Eliphas Pettigrew Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 3 minutes ago, Stevie Kirk said: I wonder how Clement would cope with our injury list for this season, given we have a 10th of Rangers budget:. List below are guys who have been out for 2 months or longer:- 1 . Obika ( lol) 2. Casey 3. Blaney 4. Montgomery 5. Paton 6. Biereth 7. Butcher 8 Slattery 9. McGinn 10.Miller 11. Shaw 12. Souare Now that’s what I call an injury list . I doubt he'd even mention it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted March 3 Author Share Posted March 3 1 hour ago, Stevie Kirk said: I wonder how Clement would cope with our injury list for this season, given we have a 10th of Rangers budget:. List below are guys who have been out for 2 months or longer:- 1 . Obika ( lol) 2. Casey 3. Blaney 4. Montgomery 5. Paton 6. Biereth 7. Butcher 8 Slattery 9. McGinn 10.Miller 11. Shaw 12. Souare Now that’s what I call an injury list . A team’s experience of injury issues is not something that is diminished or heightened based on the experience of another team. We’d also have a similarly long list of you went through it all. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 10 minutes ago, AJF said: A team’s experience of injury issues is not something that is diminished or heightened based on the experience of another team. We’d also have a similarly long list of you went through it all. The difference is you have a big enough budget to carry a squad that can cope with those injuries. We have a bench full of young boys. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Kirk Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 21 minutes ago, AJF said: A team’s experience of injury issues is not something that is diminished or heightened based on the experience of another team. We’d also have a similarly long list of you went through it all. I never said it was. However this is a Rangers v Motherwell thread and given the context of our injury list this season you can understand why we haven’t got the hankies out because one of your players took a knock. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dosser1886 Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 20 hours ago, 'WellDel said: 9mins approx, right at the end for Casey's goal. What a ball in it is from Spittal. Spittal, ever since SK came in, has been fucking immense and a stand out even in the eye bleeding bad performances love the guy and so hope we can keep a hold of him. The cross for the second goal is a thing of beauty. He looks to be enjoying his football as well 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 Hahaha get it up every wee gimp Rangers fan. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted March 3 Author Share Posted March 3 (edited) 41 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said: The difference is you have a big enough budget to carry a squad that can cope with those injuries. We have a bench full of young boys. Of course, it’s all relative and I’m not disputing we are in a fortunate position where was can carry a larger squad, but that does not negate that it still hampers us, particularly with a massive Europa League game coming up. 26 minutes ago, Stevie Kirk said: I never said it was. However this is a Rangers v Motherwell thread and given the context of our injury list this season you can understand why we haven’t got the hankies out because one of your players took a knock. I’m not saying you should, this has just stemmed from me guessing why Clement is frustrated with the injury. It was nothing to do with Motherwell or to seek any validation. Edited March 3 by AJF 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 12 hours ago, AJF said: I’m not saying you should, this has just stemmed from me guessing why Clement is frustrated with the injury. It was nothing to do with Motherwell or to seek any validation. It is to do with Motherwell as he accused them of going out and injurying a Rangers player - one that only has himself to blame for his injury. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted March 4 Author Share Posted March 4 29 minutes ago, Antiochas III said: It is to do with Motherwell as he accused them of going out and injurying a Rangers player - one that only has himself to blame for his injury. I think you’ve picked me up wrong. I meant that my comments regarding our injuries as a possible explanation for Clement’s frustrations has nothing to do with Motherwell. I’m not saying you have went out to injure them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloontang Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 When we beat them in the League Cup Semi all the news and back page headlines were on that gimp Cardoso and his broken nose and how big bad Bowman should have seen red. But what was forgotten about was that Cardoso had caught Moult with a malicious elbow just before half time which required stitches right across his brow. I don't wish any injury to anyone but the wee guy went off limping with his other foot at the weekend, the one that caught Casey high. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Old Firm managers, especially given the constant (and massively fucking tiresome) infowars that go on around the two clubs, are politicians as well as coaches. They understand that what they say is printed/broadcast uncritically and so they get their soundbite in to ensure that's what's spoken/written about rather than the fact they were fairly shite and struggled to beat teams with a fraction of their resources. As they unusually both got beat on the same weekend, we neatly got to see both Clement (in a relatively low key way to be fair) and Brendan (in a pretty blatant way that will do nothing for the safety of John Beaton's windaes) using exactly the same tactic. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 The selected images used of Casey's tackle are fucking hilarious. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Casey should have been sent off for tackle vs Rangers INCIDENT: Rangers were unhappy there was no card for Dan Casey for a challenge on Ross McCausland which took him out of the game. DERMOT SAYS: "I don't know why. I think it is a red card. The pace he goes in, not a nice tackle." STEPHEN WARNOCK SAYS: "It's a poor tackle." SUE SMITH SAYS: "It has to be a red card. It's late, aggressive..." -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Desp Posted March 4 Popular Post Share Posted March 4 And yet he didn't get sent off and went onto score the winner? GIRUY! 25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Look at the selective stills again There is a video angle where you see he's 3 yards from the wee guy when those stills are taken. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 the Rangers fans have accepted that there was no foul, just need the press to catch up 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Its a downright lie to say Casey goes in late (as Sue Smith does). Yes Casey is robust, but clearly wins the ball well ahead. Its McAusland who is late into the tackle and leaves his leg in. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 That high angle is the most revealing - there's at least a metre of fresh air between them when Casey gets the ball. But again, don't get suckered into taking the outrage fodder seriously - all these talking head roasters don't really think it's a red card but it's what they get paid to do. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted March 4 Author Share Posted March 4 I'm not a fan of the ex-referee opinions being used as any sort of definitive answer on what are usually very subjective decisions. I don't think the Casey challenge was a red. A foul and possible booking at most due to the speed at which he went in, but not a red for me. The pundits always seem to have some bizarre takes too. I'm not sure how the tackle can be regarded as late by Sue Smith given Casey made contact with the ball first before McCausland. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'WellDel Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 No idea who Sue Smith is, but the other angle there clearly shows Casey playing the ball well before any form of contact is made. On that basis, I can confidently say she is a fucking idiot and her assertion that the challenge was 'late and agressive' doesn't merit listening to never mind publishing. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.