Give the Man a BLOODY Chance!

[Rousseau 10,823]

McCall at his very best is a decent manager, but his managerial record has not been littered with success (I'm not complaining about a lack of trophies because that is an unfair metric considering the level at which he has managed). I think he was given the job because he was a Rangers man, he was someone to galvanise the players for a final push, and I actually think he did a good job with the resources he had at hand. He probably could do better with his own side, but what level of side could he assemble in our current situation? McLeish did well because he had a good squad, not because he was tactically proficient. McCall is an old-school manager, but not a 'coach' that can rebuild the infrastructure of the club and get the team(s)--for it's every level of our team really--playing a modern, technical brand of football. I think that's my main problem with McCall: he would 'assemble' a squad, but not develop it; and the football wouldn't be great. His record and 'philosophy' does not instill me with the confidence that he could rebuild our infrastructure in the right way. He should be thanked for his work, but told "no thanks", for we need to go down a different route.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Rousseau

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

McCall at his very best is a decent manager, but his managerial record has not been littered with success (I'm not complaining about a lack of trophies because that is an unfair metric considering the level at which he has managed). I think he was given the job because he was a Rangers man, he was someone to galvanise the players for a final push, and I actually think he did a good job with the resources he had at hand. He probably could do better with his own side, but what level of side could he assemble in our current situation? McLeish did well because he had a good squad, not because he was tactically proficient. McCall is an old-school manager, but not a 'coach' that can rebuild the infrastructure of the club and get the team(s)--for it's every level of our team really--playing a modern, technical brand of football. I think that's my main problem with McCall: he would 'assemble' a squad, but not develop it; and the football wouldn't be great. His record and 'philosophy' does not instill me with the confidence that he could rebuild our infrastructure in the right way. He should be thanked for his work, but told "no thanks", for we need to go down a different route.

He has managed at the level he has, not winning trophies, because he is a poor manager. Do you really think 7 wins out of 17 and getting battered by Motherwell is a good job?

Edited June 6, 2015 by Ser Barristan Selmy

[Rousseau 10,823]

He has managed at the level he has, not winning trophies, because he is a poor manager. Do you really think 7 wins out of 17 and getting battered by Motherwell is a good job?

 

We've discussed this before. I suppose you're right: the metric of trophies won is indicative of the level at which he has managed. However, Gordon Strachan or Walter Smith, for example, can win nothing in England, but win a lot in Scotland, so I don't think it's indicative of ability as such. Do you think that a manager that has won lots of trophies in Scotland is better or worse than a manger that has led a EPL side to top 10?

 

He ultimately failed, but I still maintain he did an OK (I'll revise down my estimation from 'Good') job with the resources he had available.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Rousseau

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

We've discussed this before. I suppose you're right: the metric of trophies won is indicative of the level at which he has managed. However, Gordon Strachan or Walter Smith, for example, can win nothing in England, but win a lot in Scotland, so I don't think it's indicative of ability as such. Do you think that a manager that has won lots of trophies in Scotland is better or worse than a manger that has led a EPL side to top 10?

 

He ultimately failed, but I still maintain he did an OK (I'll revise down my estimation from 'Good') job with the resources he had available.

Well Walter bombed in England and Strachan was generally fighting relegation and I think that accurately depicts their level.

[les186 271]

Well Walter bombed in England and Strachan was generally fighting relegation and I think that accurately depicts their level.

 

I agree, you don't have to be that good to be a successful manager in Scotland, and given the resources Rangers have relatively, they should have cake walked the three bottom leagues.

[Bearman 9]

I'd imagine taking into account Stu's ability to turn around the 'feel good factor' along with the feeling when the new board took control that there is no need for change in the managerial department.

 

We all want a different approach, a different route for Rangers, a different philosophy, but we don't really need that in Scotland because the game up here is stagnant it's been like that for years. The only difference is Celtic will win it and we wont because of where we are.

 

McCoist was a bad manager in our predicament, in hindsight probably the last bloke any club in the world would want in charge of team duties and going for it. A lot of bull served up to us since Walter and co done the same with us though furnished with bucket loads of success.

 

I'm trying not to repeat myself here, just cementing my word. Stuart McCall should be given a chance like everyone else has.

 

Changing the manager I'm all for, but not for the reasons suggested above. Instant success has never been afforded to McCall like his predecessors. So, IF the board decide to stick with McCall for next season we should all get behind him. That's all.

[pete 2,499]

I'd imagine taking into account Stu's ability to turn around the 'feel good factor' along with the feeling when the new board took control that there is no need for change in the managerial department.

 

We all want a different approach, a different route for Rangers, a different philosophy, but we don't really need that in Scotland because the game up here is stagnant it's been like that for years. The only difference is Celtic will win it and we wont because of where we are.

 

McCoist was a bad manager in our predicament, in hindsight probably the last bloke any club in the world would want in charge of team duties and going for it. A lot of bull served up to us since Walter and co done the same with us though furnished with bucket loads of success.

 

I'm trying not to repeat myself here, just cementing my word. Stuart McCall should be given a chance like everyone else has.

 

Changing the manager I'm all for, but not for the reasons suggested above. Instant success has never been afforded to McCall like his predecessors. So, IF the board decide to stick with McCall for next season we should all get behind him. That's all.

 

I hope we all get behind whoever is in charge.

 

I would have difficulty with Neil Lennon mind you.

[Rousseau 10,823]

I'd imagine taking into account Stu's ability to turn around the 'feel good factor' along with the feeling when the new board took control that there is no need for change in the managerial department.

 

We all want a different approach, a different route for Rangers, a different philosophy, but we don't really need that in Scotland because the game up here is stagnant it's been like that for years. The only difference is Celtic will win it and we wont because of where we are.

 

McCoist was a bad manager in our predicament, in hindsight probably the last bloke any club in the world would want in charge of team duties and going for it. A lot of bull served up to us since Walter and co done the same with us though furnished with bucket loads of success.

 

I'm trying not to repeat myself here, just cementing my word. Stuart McCall should be given a chance like everyone else has.

 

Changing the manager I'm all for, but not for the reasons suggested above. Instant success has never been afforded to McCall like his predecessors. So, IF the board decide to stick with McCall for next season we should all get behind him. That's all.

 

For me, McCall is an old-school coach like the others we've had over the last 10 years. He may be a better coach than most of what we've had, but he, IMO, is just a different shade of what we've had. I'm not criticising the job he's done: I believe he's done the best he could. If he did get the job, and was able to build is own side, I don't see how we'd be any better than we have been over the last 10 years? He may get us winning, but it'd be awful football that's stuck in the past.

 

I appreciate your point that we may not need a different philosophy in Scotland because it is a stagnant football culture. However, how is it ever going to change if someone doesn't develop a different way? We all want to see good football, but that'll not happen with an old-school Scottish manager (not specifically McCall). We have an opportunity to rebuild our whole infrastructure, and I cannot understand why anyone would simply want to recreate the same inefficient and unsuccessful infrastructure--for that's what it was--we had before; is that not the stagnation you we're highlighting?

 

I've always said we need to change our set-up and outlook, I've been saying it for the last 10-15 years, but now we actually have an opportunity to progress and develop something better. I hope we take it. Repeating the same things over and over again, but hoping for something different is the definition of madness.

[der Berliner 3,815]

Sidenote, what do anyone actually think of McCall's No. 2 ... who gets omitted from any debate? Isn't he regarded as one of the better in the business too?

[pete 2,499]

Sidenote, what do anyone actually think of McCall's No. 2 ... who gets omitted from any debate? Isn't he regarded as one of the better in the business too?

 

So was Kenny McDowell before he came to us. I have no idea why you have to employ 2 people when taking on a new manager. If we want Warburton we have to take Weir! I am afraid I am old school in that I will decide who I employ.