Diamond Scot

The 1st Rangers possible penalty that the ref got sent to the monitor for was embarrasing. Never a penalty in a million years. The actual penalty I can see why it was given however it goes back to the handball rule in its current form being really unclear and not workable. The defender didnt move his arm, before or after to make himself bigger. The ball literally just hit his arm from close distance. That being said I actually think he fouls the Rangers player anyway as he makes an attempt for the ball, doesnt get it and then connects with the Rangers players thigh if I remember correctly. Watched the Celtic game. Not sure if its been clarified elsewhere but the 1dt goal only appeared to show one blue line. Do they not normally have a line for the attacker and another for the defender? The angle that was shown on TV was very unclear. Im assuming the VAR studio had better angles. Im not sure how much the gold standard of VAR costs but id like to see something Uefa paying alot towards it from the Champions League / Europa League profits. It cant be right that the top leagues get the gold standard VAR and smaller leagues get the version they can afford when they are all meant to be under the one umberella.

Agreed. I actually thought Rangers had started to answer some of the bottle questions at the turn of the year but it reared it head with vengence yet again. Personally id give Taviner a pass as he contributes much more than he takes away. He is and has been far and away the best RB in the country for years. Goldson on the other hand is 6/10 most weeks. You rarely see him putting in a really top performance. Theres an argument that he is Rangers best CB however I would imagine he is also their best paid by a distance. The crucial thing is, ability wise he is nowhere near CCV which should be the standard for an OF centre back. If Clement could move him on and reuse the wages (maybe with a little bit for a transfer fee) then I reckon he would bite your hand off. As you say though Celtic are also pretty poor. Id say they have 3 top players (CCV, McGregor & Oreilly) and then 4 good players in Hart, Johnston, Hatate and Meiada. Outside of that their others players wouldnt stand out lots if they played for Hearts.

Thought Hearts were the better team up until the 1st goal. Celtic do have a knack of hanging on in and then getting the goal against run of play to an extent. Rangers are almost the opposite. Have all the ball and then have a knack of losing the 1st goal. There style of play hasnt changed for years. Its slow passing, get it out wide, pass it around and then either try and cross into a packed box or feed a pass into a packed box. I think Rangers could do with a formation change. Im not sure the 1 striker suits them. I think they could go with a 352 with only 1 proper centre back sitting and the other 2 taking turns to take ball into midfield. Would mean they could play 3 more creative midfielders instead of water carriers like Lundstrum and then have 2 up top to occupy the defence.

1st minute he was involved in a good move, ball got cut back to him and he hit the target. CCV blocked the shot but he was one of maybe 3 celtic defenders and the GK to try and beat so was more like a half chance than a sitter. He was on the post for the Celtic goal so hardly to blame for playing somebody onside. Penalty was a bad one. Think he threw his hand up to protect his face but ball actually wasnt hitting it. Clark made lots of good saves but imo was to blame for Celtics 2nd goal. Long ball forward, was always going to land inside his box but he stayed on 6 yard box and was in no mans land when the shot was made.

Clarke has been pretty consistent in only dropoing a squad regular when somebody obviously better comes along. Managers in the past have been guilty of bringing in the flash in the pan form player and the squad then changes loads from one game to the next. Clarke has shown that he isnt afraid to make the changes when the time is right and it has defo made us stronger as a unit and also you just dont see the calls off that we were plauged with for years. Part of that has to be the squad atmosphere but also the fear of not getting back in. As others have said, its not so much that Clarke has his favourites who he will pick even when out of form, its more that nobody else has staked enough of a claim to replace them. Take Dykes for example. If any Scottish striker was pulling up trees then im sure Clarke would have been happy to bring them in but nobody has been.

I did mean Karamoko Dembele. I think it depends what you are looking for from the 26th pick. If you are looking for somebody to come off the bench in a couple of the games and know what you are going to get from them then probably Forrest would be that person. If you are looking for people who are performing at a slightly higher level then Gauld and Morgan would fall into that category. For me if all our players were fit then I would be taking the 26 very best players who have been part of the squad. Given the injuries its opened up a couple of spaces for guys who havent previously been involved and most likely wont get much if any gametime. If thats the criteria id rather take a promising youngster with a view to the world cup qualifying. Id say Doak and Dembele fall into that catergory more than Gauld or Morgan. Realistically once Ferguson is fit again he moves back ahead of the likes of Gauld and Morgan for the next campaign anyway. None of our other attacking mids are likely to retire after the Euros.

McTominay isnt injured seriously. He has said so himself. He will be back in a couole of weeks. Armstrong hasnt been ruled in or out yet. I suspect he will be another one who might not play (or maybe the odd playoff game) but will be medically fit by the Euros. We only need 4 or 5 attacking mids. Christie, McGinn, McTominay and Fraser will likely be 4 of them. So Armstrong if fit. If not then one of the others I mentioned as I think the 5th will be more like a wildcard pick for the future anyway.

I think Gauld should have had a chance before now. Im not convinced on Morgan. I think if he is to get a look in he probably needs to move back to Europe. I wouldnt put Morgan any higher than somebody like Armstrong at Kille. Attacking mids id take McGinn, McTom, Armstrong, (Christie), Fraser, and either Dembele or Doak. Doak if he can get any short of fitness. I dont think Doak has earned a call up and wouldnt be near the squad if it was 23 or if we didnt have some injuries but he will be a big player going forward and the experience will do him good. Its unlikely any of the 24 to 26 players will get much if any gametime.

You are one of the best on here for completely ignoring what people say and going off on a tangent to reiterate your point. Robertson is a world class left back. Why dont we just play him up front then. The grass is the same according to you. Problem being he has no strikers attributes the same as he has no holding midfield ones. As others have said you are literally taking away his strengths and playing to his weaknesses playing him in holding mid. Its probably just aswell you arent trying to persuade people as you wouldnt persuade anybody as your points are all over the place. Most importantly we will never get to see if you are right or wrong because no manager in the world is playing Robertson in centre midfield.

You have actually defeated your own argument. Your point rested on McGinn playing left back and then suddenly becoming a top midfielder when the fact is he played midfield and was good at it to not being able to get a game at left back. So basically he wasnt able to adapt from playing midfield to playing defence.

No they arent. People are saying some players are more adaptable than others. McLean can play in a couple of positions. Probably about 6/10 for CM and 5/10 for centre back. Robertson can play left back and left wing back about 9/10. How is that people saying that McLean is better than Robertson. Your points are all over the place. To make it very clear what I am and am not saying. I am not saying some full backs cant play centre mid. Ive already said I think Hickey could play there. I am saying full backs with no attributes to play centre mid cant play centre mid.

Robertson has played left back for Liverpool and left wing back for Scotland. Both essentially the same position but crucially both left sided positions with all the game inside of you. Robertson started football as a left winger and moved back to left back over time. All on the wing, he is that type of player. No shame in it. If you cant see thats theres a world of difference between playing on the touchline and playing in the centre of the park then I would respectfully suggest you have never played the game. Again if you think Robertson has more attributes to be a holding mid than Jack who has done it for the majority if his career then I cant help you. Even when Jack was playing full back he didnt play it like a winger. He played it like a more central player.

Robertson cant play anywhere in midfield though. Thats the point. He has none of the atttibutes to play a holding midfielder. You are saying we need a holding midfielder and not deep lying playmakers but then you are saying Roberton can play there because of his energy and tackling. Robertson isnt particuarly good at tackling (Tierney is) and a holding midfielder needs discipline way more than energy. The only holdind mid in recent years with energy as their main strength was Kante. Holding mids are players like Rodri who have the discpline to sit, dictate play and cut out attacks / cover gaps. Robertson would be one of the last players in the squad who fits that mould. Other than Hickey the only other defender who might be able to play there is Hendry amd thats a total guess. Theres a difference between being resistent to change / trying out new things and just throwing things at the wall hoping something sticks.

Energy is not a replacement for quality. You would be taking one of our best players out of his natural position to put him in a position that not only has he never played, by your own admission he has none of the attributes to play. TAA and Stones can play there because they have the attributes. Hickey would be much better suited to midfield if we are really pushed. But we arent really pushed. We have McGreggor, Gilmour and McLean who all play there for us and Christie who plays there for his club side. If you want energy then Christie is the answer.

Robertson and TAA couldnt be more different in terms of technique / ability. Robertsons strengths are fitness / energy in getting up and down the line. Defensively he is good at reading the game and making interceptions and he is good at crossing / cut backs. All of the above he is good at because he can concentrate on one side of the pitch. Ie everything is inside of him. He is quite one dimensional in that sence which isnt a bad thing as such and is probably why he plays left back. Robertson doesnt have good close control, isnt two footed, doesnt have good 360 degrees awareness (compare to Gilmour), doesnt have skill / quick feet to move away from players in tight spaces, doesnt have the range of passing TAA does, is horrible at shooting, isnt particuarly physical. Its a running joke at Liverpool that Robertson is literally horrible at the Ronda. He basically has no attributes that you would associate with a central midfield player. Some players can be amazing in one position and one position only. Thats not a bad thing.