Rousseau

I certainly wasn't comparing PC to Sir Alex! They're not even in the same league! It was an analogy to show sometimes you need to remove the cause of the problem. So, you are saying it is not a disciplinary problem, it's bad management because results were not good enough. However, surely discipline is distinct from results. Even if you're winning there can still be disciplinary problems, therefore results are irrelevant. Whatever he did you'd be criticising because "results weren't good enough". If he kept Miller and MOH around and results are bad, it's poor management and weak; get rid of Miller and MOH and results are bad, it's poor management. He can't win here. If a player is causing problems, then yes, you try to cajole them, but sometimes you get shot of them; sometimes there is no other way. What else could PC do, assuming they won't follow the manager's instructions? Keep around a disrupting influence? You sell them, or demote them. I don't think it's an unusual situation? I do have a problem with player's thinking they are bigger, or more important than, the manager. The manager is the most authoritative figure at a club, in terms of the team. We can't have a situation where a player can choose whether a manager stays or not, or what tactics or players they choose -- why not just give Miller the manager's position? He doesn't have the skills or experience for that role, so he should've put up or shut up. A player being dropped is normal, but it should be kept in-house; as far as I'm aware it wasn't the manager that 'leaked it'. You're more than welcome to bask in the glory of his sacking, but I don't quite see the need to twist every situation to prove that he was a bad manager. We're just flogging a dead horse. The OP was merely suggesting that we may have a disciplinary problem, as it's not the first time we've had players speaking out -- it's not specific to PC. I'm more than willing to concede that he wasn't good enough; results weren't good enough; performances -- although good in parts -- were not good enough. I disagree he was directly at fault for the disciplinary problems.

I'm the opposite: McLaren is interesting -- although I don't think he's quite right -- and Moyes is terrifying!!

Moreover, the progressive tactics I'd like to see does not have to be a free-flowing, attack-at-all-costs philosophy like the Spanish or Dutch, but a more organised, intense pressing style like some German sides -- and Portuguese... --; to be honest, that would suit the Scottish game more than a Spanish approach. Red Bull Salzburg play some stunning stuff -- high pressing, quick transitions etc. -- to great effect -- albeit built on Red Bull's war chest! Guys like Adi Hutter won leagues with RB Salzburg and are now doing well at other sides in Europe. Adi Hutter is currently running away with Young Boys in the Swiss league -- a league with a well-performing Basel in Europe. Surely these names are more approachable anyway? The DeBoers and Allardyces are more well-known here, but I suspect they'd be difficult to attract -- and I'm not sure their styles would suit our Scottish game.

Surely it's also a manager's job to get shot of a player that is causing problems? Sir Alex had no hesitation in shafting a player, and players far superior to Miller. MOH was crap, Miller was causing problems, Forrester has always been a problem fitness-wise, Dodoo I'm not sure about to be honest; what other manager would put up with that. PC is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't in this situation.

I was thinking the other day how we seem to be categorising potential managers into two groups: foreigners with the tactical nous; and British managers that are "safer", will know what it means to play for Rangers and have us organised and hard to beat etc. But what about getting a British manager, like McInnes, but doing what Sir Alex did and bring in a tactically progressive coach? I'd be more than happy with that situation; a sort of best of both worlds.

McLaren is a very good coach, although I'm not sure he's quite done enough as a manager -- despite doing very well with Derby (1st spell) and winning the Eredivisie with Twente!

onevision shuffling into Ibrox like...

He has a tendency to jump into a tackle, but that's just his inexperience, which will improve. His ability on the ball, to break lines and passing is impressive -- and those are things that are much harder to teach, IMO. Excellent prospect. I do prefer him to Cardoso too...

I can't argue with that! I actually thought Lee Clark was a coup, just because he had managed at the top-end of the Championship, but he's drifted since; now managing Bury in League One, and currently sitting 23rd. I can see Clarke going down the same route, although it might be a tad early to predict that. I agree with the need for a pragmatist, but I'd rather we go for someone who can take us to the next level, as well as bringing the pragmatic, winning mentality. Perhaps that is wishful thinking?

I think it's just my own prejudice against British coaches. I watch a lot of European matches, and I'm constantly fascinated by what's on offer, tactically; Leipzig, Dortmund, Atalanta, Napoli, Lille (albeit poorly at the moment!), PSG, Celta Vigo etc., are all remarkable in there own way. Even when you look at the English PL, you have Guardiola, who's different from Mourinho, who's different from Conte, who's different from Klopp, and so on. And, then I look at the British coaches, and they're basically, for me anyway, producing variations of the same tactic; it's dated, boring and will not achieve anything of note in European competition. That British element has it's part to play in the British game, but it's not the whole story. Sir Alex had that British knack ingrained in his teams, but he also relied upon Portuguese and Dutch coaches to supplement what he had. To bring it back to the OP, that British element will have it's benefits, but I'm unconvinced it will take us to the next level.

I don't really know what I'm arguing to be honest! I just thought our perceptions were interesting. I wasn't overwhelmed at PC's appointment, but I thought he had a decent track record -- and I still believe it was a step forward for us, if not as far as we would've liked! I maintain he has a better CV than Clarke. If you take their 'coaching' (or, No.2) career then, clearly Clarke has experience of 'bigger' clubs -- although, at Chelsea I suspect he was just around because he was a club man, as it certainly wasn't to 'coach' in the traditional sense with Jose's preferred team --, but that same mentality ('winning', 'pressure' etc.) is gained at Sporting, Panathanaikos and Rapid Bucharest. You said he [Clarke] must have learned something from Jose, but PC was brought up in that whole philosophy, and even teaches it. Of course, you have to transfer that over to the team, and neither was able to do so (PC with us, anyway). Managerially (or, No.1), surely PC has the edge? He's won things at "big-ish" (subjective) clubs. They're both respected coaches (PC around Europe and South America, Clarke in England... ), and whether you believe PC was a step forward or not -- not, in your case -- I still maintain PC has the better CV. But, yes, it is academic. Clarke's appointment is a bit of a coup, but I'm not sure why? Maybe it's my own prejudice regarding British and European coaches. There must be a reason why he'd been out of work for a year, and had to take a step down. It doesn't matter.

I just thought our perceptions interesting. When you look at their CV's, PC looks by far the better candidate -- too good for Killie --, but we're saying one is a dud and another has wonderful credentials? And when it came to us, a 'No.2 career' was irrelevant. I thought Killie getting Clarke was a coup, but now that I look, I'm not sure why? (I know Clarke wasn't touted as Rangers quality.)

Damn! I might have to watch their games now...

What's Steve Clarke actually achieved, though? Pedro's got much better credentials than Clarke.

What is it fans are expecting from McInnes, if indeed he is appointed? I keep hearing "safe pair of hands", but what is that? I'm not sure McInnes is the one to close the gap on them. (I might just do a Pete and start calling him a dud now! )

You wouldn't be saying that if a positional mistake cost us a last minute goal!

It doesn't cross the line, but he wins the ball so clearly; I'm not even sure if they touch!?

We were a lot more compact today, vertically, which helped win the ball back and counter-attacking. I felt the space between our CBs and Morelos against Killie was huge. The idea was to open up the space in between the lines by stretching play, but we just couldn't find a man in there against Killie.

Maybe give Barebear a PM too -- full 7 points in the prediction league...

The 'keeper's handball was laughable; how clear can you get? Even the foul on Morelos' jump against the 'keeper was soft; he wins the ball clearly. 'Keepers get too much protection in those situations.

McCrorie is one of the few that is willing to break their lines, and his passing is usually spot-on. He makes the odd mistake, but you have to expect that from a young lad. Exceptional prospect.

You could probably write it: Lively going forward, dominating possession etc., then concede a worldy from a soft foul and the heads go a wee bit. We dug in, but for a spell there nothing went right. Also, Miller scoring... That might be my first FGS of the season!! Failing to slip through Morelos for a golden opportunity sums him up: movement, positioning first class, but the final execution is woeful at times.

I wasn't sure. It seems like Pena has taken advantage of Morelos' movement, rather than the other way round with Miller. Miller's movement and intelligence is excellent, but he trap a ball, passes backwards too often and misses too many chances. Oh, for a younger player like Miller that can actually trap a ball!

Surely Colinstein is taking the p***?