MoM Awards - Rnd 11 - Rangers (h)


MoM vs Rangers  

143 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

The talk about Rangers players being fitter than ours is a load of crap.As said people have a natural level of fitness but if you are a professional athlete the difference is minascule.The team had a fitness test on Monday and I can asure that they were excellent.Natural abillity and experience are a different kettle of fish.

So you don't accept that one of the attributes of being a better player is a higher level of fitness?

A full time lower league team will be just as fit as ours?

Rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Saint sam, how can you say hardies never looked fitter? He was looking bright for the first 30 minutes but he tired really badly in the second half! Iv seen him look 10x fitter than he is at the moment

I disagree. I think he looks very fit and is coping much better than I expected with the step up in level and pace. I thought out of the two, there would be a place for Sheerin and Hardie was done for, but he's proven me wrong. He's playing as well as he has for us, at a better level, a few years older. Full credit to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. I think he looks very fit and is coping much better than I expected with the step up in level and pace. I thought out of the two, there would be a place for Sheerin and Hardie was done for, but he's proven me wrong. He's playing as well as he has for us, at a better level, a few years older. Full credit to him.

I'm not sure if he looks fitter than he did in the season that ended in disaster at Hamilton, but there's no doubt he's sharper than he's been in a long time. A lot quicker to react to things and he seems a lot quicker over 10 yards than he used to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if he looks fitter than he did in the season that ended in disaster at Hamilton, but there's no doubt he's sharper than he's been in a long time. A lot quicker to react to things and he seems a lot quicker over 10 yards than he used to.

Perhaps I should've said he's looking as fit as he's ever done, rather than fitter than ever. Regardless, I think he has been impressive this season and I'm really pleased for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should've said he's looking as fit as he's ever done, rather than fitter than ever. Regardless, I think he has been impressive this season and I'm really pleased for him.

I disagree Miss balloon buster.. While I am very happy with MMM he truley has not got 90 minutes in him. I thought he was excellent again yesterday but he was blowing out of his arse within 15 minutes of the start of the second half which might I add is no disgrace as he never stopped running until that point.

On this fitness pish that seems to be rumbling on, I firmly believe that our boys are as fit as they can be playing for us but if they played for a team with greater resources than us then their level of fitness would indeed be even better. The money spent by teams on fitness assesments ,excercise programs, dietitians,medical staff , equiptment and other fitness specialists does determine exactly how fit football players can get..

Some people seem unable to grasp this concept:shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's no surprise to me that we keep conceding late goals (we've conceded at least 3 or 4 in the last 20 minutes this season). The fact is that the biggest teams in the leagues have much fitter players due to the better coaching and sports science work they can afford. Look at the amount of late goals Man United score, because their players are fit enough to keep pressure constantly on the opposition, and against smaller teams, this pressure almost always tells as the les fit players tire both mentally and physically. Our lads did well yesterday to keep Rangers on the back foot as long as they did, but the fact is is that there's a reason Rangers are where they are - they have that extra 10% of fitness to keep the pressure on until the wee teams like us crack. Papac would never have been granted that much space in the first half, but our lads were just knackered from closing down and doing so much running over the rest of the game they lost track of him. If you give any player that amount of time and space, they're going to score (apart from Davidson, he said sarcastically).

All in all, I'm far from downhearted, and wasn't really surprised at all when they scored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's no surprise to me that we keep conceding late goals (we've conceded at least 3 or 4 in the last 20 minutes this season). The fact is that the biggest teams in the leagues have much fitter players due to the better coaching and sports science work they can afford. Look at the amount of late goals Man United score, because their players are fit enough to keep pressure constantly on the opposition, and against smaller teams, this pressure almost always tells as the les fit players tire both mentally and physically.

We have lost 5 in the last 20 minutes of games but have scored 3 during the same period, so this shows that they are holding their own at the end of matches

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samuel for me, Papac never had a look in. Apart from Craig and Morais coming on, poor substitution.

I thought the Morais for Swankie sub was really poor. Morais offers as much as Swankie does going forward, but Swanks actually gets back.. he covered for Grainger going forward all the time and was playing box to box for most of the game.

By taking him out for Morais, we effectively lost a man in defence when we weren't on the attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the Morais for Swankie sub was really poor. Morais offers as much as Swankie does going forward, but Swanks actually gets back.. he covered for Grainger going forward all the time and was playing box to box for most of the game.

By taking him out for Morais, we effectively lost a man in defence when we weren't on the attack.

Usually I'd be with you on that one but have to disagree for Saturday's game. I thought you could see him getting back more and it was visable that this is something someones mentioned to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the Morais for Swankie sub was really poor. Morais offers as much as Swankie does going forward, but Swanks actually gets back.. he covered for Grainger going forward all the time and was playing box to box for most of the game.

By taking him out for Morais, we effectively lost a man in defence when we weren't on the attack.

I agree 100% with you are saying and actually sent a text to another forumer saying we had lost the game when Swankie was withdrawn.

but on reflection I dont think Swankie can do 90 mins box to box like that so probably was the correct move.

It was either Hardie,Swankie or Sammy that was going to be hooked off first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but on reflection I dont think Swankie can do 90 mins box to box like that so probably was the correct move.

correct move to take him off, but to bring Morais on was poor. I said at the time (moaned at the time) how poor it was and that it shouldv been a straight swap for Craig. He might not have offered as much going forward, but he would muck in defensively.

By the hour mark at 1-1, you have to make sure your defence can cope before you can think about attacking IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share