Do Rangers have a proper Footballing Philosophy?

[simplythebest 0]

I think you're underestimating the whole situation including the power of the internet.

 

It must be a minority of our huge support that even use forums.

[Zappa 0]

It must be a minority of our huge support that even use forums.

 

It is, but when you include the social networking like twitter and facebook and the people who read all the Rangers related articles that get published, then the overall online readership is pretty huge and that's just actual Gers fans. Then we need to take into account that most of the mainstream Scottish sports journos, hacks and pundits are keeping an eye on what's being said online because it helps them to prepare and formulate their melodramatic attacks on our club. There is a bigger picture....

[calscot 0]

If Ajax or Barcelona or Porto were in the Scottish third division and were desperate for promotion, as we are, they wouldn't play as many 17 year olds as we have been forced to. Extremely rarely do you see one player of that age in a top team never mind several, as we have been forced to play, since losing a generation of players.

 

The point I'm making is that with that amount of kids (they actually are KIDS) in the first team, we can't judge ally or indeed the club as a whole yet in terms of philosophy. The lads have been thrown in amongst a bunch of older, more physical and experienced players and have been asked to step up. The pressure is immense at rangers. I think they are doing ok all things considered and we should ask ourselves about philosophy two years down the line when the lads have 100 senior games under their belts.

 

Ban the long ball indeed. The OP is wholly ignorant of our situation.

 

I agree with everything you said.

 

As far as I can tell from Wikipedia, out of a squad of 25 Porto have 6 Portuguese players, one of whom is home grown. They have 14 South Americans and 3 Africans - I can't see us even being allowed to have a squad like theirs.

 

They are a weird example for a club for us to copy.

[Cotter 0]

I agree with everything you said.

 

As far as I can tell from Wikipedia, out of a squad of 25 Porto have 6 Portuguese players, one of whom is home grown. They have 14 South Americans and 3 Africans - I can't see us even being allowed to have a squad like theirs.

 

They are a weird example for a club for us to copy.

 

It's a strange time at the moment in more ways than one. Division amongst the support really seems to have come to the fore recently. I guess the view folks take on the direction we are going with our young players (the most highly rated ones left remember) is just another extension of that. Of course fans will always argue over stuff like this but these days it seems like there are two clearly defined camps over every little issue that arises...and....ach I must try not to post while drinking. Patience is all we require. Positive over negative.

[Tumshie RFC 0]

If lumping the ball up the park needlessly instead of looking for a pass is a philosophy then I suppose we do.

[calscot 0]

However, I do have to take issue with your personal attacks on being snide, arrogant and the bizarre accusation that I am "someone who thinks he knows how to develop a club into one that will be world beaters for decades. Is the guy actually putting his amazing knowledge to work? Eh, no. "

 

At no point did I state anything of the kind and far from being snide or arrogant, I was only giving a fair opinion.

 

 

Nothing of the kind? Then just what was your article about? You go on about Ranger not having "a proper footballing strategy" and that having one will "build a solid footballing foundation and structure that will serve them well for decades to come". Now for Rangers to be "served well" and do anything different from the past this pretty much means becoming a top European club but maybe I just interpreted in that way. If it's something else then why not be more specific?

 

In fact your whole article could do with being more specific. What exactly is your version of "a footballing philosophy"? Is is a football tactics manifesto that should be written down and consulted on a daily basis - and what should be in that manifesto?

 

Surely it should be SMART - specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely? The only specific you give apart from certain players should play better or in different positions, is that the long ball should be banned.

 

Now this is where I start to look at you're whole approach, you are implying that you know that Rangers don't have a philosophy and that other teams do - how do you know this? Where is your research? Do you have some references I could look up?

 

You then mention a couple of clubs that have often been no more successful than ours and ones we tend to think of as peers and yet they come from countries where we cannot compete with their grass roots football. Portuguese teams pick up the best young players from Brazil and the Dutch have massive infrastructure. How do you know that whatever their philosophies are that it gives them success before these other factors?

 

The arrogance is what makes you think you know so much about this than people who have been former top footballers and are highly qualified and experienced coaches? Fair enough they don't seem to be setting the heather alight at the moment but considering the time they've had under incredible circumstances, maybe their philosophy has not yet kicked in... Who knows? But it does seem like they can do at least a passable job when it comes to the league.

 

But to get back to this "ban the long ball", what experience do you have that it works? It seems a bit silly to me but I'm only a layman - however, I expect you are too. But imagine in you own job that where you're doing ok but are very experienced and some guy comes in off the street and tells you you're an idiot and to improve dramatically you just need to was stop doing one glib thing that is one of your many choices of techniques? You'd laugh at him.

 

Now there is nothing wrong with fair criticism but to think you have all the answers and then fail to give any sounds arrogant to me. Claiming that Ally is only playing kids "because he has to" also comes across to me as snidey and kind of tells me how "fair" you are being. Tell me, which top managers CHOOSE to play two teenagers and three other youngsters just to develop them?

 

Ferguson doesn't do it, Chelsea and Man City don't do it, but maybe Arsenal do. However, despite being an incredibly rich club they cannot compete with the first three. They always come across as an example of what NOT to do - unless you're more interested in a dividend than success on the pitch and have a very expensive stadium to pay for.

 

You also stated that I had a philosophy that was, "banning the long ball. That's it." At no point did I mention any personal philosophy, so I'm at a loss to understand how you worked that out.

 

I was trying to find out from you what this philosophy entailed as you seemed to think it was the answer and I was curious to know. The only specific thing I could find was, "When you have much better players, why would any team play the way Rangers are doing with big lumps up the park? Why would any manager sit and watch that on one single occasion (never mind continually) and not effectively ban it, unless itâ??s defensively necessary?"

 

Seems to me that now you are saying that Rangers answer is obviously this one esoteric thing but you can't describe it... doesn't seem very helpful to me.

 

In my articles I have previously said that I believe Ally McCoist is the 'greatest Ranger' of all time, for how he kept the club together over the last few months. However, this does not mean that any criticism should be hidden or as others have suggested - he should be "cut slack".

 

He shouldn't be cut slack? I don't think that the "greatest Ranger" thing is relevant to anything and don't know why you brought it up. However, I think ANY new Rangers manager under the present circumstances deserves a bit of slack. As you say we'll likely win the league at a canter, so isn't this and ideal opportunity to sit back and relax a bit, get off the manager's back and allow him a bit of time and space to get things the way he wants it as long as we're going in the right direction? Would we have done so with Le Guen? Would we have criticised the Frenchman if we were top of the league but the team wasn't quite flowing yet? Le Guen was not a Rangers legend and yet he was given far more slack.

 

I think many want Barcelona football now and are going to go apeshit if we don't get it or God forbid have the odd bad result. The ironic thing that I find is everyone is all going on about playing youth and playing proper football, but where is the time to develop this? Where is the patience for going backwards before we go forward? For all you know that there is a philosophy, but it's hard to work it immediately when you have half a team of kids playing against experienced pros who are determined to get our scalp. This is not the Harlem Globetrotters here, it's competitive football.

 

I would like to know why everyone thinks we have obviously "much better players" when we're playing so many untried kids, two or three of whom are 17 or 18? Just what makes them automatically run rings round seasoned professionals in the 3rd division? Don't they need some "development" and time?

 

If you want excellence, then you don't pretend the world is sunshine and rainbows when it is not.

 

Just who said that? please show me the quote. Or are you making it up? I can tell you, when you want excellence you don't read some ordinary fan's blog and say, "That's the answer, let's get this guy in to tell us more."

 

McCoist might go on to become Rangers greatest ever manager - and I hope he does - but if you are happy with the mediocrity currently on offer at the moment then that is where I would have to disagree.

 

Top of the league is mediocrity? Where do you get that definition from? In most cases that would be considered excellence.

 

I'm not saying we're excellent or 100% happy with how things are at the moment but then I temper my expectations and allow a bit of time for something to be developed and for some acclimatisation.

 

It is very difficult to judge McCoist as there is no other manager anywhere near in his position so comparisons are rare, so for me he has a season to at least win the league and hopefully do well in the cups.

 

What I'm interested in and the answer which is never given, is that seeing as this philosophy thing is so obvious, which teams with our kind of budget should we be emulating?

 

There are 41 other Scottish league teams, surely some of them, run by seasoned professionals and highly trained people, are doing something right. Who are your exemplars?

 

Ajax, Porto, Barcelona, and Premiership teams, even Celtic are not attainable in terms of budget so probably not relevant. Other countries also have other factors which are not transferable to Scotland.

 

Falkirk lately under Yogi were considered to play good football and are more in line with our current squad budget but then they were relegated and Hughs sacked so are kind of a negative example.

 

Motherwell? But then we put them out the cup. Aberdeen, Dundee Utd?

 

Just give me a pointer...

[simplythebest 0]

Nothing of the kind? Then just what was your article about? You go on about Ranger not having "a proper footballing strategy" and that having one will "build a solid footballing foundation and structure that will serve them well for decades to come". Now for Rangers to be "served well" and do anything different from the past this pretty much means becoming a top European club but maybe I just interpreted in that way. If it's something else then why not be more specific?

 

In fact your whole article could do with being more specific. What exactly is your version of "a footballing philosophy"? Is is a football tactics manifesto that should be written down and consulted on a daily basis - and what should be in that manifesto?

 

Surely it should be SMART - specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely? The only specific you give apart from certain players should play better or in different positions, is that the long ball should be banned.

 

Now this is where I start to look at you're whole approach, you are implying that you know that Rangers don't have a philosophy and that other teams do - how do you know this? Where is your research? Do you have some references I could look up?

 

You then mention a couple of clubs that have often been no more successful than ours and ones we tend to think of as peers and yet they come from countries where we cannot compete with their grass roots football. Portuguese teams pick up the best young players from Brazil and the Dutch have massive infrastructure. How do you know that whatever their philosophies are that it gives them success before these other factors?

 

The arrogance is what makes you think you know so much about this than people who have been former top footballers and are highly qualified and experienced coaches? Fair enough they don't seem to be setting the heather alight at the moment but considering the time they've had under incredible circumstances, maybe their philosophy has not yet kicked in... Who knows? But it does seem like they can do at least a passable job when it comes to the league.

 

But to get back to this "ban the long ball", what experience do you have that it works? It seems a bit silly to me but I'm only a layman - however, I expect you are too. But imagine in you own job that where you're doing ok but are very experienced and some guy comes in off the street and tells you you're an idiot and to improve dramatically you just need to was stop doing one glib thing that is one of your many choices of techniques? You'd laugh at him.

 

Now there is nothing wrong with fair criticism but to think you have all the answers and then fail to give any sounds arrogant to me. Claiming that Ally is only playing kids "because he has to" also comes across to me as snidey and kind of tells me how "fair" you are being. Tell me, which top managers CHOOSE to play two teenagers and three other youngsters just to develop them?

 

Ferguson doesn't do it, Chelsea and Man City don't do it, but maybe Arsenal do. However, despite being an incredibly rich club they cannot compete with the first three. They always come across as an example of what NOT to do - unless you're more interested in a dividend than success on the pitch and have a very expensive stadium to pay for.

 

 

 

I was trying to find out from you what this philosophy entailed as you seemed to think it was the answer and I was curious to know. The only specific thing I could find was, "When you have much better players, why would any team play the way Rangers are doing with big lumps up the park? Why would any manager sit and watch that on one single occasion (never mind continually) and not effectively ban it, unless itâ??s defensively necessary?"

 

Seems to me that now you are saying that Rangers answer is obviously this one esoteric thing but you can't describe it... doesn't seem very helpful to me.

 

 

 

He shouldn't be cut slack? I don't think that the "greatest Ranger" thing is relevant to anything and don't know why you brought it up. However, I think ANY new Rangers manager under the present circumstances deserves a bit of slack. As you say we'll likely win the league at a canter, so isn't this and ideal opportunity to sit back and relax a bit, get off the manager's back and allow him a bit of time and space to get things the way he wants it as long as we're going in the right direction? Would we have done so with Le Guen? Would we have criticised the Frenchman if we were top of the league but the team wasn't quite flowing yet? Le Guen was not a Rangers legend and yet he was given far more slack.

 

I think many want Barcelona football now and are going to go apeshit if we don't get it or God forbid have the odd bad result. The ironic thing that I find is everyone is all going on about playing youth and playing proper football, but where is the time to develop this? Where is the patience for going backwards before we go forward? For all you know that there is a philosophy, but it's hard to work it immediately when you have half a team of kids playing against experienced pros who are determined to get our scalp. This is not the Harlem Globetrotters here, it's competitive football.

 

I would like to know why everyone thinks we have obviously "much better players" when we're playing so many untried kids, two or three of whom are 17 or 18? Just what makes them automatically run rings round seasoned professionals in the 3rd division? Don't they need some "development" and time?

 

 

 

Just who said that? please show me the quote. Or are you making it up? I can tell you, when you want excellence you don't read some ordinary fan's blog and say, "That's the answer, let's get this guy in to tell us more."

 

 

 

Top of the league is mediocrity? Where do you get that definition from? In most cases that would be considered excellence.

 

I'm not saying we're excellent or 100% happy with how things are at the moment but then I temper my expectations and allow a bit of time for something to be developed and for some acclimatisation.

 

It is very difficult to judge McCoist as there is no other manager anywhere near in his position so comparisons are rare, so for me he has a season to at least win the league and hopefully do well in the cups.

 

What I'm interested in and the answer which is never given, is that seeing as this philosophy thing is so obvious, which teams with our kind of budget should we be emulating?

 

There are 41 other Scottish league teams, surely some of them, run by seasoned professionals and highly trained people, are doing something right. Who are your exemplars?

 

Ajax, Porto, Barcelona, and Premiership teams, even Celtic are not attainable in terms of budget so probably not relevant. Other countries also have other factors which are not transferable to Scotland.

 

Falkirk lately under Yogi were considered to play good football and are more in line with our current squad budget but then they were relegated and Hughs sacked so are kind of a negative example.

 

Motherwell? But then we put them out the cup. Aberdeen, Dundee Utd?

 

Just give me a pointer...

Calscot you don't half seem to have a sensitive attitude towards this kind of thing. You'd think there were McCoist out protests the way you go on sometimes.

[calscot 0]

Calscot you don't half seem to have a sensitive attitude towards this kind of thing. You'd think there were McCoist out protests the way you go on sometimes.

 

Eh? I'm trying to raise the level of debate above empty criticism and glib answers and get accused of being sensitive? There's a lot of effort in that post, way beyond what you'd expect from a sensitive reaction. Perhaps you could actually engage with the points...

[simplythebest 0]

Eh? I'm trying to raise the level of debate above empty criticism and glib answers and get accused of being sensitive? There's a lot of effort in that post, way beyond what you'd expect from a sensitive reaction. Perhaps you could actually engage with the points...

 

It's got an aggressive tone, surely you'd accept that? Why the criticism of John's article rather than just putting across your differing point of view?

[calscot 0]

It's got an aggressive tone, surely you'd accept that? Why the criticism of John's article rather than just putting across your differing point of view?

 

Why does he criticise the team and management when they have just secured their first away win and gone clear at the top of the league? Why is it the one obvious point that counters his argument is something "forced" on the manager?

 

When things are improving is that the time to nitpick?

 

That all sounds a bit aggressive to me.