Jump to content

 

 

Will new 'value' transfer approach yield dividends?


Recommended Posts

I think it's as valid as previous complaints of style of play. Just because so many people simpistically think always playing the ball on the deck is highly entertaining and effective does not make either assertion so. It can sometimes be incredibly dull and frustrating and I predicted that way before we adopted this style. There is always another team on the pitch and they are certainly not there merely to entertain the Ibrox crowd.

 

I think there is a misconception that football is an entertainment with a bit of sport in there, the reality is that it's a sport with a bit of entertainment in there. For the former you need something like the Harlem Globe Trotters. You can still entertain by winning well without playing "nice" football, but ultimately not so much by playing "nice" football without winnng well. Ideally you want both, but if the previous sentence prevails, then it shows that winning well is more important than "nice" football.

 

Personally I really like the way we are playing but would like us to perhaps use more variety of style to see it evolve into something a bit more effective against park the bus defences.

 

I think we have altered our style as we're certainly playing a lot more long diagonal balls than before and with Waghorn being used more deeply than usual and from a wide position, clearly the manager is attempting to be flexible in his approach. The central defence have also sat a bit deeper with one of the full backs looking to cover more often too which is an acknowledgement of the poor goals lost to Morton and Falkirk.

 

With respect to your initial point, of course people are entitled to frustration - even if the apparent better footballing product isn't working. However, there's not much point in lumping long balls into the box when we only have one man up against five or six. And ian1964, johnnyk and I regularly laugh at the fella behind us telling players to shoot from 50 yards after we've not scored from the 5th minute onwards.

 

What I'm saying is there needs to be a balance of criticism and perhaps more of an understanding of what we're trying to achieve. That's not to say I know better than any other bear, just that it's not always as simple as some suggest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Time will tell if the strategy is successful but will it be any worse than spending inflated money on the likes of Templeton to name but one?

 

I think the Templeton one is a tad unfair. He had all the hallmarks of being an exciting player and bluenose with Davie Cooper in his name to boot. It's just he is a statistic of one which hasn't turned out well - which could have a multitude of reasons including injury, the state of the club and starting in the 3rd division. I personally think that the board had no real interest in spending any money but saw that they needed a relatively marquee signing to get the fans on board. They probably also expected him to be sold on for a profit.

 

But the main problem with this example is that as the only player in 3 seasons that had a tranfer fee, you get a success ratio of 0/1, which is a bit of a toss of the coin result, and therefore pretty noticeable.

 

I think while we really need our big signings to succeed, and so recruited with great diligence, with a quick look to the past, we have to remember that no-one is a guarantee. It's easier to show a reasonable success rate when you have 5 marquee signings a season and your misfortunes are not so prominent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do I suggest buying the likes of alli? That's nonsense. You are arguing the finding of players like alli smalling etc from these leagues is proof talent exists validating our transfer policy.

 

I merely point out the argument is completely flawed and makes no sense what so ever.

 

OK, so Hart wasn't a bargain for City - though perhaps still somewhat of a risk?

 

And, was Smalling a certainty to be successful as well given his previous league background?

 

 

 

As much as these lads may have stood out, they were still bargains signed from a much lower league. That's the point and of course it's valid - whatever relative level you look at (e.g. we talked about Andre Gray yesterday). Football is littered with successful transfers of low profile players moving to bigger clubs and leagues. Of course not every such transfer will work out but neither does every multi-million pound signing either.

 

If the strategy makes no sense whatsoever, why do you think McParland and Warburton are pursuing it? Budget is one reason obviously but what alternative is open to them?

 

Like I say, I think you're being rather obtuse. No idea why....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Templeton one is a tad unfair. He had all the hallmarks of being an exciting player and bluenose with Davie Cooper in his name to boot. It's just he is a statistic of one which hasn't turned out well - which could have a multitude of reasons including injury, the state of the club and starting in the 3rd division. I personally think that the board had no real interest in spending any money but saw that they needed a relatively marquee signing to get the fans on board. They probably also expected him to be sold on for a profit.

 

But the main problem with this example is that as the only player in 3 seasons that had a tranfer fee, you get a success ratio of 0/1, which is a bit of a toss of the coin result, and therefore pretty noticeable.

 

I think while we really need our big signings to succeed, and so recruited with great diligence, with a quick look to the past, we have to remember that no-one is a guarantee. It's easier to show a reasonable success rate when you have 5 marquee signings a season and your misfortunes are not so prominent.

 

I think I've continually made the point that no transfer strategy is 100% successful and it is a shame the Templeton move didn't work out as he was a player I liked too. However, generally speaking, I don't think we've done a great job with our outlays over the years - especially 1995-2002 - where although we might have dominated Scottish football during that period, we failed to really put a long term strategy into place which let to financial problems and risks later.

 

In that sense, I'm pleased we're now hopefully looking to delve a bit deeper in our scouting and, again, whilst there's no guarantees, we have few alternatives given the club's current financial position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason is obvious. They think average performing players from leagues 1 and 2 in England are good enough for the premier in Scotland. I think they are massively under rating the competition we will face and the demands that will be placed upon his players. I doubt very much they fully understand how teams will raise their game against us.

 

You said in a previous post balanced criticism is needed. I agree I don't agree you are showing balance.

 

Im sorry you find it obtuse but I could be as equally cheeky about your reasoning. If you back Warburton fully no matter what there is nothing wrong with that just stop expecting the rest of us to follow suit. I agree wholeheartedly with the philosophy MW is following just not his application. I am also sure he will quickly identify his mistakes once they become apparent

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have done some fantastical shrewd business so far in the transfer market. Following a pattern set by MW of signing good hungry professional types for little outlay. You just have to read the interview with the follicly challenge rodent at Dundee Hivs to see what buying rubbish can bring. Thompson is throwing McNanara under a bus, for his player buying policy and putting his club in jeopardy. Thompson obviously forgotten the phrase "the buck stops here"

Edited by aweebluesoandso
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do I suggest buying the likes of alli? That's nonsense. You are arguing the finding of players like alli smalling etc from these leagues is proof talent exists validating our transfer policy.

 

I merely point out the argument is completely flawed and makes no sense what so ever.

 

They ARE proof that the talent exists at those levels. There are plenty of examples of lower league players making massive jumps to the big leagues, and for little fees too.

 

You can want expensive singings all you want but they are no more a guarantee of success than these guys.

 

This is a pointless debate now anyway because everyone is literally going round in circles making the same argument over and over.

 

Halliday, Tavernier, Waghorn, Foderingham all came from the lower leagues and they have done just fine. Ready for the SPFL ? We wont know until we are there - but in the loss to St Johnstone I actually thought we were the better team from a playing perspective but they were more clinical. That type of stuff is easy to work on. Individually as players, I thought we were better. So they very well might be ready for the SPFL.

 

I will continue to trust in Warburton until he proves otherwise. These guys haven't even stepped foot in the door and we are writing them off.... Welcome to Rangers indeed....

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason is obvious. They think average performing players from leagues 1 and 2 in England are good enough for the premier in Scotland. I think they are massively under rating the competition we will face and the demands that will be placed upon his players. I doubt very much they fully understand how teams will raise their game against us.

You said in a previous post balanced criticism is needed. I agree I don't agree you are showing balance.

 

Im sorry you find it obtuse but I could be as equally cheeky about your reasoning. If you back Warburton fully no matter what there is nothing wrong with that just stop expecting the rest of us to follow suit. I agree wholeheartedly with the philosophy MW is following just not his application. I am also sure he will quickly identify his mistakes once they become apparent

 

Seriously ? You seriously think that DAVIE WEIR is underestimating what Rangers come up against on a weekly basis ? Absolute nonsense, no other way of putting it I'm afraid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason is obvious. They think average performing players from leagues 1 and 2 in England are good enough for the premier in Scotland. I think they are massively under rating the competition we will face and the demands that will be placed upon his players. I doubt very much they fully understand how teams will raise their game against us.

 

You said in a previous post balanced criticism is needed. I agree I don't agree you are showing balance.

 

Im sorry you find it obtuse but I could be as equally cheeky about your reasoning. If you back Warburton fully no matter what there is nothing wrong with that just stop expecting the rest of us to follow suit. I agree wholeheartedly with the philosophy MW is following just not his application. I am also sure he will quickly identify his mistakes once they become apparent

 

Of course I'm showing balance - I'm saying there's no guarantees but such signings can be successful while providing several examples. I'm pretty sure Davie Weir is well aware of what is expected at SPL level.

 

Moreover, you say Warburton also is under-rating the competition. Well, he brought in 8 or 9 players when Brentford were promoted to the Championship and they did pretty well so as much as his philosophy must be criticised where appropriate, I'm merely asking for constructive debate given his record is reasonably positive.

 

You're saying it wont work whatsoever. That's not constructive and lacks evidence.

Edited by Frankie
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I'm showing balance - I'm saying there's no guarantees but such signings can be successful while providing several examples. I'm pretty sure Davie Weir is well aware of what is expected at SPL level.

 

Moreover, you say Warburton also is under-rating the competition. Well, he brought in 8 or 9 players when Brentford were promoted to the Championship and they did pretty well so as much as his philosophy must be criticised where appropriate, I'm merely asking for constructive debate given his record is reasonably positive.

 

You're saying it wont work whatsoever. That's not constructive and lacks evidence.

Fair point on Davie weir understanding what's required would argue keirnan ball and wilson show that's maybe not the case.

 

As said previously you are using examples that have no correlation with what we are doing what so ever. How does buying players for free or very cheap who show no or very little history of doing well in their respective leagues have anything to do with teams buying up the very best the leagues had to offer at the time?

 

Its like saying gazza and laudrup played in scotland so at the time the lower level cheap players must have a gem or two hidden within. That's just not the case, the variables are too many for it to be that simplistic. It all boils down to can players who have hit zero heights in lower league English football be good enough for Glasgow Rangers and thier ambitions

 

 

How is his record relatively positive in terms of transfers? How many of his signings have given a return against losing? How many are still playing at that level or higher today? I have had a good look have you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.