forlanssister 3,092 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I cannot realistically see any other viable option but to pursue the transfer policy that Warburton is currently deploying. The reality of our situation seems to escape some. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 A wee update on the football fallout between rat Thompson and Mac the knife . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,394 Posted January 7, 2016 Author Share Posted January 7, 2016 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? Hold on, a few mistakes from a few players means our assistant manager has no grasp on what player quality is required? What about Holt, Waghorn, Tav, Foderingham and Halliday who have done well - not to mention a few existing players who seem to have improved such as McKay? Furthermore, a player doesn't have to be the best one in their division/club to be worthy of a transfer. Gazza and Laudrup ending up at Rangers are good examples of that. There is a middle ground and, again, the point is we won't be able to afford/attract the very best so we have to settle for that middle ground I'm afraid. That's why I think we're going for lads like Wilson, Waghorn and Forresster who were considered excellent prospects but have lost their way somewhat. Then you have lads like Windass, Crooks, Fod, Tav and Kiernan who are clearly not the best in England but have a potential quality relative to us. Not sure why you're (deliberately?) continually missing this point. I I've been in a meeting so not had time to look at every player Warburton signed. But he took Brentford from League One up to the Championship play-offs within 18months after signing around 8 players. That suggests he knows the level he's competing in and is able to recruit effectively. However, I'm sure like every manager there will be transfer successes and failures though it's difficult to judge his acquisitions given a) he was only in the job for 18months and b) he had many of these players for only a season. The trend tells us Brentford did very well though so I think it's fair to empirically say, as I did, his record is reasonably positive. The same cabn be said for the players he's brought to Rangers in the 6 months he's had here. Not perfect by any means but progress has been, well, reasonably positive. I think I'll leave the conversation there for now. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Hold on, a few mistakes from a few players means our assistant manager has no grasp on what player quality is required? What about Holt, Waghorn, Tav, Foderingham and Halliday who have done well - not to mention a few existing players who seem to have improved such as McKay? Furthermore, a player doesn't have to be the best one in their division/club to be worthy of a transfer. Gazza and Laudrup ending up at Rangers are good examples of that. There is a middle ground and, again, the point is we won't be able to afford/attract the very best so we have to settle for that middle ground I'm afraid. That's why I think we're going for lads like Wilson, Waghorn and Forresster who were considered excellent prospects but have lost their way somewhat. Then you have lads like Windass, Crooks, Fod, Tav and Kiernan who are clearly not the best in England but have a potential quality relative to us. Not sure why you're (deliberately?) continually missing this point. I I've been in a meeting so not had time to look at every player Warburton signed. But he took Brentford from League One up to the Championship play-offs within 18months after signing around 8 players. That suggests he knows the level he's competing in and is able to recruit effectively. However, I'm sure like every manager there will be transfer successes and failures though it's difficult to judge his acquisitions given a) he was only in the job for 18months and b) he had many of these players for only a season. The trend tells us Brentford did very well though so I think it's fair to empirically say, as I did, his record is reasonably positive. The same cabn be said for the players he's brought to Rangers in the 6 months he's had here. Not perfect by any means but progress has been, well, reasonably positive. I think I'll leave the conversation there for now. Tavernier if he finds consistency could become a very good player, waghorn not as a striker for me he could hold down the right winger role. The rest with the exception of halliday and holt are not good enough in my opinion. His record is not mainly positive, probably best described as hit and miss. He has made very good returns on two players. Some have went on and held a position at brentford, a few have been released within a year, some have not kicked a ball with a few put out on loan after their first season.He has lost money on as many has he has made. With a few unfortunate bad injuries flung in. I am not missing the point I am arguing your point has no merit. A player who cannot stand out in league 2 in England or league 1 for that matter is not good enough for Rangers and our aims. Nothing you have said has shown any argument for why my thinking is wrong. I am not sure why you keep missing the point either. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I am not missing the point I am arguing your point has no merit. A player who cannot stand out in league 2 in England or league 1 for that matter is not good enough for Rangers and our aims. Nothing you have said has shown any argument for why my thinking is wrong. Your thinking is wrong as your assertion in bold has no basis as an immutable rule. They may or may not be good enough for Rangers, we have to see how they develop and play for us. I can see that's your opinion but your thinking is creating hard and fast restrictions that don't necessarily exist. I personally think scouting is a lot more complex than the obvious of someone standing out as the best player in their league ahead of well over 500 other players, especially at a young age. It's also about spotting potential before it becomes too obvious to others with more cash, and as Frankie says, when an exceptionally classy player comes along, we're not going to be in the running. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg_Mcnoleg 50 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I cannot realistically see any other viable option but to pursue the transfer policy that Warburton is currently deploying. The reality of our situation seems to escape some. Part of the reason Warburton was appointed was because of his ability to scout undervalued players and improve them. Seems odd that some complain when he starts trying to do that. Short of Dave King discovering he can keech diamonds, like you, I'm not sure what the alternative is. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Your thinking is wrong as your assertion in bold has no basis as an immutable rule. They may or may not be good enough for Rangers, we have to see how they develop and play for us. I can see that's your opinion but your thinking is creating hard and fast restrictions that don't necessarily exist. I personally think scouting is a lot more complex than the obvious of someone standing out as the best player in their league ahead of well over 500 other players, especially at a young age. It's also about spotting potential before it becomes too obvious to others with more cash, and as Frankie says, when an exceptionally classy player comes along, we're not going to be in the running. MW is building a framework for a team that can bring instant results. There is no time for development when we are talking about the entire recruitment policy, not just the odd player. How long do you think it will take for a young player who has not held down a first team place in the lower English leagues for any length of time to become good enough to hold his own in an old firm game? The reality should be clear to us all we have watched Rangers for decades. He will be expected to compete next season not for mid table or just making the top 6. I think we can all admit our fans will demand a fight with them next year. Expecting players to perform to high standards that have not developed enough to stand out in lower level leagues than the one we will ask them to perform in, under far more pressure, seems far fetched to me. The only reasonable explanation as far as I am concerned is that MW thinks the level of performance they have shown so far in their careers will be enough to meet our expectations in Scottish football. Would understand if the recruitment policy was mixing these players with more established talent. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 The funny thing I find is that many want players from our academy to play in the first team but a 21 year old coming from probably a far better level than our development league is being spurned upon. That a 28 year old is viewed as dodgy I can understand but a youth player(virtually) from that level I see as completely positive. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 The funny thing I find is that many want players from our academy to play in the first team but a 21 year old coming from probably a far better level than our development league is being spurned upon. That a 28 year old is viewed as dodgy I can understand but a youth player(virtually) from that level I see as completely positive. not saying its right pete just that its the reality. Look at zalelam he is rated far far higher than any of the players we have signed. yet many want him out the team, not heard many voices saying let the boy develop. One thing that will be always demanded at Ibrox is success, can that be achieved with players who have still to develop as the backbone of the team? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Look at zalelam he is rated far far higher than any of the players we have signed. yet many want him out the team, not heard many voices saying let the boy develop. Yes, but the massive difference is that he's not our player and so letting him develop doesn't really help us directly. If he was our player, I think there would be a load more patience with him. While loanees are here to be developed, they still have to give us something tangible now, rather than later when they're not here. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.