nvager 498 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I think both are adequate, not bad at all, but not any more than that. Being natural centre halves they both drift inside and are often caught out by a good wide player or natural winger, which results in dangerous crosses not being blocked at inception. Again they try hard to attack down the flanks but the final cross is very often blocked. Broadfoot had a bit of success for a while, but teams have gotten wise to him. Both can be slow to get back at times and get caught up field. They both are looking for a better contract and both are likely to get one. Does this mean they are fixtures in the side for many years? I really wonder. I hope not as we surely can do better. Am I wrong? Perhaps people on RM are satisfied with them or like the `current set up. The sad thing is that S Smith is a bit off real form after injury and no young players seem ready to step up or maybe I am mistaken? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasGers 96 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I don't have a problem with Papac or Broadfoot in the side. I think both players are fairly consistent, rarely having huge games, but never massively screwing up either. Both of them have alot of heart and give their best in every game. Since both are essentially learning new positions, I think the progress they have made is great for the team and shows other what hard work can achieve. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatRadish 1 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Broadfoot is not sufficiently good enough at RB. It's not what he does, as far as defending is concerned he's ok, it's what he doesn't do. Fullbacks that can offer support to the midfield and provide width are so important, particularly in a team that is so lacking in natural width as we are at the moment. He's a serious weak link at fullback. The same applies to Papac although I feel he is a little better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithgersbear 3,225 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Don't rate either of em to be honest. I honestly think we could do better than Broadfoot and papac. Neither has any sort of pace. A full back should be supporting the play going forward. Over laping and getting crosses in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiggaman88 10 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 By the looks of things we could have 4 central defenders in defence and 4 central midfielders in midfield. No width at all! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaffbear 4,104 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Broadfoot is rank. Papac is decent. But we are playing with 4 centre halves ...we play with 3 central midfielders and a striker in midfield. Great tactics Walter.......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lerxst 99 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 admit to hating them in the begining, but given a long run in the side has gave them consistency and a stable back four can only get better. think broadfoot is the most improved player at rangers the boy has heart. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 If someone offered me £5-6m for Weir, Papac, Whittaker and Broadfoot I'd be tempted to take it. If we're going for a Mendes/Barry/Thommo midfield, we've got no width. In that case, we're expecting the width to come from the fullbacks. Now I love the job Weir's done and I totally respect the improvements that Papac and Broadfoot have made, but they're both centre backs and aren't going to give us the width we need now that we'll probably go 3 in midfield. Two attacking fullbacks and a no-nonsense centre back would improve us drastically. My post on this very subject the other day. Both players are doing a job, but not for me in the long term. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Maestro 11,810 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Yes they are good enough but if the opportunity to replace them with a better player crops up then obviously take them. This logic applies to every player of every team though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombaybadboy08 15,660 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I'm ok with both just now but would like natural full backs in their place for next season, when we play in Europe they would be the weaknesses the opposition would note. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1963 904 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I think both are adequate, not bad at all, but not any more than that. Being natural centre halves they both drift inside and are often caught out by a good wide player or natural winger, which results in dangerous crosses not being blocked at inception. Again they try hard to attack down the flanks but the final cross is very often blocked. Broadfoot had a bit of success for a while, but teams have gotten wise to him. Both can be slow to get back at times and get caught up field. They both are looking for a better contract and both are likely to get one. Does this mean they are fixtures in the side for many years? I really wonder. I hope not as we surely can do better. Am I wrong? Perhaps people on RM are satisfied with them or like the `current set up. The sad thing is that S Smith is a bit off real form after injury and no young players seem ready to step up or maybe I am mistaken? I too feel we could do better , I think a contributing factor is that both the right and left mid are problem positions also with left mid the most pressing concern . I can see Broadfoot going into centre back eventually - we need some wingers back and on form . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muff 245 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 They do a job and that is all - both are not good enough if we want to improve. If their performances drop a touch then we are in trouble. Sadly our manager see's them as the long term solution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbm26896 995 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 For the meantime in the SPL , they will be fine , they have not let us down so far like most fans I would like to see 2 attacking fullbacks and a commanding CB, but I cannot see us spending in January, with us having no european football Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemor 0 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I think this has been our problem for the past 3 years though... Being content with "adequate" players. While I haven othing against either of them because they are good players and fairly consistent, with Papac showing a little more of what he can do in the last few months. I think as a club of our stature, we should be aiming for world class players, not simply adequate. So you have my response, we should always aim for bigger, better players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddrock 107 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Both doing ok but do think we need better Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 With Weir finished it should be taken into acount by Smith that they are centre backs. I know he gave Broadfoot a few games at centre back at the beginning of this season but Papac hasn't been given a chance there since Smith came, it could be a good way to go out and buy a natural attacking full back without having to drop Papac. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lad 0 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I think Papac would still do a good job as CB, maybe better than weir, cause then he doesn't need to travel up the pitch out of his comfort zone. The problem being, he'll never get a chance, because theirs no one to step in and take the left back position. He'll never make the swap due to that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosesMcNeil 1,664 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Papac is good enough, Broadfoot can be and might prove to be long term. Neither is at a standard which should be acceptable to The Rangers. How I long for the days of Sandy Jardine - it's around thirty years since we had what I consider to be a Rangers class RB. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMWWBK 0 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Both are OK and no more. I've never rated Broadfoot as a right back and to be honest, Papac has been a bit of a letdown so far this season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaffbear 4,104 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Papac is good enough, Broadfoot can be and might prove to be long term. Neither is at a standard which should be acceptable to The Rangers. How I long for the days of Sandy Jardine - it's around thirty years since we had what I consider to be a Rangers class RB. I think your doin Gary Stevens a dis-service there but i know what your saying. Kirk Broadfoot is ok for the SPL but in the Champions league next season we should be looking at a class full back there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigy 0 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Neither of them are good enough long term. I hate when folk are satisfied because players are 'ok', we should be aiming higher. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey_RFC 122 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Just out of interest, how many assists does Broadfoot have this season? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
broxi51 48 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Neither of them are good enough long term. I hate when folk are satisfied because players are 'ok', we should be aiming higher. totally agree broadfoot worst player in that poistion apart from mo ross since pre souness. papac toch better defensively but no numan, robertson or stevie smith preinjury in my view. rangers fullbacks need to be aggressive, quick and cultured when going forward, something i think they both lack. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeBurn 57 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Papac, Yes. Broadfoot, No. I don't want to see a 15 stone Centre Back running up the wing. It is not pleasnt veiwing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Think Broadfoot is good enough But don't think Papac is Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts