Seven ways I disagree with Warburton's footballing philosophy

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

If McCoist had given youth a chance when we were in the lower divisions, chances are we would be in much better shape now.

 

He did. They were almost all awful.

[craig 5,199]

I do it every time... It would be nice if others did to...

 

I wish they would too.

 

I find it liberating when I apologise when wrong - just doesn't happen very often

[calscot 0]

BTW looked it up again, Barry McKay was signed in the summer of 2011. I believe McCoist was the manager.

 

As such, his responsibilities were to target and sign players. As McKay was 16.5, I think McCoist would be involved. The fact he debuted in the first team at 17, less than a year later and in the same season of his signing supports this.

 

If he was shite McCoist would be blamed as manager, so I don't have a problem with attributing his signing to the incumbent manager. Unless anyone has further information, so I think we can take that one for granted.

 

Like I said, I don't really care too much, as my point is sound. But here I've been questioned about it. I'm still waiting on someone else to apologise for saying I made it all up - when in fact I was a bit hazy with a couple of minor facts - well actually one the 21/19 thing. Captain? Who knows, I think I got mixed up with him being the top scorer.

Edited December 1, 2016 by calscot

[craig 5,199]

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.

 

I wasn't suggesting you, I was talking about BH and his assertion that you had mentioned our Academy players - you technically didn't.

[craig 5,199]

Too long, didn't read.

 

Agreed

 

I will read this evening when I get home. I know it sounds ignorant and yesterday's exchange really was - I just could see you getting irate when you started cursing at me and saw an opportunity...... My apologies

[craig 5,199]

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.

 

I'm saying that you cant necessarily equate a players development in accordance to the amount of time they have spent with them. IF someone says Ally was a terrible manager and IF they were right - he could have had a player for TEN years and they still would see more improvement with a significantly better manager over a much short timeframe.

 

You simply cannot equate development to time spent under one person.

 

Plus, it is hardly "weeks" with Warburton - McKay was a splendid player for us throughout last season, right up till the SC semi-final in April - so Warburton had him for 10 MONTHS by that point in time. So I'm not sure where you get the "couple of weeks" from ??

 

I'm not so sure you can say he isn't so good now - every player has periods when they are off-form - doesn't make them poor players.

[calscot 0]

Youth had plenty of chances under McCoist - whether forced to or not.

 

He was highly criticised for it in the fourth tier and so they less got the chance in the third - but Lewis McLeod and Fraser Aird were the main ones who both got a good run.

 

Interesting that McCoist gave Ryan Hardie his debut and Tom Walsh at 16 years and 150 days. "Walsh became the youngest post-war Scottish football league debutant for Rangers and second youngest competitive debutant ever for the club."

 

I await the derision.

 

Warburton gave Burt his debut.

[calscot 0]

I'm saying that you cant necessarily equate a players development in accordance to the amount of time they have spent with them. IF someone says Ally was a terrible manager and IF they were right - he could have had a player for TEN years and they still would see more improvement with a significantly better manager over a much short timeframe.

 

You simply cannot equate development to time spent under one person.

 

McCoist could have been the making of him - and he's getting slowly worse under Warburton - you don't know, but it actually fits the facts better. Or maybe we should give all the credit to the loan club managers.

 

Normally, without McCoist, the first manager would get the credit. We don't know so it's best to go with the convention that the rest of the world would use. As I said it doesn't matter. McCoist did what we expect and desire. Warburton inherited a talented young player who was already developed enough to step into his team.

 

Plus, it is hardly "weeks" with Warburton - McKay was a splendid player for us throughout last season,

 

I've lost you. Was McKay crap to start with but improved with every game under Warburton until he became the player he is today by the end of the season?

 

I don't recall that. I recall him being rather good from the off - which means it was indeed weeks. You're at it here. The anti-McCoist specs you claim not to wear are still on.

 

As I said, he spent the previous two years on loan so that could have been the making of him, but you're trying to shoehorn Warburton into it to slight McCoist. Funny that Warburton also sends players out on loans - says it's good for their development. Not when Ally does it obviously... :-/

 

right up till the SC semi-final in April - so Warburton had him for 10 MONTHS by that point in time. So I'm not sure where you get the "couple of weeks" from ??

 

Pre-season obv.

 

I'm not so sure you can say he isn't so good now - every player has periods when they are off-form - doesn't make them poor players.

 

No idea whether it's form or he's regressed, as you point out, neither do you. He's been criticised most of the season though - almost half a season of poor form is hardly a blip.

 

I think he'll improve again although I think he's lost his shine a bit. But the point is that he has not consistently improved under Warburton, even if our manager ultimately is the making of him.

 

You're just doing mental gymnastics to give Warburton credit and Ally none. I don't know why but it's consistent with what I've been saying about Ally's criticism and the agenda against him.

 

Can't you just be fair for a wee holiday from putting him down?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

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.

That was only one mistake. Super never bought him never made him captain of the u19. Simply not his department.

 

 

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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

 

I beg to differ (not about the title) but the reference is clear to me:

 

7. Not playing youths

 

The manager has been previously lauded about his policies on youth development and yet in a season and a half, not one academy player has had a run of games in the team.

 

Whether the OP was referring to Academy players or not (and I contend that it is clear that he was), Joseph "Joe" Dodoo (born 29 June 1995) is 21 years of age, and I doubt many folk would regard him as a youth, least of all Joseph Dodoo, a young man certainly, but a youth I think not.

Edited December 2, 2016 by BrahimHemdani