Relentless Rangers refuse to take foot off the gas

[Bearman 9]

£750' date='000 per annum.[/quote']

 

It's all the last boards fault, they should have sacked him long before he walked, we wouldn't still be paying him today.

[Bearman 9]

Relentless Rangers...I like that term.

[pete 2,499]

Maybe instead of me with my head in the sand, you are just wearing blinkers. You seem to think you're a fitness expert than can tell fitness merely by "watching". So do you really know the difference between actual fitness and the amount of effort someone is putting in, and the motivation they have? I would say we're seeing the latter two - and I would be confident in saying not all of it is down to Warburton - although he's doing a fantastic job.

 

However, it has to be remembered he doesn't have the same job as McCoist, it's a different ballgame behind the scenes.

 

If you have objective evidence that the players are far fitter now than a couple of months ago then please show it. I really don't think the likes of Wallace has gone from the perceived, very unfit, under three different managers, to top fitness in a couple of months.

 

I do believe his attitude has changed, he's buying into the new management and atmosphere at the club. I believe he's putting in more effort in training and busting a gut on the field - and enjoying it all. I believe his fitness will have improved a bit, but I think it will be more down to his attitude and motivation than the actual training regime - the latter is a part of the job where I don't think Warburton can bring too much that is revolutionary.

 

I think it's how he sees how the players should play the game as a team, while allowing players to express their individuality, where he is being revolutionary. Coupled with great man management which, with the enjoyable and successful way we play, is creating a feel good factor, where players respect what he's doing and will "run through walls" for him - and us.

 

As I said in my previous post, giving Warburton credit for more trivial aspects as relative to preconceived failings of a previous manager in previously horrendous circumstances, does him a great disservice.

 

I think he is far better than every manager in Scotland, not just McCoist, and I really don't it's just because all managers (and coaches and sports scientist) in Scotland are crap at fitness training.

 

You may think my head is in the sand, but I think you have to ask yourself, are you, yourself are seeing the bigger picture? I think it's time to drop the petty Ally bashing stuff and give MW some proper respect for what he's achieving.

 

I totally agree most will be down to an attitude change but Ally was the one setting the standards. If a manager sees that a player has the wrong attitude he should not pick him. It is also very possible that the manager had the wrong attitude and things mushroomed through the team. Eye witnesses are a very important part of root cause investigation and the thousands of supporters who witnessed the football being served up by Ally's team and decided to stay away, cannot all be wrong. Eye witness accounts stand up in a court of law, How much proof do you want?

Edited September 9, 2015 by pete

[craig 5,199]

Maybe instead of me with my head in the sand, you are just wearing blinkers. You seem to think you're a fitness expert than can tell fitness merely by "watching". So do you really know the difference between actual fitness and the amount of effort someone is putting in, and the motivation they have? I would say we're seeing the latter two - and I would be confident in saying not all of it is down to Warburton - although he's doing a fantastic job.

 

However, it has to be remembered he doesn't have the same job as McCoist, it's a different ballgame behind the scenes.

 

If you have objective evidence that the players are far fitter now than a couple of months ago then please show it. I really don't think the likes of Wallace has gone from the perceived, very unfit, under three different managers, to top fitness in a couple of months.

 

I do believe his attitude has changed, he's buying into the new management and atmosphere at the club. I believe he's putting in more effort in training and busting a gut on the field - and enjoying it all. I believe his fitness will have improved a bit, but I think it will be more down to his attitude and motivation than the actual training regime - the latter is a part of the job where I don't think Warburton can bring too much that is revolutionary.

 

I think it's how he sees how the players should play the game as a team, while allowing players to express their individuality, where he is being revolutionary. Coupled with great man management which, with the enjoyable and successful way we play, is creating a feel good factor, where players respect what he's doing and will "run through walls" for him - and us.

 

As I said in my previous post, giving Warburton credit for more trivial aspects as relative to preconceived failings of a previous manager in previously horrendous circumstances, does him a great disservice.

 

I think he is far better than every manager in Scotland, not just McCoist, and I really don't it's just because all managers (and coaches and sports scientist) in Scotland are crap at fitness training.

 

You may think my head is in the sand, but I think you have to ask yourself, are you, yourself are seeing the bigger picture? I think it's time to drop the petty Ally bashing stuff and give MW some proper respect for what he's achieving.

 

Do you have any objective evidence to the contrary ? It is mildly amusing that you accuse pete of being a "fitness know-it-all" and then proceed to do exactly the same yourself. Unless there is something you aren't telling us you also are basing your observations from "watching".

[calscot 0]

Do you have any objective evidence to the contrary ?

 

That's pretty fallacious is it not? I'm not the one making the assertion. This is so simple that it's tedious to explain. I could say I can jump higher than you (or absolutely anything or any bullshit), you say show me the evidence and I say show me the evidence I can't and you fail. All we need is a test but without it you can't really say it's one or the other.

 

The point is once more, watching players is subjective, putting them through tests such as for V02 max, endurance and speed, are objective and will give you a more relevant answer. Even then, like I say, motivation is a huge variable when deciding the efficacy of a training regime.

 

It is mildly amusing that you accuse pete of being a "fitness know-it-all"

 

Eh? Where did I do that?

 

I asked him if he was some kind of fitness expert who could tell a person fitness merely by watching them. That would be a pretty amazing skill. Most fitness experts would prefer to put someone through a battery of tests, before they give a conclusion, as they don't have that skill. That's the kind of evidence I'm talking about. It's already been done, there will be records, but we don't have access.

 

and then proceed to do exactly the same yourself.

 

 

Where did I do that?

 

I'll explain again, Pete was being definitive about the fitness and damning the manager, I gave my OPINION of an alternative possibility. My assertion was I don't think that ANYBODY can tell the difference between an "unfit" professional footballer and a player who can't be bothered or who won't go that extra mile.

 

I pretty much asserted we were both NOT know it alls. I really don't know where you get your logic from. Maybe you should deal with the points instead of just getting insulting.

 

Unless there is something you aren't telling us you also are basing your observations from "watching".

 

See above. There is evidence there. We don't have access to it. It's like you saying Froome is on EPO or something and telling me to disprove it with evidence. My argument would be that there is no evidence that he is beyond some people saying, "he looks like he is." Get the similarity?

 

My main counter argument stems from some reasonable knowledge of fitness (which I think I've demonstrated without asserting I'm an expert) combined with common sense and anecdotal evidence. You don't go from very unfit to very fit very quickly. It takes a lot of time and effort - especially for a professional athlete who is trained by professional coaches and sport scientists.

 

But even watching games, it's obvious these guys were very fit, and all professional sportsmen will put a reasonable effort into that - nobody pays top amateur sportsmen to keep fit, and yet they do. If any of the players were well below fitness they would not still be here as they would be considered unprofessional. There are plenty gone, but I don't think you can infer that was the reason.

 

It seems you're being deliberately antagonistic and adding nothing to the debate - you're only going for the man and trying to elicit a response - I think that's called something. I've pretty much explained myself before this post and you've chosen to ignore it. Maybe you need to read a bit more carefully before pulling your hair trigger.

 

Funnily enough you seem much more affable and open minded to most other posters including loads that don't take any time at all to explain any of their reasoning.

 

My responses might not have been the most affable either but how are you supposed to be with people who are using trivial pieces of nonsense to insult a previous Rangers manager, while actually devaluing the work of the current one?

 

Do you really believe Mark Warburton's "magic" comes from banning laughing, golf, Nando's, and merely giving double sessions of fitness training every day? Is it just that McCoist couldn't do glib things like that and MW is just doing what any clued up fan would do?

 

I personally think it's a bit more complicated than that. So much so I'm not able to explain it as MW is a genius compared to my foolery when it comes to football management - I don't pretend to know all the answers or declare it's simple stuff. But I can recognise when people are way over simplifying to suit an agenda against someone they don't like.

[craig 5,199]

That's pretty fallacious is it not? I'm not the one making the assertion. This is so simple that it's tedious to explain. I could say I can jump higher than you (or absolutely anything or any bullshit), you say show me the evidence and I say show me the evidence I can't and you fail. All we need is a test but without it you can't really say it's one or the other.

 

The point is once more, watching players is subjective, putting them through tests such as for V02 max, endurance and speed, are objective and will give you a more relevant answer. Even then, like I say, motivation is a huge variable when deciding the efficacy of a training regime.

 

 

 

Eh? Where did I do that?

 

I asked him if he was some kind of fitness expert who could tell a person fitness merely by watching them. That would be a pretty amazing skill. Most fitness experts would prefer to put someone through a battery of tests, before they give a conclusion, as they don't have that skill. That's the kind of evidence I'm talking about. It's already been done, there will be records, but we don't have access.

 

 

 

 

Where did I do that?

 

I'll explain again, Pete was being definitive about the fitness and damning the manager, I gave my OPINION of an alternative possibility. My assertion was I don't think that ANYBODY can tell the difference between an "unfit" professional footballer and a player who can't be bothered or who won't go that extra mile.

 

I pretty much asserted we were both NOT know it alls. I really don't know where you get your logic from. Maybe you should deal with the points instead of just getting insulting.

 

 

 

See above. There is evidence there. We don't have access to it. It's like you saying Froome is on EPO or something and telling me to disprove it with evidence. My argument would be that there is no evidence that he is beyond some people saying, "he looks like he is." Get the similarity?

 

My main counter argument stems from some reasonable knowledge of fitness (which I think I've demonstrated without asserting I'm an expert) combined with common sense and anecdotal evidence. You don't go from very unfit to very fit very quickly. It takes a lot of time and effort - especially for a professional athlete who is trained by professional coaches and sport scientists.

 

But even watching games, it's obvious these guys were very fit, and all professional sportsmen will put a reasonable effort into that - nobody pays top amateur sportsmen to keep fit, and yet they do. If any of the players were well below fitness they would not still be here as they would be considered unprofessional. There are plenty gone, but I don't think you can infer that was the reason.

 

It seems you're being deliberately antagonistic and adding nothing to the debate - you're only going for the man and trying to elicit a response - I think that's called something. I've pretty much explained myself before this post and you've chosen to ignore it. Maybe you need to read a bit more carefully before pulling your hair trigger.

 

Funnily enough you seem much more affable and open minded to most other posters including loads that don't take any time at all to explain any of their reasoning.

 

My responses might not have been the most affable either but how are you supposed to be with people who are using trivial pieces of nonsense to insult a previous Rangers manager, while actually devaluing the work of the current one?

 

Do you really believe Mark Warburton's "magic" comes from banning laughing, golf, Nando's, and merely giving double sessions of fitness training every day? Is it just that McCoist couldn't do glib things like that and MW is just doing what any clued up fan would do?

 

I personally think it's a bit more complicated than that. So much so I'm not able to explain it as MW is a genius compared to my foolery when it comes to football management - I don't pretend to know all the answers or declare it's simple stuff. But I can recognise when people are way over simplifying to suit an agenda against someone they don't like.

 

An awful lot of words to agree that you have no evidence to suggest that the players under McCoist were every bit as fit as they currently are.

 

Where did you do that ? Your statement to pete that "you seem to be a fitness expert" is not the same as asking "are you a fitness expert". So clearly you did accuse him of being some fitness know-it-all.

 

It doesn't matter if it is a fallacious question or not - the mere fact that you made the accusation and tried to denigrate pete's previous assertion doesn't mean that you shouldn't be called into question when doing the same thing yourself. pete made his fitness statement from what he has witnessed this season - you stated that it is only his opinion and questioned whether he was a fitness expert and able to make such a statement - and then followed it up by saying that you think that motivation is a large part - but you can only suggest that from what you have seen i.e. that same basis as pete's original statement. The fact of the matter is that NEITHER OF YOU can know for sure - but you have a knack of trying to make it look like you are closer to the truth.

 

Reality is nobody knows - but from MY observations this season the current crop of players DO look fitter than last season's players. and yes, that is only my OPINION. However, I am also wise enough to recognize that trying to credit that to the current manager - or conversely, blame the previous manager - we very, very much need to be aware that, from the game at the weekend.... only ONE player started the game that played significant football under McCoist - Lee Wallace. The only other starter who was even at Rangers whilst McCoist was manager was Barrie McKay and he got very little game time under McCoist. So, I agree with you that to blame McCoist for the lack of fitness is to probably not have full knowledge - and you certainly couldn't make a proper comparison when comparing apples to oranges as this does.

 

Please don't suggest I am being insulting. If my previous post was insulting to you then you have an extremely thin skin - and we BOTH know that isn't the case from previous verbal debates you have had on here. So please don't get precious and suggesting that I am being insulting - or, seeing as I cant see it, perhaps you could educate me as to HOW I was being insulting ? But whilst you accuse me of being "insulting" you then continue on to accuse other forum posters of posting "nonsense". It would probably do you good to look at yourself as much as you look at others sometimes.

 

As for your extended paragraph about knowledge of fitness - it is completely irrelevant to my previous post - I was neither agreeing nor agreeing with you OR pete on whether the players looked fitter or not - I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of what you were saying to pete - you disagree that it was hypocritical - and I am more than happy to agree to disagree with that.

 

You can continue to accuse me of pulling hair triggers or being more affable to people who don't explain their posts or being antagonistic or any other such term that pleases you, as is your prerogative. But I wont retaliate as it really isn't my style.

 

You have every right to defend McCoist, whether you are right or wrong. And you may be correct that he had more to deal with behind the scenes than Warburton - but McCoist himself was ALWAYS at pains to emphasise that the football team should only be concentrating on footballing matters. Now, human nature tells us differently, but it WAS his job to ensure that the footballers were concentrating on their jobs. Whether they were less fit for McCoist or not, it is absolutely clear that he failed by not ensuring that the team concentrated only on the football. Extenuating circumstances ? Yes, absolutely. But McCoist's responsibility ? Yes. And because he couldn't, he quite rightly is no longer our manager.

 

I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you cal - suffice to say that I actually agree with you that you cant necessarily say the players under McCoist were less fit than those under Warburton - as I said above, it is like comparing apples to oranges when 9 of the 11 starters on Saturday past never even played for McCoist and of the 2 who did only 1 featured regularly.

 

But I still maintain that your post showed a lack of tolerance towards pete.

[limeburner 0]

Aye,ehh,fine,whatever!!

[Bluedell 5,679]

The players look fitter to me.

[JohnMc 2,801]

To return to a favourite theme of mine at the level professional sportsmen operate at the differences in fitness are often psychological. The great Jock Wallace didn't make players run up and down sand dunes because it actually made them fitter, he did it because they thought it made them fitter. Thinking you are fitter can make a difference to how you play.

Psychology is so important at top level sport, particularly with individual sports like golf and tennis but also with team sports. A player believing they are faster or stronger or simply better performs differently to one who doesn't.

[craig 5,199]

The players look fitter to me.

 

I would agree but to be fair there could be a few reasons for that :

 

1. Pretty much a completely new team from the one McCoist had so not really an even comparison

2. When you retain the ball as much as we have you tire the other team out, making your own players look fitter and fresher

3. Certainly my experience from my playing days was that if I had the ball I could run further, with more motivation more enjoyment, than when my team was out of possession and you were chasing shadows

 

They do look fitter and they might be - but the only real way to tell would be, as calscot says, to run diagnostics - and even then they should only be using players who played for both regimes to work out comparable fitness levels.

 

Anyway, I'm done with this particular debate - I would much rather just focus on being SUPER HAPPY at how our team are performing !!!