Rousseau

I don't understand the criticism that he [Caixinha] doesn't know the Scottish game. What is that, the long ball? What makes the Scottish game so difficult to comprehend? We get pumped by European sides in the first round of the Europa League every year.

Better candidate than Wilson IMO

You know, I always thought Wilson was the better option because he currently works at Southampton, whereas Mitchell is/was at Tottenham which isn't the best example of the DoF. However, doing a bit of reading I do agree that Mitchell seems the better option. He's hampered at Tottenham with very little control. Moreover, he actually had a helping hand in developing Southampton's model, whereas Wilson has just been able to use it, in a way. We need someone to actually develop the model. Both are good candidates, but I now agree that Mitchell shades it because he can develop the model with us; which is what we need.

Garner's was bad the way it turned out, but it wasn't intentional; he was going to boot the ball off the player... hard. It's something I see quite regularly in Scottish football tbh.

Foderingham has misjudged the ball and probably deserved to get red-carded for it. It was close, so it's understandable that the refs missed it.

Quite simply it was a Penalty. However, as McCann said in the studio, not for the tug of the shirt, but for the stamp -- probably the wrong word -- on Toral's foot which caused him to lose his balance.

I thought Toral and Kiernan were excellent. Miller was piss poor, so I was pleased Murty subbed him at half-time for Garner. We must've been practicing corners -- I can't remember the last time we scored one?

I really think there has been small improvements under Murty. The first couple of games were poor, but we did create a lot more chances. We were good against St Johnstone, but crumbled when down to 10-men before getting out of jail. Today we continued that attacking form, creating several very good chances, and I thought we were a little tighter today. We seem to be more aggressive too. Although I want a more experienced coach in, I wouldn't mind seeing him stick around. He'll probably go back to the U20's, but hopefully we see him progress under us. He's done well. I am curious to find out whom has been advising him behind the scenes?

I suppose it's right that the team is unchanged; they played well against St Johnstone.

Did you not read the interview with Weiss where he confirmed he has perfect English ?

Exactly. I've seen that criticism a few times -- not so much on here, but elsewhere -- and it's completely baseless.

I just seen the opening day fixture was attended by 16 fans; that's Sixteen. It'll take a while to develop, for sure, but 16? Sheesh.

Not when they manage us they don't...

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]655[/ATTACH]

Holy crap! How did I forget him!?

Ha! We have precedent...

Goalkeepers make shite managers generally.

I'm not so sure about that. There are fewer of them, but the ones I know of have done not too badly. There is Nigel Adkins, getting Southampton promoted; Leonid Slutsky, overseeing CSKA Moscow's dominance in Russia; Dino Zoff had a spell at Juventus; Julen Lopetegui had a wonderfull spell at Porto, now the current Spain manager; Nuno Santo was manager of Porto too, doing very well, and also managed Valencia; and even in your Netherlands there was Michel Preud'homme, who was runner-up with Twente? Not too shabby to me.

Now that I see it, Porto seem very willing to appoint Goalkeepers and relative unknowns like Andre Villas-Boas and Mourinho alongside those 'keepers above. Surely they have a bit of money to attract a bigger name -- I wonder why they go with younger, unknowns? They certainly have that demand to win, but then they do generally have the best squad alongside Benfica. Interesting...

I thought taking off Toral was the right option. He (and Holt actually) were tiring and we needed fresh legs. Halliday has been awful lately but was the right choice last night and Holt went onto finish the game strongly.

It was a completely understandable decision, but I just felt Toral's calmness on the ball and his better control could've been effective in seeing out the game, slowing it down, talking the sting out of it. Admittedly it could've been risky too considering he was, as you say, tiring.

I agree about the midfield.

It worked out in the end!

I thought Toral was excellent last night -- those 2 loose balls aside. He was playing the DM role and his positioning was excellent, always open to receive a pass -- even from Wes a few times, breaking the STJ press, which is non-existant with Halliday -- with clever movements. Again, aside from those 2 loose balls early on, his distribution was excellent too, breaking their lines with crisp, accurate passes. He is casual, but he was a calming influence when we moved the ball forward; which, I think, helped our general attacking play. I was annoyed to see Halliday replace him because at that stage Toral was slowing the game down, like Hyndman; which is what we needed when defending a lead with 10-men -- game management.

I've not seen the U20's play but I imagine last nights performance is how they play: 4-3-3, clever movement, ball retention and attacking play. There was a naivety to it, but it showed our technical ability -- perhaps why Halliday was dropped for Holt? Perhaps someone who watches the U20's can enlighten me?

I know there are a number on here who favour the DoF role and are exited by it. I'm definitely not one of them. It seems to me we are just limping along and will do so until we get substantial investment.

It dosnt fill me with exitment and hope. Quite the opposite. We are a withering sight to be frank.

It's not a panacea, but there are advantages that will benefit us in the long-run. Investment will always be needed but spending it all on a new team and Manager just to do so again in 3 years is unsustainable. A DoF will allow us a certain level of sustainability; an infrastructure that will pay dividends in the long-run. I'm excited because it's progress, not because it's a cure-all.

so the DoF brings in a coach, that suits his playing style, then that's it...leaves him to get on with it. Couple of months down the line, team not performing, so the DoF blames the coach & gets someone else.

I see it as a very fluid relationship - While the DoF is the "higher ranked", they should effectively work as a pair......a team, in order to get the best results on the pitch.

 

The DoF should be able to give an unbiased view on player performances, unlike the coach who is working with the day-to-day. This was shown recently when Murty commented that Rob Kiernan "trained like a beast" and strolled back into the starting 11, then had his usual very sketchy game. The DoF should be able to step in and ask "Why??".

It's not up to the DoF to interfere with the team. If a player is playing poorly then that is the Head Coach's responsibility. The only thing the DoF can influence is the 'type' of player we bring in; he must suit the preferred style -- with the Head Coach ultimately having the final choice. The DoF is responsible for the infrastructure, the framework within which the football department is run. The Coach should be slotting into this framework.

I think you are conflating DoF with the old Manager position; a DoF is much higher than that. The Head Coach and DoF are distinct roles -- of course with some overlaps but they shouldn't be interfering with each other. There will be regular meetings, sure, but each should have distinct roles.

Anybody think that if the doctors and medical researchers find a link between heading a football and dementia that politicians will try to ban heading from the game .

We're ahead of the curve then... (No pun intended.)

Perhaps if Wilson has him as preferred choice, Southampton were taking an interest in him.

It's a big 'If' if Caixinha is Ross Wilson's preferred choice -- in the sense that he will be appointed our DoF -- but I suspect Southampton do have a few on their list to slot into their structure like Pochetino, Koeman and Puel. It'd be a big plus in Caixinha's box, but Southampton do have that structure in place; we need to develop it.

I disagree (no surprise... )

 

The DoF is expected to oversea the entire footballing structure of the club. Should he not be the one that sets the style that the various ages/teams play??? In order to achieve that, he must be in very close contact with the various coaches. He needs to ensure that the style etc is being applied correctly.

 

At the same time, the coaches must feel comfortable enough to approach him to say, "this ain't working, that ain't working" and there fore tweaking methods and training structures in order to maintain the preferred style/philosophy.

 

I don't believe that there is the clear cut difference between the 2 roles that many folk are implying - there is a lot of overlap...if you want the structure to work properly IMHO.

 

Part of the DoF job is to ensure that the coaches are doing their job, and therefore should have some say in the squads that are being picked. Picking the squad is primarily the head coaches responsibility, but I believe that the DoF should have some input into it.

There will be overlaps, but the only "input" the DoF should have on tactics and team selection is picking the Head Coach to fit the playing style in the first place.

I think we need a bit of context with Caixinha: saying he's managed X, Y and Z doesn't really help much if we don't know the team and how they usually perform. To date he has managed Uniao Leiria, Nacional, Santos Laguna and Al-Gharafa.

Uniao Leiria had finished 9th the previous season -- their first back in the top flight -- and Caixinha finished 10th. Since leaving they have been relegated twice -- latterly through financial problems. It's nothing special but he seems to have stabalised the club mid-table; for a newly promoted side that's not bad.

Nacional are a bigger side in Portugal, so this seems to be a step up. They finished 6th the year before and Caihinha had them finishing 7th -- also getting them to the Semi-Final of the Cup. After he left, they have generally finished lower; with an 11th place finish their lowest, 5th being their highest. Again, he has done nothing speical; he just seems to have stabalised them at their level.

Santos Laguna finished 9th before he arrived and then he seems to have steadily improved them, getting to several Semi-Finals then becoming Champions. Santos Laguna are a big Mexican club who expect to be close to titles. Caixinha seems to have taken them at a low ebb and got them to the title. This has been his most successful spell.

I have no data for his Saudi Arabian adventure.

He seems to be a solid coach. He's taken sides and stabalised them at their level. He may not be winning titles regularly, but that can't be expected with mid-table sides.

Apparently we were after him 2 years ago too as a No. 2 to Pereira, before we appointed MW. He's had quite a decent run as a No.2 at some big-ish clubs, relatively speaking (Rapid Bucharest, Sporting Lisbon, Panathanaikos etc.). And for the oldies: he prefers a 4-4-2! (Although I suspect a more modern 4-4-2).

Qualities I feel we need for the DoF & head coach roles:

- good communicator

- Proven Tactical knowledge

- Command respect

- Effective training methods

- Ability to identify errors & adjust accordingly

- Clear vision of how the team should operate

- Clear vision of the type/style of play to achieve team/club goals

 

Now, he's the thing....many of these traits apply to both positions. Therefore, both roles must be able to work VERY closely together in order to achieve the stated outcomes.

Stuff like tactics should be discussed regularly between the coach & DoF - whats working & whats not. Team selection should be discussed weekly before a match - the Coach should be able to clearly justify to the DoF why any one player is in the team. That's not saying that the DoF decides the starting 11, but he should be consulted and be given the opportunity to question the Coaches decisions. Ultimately it will be the DoF's responsibility to ensure that the team is playing in a particular manner (ie. winning), therefore he should be able to question if/why an under performing player is regularly included in the squad.

 

Who should be doing the jobs - I've no idea, but I think a balance of Old head/experience for the DoF role, with a younger head coach seems the most likely option.

I think you've got the DoF role slightly wrong. The DoF should have no say whatsoever in tactics and team selection.

It's not going to happen, but I do think that the 3 - 4 -2 -1 formation would suit our current squad better. We cannot half 2 CB's who are totally and constantly exposed by the lack of awareness of our full backs. In that way, the spaces left behind by Tav and Wallace is less gaping. In every match this season, the opposition have merely played the ball into the spaces which then pulls one of the CBs out of position to attempt to cover. (None of whom have any pace). We don't have natural wingers (you could perhaps argue the case for McKay, but definitely not Waghorn), so rather let them play as 10's. Garner has no support as the wingers are so far from him, so useless trying to play him as the target man.

 

GK Foderingham

CRB Senderos - CB Hill - CLB Wilson

RM Tavernier - (CM Take your pick from Holt/Torel/Halliday) - CM Hyndman - LM Wallace

10's Waghorn - McKay

ST Garner

I've argued for that formation before; it seems to suit what we have. It's certainly in vogue in Italy at the moment.

I think the point is that they couldn't get a 'keeper in, not because they were not allowed but because they couldn't get a deal done. However, if a team has no 'keeper, surely that game must be postponed? And if it happened for Hearts last year... stupidity from the SFA.

I was coming round to the idea of Alex Neil, but if he is indeed a Celtic fan then in the words of the sacked McGhee: "Get that tae f***!"

I'd prefer a more tactically astute manager, and certainly one able to change with the opposition; for me, Monk is a good option in that regard. Rowett is a bit too pragmatic for me, and he doesn't really have a philosophy -- certainly not one that would fit with what, I hope, we are trying to do. I don't know much about the Portuguese guy -- much to my annoyance -- but any foreigner must be more tactically astute than any British manager, but then might not understand the British game. DoF has to be appointed first, though.

The man is a machine; it's not natural.

If you are picking a "Greatest Rangers' Team", the 1st name on the sheet must be Baxter, J., at No 6.

The same rule applies for a National XI.

Don't just take my word for it, check this for starters:-

 

 

There are lots more videos of/on the Great Man on YouTube.

Peruse them on a rainy day, and weep

He was before my time, but that was stunning; the Scottish Iniesta indeed -- my only reference unfortunately! Thanks for posting the video.

It might also be that other teams allowed us to play well by giving time and space to our players. Teams have now learnt that the best way to play us is to press us and be physical. Our players are no longer finding they have the time to play passes or the space to run into to receive the ball. How much of our problem in coping with this is down to the management team promoting a fairly slow tempo

and emphasising possession rather than what you do with the possession is open to question.

That can't be true as those good performances came in the middle of our games. If teams had figured us out, then we should've been doing well at the start of the season then fade away, but we started poorly then had a little good spell then fell away again. It might be true that teams have always had us sussed, but then our good games show that we were able to overcome that.

Anyway, those few good games don't excuse the many poor ones.

that is placing far too high a value on those results

 

beating those teams should be done by rote

 

this team is woeful in absolute terms

I agree, and I'm not saying we've hit that level often -- far from it -- but when playing at our absolute best, this team is capable of playing much much better than what they've shown for most of the season. I'm not "profoundly wrong", I'm actually correct in my statement that this team can play a lot better. That was my point. It does not mean that this team is not absolutely woeful for the most part, and will go down as one of our worst squads -- I still think Ally's League 2 and 1 squads were worse, however -- because it will.