Sloop John B Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 So you admit a "fucking horseshit" defence has conceded less goals than your team? Cool, that's all you had to say. I agree that, for the money the Rangers players earn, they've conceded way too many goals this term, but the point still stands. The Rangers defence may be bad, but statistically they are still better than QotS's defence regardless of how much money they earn. It's a league with a load of jobbers and flat track bullies starting up top for just about every team bar Hearts and Hibs , Danny Wilson who has looked awful for the first couple of years at Hearts looks like a world beater at this level, surely a defence with international players in it should be more than two goals better (And two clean sheets worse off ) than Queen of the South which over a season is nothing. That is horseshit especially as teams will be more cautious against Rangers than Queens. Stick to making awful predictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rjc-1988 Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 As always in these high pressure games discipline will be absolutely vital. So often these occasions are ruined by red cards and/or double whammy penalty decisions. Hope I am not tempting fate but we have done much better recently in this key area. The fact remains that with a highly charged atmosphere it is very easy for players to forget that football has become a non-contact sport. Keeping 11 players on the park is a pre-requisite for giving teams a realstic chance of progressing. Fitness and team spirit will be a massive factor in the play offs as there is not that much between the teams. We are well placed in this regard and while a draw would not be a bad result in home leg, I think we will nead a lead to progress overthe double header. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 I don't believe in coincidences in football so like it or not Rangers fans, Rangers do have a problem playing on plastic. Just look at past results against teams who play on it. Therefore McCall has to get this absolutely right both in team selection and formation. If he doesn't and QOS play as well as they did in their two previous home games v Rangers they will most probably win. I also believe McCall is playing mind games saying that they will not practise on plastic. He is trying to put over that playing on plastic is not a problem (when of course it is). And btw it is the Rangers players he is trying to convince! Rangers league record against Falkirk is identical, home and away - 1 draw and 1 win. Isn't it odd that its only fans of clubs that have plastic pitches that think they are better than grass ones So, are you saying that the ploughed field at Cowden is a better surface for playing football than the pitches at Palmerston or Falkirk? There are good and bad pitches all over Scotland, whether they are grass or artificial isnt really relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Rangers league record against Falkirk is identical, home and away - 1 draw and 1 win. So, are you saying that the ploughed field at Cowden is a better surface for playing football than the pitches at Palmerston or Falkirk? There are good and bad pitches all over Scotland, whether they are grass or artificial isnt really relevant. Grass pitches can be improved though..These plastic pitches will always be dreadful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Grass pitches can be improved though..These plastic pitches will always be dreadful. I assume you mean the "bad" plastic pitches, rather than the newer ones? Grass pitches cant be improved without spending money on them, in some cases, significant amounts. Artificial pitches have a finite life and will need replaced at some point anyway. Not really sure what the difference is, to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 I assume you mean the "bad" plastic pitches, rather than the newer ones? Grass pitches cant be improved without spending money on them, in some cases, significant amounts. Artificial pitches have a finite life and will need replaced at some point anyway. Not really sure what the difference is, to be honest. I understand it is down to finances both in the maintenance and income through other events etc...That's fine and I have little complaint but you are trying to defend the indefensible by claiming there is little advantage or little difference. There is a huge difference in the way the ball reacts to the surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myview Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 The fact you had to go back to 2007 an international in Russia confirms my point. Yes I think we all appreciate having a plastic pitch is excellent for making more revenue. The Falkirk scores may have been identical but the were imo lucky to win at Brockville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Should have posted the dates of the fixtures in the original post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Anyway leaving the pitch aside (until I need an excuse at a later date) McCall should go with more or less the same team as Saturday ... No Templeton this time..and certainly no Big Jig!!!!!! .Only position up for debate is the right back slot. I didn't see the game this Saturday but others have said Foster did well enough after a shaky start so I see no need to change. Only other change is replace Shiels with Black....a more defensive player. I may as well go for a Punditesque prediction. 3-0 Rangers. I am nothing if not an optimist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myview Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Regardless of budgets and what you have spent on players. There is more to defending than most think. What formation is played. Quality and experience of defenders. Pace and positional ability of defenders. How many offensive or defensive players in front of the back line. Do the strikers work the opposition when they are in possession. How good are the team when defending set plays. Etc etc. I believe under Ally McCoist and Co the players were unhappy with the little work being done on the training park working the back 3/4/5 and set plays against. Man Utd under Sir Alex used to work the back four nearly every day. And look at the quality they had! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmy_cammy Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 I'm finding the comments in the press all a bit bizarre. Of course it could just be some successful trolling by McCall, if so then consider me wooshed. Amusing as it is, the constant talk about the pitch will have zero effect on our preparations. It could well add to the jitters of our visitors though, who will already be well aware of their poor record at Palmerston. If they think they are beaten before they've even kicked off, having a ready-made excuse for a poor result isn't much of a consolation once it's happened. McCall can talk all he likes about superstitions but it would appear daft to me to not practice on the identical surface he has available to him at Murray Park. It's either arrogance or idiocy, and speaking from experience, neither are particularly welcome attributes for a manager to have. As has already been covered, his comments about them being too attacking in the last game and falling for our counter-attacking style have absolutely no basis in reality. Although the result suggests differently, the most recent game at Palmerston was the best I've seen The Rangers play against us. This was mainly due to them playing a high pressing game which forced us to go long, instead of working it from the back as we prefer to do. Although we ultimately were able to undo their defence it suggested McCall had at least done a bit of research and had made an attempt to nullify our threat. If his talk of sitting deeper and being more defensive is accurate it suggests to me that he hasn't learned a thing since our last meeting, not the opposite as he is suggesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Live on BT yi say? Pleasing, few beers in the house and hopefully yet another dose of Sevco hilarity Mon the Doonhammers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swarley Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Live on BT yi say? Pleasing, few beers in the house and hopefully yet another dose of Sevco hilarity Mon the Doonhammers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 I understand it is down to finances both in the maintenance and income through other events etc...That's fine and I have little complaint but you are trying to defend the indefensible by claiming there is little advantage or little difference. There is a huge difference in the way the ball reacts to the surface. What a load of nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 What a load of nonsense Ok...what part is nonsense. Try being specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Ok...what part is nonsense. Try being specific. Specifically? The claim that there is a significant advantage to having an artificial pitch and the one that there is a "huge difference in the way the ball reacts" Both, clearly nonsense. Unless, of course, you have some actual evidence to back up these claims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distant Doonhamer Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 I had an incredibly vivid dream about this very tie last night. The first leg in Dumfries was a very cagey 0-0 draw. We absolutley battered Rangers at Ibrox, Cammy Bell makes a brilliant save from a Reilly shot and a "Gordon Banks" type wonder save from a Lyle header with just minutes to go. Rangers win 1-0 with a header from Rio Ferdinand in stoppage time. Weird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthetop Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 I had an incredibly vivid dream about this very tie last night. The first leg in Dumfries was a very cagey 0-0 draw. We absolutley battered Rangers at Ibrox, Cammy Bell makes a brilliant save from a Reilly shot and a "Gordon Banks" type wonder save from a Lyle header with just minutes to go. Rangers win 1-0 with a header from Rio Ferdinand in stoppage time. Weird Suggest you keep off the cheese at bedtime! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Specifically? The claim that there is a significant advantage to having an artificial pitch and the one that there is a "huge difference in the way the ball reacts" Both, clearly nonsense. Unless, of course, you have some actual evidence to back up these claims? Of course a team who plays on this surface week in week out and who trains on it will have an advantage. As for denying the ball reacts differently...well if you are not willing to concede even that then you are beyond reasoning with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
die hard doonhamer Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 It does react differently, in that the bounce is consistent and predictable, unlike on a tattie field where you may as well be playing with a rugby ball. Artificial surfaces encourage good football, if it is used as an excuse for losing then it is pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.