball on the deck. If Adam or Cousin play then the option is there but it seems like every time McCulloch plays we play it long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we played better football without McCulloch and surely now WS must see that his best contributiuon comes when he plays through the middle.

However I think that the inclusion of Hemdani over Adam played an equally, or perhaps a more significant part in how we played today.

Look at Adams characteristics: slow, lack's pace and ability, poor temprament and a lack of awareness.

On the flip side look at Hemdani's charateristics: intelligent, cultured, aware of his surrondings and experienced.

Our play today almost mirrored Hemdani's style (intelligent and cultured) wheras in recent weeks it's been more Adamesque (slow and predictable)

Very good point DBBTB and one that I agree with. Excellent response IMO.

(tu)

Link to post
Share on other sites

McCulloch is strong, but lacks pace and is cumbersome. He is never a winger/midfielder. He is a striker.

Is Boab right and do we play much better and more fluid football when Lee is NOT in the team?

EXCUSE ME ( <_< ) but i started a thread on this last week before my fellow independence follower!

But Boab is right!

And i started threads on this after each of the last 4 or 5 games

But am happy for Boab to get the credit! lol

In all fairness, there have been a few of us on here who have been saying the same thing for a while now

2nd goal today, 16 passes before Cousin hit the ball home - the ball never left the deck once. Shows that we DO have the players to play the game the proper way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tide has certainly has certainly turned into in-difference to McCulloch. Rightly or wrongly.

Nvager is right, I've been saying Lee is not the answer in midfield since the first competitve game of the season. http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?...t&p=1957185

People accused me of a witch-hunt and that was annoying as I just see it as seeing something - wrong - earlier rather than later.

Burke is impressing, so is Naismith and Novo can play wing so it will be interesting to see how often Lee plays from now on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...