Official Manager Discussion Thread

[Hildy 0]

Henning Berg has had one good result, he is under heavy pressure in Poland and lasted only a few weeks down south. He has done nothing to merit being linked with our job.

When McCoist goes, we need to find someone who we know will play attractive and adventurous football. We cannot continue with the ghastly template that Smith has almost embedded at the club.

 

It will far healthier for us to select someone who has not been tarnished by Smith and McCoist's instinctive negativity. We need a good manager, but we also need a good manager who sets up his team to play the game in a way that will draw people back to Ibrox.

[pete 2,499]

Ron Jans of PEC Zwolle would be my choice. He took Groningen to European football and won the Dutch cup with PEC beating Ajax 5-1(I think). They also beat Ajax in the johan Cruiff cup at the beginning of the season. PEC was always a yoyo club bottom Ere top second division. They were top of the league for a long period last season and are now lying 3rd having won their first 2 games. They also play really exiting football as Ajax found out in their 5-1 cup drubbing. They will not get near winning the league but to be near the top is a fantastic result for them. Gerd-Jan Verbeek is also out of a job at the moment I would take him as well. He is a fitness manager though and may be prone to losing the dressing room with his fitness programmes. Boyd would love him.

[Guest Akaseo]

Good morning,

 

First post so please be kind,

Wanted to add my tuppence worth here, in regard to yesterday's result, good performance and result, all be it against Clyde. It is my opinion that results such as yesterday's highlight more than any other McCoists deficiencies as a manager, let me explain. Yesterday we set out in a pretty bog standard McCoist formation/setup, which as we have seen in the past (Airdrie etc) has the capability (in the players) and shape to really hurt teams, this, I believe is why McCoist likes it. On occasions such as yesterday when the opposition don't close the game up and make a battle of it, this works and we are capable of a 6 or 8 goal drubbing.

The issues start to appear, when we are either a. Up against better quality opposition or b. the opposing side are fired up and want to have a go. This is where we start to struggle and the setup begins to break down, players retreat into themselves and the whole performance becomes a slog, it is at this point, a manager makes his wage. We do not, under these circumstances, have a manager capable of making the changes required to grab the game by the scruff of the neck and rescue the players from a setup which isn't working, more often than not we grind out a result due to the better quality of our players, but with the players struggling for space, confidence in a setup which is clearly being stifled by the opposing side.

That is why for me, yesterday's performance does more to reinforce my opinion that we may be in need of a change in the dugout, we have a style of play, which when it works, works well, but this is more down to the opposition getting it wrong against us than us doing anything different, when things are not going so well, we seem incapable of making he changes to allow the players the freedom to play with confidence and at times they seem at war with our own tactics. We can see from yesterday these players have the capability, when the game goes well to tear teams apart, but when it doesn't we entreat into our shell and slowly revert, out of frustration to the long ball. As I said before, this is where a manager earns his dough, and at the moment ours doesn't seem to be able to make those changes. So for me McCoists weakness is not his man management, his setup or indeed our training, otherwise we wouldn't be capable of results like Clyde, but more in his inability to mix it up when things aren't going so well.

 

Apologies for huge post.

[Frankie 8,665]

Welcome to the forums Akeseo - you certainly make a valid point.

 

I actually agree with the manager in his feeling that 4-1-3-2 is arguably our best formation but you're right to point out that if we don't apply ourselves it can leave us short and we seen that against Falkirk where the exact same system was used and we struggled for 60-70mins.

 

In that case, it's certainly up to the manager to address the problem and I think pulling one of the attackers into a deeper, wider position (one both Miller and/or Clark can play) temporarily while moving Macleod inside is the easiest way to get a grip of the midfield again. It always surprises me that that simple solution seems to be ignored - even against Hibs we seemed unable to react to them gaining control of the engine room, whilst in the Hearts game introducing a clearly unfit Hutton totally restricted our balance.

 

However, as much as the manager deserves criticism about the above, so do the players. We all rate Macleod and we all know how good Law can be - yet at Falkirk both were very poor and didn't work hard enough. Similarly, when guys like Templeton simply don't turn up and hide on the touch-line then that puts the whole formation at risk. Fraser Aird showed last night how effective it can be with an attacking-minded winger one one side and an attacking full-back on the other. Clyde simply couldn't cope, the game was wide open and our central players then had the room to dictate the game.

 

Thus, rather than say this formation doesn't work or that Macleod can't play left-midfield (or at least a more central version of this), we should appreciate it does fit our team well and can be our main attacking strategy but we simply need to a) make sure we have an alternative for when it doesn't work and b) be prepared to substitute players who appear unable to understand what's expected of them.

[gisabeer 409]

Ive critisised MCcoist for the last time. Hes not going to change his ways and i fully expect him to stumble from game to game with the same old problems comming to the fore.

 

It saddens me to have such an inept manager at the club. We could and should be a lot better than we are.

 

The next few home games will be quite telling. If the attendances are poor then questions will have to asked. Maybe then our manager will have a right good look at himself in the mirror and finally realise that it isnt only the board that are driving the fans away.

[Darthter 542]

The thing is, with last night's game they have shown that they can be a good attacking side, that can create chances & score goals.

If they can't maintain that standard, the questions really will be asked....

[Hildy 0]

The thing is, with last night's game they have shown that they can be a good attacking side, that can create chances & score goals.

If they can't maintain that standard, the questions really will be asked....

They were up against an extremely poor team. Put Rangers against the Girl Guides and they'll look like a swashbuckling and ruthless side, but put them against Hearts and Hibs and they have a fight on their hands, as we have already seen.

 

Clyde were shockingly poor. As someone already said on here, it was men against boys. If you want to assess the strengths and weaknesses of Rangers, evaluate them against a decent standard of team instead of a Clyde side that plummeted Barry Ferguson's reputation as a manager, perhaps unfairly, before he has even got his feet under the table.

 

The Rangers Ladies' side won 22-0 at the weekend but no-one is reading into that and pretending that they will win the league.

 

I believe Rangers will get promoted this season, but when we join a more competitive environment, it'll be back to safety-first, backing off basics, and mostly dreadful to watch.

 

The way we played last night is substantially different to the way we will play at Celtic, Aberdeen and Dundee United in the top tier.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

They were up against an extremely poor team. Put Rangers against the Girl Guides and they'll look like a swashbuckling and ruthless side, but put them against Hearts and Hibs and they have a fight on their hands, as we have already seen.

 

Clyde were shockingly poor. As someone already said on here, it was men against boys. If you want to assess the strengths and weaknesses of Rangers, evaluate them against a decent standard of team instead of a Clyde side that plummeted Barry Ferguson's reputation as a manager, perhaps unfairly, before he has even got his feet under the table.

 

The Rangers Ladies' side won 22-0 at the weekend but no-one is reading into that and pretending that they will win the league.

 

I believe Rangers will get promoted this season, but when we join a more competitive environment, it'll be back to safety-first, backing off basics, and mostly dreadful to watch.

 

The way we played last night is substantially different to the way we will play at Celtic, Aberdeen and Dundee United in the top tier.

The fact that we played a near enough 'full strength' side at home in the Challenge Cup to a part-time club in the fourth tier spoke volumes about our direction (or lack of any).

 

If the youngsters don't get a chance then, they literally never will.

 

Last night was typical of the sledgehammer to crack a nut McCoist requires to win comfortably.

[Tom Davison 0]

The fact that we played a near enough 'full strength' side at home in the Challenge Cup to a part-time club in the fourth tier spoke volumes about our direction (or lack of any).

 

If the youngsters don't get a chance then, they literally never will.

 

Last night was typical of the sledgehammer to crack a nut McCoist requires to win comfortably.

Ally will know only too well that he is under pressure and there was no way that he was going to take chances albeit against lowly and very mediocre opposition. I totally agree that his reluctance to introduce younger players is both discouraging and short-sighted but understand his decision to play a strong side last night.

[RANGERRAB 3,759]

Ally will know only too well that he is under pressure and there was no way that he was going to take chances albeit against lowly and very mediocre opposition. I totally agree that his reluctance to introduce younger players is both discouraging and short-sighted but understand his decision to play a strong side last night.

 

Is he under pressure though? I think that's a big part of the problem. The board must surely have doubts about him by now but seem reluctant to get rid off him presumably for financial reasons. I think Ally knows this only too well and the status quo prevails which is not in the best interests of Rangers IMO.