Relentless Rangers refuse to take foot off the gas

[pete 2,499]

Firstly, it's an awful lot of words as you seem to misinterpret me very easily, and I see the volume has made no difference in that regard. I've always got a lot to say as I think about my points, and try to give detail to my thinking. I also seem to have to continual explain stuff that I should be able to take for granted that the other person should know.

 

Anyway, I didn't suggest that at all, I was asserting that there wasn't enough time to do more than marginal gains, and that any subjective viewpoint needed to take into account other variables. I never denied that there was the possibility they were fitter, I denied the assertion that it could definitively all be attributed to McCoist's training.

 

 

 

If you want to think that then that's up to you. You are wrong. I was pointing out that assessing fitness of professional athletes by watching them play is a very subjective measurement. There is a difference between subjective and objective measurements. You might look at two rocks and think they weigh about the same (subjective), but to be definitive, it's better to weigh them (objective).

 

 

 

I have no idea where you get that from. I explained it twice and in other posts. I did not make a definitive assertion with specific cause and effect that needed evidence. Pete did. You are accusing me of doing what Pete did, when I didn't. I was saying that without evidence you cannot be definitive and gave other alternatives.

 

 

 

It's not the same. I don't even have to see it to know it can be a factor. For the umteenth time, how do you know when someone is less fit or not trying as hard? The point is that when there are multiple variables you shouldn't jump to conclusions. I showed a willingness to accept it with evidence.

 

 

 

Ah we agree.

 

 

 

If I made it look that way, then I would say that was down to the power of persuasion of my argument. And of course I am going to have belief in what I putting forward. It is up to the reader to decide. I think you are also doing me a great disservice in that I pretty much leave room in most of my arguments to suggest I could be wrong, but only with evidence or a very compelling argument. I really don't think you read me properly - maybe you don't have time, but you've also previously accused me of dressing up opinion as fact where I had to point out that not only had I used the words "in my opinion" but you should also do a count of clauses like, "I think", "it seems", "maybe", "perhaps", "it comes across" etc.

 

 

 

You're now arguing against Pete, not me.

 

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 ?

 

It was insulting as it was derogatory and completely wrong (you accused me of calling Pete a "know it all" which I didn't and then ironically accused me of being a "know it all" which I wasn't). It was ad hominem, showed a complete disregard for what I was actually trying to convey and added nothing but antagonism to the debate.

 

 

 

You must skip my posts as although, yes I say stuff like that, but I explain in detail why it doesn't make sense. I can't see how that is insulting. People don't always make sense, although I'm always asking them to explain stuff. I tend to call things nonsense when I've already shown reason for it and then it's repeated. But I suppose If you think it makes sense that a team failed because the manger allowed one meal out at Nando's and that he laughed at a training session, then that's up to you. To me it doesn't make sense.

 

I think you're also missing the point that Pete started it by saying I had my head in the sand - and without any explanation or reasoning to back it up, but you didn't have a go at him.

 

 

 

Oh I do, and I try not to overdo it but it gets tedious when so many people make it so personal instead of dealing with the points.

 

 

 

You're not supposed to retaliate (I can't even imagine why you even thought about that) - it's feedback, not a naked insult. You're supposed to challenge it in your head, ie think about it's validity and why I said it. If you then think I'm wrong, you can always explain that to me. Or maybe you'll conclude, that perhaps you were a bit harsh, and maybe apologise...

 

 

 

It's not about defending McCoist, it's about defending criticisms that don't have much rationale or consistency. It's also calling out people for making up any old stuff to disparage people as some sort of running game. Is that really what we want on here? I've done it for lots of people, but Ally bashing is the most prevalent.

 

 

 

I think that's a bit idealistic and impossible in the real world. No manager achieves that all the time, there are always player who don't work out personality-wise. However, not many managers have had to deal with what McCoist has. I've said from the moment that we went into admin that Ally was not an exceptional manager who has the ability the players play well despite the goings on, but I didn't think we could definitely say that many other managers could have done so.

 

 

 

And again it's not what I'm disputing, it's the implication that McCoist's training was shall we say, "useless" for the meme on here. It might not have been optimal, but I doubt it was outlandishly bad.

 

 

 

I think YOU have to explain that to ME. I gave Pete the respect of painstakingly explaining why I thought he was in the wrong - and without misinterpreting anything he said. He didn't give me the same respect - with a one liner, concluded by telling me I had my head in the sand - and gave McCoist no respect either. If you want to talk about hypocrisy, I think your post showed a lack of tolerance towards ME and you should heed your own advice about looking at yourself.

 

Is telling someone they have their head in the sand an insult? I thought it was just a phrase to explain that they are not seeing what others,rightly or wrongly see as obvious. Sorry Cal I did not mean to insult you. While I can't prove anything as I have indeed never done any research I did witness a Kris Boyd who looked as he was carrying a few more kilo's as he did at Kilmarnock. I saw 3rd and 4th league part-time-teams run us ragged at times. This is indeed not any proof of fitness but this is a discussion forum and people do give opinions. If we have to produce Physical proof for every discussion then Frankie can just as well shut the forum down. My opinion is also Ally set his players up in a far more defensive structure than Warburton does and it is also my opinion that the players movement off the ball has been vastly improved. I also believe that Ally worried far too much how our opponents would play and set his team up to counteract that Where Warbuton says regularly that it is how Rangers play that is important.

Warburton is also working for his wage which is quite pleasing.

[Bearman 9]

Double sessions and video analysis key to early Rangers success

 

There's a video in here too...http://sport.stv.tv/football/1328377-double-sessions-and-video-analysis-key-to-waburtons-early-rangers-success/?

 

Andy Halliday believes a daily routine of double training sessions and video analysis has been key to Rangers’ early season success under Mark Warburton.

 

Summer signing Halliday has credited the manager’s preparations for a run of five wins in a row in the Championship campaign thus far as well as progression in two cup competitions.

 

Last season Rangers were criticised for their style of play and fitness levels under former manager Ally McCoistbBut Halliday says Warburton leaves nothing to chance.

 

The 23-year-old player, who arrived this summer from Bradford City, has been ever-present in the league under the new manager and claims he has bought in to what his new boss' regime.

 

Halliday said: "He’s [Warburton] came in, he’s freshened the place up again and he has implemented his own style of play.

 

"There’s a lot of hard work that’s been put in to that. We were doing double sessions every day in pre-season.

 

"There have still been double sessions through the week, even though the season has started.

 

"And even though there’s been a lot of good we still do video analysis most days every week because there’s still some things we need to work on.

 

"He’s a very hard worker. He’s laid a foundation that has let the boys go and express themselves and enjoy themselves.

 

"We’ve bought in to what he’s trying to do and most importantly the fans have bought in to what we’re trying to do. It’s an exciting place to be just now."

[Gazza_8 233]

To me, double sessions mean fitter players even if they're doing ball work.

[Chibmark 19]

This is what we have been asking for.

 

Fit players playing an attractive style of football with a Board in place whose first concern is for the wellbeing of the Club and not themselves.