Seven ways I disagree with Warburton's footballing philosophy

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I see I was wrong about him being captain of the U21s and he actually played for the U19s. My bad. I apologise, my memory is not perfect.

 

I don't think anything I said was too off the mark for the point I was making, and certainly not malicious.

 

For some people: please note me admitting I'm wrong, and apologising.

Apology accepted. I wasn't trying to be nasty. But mccoist didn't sign him or make him captain. I'm not even sure there was an u21 team.

 

 

[calscot 0]

So your contention is mccoist signed him and made him u21 captain.

 

Trolling again?

 

I admitted that was wrong. It was from memory so I checked my facts. Do keep up.

 

I contend McCoist was manager at the time of his recruitment, considering his age and rapid promotion, I will give credit to him for the signing as is conventional for normal people who have no witch hunt against a manager.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I would have put Jordan Thompson in instead of Crooks if he had not been on loan; and I would be playing Ryan Hardie if he wasn't on loan.

Others disagree but I really don't think Thompson is any good at all.

 

We will see no doubt.

 

 

[craig 5,199]

It's not semantics, GS, the OP referred to our academy youth players, you said one was playing, which one?

 

The point is that we have signed some youth players on loan but we didn't have a youth on the pitch last night, loan or otherwise.

 

That isn't technically true. The OP refers to "youth players" - now, you could then infer that calscot meant our youth Academy players, but the title of point #7 was "Not playing youths" and that is NOT specific to our Academy players. So, it actually IS semantics. For me, it depends on what you call a "youth". I would deem Dodoo to be a youth - but that may be that as I get older my perception of "youth" gets older too

[calscot 0]

Apology accepted. I wasn't trying to be nasty. But mccoist didn't sign him or make him captain. I'm not even sure there was an u21 team.

 

It was under 19.

 

I admit the mistake but can't see it a big deal outside pedantry. The point is that I think he was manager during his recruitment - or maybe assistant manager which is maybe more pertinent to a 17 year old signing, I haven't totally worked out the exact details and don't really care.

 

You're deliberately knit-picking even if not particularly nasty.

 

Maybe you know who exactly signed him but so far you've added very little information or clarity to the debate.

[craig 5,199]

Would you throw a youth player into a team that's struggling , away to Hearts , of course you wouldn't, most of our youths are far far far too young

 

Couldn't agree with this more rbr. This is exactly why none of us are managers. We simply look at players and go "that young lad has done well at X Club, get him in the team". BH is saying it as if it is no big deal to throw one of those young lads into a pressure-cooker game with 20,000 breathing down your neck, at a time when the team is struggling as a whole. NOT the appropriate time to bring youngsters in, IMHO.

 

Better players than either of the two mentioned by BH have seen their Rangers careers cut short simply because they cant handle that pressure - and that was when we actually had players who would lead, encourage and cajole them in a game. We have a team without leadership, yet we think we should be bringing these youngsters in for that type of situation.

 

Makes no sense to me.

[calscot 0]

That isn't technically true. The OP refers to "youth players" - now, you could then infer that calscot meant our youth Academy players, but the title of point #7 was "Not playing youths" and that is NOT specific to our Academy players. So, it actually IS semantics. For me, it depends on what you call a "youth". I would deem Dodoo to be a youth - but that may be that as I get older my perception of "youth" gets older too

 

You can argue about semantics all you like, I've said today and yesterday, if you don't understand what I mean I will explain again in different words.

 

The only semantics that count when I'm giving my viewpoint is the meaning that I personally intend. The same goes for everyone else. I am not going to spend time pre-emptively explaining what I think is obvious for the pedantic. People complain my posts are long enough and I think they are explicit enough.

 

If people want to play silly, semantic games to score points then I won't be joining in.

[calscot 0]

And THAT is the pertinent question.

 

You cant blame a manager for not bringing youth into his 1st team if there are none ready for the step-up. You need to look at who is/was running the Academy to look for the blame/responsibility.

 

I don't think there is much doubt that Warburton made McKay a better player than he ever was under Ally - but some will perhaps disagree.

 

So a your saying a player was better at 20 years old than 18 after two years playing first team fooball on loan - and then credit the manager who trained him for a few weeks? I don't buy that.

 

And it's a poor thing to argue about, not even relevant. He's not so good now is he - some would say he's going backwards or ruined...

 

The main point is that I'm not going to give a manager credit for youth development for playing an existing 20/21 year old he inherited. It's incredibly weak.

 

We're talking about taking teenage academy players and giving them their debut and blooding them for a handful of games one year and then giving them a decent run the next. You know it, and I know it. Let's get genuine.

 

McCoist did that with McKay, whether it helped or hindered, I don't know, but in normal conversations that's considered doing something good for their development - except when it's McCoist. Warburton has done none of that at Rangers, generally people usually think that's a bad thing - except when it's Warburton.

 

When are you guys going to get how you sound - and why I "defend" McCoist even though I don't rate him highly? For once use some objectivity.

[craig 5,199]

BTW Craig, if you say TLDR then I won't be impressed, you asked for it, and it took a lot of typing!

 

What is TLDR ?

[calscot 0]

Too long, didn't read.