Gaffer

There's a bit of a difference for me now though. When we made the 'mistakes' with previous managers, we also wasted money on their targets. With the DoF in place I expect us still to bring in decent prospects for the club and represent an investment rather than a drain on our cash. I was (and still am) delighted with the January transfer business and there's no doubt our team/squad is a lot stronger now. If we bring in a new manager now, he's at least inheriting a strong, youthful team with potential. Whether it's Murty or anyone else, I'd hope we have some degree of constraint on who they can bring to the club. We can't allow ourselves to waste any more money on thirty somethings because I'm struggling to think of any time that has brought success to us. Equally, we can't be bringing in players that the manager thinks they can 'save' somehow. We can't afford that risk right now. Furthermore, we can't risk bringing in a character that ruins the harmony in the dressing room. We've had enough of those too. So for me, the DoF is like our safety net. We can afford to make mistakes with managerial appointments providing our DoF is there to control his ability to screw things up completely.

If it's true, it's probably the only appointment I could be excited about. Style of football is as important as success to me and he's one of very few managers who has a style I'd love to watch.

We will definitely have to agree to disagree on this one. I too think he should have made changes (albeit Holt for Windass, not Goss), but the team stopped playing when Celtic went down to ten men. I think there are plenty of lessons to learn for Murty, but the team let him down in that game, and it spoiled the momentum we had. The team seems to have escaped the criticism as almost, if not all of it, has been aimed at him. In many ways he'll be happy at that because he's a good man manager, but a shame on his reputation that so many fans think that way about him.

It's funny that you mention that dB, because that's where I'd like Murphy to play. He's got the pace and skill and is arguably our most creative player. It means most of,our best players can be on the pitch at the same time.

I assume Murty is doing that too and the team listened to him for 60 minutes of the Celtic game, and every game since the turn of the year. Suddenly they stop doing what they've been told and it's now Murty's fault? Too many of our own fans are being disrespectful to him I think. Murty is a smart guy and knows more about football than any of us will ever know. He has enough smart people around him to know what's missing from the team, and from his own skillset. In management there are so many other factors that can affect a performance and I expect they're working on that behind the scenes.

The manager seems to be taking all the stick for that. What about the team?

If Murty wins the cup, the job will be his. If we finish outside the top two he won't get it. Anything in between is still a grey area and will then depend on what other candidates are out there. There are none who I can be excited about, but similar to any young player I'm looking for Murty to demonstrate potential and growth. For me he has done so I'd stick with him unless an outstanding candidate appears.

There hasn't been a rush of these wealthier fans to help so far and I don't anticipate that happening any time soon. So it'll be longer term investors that are likely to contribute. That means they'll look for sustainability. I don't want to see us break the bank for a manager or players and I don't expect we will do that thank goodness. I expect Murty will be given the job as we'll as a few more quality signings. There appears to be a decent plan in place as far as the team is concerned and with the youth in this team it's only going to get better.

That's not what I witnessed Pete, although it does depend on what you mean by played better. Killie were never in the game. They closed us down occasionally in our own half, but tended to retreat every player behind the ball. I'd hate to watch that football but it is the easiest tactic to try to get a result. We'd never accept that at Rangers, although maybe Walter did a bit of that on our run to the UEFA cup final. Unfortunately our central defence is too brittle at the moment and we give away easy goals. If we get that sorted we'd be turning most of our losses to draws or wins. That in itself is enough to win this league. If we then add a number 10 to the team, I'd Ben happy to bet on us winning the league next season.

I don't mind if threads like this appear. It would however worry me if it was true. It's not thank goodness. As well as not being good enough, he isn't exactly the best influence in the dressing room so it'll be an advantage for us if he goes to our rivals.

My point is that Murty put out a team that was performing until they had man sent off. Then they stopped playing. Yes, he shoulders a little bit of the blame, but the team was capable and didn't deliver. Let's no talk always blame the manager.

I wouldn't take him back. He's not good enough. Fod is much better in my opinion. Hearts is about his level so he'll do an ok job for them I'd think.

I agree he could and probably should have made changes, and I've said before what I thought he should have done. However, even with the players on the pitch we should have won that game. It was the players that failed to perform, and I'm not letting them off the hook for that game. Some of our players are not good enough and yet we still came within touching distance of a league challenge. Did anyone think that was possible in December? Not a chance! He deserves the chance to bring in the two or three quality players we all agree we need. There's a risk in sticking with Murty. There's a risk in bringing someone new in. I'm just opining that on balance, we are better off with Murty.

The reason we didn't beat them was at least 99% the fault of the team, not the manager. Had they kept doing what they had been doing we would have. And I'm sure had Murty been on the pitch, even he would have scored two of our chances. I do however agree that the reaction, or lack of, (i.e. In the Killie game) is a bigger issue and something Murty has to take much of the responsibility for.

Murty is lower risk because he knows the players, he knows the club, he's started to build a team that was capable of beating Celtic (and should have if the team had just performed even close to the level they should have), and has a good relationship with the DoF. Given that we are within touching distance of Celtic, why on earth do we want to start changing the manager? If there was an outstanding candidate then by all means, but I don't see who that is. Everyone else that's been mentioned is good, but I'm not convinced they're any better a risk than sticking with Murty.

I think we've already got a manager who is lower risk.

When there's an issue with failed passes, it's almost always down to a lack of movement. Barcelona are often held up as an amazing passing side, but even I could make almost all of those passes stick because the movement around the player with the ball means there's always an easy pass on. That's why Rousseau was talking about the movement in himself previous post. A team's success at passing is directly related to its movement. It's why one of the measures being used by Sky Sports (and others) is the distance travelled by each player. It is a blunt instrument, however it is a good indicator. You can see a big difference between poorly performing teams and hig performing teams. The average is around 8.5km per game but some players like Messi have an average of 11-12km, which is a bit surprising when you consider that Messi looks quite lazy at points in games. As I say, it's a blunt measure and there are many better ways to assess the movement, but interesting to look out for nonetheless.

Yeah, but he was 'only' a coach there. It's very different when you're the one making the decisions, managing the personalities, the media, the expectations, and on the hook for results. Don't get me wrong, I've already said I think he's done a great job there but I don't read too much into that because it's night and day to managing us.

It's so much easier fo managers and players to perform at clubs where expectations are low. It's a whole different ball game at a club like Rangers. We've had more than our fair share of players and managers who found that out the hard way. I'm not trying to belittle the achievements of Clarke, but I would not want us to replace Murty for him.

I agree with much of what you say. As I've mentioned before, one of the simplest things we could do is move the ball faster. We have a change of mentality at home. The players are given more time on the ball so they take it. It shouldn't matter how much time the opposition is willing to give us, we need to switch the ball faster to open up the spaces. I don't however think we are as linear as you say. I do see dynamic runs from the majority of the front 4, but it's still too tight because we've taken too long to move the ball. I know you like your stats and if you look at our speed of play at home (against most teams that sit in) compared with our speed against those who close us down, you'll be surprised at the difference. I've offered other ways we can deal with the issue we have at home, but simply moving the ball faster is possibly a simple (in some respects) solution to something we are perhaps over complicating. [I just noticed this is my 1,000th post on the forum. It only seems like yesterday I joined. Just shows how many opinions I have. If I post enough of them I'm eventually going to get something right, surely!]

What I find so strange is that we are so close to beating Celtic for the first time in years and yet we now want to attack the manager, the board and King. I'm sure everyone associated with Celtic wants us to change direction but surely it's just about tweaking things now. Why risk it all now? Of course there is merit in always trying to improve on things by making changes, but are we really that far away? If we are, can someone point it out to me please? Yes, there are ways to improve the board and I don't think many of any would deny that. I've already mentioned things I'd like to change there. Yes, there is maybe another manager out there who could advance us a little bit, and of course there are better players out there. However, with two or three quality additions to the first eleven I'd still be happy to see Murty lead us into next season. I can appreciate we all want success. I do too, but as I've said previously we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water here. Isn't this a time for calm heads? Thankfully the people that are in charge of our club seem to be remaining calm despite the hysteria going on out here. I just hope they don't lose their heads in the madness. I may disagree with certain decisions or actions (or inaction) coming from the board but I have no reason at all to doubt their motives. That's more than can be said for certain people who seem to want to cause trouble at this critical time.

I'm hoping we can supplement the existing board with better leaders, or even replace some of those already involved. I feel we need someone with the strength (gravitas) of King involved in a more hands on role. He can't obviously so I'd welcome a change there. Money aside, is there someone we could identify that would make an ideal chairman? I can't think of anyone but I'd be interested in others' thoughts. My preference is for the board to state quite clearly what the strategy is and some of the key milestones. I wouldn't even freak out if they said "We are building over the next three years, and that means sticking with Murty and younger players no matter what" because although I may not like it, at least it's a strength of commitment and a vision. I'd also like to see that strength of character coming out of the club in terms of dealing with the detractors (i.e. The media, politicians, etc). I accept that in the majority of instances it is better to deal with these issues privately and confidentially, however I don't see much if any progress on that front so I'd at least like to see an acknowledgement from the board that there is an issue and that they are dealing with it, even if that is then managed behind closed doors.

I don't think D'Artagnan's points make sense at all, sorry. And now I'm confused about what money you're interested in. There has clearly been money spent on the team. Would you accept that? There's also been money spent on the stadium. Would you accept that too? As for you not liking McInnes, i didn't want him either. The point is however that many fans did, but more importantly the board and the shareholders did so they went for him. That's what they're supposed to do. They are supposed to go with the person they think is best, even if we don't think so. Do you think they're trying to get it wrong? Would you accept that their motives are correct but haven't executed very well? I'm not sure what you're saying. And I then go back to the main point. The players we had on the park should have beat Celtic. Do you agree? Had we won that game, would you have posted these points against King or the board? I doubt it. What you're doing is so disrespectful to our manager. He WAS the under 20 coach but he IS now our manager and continuing to refer to him as an under twenty coach is insulting. Finally, I'll ask it again. Who has the money and inclination to replace King? He's been pretty vocal that he's only there because no one else could or would. I don't see a queue of people ready to replace him. Do you?

To break teams down we need our most creative players on the pitch. Currently, I'd suggest they are: Murphy; Candeias; Docherty; Goss; Tav; John; Morelos and Cummings. There is little doubt (after simple examination of the facts) that 4-2-3-1 appears to work well for us away from home, or against teams that open up as they attack us. However it's not appropriate without a top number 10. So, we need to change our formation and tactics. To accommodate our creative players we need something that offers two wide roles (Candeias and Murphy) for the overlap (from John and Tav), two strikers and cover in midfield (to prevent the break always from teams playing the counter against us). That means there's really are only two options available to us. We either play 4-4-2 or 4-2-4 (or equivalent). The problem we have then is that we are playing a different group of players with a different system for home and away games. I don't think this is sustainable. Perhaps the best way to achieve the same result is to stick with the same basic structure, but play two creative midfielders instead. That would mean we play 4-1-4-1 which is the same as 4-2-3-1, except the number 10 is moved to a holding midfield role and have the other two central midfielders play in attacking positions. The team would look like (based on current fit players): Tav, Alves, Martin, John in defence Holt or equivalent as the holding midfielder Goss and Docherty as advanced playmakers Candeias and Murphy as wide players Morelos OR Cummings to spearhead the attack This would make it so much easier to play against packed defences. We could continue to use Windass in the away games if we wanted but at least this keeps the majority of our best players involved in a similar style and structure each game. Murty is a smart guy and will obviously know this but the problem appears to be that Windass is his favourite and cannot be dropped. Pity, because his persistence with Windass means that's he is jeopardising his own future. Its going to be very interesting to see how we shape up in our next game.

I had asked in an earlier post if the OP is a representative of Club 1872. Can anyone (or indeed D'Artagnan) confirm? I only ask because I read something that seemed to imply this.