Cousin or Boyd

[BlueSuedeSambas 54,254]

In nearly every Daniel Cousin thread that comes up you see people saying Boyd is better and in every Boyd thread that comes up you see people saying that Cousin is better.

It's an argumenet that divides our fans no ends and it almost comes across that our fans feel that it needs to be a case of either-or and both of them is not an option.

However Walter has shown in recent weeks that he is probably going to alter his formation between a 4-4-2 and a 4-5-1. We have a huge backlog of fixtures and not all of the games are going to be easy so I predict this trend will continue.

Now if that is the case then surely there is the possibility of a fairly regular place available to both of them.

Now IMO Cousin is undoubtly better in that horribly diffficult lone strikers role, whereas most will agree that Boyd is better playing with a more mobile partner as the predator in a 4-4-2 formation.

There is not enough certainty around either player, Cousin's long term future and Boyds all round ability, for us to even consider building a side around them, so why can we not adopt a policy of utilising them depending on the circumstances?

We do it enough with players like Naismith, Novo, McCulloch, Darcheville and even Adam. Why should these two be any different?

You can never have enough options when you are challenging on as many fronts as we are and I don't see why Cousin (providing his move to Fulham doesn't go ahead) and Boyd cannot both play an equally vital role in bringing home 52, as oposed to one taking a backseat to the other.

[blueben_d 40]

I thought you were about to suggest them both in a 4-4-2 *shudders*

[Jimenez 1]

Because when it comes to the bigger games Smith will ultimately go with 4-5-1

These are the games fans find an extra bit of passion for

So it boils down to a debate of who is the better man for that job

[jbm26896 995]

In nearly every Daniel Cousin thread that comes up you see people saying Boyd is better and in every Boyd thread that comes up you see people saying that Cousin is better.

It's an argumenet that divides our fans no ends and it almost comes across that our fans feel that it needs to be a case of either-or and both of them is not an option.

However Walter has shown in recent weeks that he is probably going to alter his formation between a 4-4-2 and a 4-5-1. We have a huge backlog of fixtures and not all of the games are going to be easy so I predict this trend will continue.

Now if that is the case then surely there is the possibility of a fairly regular place available to both of them.

Now IMO Cousin is undoubtly better in that horribly diffficult lone strikers role, whereas most will agree that Boyd is better playing with a more mobile partner as the predator in a 4-4-2 formation.

There is not enough certainty around either player, Cousin's long term future and Boyds all round ability, for us to even consider building a side around them, so why can we not adopt a policy of utilising them depending on the circumstances?

We do it enough with players like Naismith, Novo, McCulloch, Darcheville and even Adam. Why should these two be any different?

You can never have enough options when you are challenging on as many fronts as we are and I don't see why Cousin (providing his move to Fulham doesn't go ahead) and Boyd cannot both play an equally vital role in bringing home 52, as oposed to one taking a backseat to the other.

If DC stays then WS will continue with the lone striker tactics - my personal opinion is that rangers should be playing with 2 recognised strikers in every SPL game , home or away , in europe in can be argued that the opposition have more ability , so we need more midfielders to combat this.

If KB and DC are still at the club - they should both be utilised - WS did state they were too similar in an interview , the problem in the forum is people see it as a chance to prove their favourite should play , stating statistics to suit their argument ,

If DC is this intelligent player a lot of people seem to think he is , and KB is only a poacher who scores goals , then i cannot see why they could not be given a few games together , so we can find out if they can or cannot play together

I would like to see 2 recognised strikers playing in our team at the moment , i think goal differnce may play a part in the league title destination ,

we all want the same outcome title 52

[robbie11 1]

id choose boydy but thats just me,

anyway, point is, no matter who it is that is the 1 in a 4-5-1, when attacking there should always be another midfielder up with the strikker to make it 4-4-2 then dropping back when defending, thats what id tell them, so 4-5-1 or 4-4-2 it should not make a differnence,

[JR 1,480]

I prefer the 4-5-1 that goes 4-3-3 when we attack with pace on either side. We played some great stuff with DC thru the middle and SN & CB wide - just like when we used to rape the tims with Cannigia, Lovenkrands and DeBoer. I think that was the League Cup when Eck had just taken over - they couldn't live with us.

[nvager 498]

I prefer the 4-5-1 that goes 4-3-3 when we attack with pace on either side. We played some great stuff with DC thru the middle and SN & CB wide - just like when we used to rape the tims with Cannigia, Lovenkrands and DeBoer. I think that was the League Cup when Eck had just taken over - they couldn't live with us.

That system worked well as we did not have LM or CA involved. With these two everything changes for the worst.

[Bluebell11 0]

Well said , could'nt have put it better myself! this is for Robbie 11's comments

[ChrisVanDarche 23]

Aye, Naismith and Burkey play the supporting/winger roles a lot better than Adam and McCulloch. Still rate the 2 of them though, just a question of how to adapt them into the system if Burke and Naismith are on the wings.