calscot 0 Posted May 12, 2016 Author Share Posted May 12, 2016 Super was by a long long way our worst manager ever. You can have any opinion you like, but in the context of the discussion of the results stats in this thread, I feel your assertion at this point is doing Warburton a hell of a disservice. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 And you claim not to be pushing an agenda. What I say is a cast iron fact. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted May 13, 2016 Author Share Posted May 13, 2016 (edited) And you claim not to be pushing an agenda. What I say is a cast iron fact. What agenda? My opinions are based on the facts. Maybe from our interchange I could be accessed of pushing it that Warburton is a very good Rangers manager but that's about it. You on the other hand are way out there if you think your subjective opinions are fact and are oblivious to the irrelevance in this thread. The weird thing is the facts in this thread are the stats, and you and others amazingly have great difficulty in accepting them and they seem to upset you. That should set off alarms in your head. Your opinion on the worst Rangers manager is of no interest to me in this thread. Maybe he is but there are several candidates and none of the others have managed in such difficult circumstances. It's like saying that Mccoist is one the best due to his unbeaten season, except nobody is silly enough to say that as they realise it's not comparable to the top tier. McCoist's tenure is not compatible and as no one is arguing he was any good what the hell is your beef? The amazing irony is that if you insist on comparing Mccoist while ignoring all circumstances, it transpires he has the best win rate (not including winning on penalties) of any Rangers manager. It's bonkers. I'm not defending Mccoist in the slightest here, I'm defending proper debate and conclusions based on facts. The problem I have is that people like yourself are so blinded by your seemingly extreme anti Mccoist agenda, that you can't even talk about how we're doing using objective stats without going off on one. Edited May 13, 2016 by calscot 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 What agenda? My opinions are based on the facts. Maybe from our interchange I could be accessed of pushing it that Warburton is a very good Rangers manager but that's about it. You on the other hand are way out there if you think your subjective opinions are fact and are oblivious to the irrelevance in this thread. The weird thing is the facts in this thread are the stats, and you and others amazingly have great difficulty in accepting them and they seem to upset you. That should set off alarms in your head. Your opinion on the worst Rangers manager is of no interest to me in this thread. Maybe he is but there are several candidates and none of the others have managed in such difficult circumstances. It's like saying that Mccoist is one the best due to his unbeaten season, except nobody is silly enough to say that as they realise it's not comparable to the top tier. McCoist's tenure is not compatible and as no one is arguing he was any good what the hell is your beef? The amazing irony is that if you insist on comparing Mccoist while ignoring all circumstances, it transpires he has the best win rate (not including winning on penalties) of any Rangers manager. It's bonkers. I'm not defending Mccoist here in the slightest here, I'm defending proper debate and conclusions based on facts. The problem I have is that people like yourself are so blinded by your seemingly extreme anti Mccoist agenda, that you can't even talk about how we're doing using objective stats without going off on one. What is your opinion based on the facts? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Of course super had a good win ratio he was playing international players v postmen. Spending 12 million v 200k. He was however failing in every aspect of the job. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted May 13, 2016 Author Share Posted May 13, 2016 What is your opinion based on the facts? It's all there in the thread. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted May 13, 2016 Author Share Posted May 13, 2016 Of course super had a good win ratio he was playing international players v postmen. Spending 12 million v 200k. He was however failing in every aspect of the job. I have no idea if that's the case. You can't slag a boxer off for winning an easy fight, you can if he lises. Mccoist didn't lose. Doesn't mean he's good but from that you can't possibly conclude he's bad. Mccoist had a similar budget to Warburton in the Championship I believe, and playing the exact same teams won more games. So using your own criteria he was actually better which makes your opinion incredibly inconsistent. He also had the same players as his temporary successor and did so much better. Then the board changed from a shit one to a good one, and the best Scottish manager around achieved a win ratio of 40%. Like I say, when you look at the win stats your opinions are not compatible. All you do is make excuse after excuse. As I said, the weird thing is that NOBODY is claiming that Mccoist was any good, but you come on this thread, look at those stats, conclude Mccoist is the shitiest and expect me agree. As I've repeatedly said, maybe he is for some other reasons from evidence I'm not privy to, but it's not a viable conclusion from these stats, and so is just an off the wall assessment in this context. As I also keep saying, you seem to be insulting Warburton, who didn't win significantly more games in significantly easier circumstances than a guy who you say is a really shit manager. Just what are you trying to say about our current manager? Like I said, I base my opinions on the facts as well as qualitative stuff instead of memes, which is why they are compatible. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Warburton had millions less. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 What is your opinion. Say it out loud and susinctly. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,257 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 McCoist was manager at a particular and complicated juncture in our history and unfortunately only compounded what was a general omnishambles both on the field, within the football operation and financially. He will never manage a football club of any standing again because he simply hasn't 'got it'. To argue his case is akin to being a member of the 'Flat Earth Society'. 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.