Rangers v Manchester United Match Thread 24/11/10

Broxi_Bear_Eire

steelcityblues wrote: »

Stupid of McCoist and Smith though to not let their players press forward more in the second half!

Agreed to a point but hey most gers fans are realistic and will settle for a Europa cup run

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Lets not pretend it was just because Rangers were playing Man Utd that Smith went with that formation, he uses that horrible negative tactic no matter what team he plays in Europe.

He does yes but we normally play it better than that

And to be honest most Bears won't complain we play to what strengths we have

s_carnage

1. Carrick
2. Fabio
3. VDS (even though his kicking was brutal at stages he made a few important stops)

DOC09UNAM

allybhoy wrote: »

I didn't say they ddidnt I said it was a shoite game to watch and it was, naysmith had the best chance of the match IMO

Actually, that's not what you said at all.

allybhoy wrote: »

Terrible terrible game for the nuetral, UTd no invention Rangers no invention even though they probably had the best chances

allybhoy wrote: »

? How am I wrong? No tempo to the game, no goals from play very very few chances for Utd apart From rooneys header, rangers had 2 or 3 decent chances but they were also muck

That's what you said, and whats bold, is a load of shoite.

davyjose

Pathetic!!!

Rangers are a joke. To watch a team actively try to go out of a tournament is pathetic. Rangers sat behind the ball for 87 minutes. With 5 minutes to go, there was a shot of Smith and McCoist sharing a joke, at nil-all, while their team was heading towards the europa.

Embarrassing!!!

Divorce Referendum

missingtime wrote: »

Is he a left back or something? He was quite composed and confident on the ball its just the end product that let him down.

Would be interested to hear some Rangers fans opinions, if they are still here

He is a winger as far as i know and he is on loan from man city. He was definitely playing like a left-back tonight and that was the problem.

davyjose

s_carnage wrote: »

1. Carrick
2. Fabio
3. VDS (even though his kicking was brutal at stages he made a few important stops)

Carrick was mediocre at best. The guy is not remotely good enough to run a midfield for a EPL/CL winning team.

A very negative player.

I was a big supporter of the man when he came to United, and have defended him at length before, but he was slightly less poor than usual today.

Fabio was our best player. Positive, lively, and basically won us the game.

davyjose

Pauleta wrote: »

Was this before or after United's takeover of Bebo

I wish I was high too.

allybhoy

Eh no, I never said Rangers deserved to win,
Sure I was cheering for UTd and hoped they would rip Rangers apart, they didn't, The game was an absolute snoozefest

Nalz

davyjose wrote: »

I wish I was high too.

Dunphy called Bebe BEBO

davyjose

Trilla wrote: »

Dunphy called Bebe BEBO

Ahh, my apologies Pauleta. Not knowing a thing about football, I wouldn't expect Dunphy to realise bebe's potential.

Wolfe Tone

And thats why I hate Rangers.

DOC09UNAM

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

And thats why I hate Rangers.

No it's not.

s_carnage

davyjose wrote: »

Carrick was mediocre at best. The guy is not remotely good enough to run a midfield for a EPL/CL winning team.

A very negative player.

I was a big supporter of the man when he came to United, and have defended him at length before, but he was slightly less poor than usual today.

Fabio was our best player. Positive, lively, and basically won us the game.

Ah I thought he was much better than mediocre tonight. His passing in the first half was top notch. Granted a lot of it was sideways or back because of the way Rangers were set up but everything he did tonight was done with the aim of keeping possession. He also got about very well when not in position and made a number of great tackles.

Last season Carrick was no way near United standard but he has had some very good games this season so far so hopefully he can keep it up.

DOC09UNAM

davyjose wrote: »

Carrick was mediocre at best. The guy is not remotely good enough to run a midfield for a EPL/CL winning team.

A very negative player.

I was a big supporter of the man when he came to United, and have defended him at length before, but he was slightly less poor than usual today.

Fabio was our best player. Positive, lively, and basically won us the game.

Wow, it seems lots of people are high tonight.

You realise, when "fabio" was busy winning us the game tonight, who played the superb ball over the top to him?

davyjose

s_carnage wrote: »

Ah I thought he was much better than mediocre tonight. His passing in the first half was top notch. Granted a lot of it was sideways or back because of the way Rangers were set up but everything he did tonight was done with the aim of keeping possession. He also got about very well when not in position and made a number of great tackles.

Fair enough. He was decent. But the thing is, a decent performance is so rare from him that it gets raised to the level of "brilliant". He was far from brilliant tonight, IMO.

Wolfe Tone

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

No it's not.

They play sh!te football and have sh!te fans.(I would apply that to Celtic as well before you start)

davyjose

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Wow, it seems lots of people are high tonight.

You realise, when "fabio" was busy winning us the game tonight, who played the superb ball over the top to him?

I think you put the wrong bit in quotations.

yeah it was a good ball. I'd expect that from a United player now and again. It doesn't negate the fact that all too often Carrick hasn't been good enough, and tonight he raised his game to the level of ... decent.

I'm perhaps being harsh on the guy. But that's being balanced out by the people saying he was exceptional.

DOC09UNAM

davyjose wrote: »

Fair enough. He was decent. But the thing is, a decent performance is so rare from him that it gets raised to the level of "brilliant". He was far from brilliant tonight, IMO.

He has been playing at that standard for the last few weeks tbh.

Have you watched all the recent games?

If scholes played the way carrick played tonight, we'd all be creaming our pants going on about how unreal he is.

davyjose

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

He has been playing at that standard for the last few weeks tbh.

Have you watched all the recent games?

If scholes played the way carrick played tonight, we'd all be creaming our pants going on about how unreal he is.

Scholes was better than Carrick tonight. As I said, the majority of forward, probing passes from midfield came from Scholesy's boot tonight.

I have missed maybe a game or two in the last two months. That makes my opinion of carrick's performance tonight more valid, right?

Pauleta

Dunphy

"The Spanish league is poor" :pac:

So i take it now officially in the terms of Dunphy that every league on the planet is poor.

Mikeyt086

Pauleta wrote: »

Dunphy

"The Spanish league is poor" :pac:

So i take it now officially in the terms of Dunphy that every league on the planet is poor.

Next week the Spainsh league will be the best league in the world by far.

Honestly, if someone takes what Eamonn Dunphy says seriously I feel bad for them. However, if you add in "Ba dum bum tish" after everything he says you will enjoy RTE analysis much much more.

homerjay2005

Fabio
Carrick
Smalling

i dont anybody else, bar van der sar comes close. giggs was simpley awful, nani not much better. happy with rooneys performance. thought anderson was decent when he came on.

delighted with that result.

davyjose

homerjay2005 wrote: »

Fabio
Carrick
Smalling

i dont anybody else, bar van der sar comes close. giggs was simpley awful, nani not much better. happy with rooneys performance. thought anderson was decent when he came on.

delighted with that result.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the level Scholes would have had to have played to top your list, so.

homerjay2005

davyjose wrote: »

I'm trying to wrap my head around the level Scholes would have had to have played to top your list, so.

you telling me scholes was better than fabio, carrick, smalling and van der sar?

i just had a look at the MOM voting on redcafe in the last 5 minutes, as its normally done quickly and gets alot of votes. of the 52 votes so far, carrick has 50. fabio and smalling are pratically in all of them also.

scholes received 3 votes. that says enough for me, the common consensus is that our 3 best players were fabio, carrick and smalling.

Mars Bar

davyjose wrote: »

I'm trying to wrap my head around the level Scholes would have had to have played to top your list, so.

Scholes was not up to the standard he has set for himself at the beginning of the season. I didn't think he was particularly outstanding.

He definitely wasn't any better than Carrick, Fabio and Smalling...

JerryHandbag

"Carrick looks like a duck and plays like a duck, so he's a duck"

Add that to the list of great Dunphy soundbites

homerjay2005

JerryHandbag wrote: »

"Carrick looks like a duck and plays like a duck, so he's a duck"

Add that to the list of great Dunphy soundbites

i dont watch rte that often and after watching tonight, i wont be for a long long time again. they are a joke at this stage.

george hamilton is a plank, the amount of rubbish he comes out with is a crime to sport.

Mikeyt086

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i dont watch rte that often and after watching tonight, i wont be for a long long time again. they are a joke at this stage.

george hamilton is a plank, the amount of rubbish he comes out with is a crime to sport.

"A stunning debut from the teenager Hutton" comes to mind. In reality he did ok.

davyjose

homerjay2005 wrote: »

you telling me scholes was better than fabio, carrick, smalling and van der sar?

i just had a look at the MOM voting on redcafe in the last 5 minutes, as its normally done quickly and gets alot of votes. of the 52 votes so far, carrick has 50. fabio and smalling are pratically in all of them also.

scholes received 3 votes. that says enough for me, the common consensus is that our 3 best players were fabio, carrick and smalling.

If you're expecting me to fall into line, Homerjay, I won't. the fact is, Carrick played in a midfield with little opposition; Rangers had a lot of men behind the ball.

That considered, Scholes was dotting balls in over the defense all night long. Carrick, to his credit did it occasionally too, but nothing to the level I would consider excellent, or superb.

It's not hard to look good in midfield when you're passing it about the middle of the field with little or no opposition.

I've supported Carrick a LOT in the past, and through no fault of mine, that support has waned. if he does it in 3 weeks against Chelsea, we'll talk.

kryogen

Why would anyone be getting excited about Carricks performance tonight? he didnt do anything impressive tbh, he played in a midfield where he was given all day to pick his pass sideways whenever he wanted, there wasnt exactly a sea of Rangers players breaking on counter attacks so breaking up the play when facing Kenny Miller on his own with no support doesnt inspire me either

Scholes was still the player trying to find the cutting passes, Carrick as usual was happy to just be a water carrier

I thought Fabio was excellent, Smalling too, Evans was a little dodgy, O Shea was ok
Nani was frustrating, Giggs was poor, Scholes was ok, Carrick was ok, Berba did well enough and Rooney did alright in general terms, he looked better as the game went on imo

Rangers are well organised and tough to break down, they made it difficult and fair play to them, they made the final third very hard to play through for us and let us have the middle (which is why Carrick probably looked good to some)

SilverFox261

kryogen wrote: »

Why would anyone be getting excited about Carricks performance tonight? he didnt do anything impressive tbh, he played in a midfield where he was given all day to pick his pass sideways whenever he wanted, there wasnt exactly a sea of Rangers players breaking on counter attacks so breaking up the play when facing Kenny Miller on his own with no support doesnt inspire me either

I think what was good about his performance is that he did what was asked of him very well, which was protect his defenders when someone tried to break on them and by stopping those breaks, stopped the Rangers defence getting any relief from the pressure they were being put under. If you watch the game again any time Rangers tried to break it was nearly always Carrick who was racing to get back to cover and he kept making clean tackles.

Nalz

Passes, box to box, interceptions, tackles, energy, nice hair = Michael Carrick last night

Bye

kryogen

inept, submissive, stand off-ish, limited ability---Rangers midfield last night


Bye

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Rangers
McGregor = Youth System
Davis = £3 Million
Whittaker = £2 Million
Broadfoot = Bosman
Weir = Free
Foster = Loan
Naismith = £2 Million
McCulloch = £2.5 Million
Hutton = Youth system
Weiss = Loan
Miller = £2 Million

Subs Beattie = £1.2 Million
Fleck = Youth System


Total = £12.7 Million

Manchester United

Berbatov = £30 Million

Just a small comparison in the gulf between the two clubs

Bye

VW 1

OK so point being?

dahat

Hutton = Youth system

Was impressed with this player last night,dont watch scottish soccer so had never seen him but going to keep an eye on his progress as i am sure many scouts will after his performance last night.
At 19(i think) he was very impressive.

Fuhrer

VW 1 wrote: »

OK so point being?

Rangers are under no obligation to play football because their team didnt cost as much?

Broxi_Bear_Eire

VW 1 wrote: »

OK so point being?

Point being as much as I would have liked us to play fast open attacking football it was never going to happen we would have been ripped apart.

flahavaj

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Rangers
McGregor = Youth System
Davis = £3 Million
Whittaker = £2 Million
Broadfoot = Bosman
Weir = Free
Foster = Loan
Naismith = £2 Million
McCulloch = £2.5 Million
Hutton = Youth system
Weiss = Loan
Miller = £2 Million

Subs Beattie = £1.2 Million
Fleck = Youth System


Total = £12.7 Million

Manchester United

Berbatov = £30 Million

Just a small comparison in the gulf between the two clubs

Bye

Blackpool this season would be one club that don't hide behind the excuse of having extremely limited resources as a reason to play negatively. If they had needed a win last night in order to stay alive in the CL they'd have at least tried to play football and had a go.

Finances should not necessarily dictate tactics IMO.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

flahavaj wrote: »

Blackpool this season would be one club that don't hide behind the excuse of having extremely limited resources as a reason to play negatively. If they had needed a win last night in order to stay alive in the CL they'd have at least tried to play football and had a go.

Finances should not necessarily dictate tactics IMO.

Look its simple we don't have the players that can do that sort of Job so WS plays to the strengths we have as I said I would love us to go out and play a fluent style of attacking football but last seasons CL when WS changed to a more attacking formation seen us humped then he decided to go back to a style that had worked for him before

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Fuhrer wrote: »

Rangers are under no obligation to play football because their team didnt cost as much?

Rangers are under no obligation to play a style of football that would have suited Manchester United

dahat

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Look its simple we don't have the players that can do that sort of Job so WS plays to the strengths we have as I said I would love us to go out and play a fluent style of attacking football but last seasons CL when WS changed to a more attacking formation seen us humped then he decided to go back to a style that had worked for him before

Can understand this but very early WS knew a win was needed to stand any chance of further progress in the CL and still no change of formation came so this showed the level of ambition in the Ibrox camp.........

Fuhrer

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Rangers are under no obligation to play a style of football that would have suited Manchester United

Given that they needed to beat United to have any hope of going through to the next round, they had an obligation to themselves to actually try and win.


But no, Rangers are more thatn happy with their results from the champions league, finishing above a team that has only managed to score one single goal.

flahavaj

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Look its simple we don't have the players that can do that sort of Job so WS plays to the strengths we have as I said I would love us to go out and play a fluent style of attacking football but last seasons CL when WS changed to a more attacking formation seen us humped then he decided to go back to a style that had worked for him before

Neither do the likes of Blackpool, their squad is arguably weaker than Rangers', but they still try to pass the ball and win games. They went to Anfield and had a go and were rewarded with a win. Yes, they'll be hammered along the way now and again but they'll also pick up a few wins where teams that pkay negatively like Rangers could get at most a point.

I don't accept that putting 8-9 men behind the ball in a game you need to win to stay in a competition, with a Europa League placed already all but guaranteed is good enough. What did they have to lose by going out and having a go??? Inexplicable.

VW 1

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Point being as much as I would have liked us to play fast open attacking football it was never going to happen we would have been ripped apart.

In fairness though, if it were United in the same position I would rather take the risk of being beaten and go out to play football and win the game rather than sit back in order to not lose.

There are many times when I would advocate the park the bus mentality for a small team for example in the Premier League.

But to give no chance at all of progressing in the CL is just not the right attitude. In this case losing 1-0 is the same as losing 4-0.

I think the commentators last night said you guys had won 15 out of 20 matches so far this season, with Miller (?) having scored 18 goals so far this season. Its not as if you don't/arent capable of playing attacking football competently.

jaykay74

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Point being as much as I would have liked us to play fast open attacking football it was never going to happen we would have been ripped apart.

Thats the risk you take I guess. Rangers were guaranteed the Europa league position by halftime. The other game was over. Why not try to win even if you get beat 3 or 4. So what. At least give it a go. Lesser, cheaper teams than Rangers give it a go in cup games against more expensive teams. sometimes it works out for them.

Even after United scored it seemed like Rangers sat back. Bizarre

JerryHandbag

By the way, where were the ****ing stewards to tackle that fan that came on when Rooney scored? Incompetent eejits.

Mikeyt086

JerryHandbag wrote: »

By the way, where were the ****ing stewards to tackle that fan that came on when Rooney scored? Incompetent eejits.

To be honest, they were problably hoping he would give Rooney a dig.

Eirebear

flahavaj wrote: »

Neither do the likes of Blackpool, their squad is arguably weaker than Rangers', but they still try to pass the ball and win games. They went to Anfield and had a go and were rewarded with a win. Yes, they'll be hammered along the way now and again but they'll also pick up a few wins where teams that pkay negatively like Rangers could get at most a point.

I don't accept that putting 8-9 men behind the ball in a game you need to win to stay in a competition, with a Europa League placed already all but guaranteed is good enough. What did they have to lose by going out and having a go??? Inexplicable.

VW 1 wrote: »

In fairness though, if it were United in the same position I would rather take the risk of being beaten and go out to play football and win the game rather than sit back in order to not lose.

There are many times when I would advocate the park the bus mentality for a small team for example in the Premier League.

But to give no chance at all of progressing in the CL is just not the right attitude. In this case losing 1-0 is the same as losing 4-0.

I think the commentators last night said you guys had won 15 out of 20 matches so far this season, with Miller (?) having scored 18 goals so far this season. Its not as if you don't/arent capable of playing attacking football competently.

jaykay74 wrote: »

Thats the risk you take I guess. Rangers were guaranteed the Europa league position by halftime. The other game was over. Why not try to win even if you get beat 3 or 4. So what. At least give it a go. Lesser, cheaper teams than Rangers give it a go in cup games against more expensive teams. sometimes it works out for them.

Even after United scored it seemed like Rangers sat back. Bizarre

I guess none of you watched any of Rangers 09/10 CL campaign so i'll give you a quick rundown.

After recieving a lot of bad press and criticism for their defensive tactics which took them to the UEFA Cup Final (And saw them lose out to Lyon in the last game of the CL Group stages) Walter Smith decided to try a more attacking approach in the following years Champions League group a group which was considered to be one of the best we could possibly get.

This tactic saw us lose 13 goals in 6 games, 10 of them at home with 4-1 defeats to Sevilla and Urziceni. Finishing bottom of the group with 2 points

Skip forward a season and you have Rangers in a far tougher group, finish third with 4 (Possibly 7) points and having gained draws with Valencia and Man Utd.

We'd all love to play open attacking football, however i think its prety obvious what works for Rangers at this point in time.