Didn't see today's game so was very pleased to read your positive and detailed summary. Very good to hear of Fleck's and Aluko's contributions, but was especially pleased to read of Bartley's performance at right back. We have a decent centre-back pairing of Boca and Goian, so if Bartley can do the business at right back, that is an excellent use of his talents as Whitty and Broadfoot are not up to it, and might possibly save us a few quid in Jan as right wing-back was a position needing some money spent on it - not now it seems

Did you see enough of Kerkar to suggest he is worth holding on to?

Unfortunately Kerkar was only on for five minutes or so, but he did manage to almost score just seconds after coming on. I still think it would probably be for the best if we let him go, hes never really going to make it in the team, but to be fair he did no worse in those five minutes he was on for than the likes of Bedoya have done in a full 90 minutes.

Thought Wallace and Aluko were our best players today, and that was without a target man in the box for them to aim for. Everyone played well though, impressive all round.

Agree that Fleck put in a top performance.

Why were we going to loan him out? He's obviously a talented player, everyone knew that, but still wasn't given a chance. By luck he got an opportunity today, will be interesting to see what happens now.

For me, we have to go with the same team next week.

Renegade, definitely agree as to playing the same team next week, we need to encourage consistency and sticking with a winning team is a good way of doing that.

With regards to fleck, i honestly hope he doesnt go out on loan, and am very hopeful that todays performance will have convinced ally not to send him away, but apparently both sheffield united and blackpool are interested, so we'll have to wait and see i suppose

I posted the other day that I wanted Fleck to start in his preferred position, as I predicted another Charlie Adam situation if we let him go.

Let's hope Ally sees sense and keeps McCulloch as far away from the team as is possible. Hopefully he will get sold, but I doubt it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16373693.stm

Agreed Castle, mcculloch offers nothing positive to the team whatsoever, we were a million times slicker in posession without him today, and davis seemed a lot more free with edu alongside him.

Henrik we are all aware of the possible loan deals. People posted it above.

Ally can and will now probably cancel them.

But it's not even speculation, it was posted on the club website.

Aye but that was before Lafferty got injured, and Fleck came on and had a great game.

The downfall of the team started when McCulloch came back from injury (Hearts away) and McCulloch was put into the middle instead of Davis who was punted wide. Prior to that it was Edu and Davis and we were winning.

If Ally puts McCulloch back in and changes it again, then I will lose all faith in him.

We know it isn't speculation Henrik. Everyone knew about this. Are you daft or something? It's a loan deal though and not a sale.

It can and should be cancelled after todays game.

Very true, but then thats been apparent to most of us for years, it amazes me how first walter and now ally have always had so much belief in his ability that clearly just isnt there.

Don't blame McCulloch myself, blame Ally. McCulloch obviously wants to do well, but he's not at the standard he was a couple years ago.

Thought the difference today was that we simply played with two wide men.

The problem and worry I have is that. Ally stumbled upon both changes due to injury. I just hope he doesn't go back to the shyyte system with McCUlloch as before.

Jelavic9 seems like the auld pals thing. Most Rangers fans and fans of other clubs can see McCulloch is baws. Rangers look to have no creativity at all when he's on and barring a few pens things could be worse for Rangers by now.

But for me the biggest contributing factor for the slump is the absence of Naismith.

You were playing Stuart McCall's Motherwell.

Just incase you needed a little perspective.

But to be fair, one good half season apart has Mcculloch really ever been good enough?

And very much agree that we should always be playing with to wide men, but having said that, both aluko and wallace stated on the wings against celtic, so i dont think it can be said that that was the real difference (y)

I wish that Ally would read these threads from time to time!

Maybe then he would realise how those who watch the Gers every week feel about certain players - mainly McCulloch - and maybe, just maybe, he would see them in a different light

Of course a manager must have the strength of his convictions and not bend to the whim of any enraged poster, but when so many Ibrox regulars seem to have the same opinion of McCulloch, what does Ally see that we don't?!

(....and I feel the same about Whittaker)

and yes tim o tay we were playing a motherwell side third in th eleague, who not too long ago were just a few points behind yourselves. think before posting, and none of that paranoid trash about mccall being biased towards rangers

McCulloch had a great season no last, but the one before.

And see what your saying about the two wingers, but if McCulloch had played today instead of Edu, don't think it would have made any difference.

The real difference is McCulloch. He started against Celtic and was piiish. When Edu came on in the OF game he did more in about 15 mins than Lee did the whole game.

Fleck is also a creative attacker who links midfield with attack (when played in his right place) and is exactly the player we need to play.

Paranoid trash?

Whatever do you mean? Did I say Motherwell 'lay down'? Methinks you betrayed your own conscience just there, Jelly.

I was merely inferring that you are at home to a pash provincial side who are now being caught up by dross.

couldnt agree more castle.

and renegade im afraid were going to have to agree to disagree on this one haha, i just find it hard to envisage a flowing, attacking rangers team with mcculloch at the core :P

haha tim, i was quite sure your desicion to say "stuart mcalls motherwell" rather than just motherwell was a delibirate hint at the alledged favouritism shown to us by mccall. apologies if i misunderstood.