Barrie McKay

[craig 5,199]

You certainly named a few, if he comes up with more then the future certainly is bright.

 

What's the name of the young Irishman the EPL are chasing?

 

Prefer not to say

[calscot 0]

Has McKay looked a better player under McCoist or Warburton ?

 

See, you are incredibly inconsistent - and you keep going on about apples and oranges. You are comparing a player from when he's 20-21 to when he was 17-18, and playing in totally different circumstances. If that's your case then it's about as impressive as a Thomas the Tank Engine lunch box.

 

The funny thing is that it could can easily turn your argument round that McCoist got McKay after Kilmarnock developed him and he was the player he was then, Warburton pretty much took the player after McCoist developed him and now look... You also have no idea how well he'd have played if McCoist was still here under the new board.

 

But again the point is that none of it "proves" anything, it's very complex and we can't go back in time and change things for comparison. All you are doing is twisting absolutely everything to fit the meme you seem to have been suckered into.

[craig 5,199]

So four years at Rangers from the of age 16 to 20 means nothing - no credit at all for his development? Really? So four years don't count in developing him including 41 games in one season and yet Warburton gets all the credit for developing him after about 6 weeks with him, and also for his continual development after that?

 

Sorry Craig, don't get you at all.

 

How do you "produce" any player, do I really have to spell it out? To produce something worthwhile, you take some raw materials and make something better out of it. Rangers took a 16 year old, promising, young player from Killy and 5 years later he's a top player. This may have been just a natural progression but it's normal for us to give the coaching staff some credit. Well usually "normal" except when it comes to McCoist.

 

He played for our U19s when he was 16 and had his first team debut a year later. I would assume he was therefore training with the first team for that season. He then went on to play 41 games when 18. He was still in the first team squad for half of the next season but only played 4 games. His form was off and the rumours are he had developed an attitude problem. He was then sent out on loan just like plenty of young players at the moment.

 

During that time he was exposed to our training methods, fitness training and nutritional guidance.

 

In what way is that not developing player? Warburton gets credit for developing players in half a season and I haven't seen you disagreeing with that which seems a bit fickle.

 

As I said the actual point is that whether McCoist may have helped or hindered young players, we don't really know for sure, but using a success to "prove" he badly hindered them just does not make any sense. Unless you're omniscient, for all we know doing anything differently may have led to him being less of a player.

 

You can hand wave away as much as you like, but at least be a bit consistent.

 

I never said that they should get no credit - but your post made it look like they "produced" him, looked to me as if you were giving total credit. Neither is accurate.

 

McCoist would have got rid of McKay if he had the chance - the fact he loaned him out continually whilst playing clearly inferior players would suggest that to be accurate. I think that in your defense of McCoist you are being blinded to everything else around. McKay had the ability but that hasn't really shone through until this season - even when he was at Morton I am sure I read that their fans suggested he was lazy - now, is that the players fault ? Absolutely. Is it the manager's responsibility to try to eradicate that from his game ? Absolutely.

 

It is as clear as night follows day that Warburton is getting far, far more out of McKay than McCoist ever did. Could that be a personality clash ? Sure. But either way, the manner in which McKay is playing shines either poorly on McCoist, positively on Warburton or a bit of both. I will go for the latter.

 

I cant tell you about whether the U19's under McCoist trained with the first team but under Warburton they don't train full time with the 1st team. They are brought over and train to see if they can make the transition and as a reward - but they still are coached, for the most part, with the U20's.

 

I have more information from inside the Club about McKay and McCoist and it wasn't all down to player - McCoist also has to share some of the blame from what I hear. A Manager is there to get the best out of the players - it is as clear as day that McCoist didn't do that with McKay. Not sure what you can argue about ther.

 

Why shouldn't Warburton get credit for what he has done in half a season with McKay ? It is absolutely glaring that the lad has developed under Warburton. It seems you are saying that McCoist developed him because he had him under his tutelage longer - it is just as easy to contend that McCoist potentially had put the lads career back years - a manager can be harmful to a players development as well as positive. I wont say Ally was harmful to his career and development but it surely cannot be disputed that he has improved as a player under Warburton.

 

You are absolutely right, we don't know for sure whether Ally helped or hindered players - yet you say he "produced" McKay. You like to suggest he helped and then turn around and say we don't know for sure. What is beyond doubt for me is that he is a better player, being given the appropriate stage and being given the license to express himself, under Mark Warburton - all of which he wasn't given the opportunity to do with McCoist.

 

As FS says.... Ally preferred the one dimensional Aird over the greatly superior talent of McKay - that should tell us all we need to know.

 

But I am sure you will find a way in which to defend Ally.

 

Quite simply, Warburton has achieved more in 10 months than Ally did in almost 3 seasons. That is all the proof I need - and no amount of statistics or other observations will change my mind. Warburton put together a team at the start of this season for roughly the same price as McCoist paid for David Templeton. The difference is that Warburton's team was a winning one, playing the game well. McCoist's didn't.

 

It is amusing though watching you defend McCoist

[der Berliner 3,548]

On a sidenote, the hottest-Championship-property of the day at the time went from Hibs to the Scumhut for 275k plus a season long loan of Liam Henderson, one Scott Allan. One could start various debates about what we think what Allan and/or McKay were or are worth. The rather little money was paid nonetheless.

[craig 5,199]

See, you are incredibly inconsistent - and you keep going on about apples and oranges. You are comparing a player from when he's 20-21 to when he was 17-18, and playing in totally different circumstances. If that's your case then it's about as impressive as a Thomas the Tank Engine lunch box.

 

The funny thing is that it could can easily turn your argument round that McCoist got McKay after Kilmarnock developed him and he was the player he was then, Warburton pretty much took the player after McCoist developed him and now look... You also have no idea how well he'd have played if McCoist was still here under the new board.

 

But again the point is that none of it "proves" anything, it's very complex and we can't go back in time and change things for comparison. All you are doing is twisting absolutely everything to fit the meme you seem to have been suckered into.

 

What is your case cal ? What is your justification that McCoist made this player ?

 

Love your infantile Thomas the Tank lunch box analogy - is that really how childish you have to become in your futile effort to defend Ally's management ?

 

It isn't twisting anything - it is looking at this team and these players and asking whether they are playing better under Warburton or McCoist.

 

As far as I can see it is YOU that twists things because you consistently have to bring in the "extenuating circumstances" angle. There always has to be an angle with you.

 

All that is left for me to say is that I would rather have Warburton as a manager than McCoist every day of the week and twice on Sunday. I also have far greater faith that Warburton knows how to develop a player than Ally does (from someone that knows Ally "Ally failed because he gave the players the autonomy and felt that he shouldn't need to coach experienced players" - so where is the development there - it was a holiday camp under McCoist.

 

You can defend Ally all you like. You can use whatever angles you wish to use. But now, as always, they are straw man defenses when the proof is in the viewing.

 

Petrofac - Ally, failed twice; Warburton won in 1st attempt

League - Ally, failed in the Championship; Warburton won in 1st attempt

League Cup - Ally, 3 failures; Warburton failed at first attempt

Brand of football - Warburton hands down

Quality of player - Warburton hands down

Wage bill - Warburton hands down - better players, lower wages (not all McCoist's fault admittedly - but paying 8k a week to Ian Black Ally has to share some of that responsibility)

 

Nah, you are right. McCoist was wonderful for Rangers as a manager. We should bring him back. Yes, I'm being facetious.

 

But I also have little desire to argue what really can't be argued.

 

You wont change my mind and I have little desire to get into a long-winded debate on semantics to stroke your ego and try to change your mind.

[calscot 0]

Rather than continue with the "Was McCoist shit or was he a victim of circumstance" question I would rather just be thankful that we have Mark Warburton as our manager right now.

 

I think we're all thankful but some of us don't feel the need to use the success of Warburton to trash everything a previous manager did, whether is was good or bad.

 

In one season he has lost a dozen players off the payroll (which McCoist did too when we were demoted) and has created his own team (which McCoist did too after we were demoted) and Warburton has gained us promotion at the first attempt from the Championship (McCoist got two promotions but from lower divisions and not the current one).

 

See, you compare apples with oranges for something you like and then say but that's apples and oranges for something you don't. Why you wouldn't like promotion is anyone's guess. As I've said I think McCoist was mediocre as I manager and don't need to constantly twist reality to feel justified in that, and I also feel Warburton is an excellent manager, and likewise don't feel the need to constantly praise everything he does and gloss over the negative. But the fact still remains that McCoist had the most horrendous working environment, figuratively speaking, of all time and Warburton just doesn't. You have no idea how he would have coped and it's ignoring stuff like transfer embargoes.

 

Ally failed last season to get the team promoted from this division having had 3 years in which to create his own squad and philosophy.

 

That is just factually wrong. Totally and utterly. Once again there is no way you can tell if McCoist would have got promoted last season. And, again you're conveniently ignoring what went on behind the scenes, the fan boycott and the presence of Hearts. McCoist had a better than 50-50 chance to get promoted from the playoffs.

 

Had we go the new board a year earlier, I'm sure he'd have done a lot better. Had he been the manager this year, all the evidence points towards him winning the league.

 

It doesn't mean he's any good but your view is highly skewed, hypocritical and not even close to reality.

 

And, yes, there were certainly extenuating circumstances. But you cannot simply use those as a comfort blanket for us not being promoted. The man himself was at pains to say that the football department ignore the off-field stuff and whilst we know that to be unlikely, the amount of turmoil that was seen off the pitch really shouldn't have resulted in the dreadful performances on the pitch. Those players were still getting their wages every week.

 

Yes, and Warburton means everything he says right? Like when he said McCoist was under incredibly difficult circumstances?

 

If you don't believe something was going on, look at the results, as I said before I expect you to understand trends and anomalies - there was a massive one last year. And if you're going to ignore that then why do you baulk at comparing the one season where McCoist had relatively smooth waters, even though it was still a horrendous board? If you can ignore the circumstances you can ignore the different leagues or at least make some adjustment for both.

 

But again, I'm not championing McCoist as a manager, I'm championing reality and against the senseless twisting of it to grind a man's reputation into the ground.

 

Warburton has proven, to this Bear at least, to be a better manager than McCoist

 

NOBODY is disagreeing with that, it's the black and white logic that because MW > AM then MW = 100%, and AM = 0%. The reality is that it's something in between and it's tedious to hear the same old nonsensical stuff being brought again and again, like the "your deed" stuff from them.

 

Irrelevant stuff snipped.

 

All of the indicators would show that Warburton is a superior manager - but everyone is, as always, entitled to their own opinion

 

I have no idea to what or whom you are referring to. As I said you are so wrapped up in your meme you don't even see the reality of the argument, or what my opinion is, no matter how much I specify it.

[craig 5,199]

See, you are incredibly inconsistent - and you keep going on about apples and oranges. You are comparing a player from when he's 20-21 to when he was 17-18, and playing in totally different circumstances. If that's your case then it's about as impressive as a Thomas the Tank Engine lunch box.

 

The funny thing is that it could can easily turn your argument round that McCoist got McKay after Kilmarnock developed him and he was the player he was then, Warburton pretty much took the player after McCoist developed him and now look... You also have no idea how well he'd have played if McCoist was still here under the new board.

But again the point is that none of it "proves" anything, it's very complex and we can't go back in time and change things for comparison. All you are doing is twisting absolutely everything to fit the meme you seem to have been suckered into.

 

I do actually.... except he wouldn't have been playing for McCoist because McCoist proved time and time again that he didn't want McKay in his team.

 

WTF do you continually peddle this stuff about the new board ? What impact does that have on whether McCoist picks someone to play or not ?

 

It is tedious - you are using it as more of a comfort blanket than Ally or Walter ever did. Sure, it was a factor, but FFS it wasn't everything.

 

If some have their way Ally's obituary will include "Wonderful manager..... IF the sp1vs hadn't screwed him over".

[craig 5,199]

I think we're all thankful but some of us don't feel the need to use the success of Warburton to trash everything a previous manager did, whether is was good or bad.

 

 

 

See, you compare apples with oranges for something you like and then say but that's apples and oranges for something you don't. Why you wouldn't like promotion is anyone's guess. As I've said I think McCoist was mediocre as I manager and don't need to constantly twist reality to feel justified in that, and I also feel Warburton is an excellent manager, and likewise don't feel the need to constantly praise everything he does and gloss over the negative. But the fact still remains that McCoist had the most horrendous working environment, figuratively speaking, of all time and Warburton just doesn't. You have no idea how he would have coped and it's ignoring stuff like transfer embargoes.

 

 

 

That is just factually wrong. Totally and utterly. Once again there is no way you can tell if McCoist would have got promoted last season. And, again you're conveniently ignoring what went on behind the scenes, the fan boycott and the presence of Hearts. McCoist had a better than 50-50 chance to get promoted from the playoffs.

 

Had we go the new board a year earlier, I'm sure he'd have done a lot better. Had he been the manager this year, all the evidence points towards him winning the league.

 

It doesn't mean he's any good but your view is highly skewed, hypocritical and not even close to reality.

 

 

 

Yes, and Warburton means everything he says right? Like when he said McCoist was under incredibly difficult circumstances?

 

If you don't believe something was going on, look at the results, as I said before I expect you to understand trends and anomalies - there was a massive one last year. And if you're going to ignore that then why do you baulk at comparing the one season where McCoist had relatively smooth waters, even though it was still a horrendous board? If you can ignore the circumstances you can ignore the different leagues or at least make some adjustment for both.

 

But again, I'm not championing McCoist as a manager, I'm championing reality and against the senseless twisting of it to grind a man's reputation into the ground.

 

 

 

NOBODY is disagreeing with that, it's the black and white logic that because MW > AM then MW = 100%, and AM = 0%. The reality is that it's something in between and it's tedious to hear the same old nonsensical stuff being brought again and again, like the "your deed" stuff from them.

 

Irrelevant stuff snipped.

 

 

 

I have no idea to what or whom you are referring to. As I said you are so wrapped up in your meme you don't even see the reality of the argument, or what my opinion is, no matter how much I specify it.

 

You win. I have no desire to even attempt to debate whether Ally was a good manager or not. Hence, I wont be bother reading the above.

 

His tenure shows enough for me to suggest he wasn't. Warburton has eclipsed his 3 years worth of work in 10 months. That's all I need to know.

 

Defend him all you like, that is your prerogative - but I wont be wasting my typing fingers on it when it is as clear as day.

[calscot 0]

What is your case cal ? What is your justification that McCoist made this player ?

 

Love your infantile Thomas the Tank lunch box analogy - is that really how childish you have to become in your futile effort to defend Ally's management ?

 

It isn't twisting anything - it is looking at this team and these players and asking whether they are playing better under Warburton or McCoist.

 

As far as I can see it is YOU that twists things because you consistently have to bring in the "extenuating circumstances" angle. There always has to be an angle with you.

 

All that is left for me to say is that I would rather have Warburton as a manager than McCoist every day of the week and twice on Sunday. I also have far greater faith that Warburton knows how to develop a player than Ally does (from someone that knows Ally "Ally failed because he gave the players the autonomy and felt that he shouldn't need to coach experienced players" - so where is the development there - it was a holiday camp under McCoist.

 

You can defend Ally all you like. You can use whatever angles you wish to use. But now, as always, they are straw man defenses when the proof is in the viewing.

 

Petrofac - Ally, failed twice; Warburton won in 1st attempt

League - Ally, failed in the Championship; Warburton won in 1st attempt

League Cup - Ally, 3 failures; Warburton failed at first attempt

Brand of football - Warburton hands down

Quality of player - Warburton hands down

Wage bill - Warburton hands down - better players, lower wages (not all McCoist's fault admittedly - but paying 8k a week to Ian Black Ally has to share some of that responsibility)

 

Nah, you are right. McCoist was wonderful for Rangers as a manager. We should bring him back. Yes, I'm being facetious.

 

But I also have little desire to argue what really can't be argued.

 

You wont change my mind and I have little desire to get into a long-winded debate on semantics to stroke your ego and try to change your mind.

 

All I can say to this is please read my posts, they really can't be that hard to understand. I really can't see the slightest relevance of your post... You are arguing against a point that no-one has ever made.

[calscot 0]

You win. I have no desire to even attempt to debate whether Ally was a good manager or not. Hence, I wont be bother reading the above.

 

His tenure shows enough for me to suggest he wasn't. Warburton has eclipsed his 3 years worth of work in 10 months. That's all I need to know.

 

Defend him all you like, that is your prerogative - but I wont be wasting my typing fingers on it when it is as clear as day.

 

As I said please read my posts for what is in them, not what you imagine is in them. Once again you are arguing against points I specifically said I was NOT making.