The Rangers 6/2/18

[stillresigned]

Same old, same old I'm afraid!

[AlgarveJag]

right, lets get through to the next round the cup and pick up 9 points from our next three games to cheer me up

[Barney Rubble]

Just now, AlgarveJag said:

right, lets get through to the next round the cup and pick up 9 points from our next three games to cheer me up

Better tell Archie that we're playing East Kilbride on Saturday then.

[Duke Gekantawa]

32 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:

Shat the bed again tonight against a rotten Sevco team. What is it with us?

Much as it would be nice for them to be rotten, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. They’re presently 3 points off second with a much better goal difference than Aberdeen and therefore a good shout for second.  They’re nearly averaging 2 goals scored per game (48 from 26) . Murty has improved them hugely since we last played them, sadly. 

I thought we played well till the second goal, when heads dropped. Play like that against the teams around us and we’ll beat them. 

Taverner’s goal looked good from the NS to be honest.

[Auld Jag]

Unlucky to go in at ht a goal down.Second goal killed the game.Next 3 league games are huge.

[Barney Rubble]

17 minutes ago, Duke Gekantawa said:

Much as it would be nice for them to be rotten, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. They’re presently 3 points off second with a much better goal difference than Aberdeen and therefore a good shout for second.  They’re nearly averaging 2 goals scored per game (48 from 26) . Murty has improved them hugely since we last played them, sadly. 

I thought we played well till the second goal, when heads dropped. Play like that against the teams around us and we’ll beat them. 

Taverner’s goal looked good from the NS to be honest.

Can't argue with a single word of your statistical analysis Duke.

Irrespective of that, they were there for the taking tonight, and those were two shockingly poor goals to lose from a defensive perspective. Tavernier's in particular.

The collective head going down after Tavernier's goal was alarming, as we offered nothing serious thereafter against an opponent that wasn't demonstrably superior to what we played on Saturday, in my opinion.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Barney Rubble

[Duke Gekantawa]

9 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:

Can't argue with a single word of your statistical analysis Duke.

Irrespective of that, they were there for the taking tonight, and those were two shockingly poor goals to lose from a defensive perspective. Tavernier's in particular.

Th head's dropping after Tavernier's goal was alarming, as we offered nothing serious thereafter against an opponent that wasn't demonstrably superior to what we played on Saturday, in my opinion.

But it’s the little things against better teams, and whether the bit of luck goes with you. Rangers did not defend as badly at any time as Well did for our goal on Saturday. And it seemed to me that Well had a perfectly good goal chalked off. Meanwhile today the close call (I couldn’t tell from the NS if Edwards was offside or not) went against us, and as for Sammon’s strike staying out- I’ve now idea how it did. 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Duke Gekantawa

[AlgarveJag]

unlucky? Yes

Beaten by a better team?  Yes

[Barney Rubble]

2 minutes ago, Duke Gekantawa said:

But it’s the little things against better teams, and whether the bit of luck goes with you. Rangers did not defend as badly st any time as Well did for our goal on Saturday. And it seemed to me that Well had a perfectly good goal chalked off. Meanwhile today the close call (I couldn’t tell from the NS if Edwards was offside or not) went against us, and as for Sammon’s strike staying out- I’ve now idea how it did. 

I thought Sevco struggled against our movement in the first half. 

Re the Motherwell disallowed goal, the pictures show that the linesman had his flag up long before Main (?) headed it in. Similarly tonight the linesman had his flag up visibly before Ryan's shot hit the net. Whether either or both of these shouts are correct cannot be judged from the camera angles, that's a given.

As for Conor's strike, It wasn't an upright mason that kept that one out - it was a masonic upright!!!

[gianlucatoni]

Dispatches from a h*n mind #1

h*n mate said he was in line tonight and Edwards goal was a beezer and onside - but then went on to say -  f*k him as he should've been red carded for a tackle on Jack earlier in the season 

 

Every time we get pumped by those unfiltered sewage sevco kh*unts I go back and watch games like Damon Gray scoring at ibollox to cheer me up

[Jaggernaut]

Let's hope this isn't the start of another slump..... although to be fair, it's become a perfectly normal result for us against them.

Let's face it, it's probably the most predictable result in all of Scottish football.

If there was a truly independent enquiry then some serious questions would be asked about the statistically highly improbable regularity of the outcome!

[Fearchar]

1 hour ago, Duke Gekantawa said:

...I thought we played well till the second goal, when heads dropped. Play like that against the teams around us and we’ll beat them. ...

This isn't exactly a one-off. Whatever the "physical conditioning" team think they're doing, our team is done in after 60 or 70 minutes. If the management team want to make any progress, they're going to have to have to make a big change in this so-called "physical conditioning" behind the scenes, because it's not doing the business at the moment. Every game, regardless of who it is against, the team is struggling for the final 15 or 20 minutes - and these are supposed to be professional athletes. This lack of fitness (not to mention "recovery" from injury that seems to result in extended and/or additional injuries every time!) is killing off the ability of the team to compete.

We might just survive this season if other teams in our league do badly (although it's touch and go at the moment), but we won't make any progress unless the fitness regime is altered fundamentally. It's simply not a viable case that "heads dropped" among competitive professional athletes: it is the case that they did not have the physical reserves to keep competing, and that should be a serious cause of concern.

[milhouse]

Usual shite from Archibald, who shows little interest in trying to compete in these fixtures. No one in that team this evening believed that they could beat the opposition. Of all teams in the top 2 divisions, we have quite comfortably the worst record against the Old Firm teams over the last 20 years. There is a mentality problem right through the club, unfortunately extending to a number of fans as well.

[Auld Jag]

Couldn't tell from my position in NS.But just watched highlights on BBC website Edwards was onside.

[Jaggernaut]

1 hour ago, Auld Jag said:

Couldn't tell from my position in NS.But just watched highlights on BBC website Edwards was onside.

Of course he was onside. The h *ns needed protection at that stage, and they got it. 

[madcapmilkdrinker]

Offside by a mile  

[Duke Gekantawa]

6 hours ago, milhouse said:

Usual shite from Archibald, who shows little interest in trying to compete in these fixtures. No one in that team this evening believed that they could beat the opposition. Of all teams in the top 2 divisions, we have quite comfortably the worst record against the Old Firm teams over the last 20 years. There is a mentality problem right through the club, unfortunately extending to a number of fans as well.

I saw no evidence whatsoever of no one believing we could win (at least until 2-0). I thought till then we were the better side, and fully believed we could win. We had what looks to be a good goal chalked off incorrectly at 0-0, and a somewhat freak bounce off the post at 1-0.  Sometimes luck plays a part. I’m not sure what you were watching to be honest.

[Hopeless Unbeliever]

8 hours ago, Fearchar said:

This isn't exactly a one-off. Whatever the "physical conditioning" team think they're doing, our team is done in after 60 or 70 minutes. If the management team want to make any progress, they're going to have to have to make a big change in this so-called "physical conditioning" behind the scenes, because it's not doing the business at the moment. Every game, regardless of who it is against, the team is struggling for the final 15 or 20 minutes - and these are supposed to be professional athletes. This lack of fitness (not to mention "recovery" from injury that seems to result in extended and/or additional injuries every time!) is killing off the ability of the team to compete.

We might just survive this season if other teams in our league do badly (although it's touch and go at the moment), but we won't make any progress unless the fitness regime is altered fundamentally. It's simply not a viable case that "heads dropped" among competitive professional athletes: it is the case that they did not have the physical reserves to keep competing, and that should be a serious cause of concern.

This is just absolute shite and is seriously calling into question the professionalism and integrity of our manager, staff and players. We were playing one of the best teams in the league, who retain the ball well and make you do a lot of running to compete with them - it's inevitable in games like these we will do more chasing and are therefore likely to tire quicker. We don't have the luxury of a squad the size of Rangers so can't bring the same level of reinforcements either to cover injuries or from the bench. We had two central midfielders both of whom are still making their way back from injury and who played well on Saturday (I'd like to have seen Archie trust McCarthy to cover but that's a side issue). There is absolutely zero evidence that we have a fitness problem compared to other teams at our level, indeed we've seen games out well against Ross County, St Johnstone and Hamilton recently (scoring fine counter attacking goals in two of those games). We even managed a last minute equaliser against Rangers earlier in the season, and should have had one against Celtic.

There are clearly issues with our results against the Old Firm that predate this squad of players and managers but to lay the blame for this on our fitness levels is just utter nonsense. 

[a f kincaid]

Agree with this.  No-one would deny that our recent record v Rangers is bitterly disappointing - 43 wins in 315 competitive matches split, broadly speaking, 23 from 158 before the war and 20 from 157 since 1946/47.  Last night makes it 6 draws and 24 defeats in the last 30.  But what do people seriously expect?   For most if not all of that time Rangers have enjoyed vastly superior resources.    It's inevitable that players paid 5/10/15 times what Thistle's players earn can  turn a game with moments of individual quality  even if  at that point the underdog is "in with a shout".  To suggest that the players are losing games because they are not fit enough/giving up is very unfair.  We could have snatched a goal in the last minute last night and finished strongly against agricultural Motherwell on Saturday (eg, Spittal).   Physical, no.  Psychological, probably.  

[Hankey]

My issue with that defeat is that the team Rangers put out was as weak as we'll ever see from them. No Dorrans, Jack, McCrorie, Wallace, Alves, Morelos on the bench yet as usual we showed them far too much respect. 

I worry about us in games with a big expectant crowd. We freeze in these games very often, even when the quality of the opposition isn't far off our own team. 

Some of the boys have a lower league, small club mentality ripping out of them in these games. I'm worried about seeing proven losers like Spittal in a pressure situation, even against a duff championship team.

Would bite your hand off for 10th just now. Saturday is a write off.

[allyo]

I don't actually think we have a mentality problem in important games at all. Our problem, if anything, is that we don't treat Celtic and 'Rangers' games as important, and take the view that anything's a bonus. I'm not saying that's right, but I suppose if it's about managing the season there may be some justification. Our record in the real crunch games under Archie is very good.

[allyo]

2 hours ago, Hankey said:

My issue with that defeat is that the team Rangers put out was as weak as we'll ever see from them. No Dorrans, Jack, McCrorie, Wallace, Alves, Morelos on the bench yet as usual we showed them far too much respect. 

I worry about us in games with a big expectant crowd. We freeze in these games very often, even when the quality of the opposition isn't far off our own team. 

Some of the boys have a lower league, small club mentality ripping out of them in these games. I'm worried about seeing proven losers like Spittal in a pressure situation, even against a duff championship team.

Would bite your hand off for 10th just now. Saturday is a write off.

Don't get how in the same post you can criticise the team for a small-club attitude, showing too much respect; and the go on to say that Saturday is a write-off

[lady-isobel-barnett]

I know it's becoming almost a mantra that first goal is so important in this league. Normally I tend to disagree in so much that the benefit of scoring first is virtually the same in any game of football anywhere. I do tho' agree that against top end of the league opposition, who are likely to tire out their opponents,  getting first goal is rather vital.  So to a point I can say we were unlucky last night.  I thought that at half time last night even when I believed (stupidly) that a linesman standing mere yards away with a clear view would get a decision correct. So imo we were more than just unlucky not to go 1-0. 

Sevco's two goals looked both well taken goals. Sure we could've done something to prevent them but just about every goal from open play involves a defensive error. They certainly weren't howlers or as blatant a defending error as say Doolan's goal on Saturday.   My main concern is that the top teams appear to find it relatively easy to close out the game against us.  On play we shaded the first half  v Celtic the other week and were undoubted the better side up to half time last night.  In both second halves we've been significantly poorer and that's only partly down to the opposition upping their game.  Perhaps as the team tires it's then we should be bringing on the strength and pace of one, even two, from Edwards, Storey and Sammon?  Saw up at McDiarmid just how effective Edwards was as an impact sub.  Then again all three were amongst our better players last night from the off.  Just feel that both Dools and Erskine are at an age where they require to play alongside a bit of real pace and not when  the likes of Storey and Edwards are starting to tire.

[jaggy]

11 hours ago, madcapmilkdrinker said:

Offside by a mile  

Difficult to judge by a still photo, but if assistant is slightly behind play I can understand why he flagged 

[Harrybriscoe]

ffs I'm sick of coming on to this forum and seeing the usual moaners after we've lost a game , even more so when we've lost to one of the two arse cheeks. Do these guys even go to the game?

The team put in a good, hard working performance last night and outperformed Rangers for parts of the match.   

Luck went against them  on the night  with Ryan's goal being questionably called offside  and Conner's shot coming  back off the post.  Rangers played poorly last night by their standards so it was frustrating that we couldn't beat them on the night. Their first goal was a superb piece of football and the second a good individual effort. To blame any of our guys for the loss of either goal is utter nonsense. 

This is football, not a friggin' Playstation game.  

Just because you lose a goal and perhaps, with hindsight, you think somebody could have maybe got back quicker or put in a tackle earlier, doesn't mean they shat it or bottled it  or bent over for anybody!

Either start respecting the players efforts and supporting the Jags or just sod off elsewhere.