Is Ally the Man for the job? - The McCoist Thread

[calscot 0]

Strange because I have a different view from yourself?

 

Well for me it's a very strange complaint. The strangest part is that you presume to know the whole story of the player when in reality I doubt you know much about his fitness, how he is settling in and how ready he is to fit into the team. The guy is a very young player who we acquired for free, I don't see why the manager should be compelled to play him immediately. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

21 is hardly schoolboy age, he signed him so I questioned the merits of how he can't get near the team even when there's been injury problems. Wouldn't be the first time a signing has been wasted i.e. Matt McKay.

 

He's hardly a vastly experienced player either and falls into the same age bracket as a lot of the youngsters we've been playing. Managers make a lot of signings to build a squad and not all of them get to play in the team in the first third of the season for many and varied reasons. To say he's been wasted is a strange conclusion from some who does not know even close to the full story.

 

You're blowing this 8 youths thing way out of proportion, it's no-where near 8 youths starting the games and some of the 'youths' are about 22 years old.

 

Usually five of the "Murray Park graduates" start a game - for me that's a hell of a lot, and more than I'd like.

 

Don't know about you but I see 23 and under as pretty young even for a footballer. I really don't know where you're coming from as Rangers have haven't won so many titles and trophies by playing a load of under 21's or even under 23's. They have done so by playing mostly experienced players, and there is no doubt no matter what age these guys are, they are hardly seasoned pros.

 

What we've done by playing so many youngsters is exceptional in our modern history - why are you trying to dumb it down? I find that very strange.

 

You seem to take great efforts in turning positives into negatives, I really wonder why...

[calscot 0]

oh but it does. to be fair ant midfielder will struggle if the tactics are pass it to the ch who will hoof it to jig.

 

I haven't seen a game yet where that is the main tactics by Rangers.

[calscot 0]

Probably not and I guess we'll never know.

 

I will say though he was the only one who tried to change things in that period. He said himself he had a 3 year plan.

 

Where in his three year plan did walking away after six months come into it?

[calscot 0]

I was a fan of PLG. I believe that when we let him go and brought back Walter Smith it set Rangers back years. Yes he was stabilising influence but that wasn't what we needed at that time we needed strong decisons to be made and to see them through.

 

How does a manager set a football team back years? In that case surely nothing is McCoists fault as Smith, Advocaat, Eck, PLG and Smith again must have set the club back decades.

 

How is winning three titles (and cheated out of the fourth), four cups and a European final setting anyone back years? Maybe he set us back to the early 60's...

 

And how would it have changed the financial meltdown? That's what REALLY set us back years.

 

PLG needed time and he needed Murray to back him even if it meant a couple of years of winning nothing we would have been in better shape at the end of it in my opinion.

 

What did PLG need time for? After six months we were 17 points behind. Was he turning it round at the time? No - we were in the middle of a full blown dressing room crisis. Then he was offered more time as long as he was committed and didn't take it.

 

A couple of years of winning nothing does not guarantee success. Our fans can't even take a couple of lost games in the middle of the most difficult rebuilding of our club in its history - why should they put up with being totally uncompetitive with absolutely no light at the end of the tunnel and not even the players' endorsement?

 

How do you know Ally isn't quietly revolutionising our club? Things have certainly changed and we've never seen so many youth players in the team. Why doesn't he deserve three years of no criticism.

 

But the fact is NO Rangers manager will get that. PLG needed to have a minimum of competitiveness to survive the three years to put his plan in place, he failed there in half a season. Ally on the other hand, has had that minimum competitiveness and is being hounded out... Massive contrast there.

[calscot 0]

Agree and how was he ever going to field a winning formula with a split dressing room and people undermining him. It played into the opposition hands straight away.

 

Plenty of stronger managers have survived dissent in the dressing room. Smith showed he could get rid of Barry if he didn't tow the line - why couldn't PLG? A good manager doesn't have debilitating dressing room splits. Funny how McCoist has been criticised in not knowing how to motivate the players, but PLG is seen as a victim...

 

PLG bought a whole team of players and had a few million left for more, he should have played them and dropped or sold the dissidents. If his methods worked then the players who followed them should have been at least as successful as most Rangers sides and if they really improved the team then their results should have been better than average if not exceptional.

 

I Ally had as poor results as PLG and had a dressing room split, I'd be wanting him gone.

[calscot 0]

What happened with Barry Ferguson later did perhaps vindicate Le Guen on that score.

 

I fail to see where Le Guen was vindicated. He could have dropped and sold Barry if he wanted to but he had to commit to the club. There's no point getting rid of what is considered you best player, if your manager then walks away later.

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

Where in his three year plan did walking away after six months come into it?

 

When Murray, The Medical staff and some of the players refused to back him. He probably figured it wasn't worth the effort

[simplythebest 0]

Well for me it's a very strange complaint. The strangest part is that you presume to know the whole story of the player when in reality I doubt you know much about his fitness, how he is settling in and how ready he is to fit into the team. The guy is a very young player who we acquired for free, I don't see why the manager should be compelled to play him immediately. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

I don't know any story at all but if he's not good enough by this stage to even get a shot then it's another waste of a wage brought in, indicating we've learned nothing. The reason I question the manager not playing him is because it's the same manager who complained about needing more bodies but isn't using a body he did bring in.

 

He's hardly a vastly experienced player either and falls into the same age bracket as a lot of the youngsters we've been playing. Managers make a lot of signings to build a squad and not all of them get to play in the team in the first third of the season for many and varied reasons. To say he's been wasted is a strange conclusion from some who does not know even close to the full story.

I await to see what happens but the skepticism comes from bitter experience of the number of players Rangers have signed and hardly seen them play for us if at all. He's only on a one year contract as well so if he's just going to go to the end of that without having played any part then it really has been a waste of time and money.

 

Usually five of the "Murray Park graduates" start a game - for me that's a hell of a lot, and more than I'd like.

 

Don't know about you but I see 23 and under as pretty young even for a footballer. I really don't know where you're coming from as Rangers have haven't won so many titles and trophies by playing a load of under 21's or even under 23's. They have done so by playing mostly experienced players, and there is no doubt no matter what age these guys are, they are hardly seasoned pros.

 

What we've done by playing so many youngsters is exceptional in our modern history - why are you trying to dumb it down? I find that very strange.

 

You seem to take great efforts in turning positives into negatives, I really wonder why...

I like it personally, I expected more when this lower league situation first came about.

 

Once a player gets to about 21-23 then i'd say they've gone past being kids, still fairly young but if they aren't good enough by that stage for the first team then there has to be serious doubt. I mean 17 year old Raheem Sterling is starting for England tonight, old saying is if you're good enough you're old enough. You talk about our history but it has been noted a lot that Rangers have underused young players, especially since developing them was one of the main points of opening Auchenhowie. Maybe looking to our youth more rather than spunking millions on this and that would have saved us all the recent trauma.

 

I'm 'dumbing it down' because you keep using it as a reason why we can't have expectations and standards. The position we're in is also exceptional in our history, if youngsters weren't going to be used after being punted down 3 division then we'd have been as well shutting down all our youth academies. These guys still have to live by what is expected of playing in a Rangers jersey, our system is designed to produce players to help win the SPL, it's been insisted the likes of Macleod and McKay were on the verge of the first team even before the demotion. So really being in the Third Division should be an ideal opportunity for them to thrive in the Rangers side, chances are they could have ended up going on loan to the SFL to gain experience if we'd stayed in the SPL so really if they aren't good enough for this level then there's a problem. We actually sent a player on loan to the division above us which says quite a bit. And if Celtic can produce someone like Tony Watt to help them beat Barcelona i'd certainly hope we can produce players to get us out of these lower divisions easily.

 

I also think it's just inaccurate to talk about Perry and Hutton in particular like wee kids, they have about 20 SPL matches between them and even a CL match thrown in, while being 22 and 21. Season pros no, but i'd say it's certainly a very good apprenticeship to have prepared them for the Third Division and to not be counted like boys we can't expect much of.

 

I'm not turning anything into a negative, as I said I like to see our own developed players in the team. I'm just putting it into some sort of perspective, the way you portray it sounds like we've virtually turned into an under 19 team.

Edited November 14, 2012 by simplythebest

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

How does a manager set a football team back years? In that case surely nothing is McCoists fault as Smith, Advocaat, Eck, PLG and Smith again must have set the club back decades.

 

How is winning three titles (and cheated out of the fourth), four cups and a European final setting anyone back years? Maybe he set us back to the early 60's...

 

And how would it have changed the financial meltdown? That's what REALLY set us back years.

 

 

 

What did PLG need time for? After six months we were 17 points behind. Was he turning it round at the time? No - we were in the middle of a full blown dressing room crisis. Then he was offered more time as long as he was committed and didn't take it.

 

A couple of years of winning nothing does not guarantee success. Our fans can't even take a couple of lost games in the middle of the most difficult rebuilding of our club in its history - why should they put up with being totally uncompetitive with absolutely no light at the end of the tunnel and not even the players' endorsement?

 

How do you know Ally isn't quietly revolutionising our club? Things have certainly changed and we've never seen so many youth players in the team. Why doesn't he deserve three years of no criticism.

 

But the fact is NO Rangers manager will get that. PLG needed to have a minimum of competitiveness to survive the three years to put his plan in place, he failed there in half a season. Ally on the other hand, has had that minimum competitiveness and is being hounded out... Massive contrast there.

 

When Smith came back he went out and bought David Weir, Christian Dailly and Ugo Ehiogu. Why?

 

We were never going to see any sort of return on them. Like you said we were 17 pts behind, the league was gone. Could we not have given an 18 or 19 year old a chance and say “here’s your big chance” Wouldn’t have cost anymore money.

 

Smith wasted millions of pounds. So for that matter did Advocaat and McLeish. Yes we were competitive. Yes we won stuff. But we need to get to the point where we are self sufficient and producing good quality youngsters on our own and only signing the odd player. Otherwise what is the point of Murray Park?

 

I also think McCoist needs time. We need to support him. I only commented because you were discussing Le Guen 

[calscot 0]

When Murray, The Medical staff and some of the players refused to back him. He probably figured it wasn't worth the effort

 

Murray didn't refuse to back him according to reports. But he wanted a firm commitment before sacking the very popular captain who was a talismanic player for the club.

 

It starts to look a bit strange the whole argument for PLG. So the players were against him, the medical staff AND the owner. Not a popular guy, was he? Seems to me that he was the lowest common denominator and needed to be the one to go - and he seemed to come to the same conclusion.

 

However, I can't really see how Murray could be against him - it was considered a great coup by him to bring such a manager to the club, he must have worked incredibly hard on it. He then promised us moonbeams, so his ego was also involved. Letting PLG go because he was floundering and didn't have the gumption to stick it out was a necessity, not a choice.