Rangers Winning on a Friday Evening

[Frankie 8,806]

I'm not really sure where this obsession with Ally McCoist is coming to in this context but it's off-topic and sure as hell tedious. I mentioned the club's difficulties because of the ongoing issues with finance and thus player investment into the team going forward. Not as some avenue back into the life and times of our former manager.

 

Quite simply comparing MW's tenure with Ally's is like comparing apples with oranges because of a range of differing circumstances - no matter your opinion on either manager. As such it's effectively pointless.

 

Now, the discussion is about how good our form is currently and hopefully we can continue that in this and other threads with another win on Saturday lunchtime. I'd thank people to stay on topic.

[calscot 0]

I'm not really sure where this obsession with Ally McCoist is coming to in this context but it's off-topic and sure as hell tedious.

 

What obsession are you referring to? It's strange you don't find the obsession with grinding him down and blaming him for everything tedious also. He is still blamed for our more current bad performances on here, but must have missed your "tedious" comments.

 

You mentioned mitigation for managers due to the off-field difficulties in the last five years, are you saying AM is irrelevant in that context? I would say that's a bit strange also.

 

You asserted that anyone who ignores mitigation for a manager is a troll, other have said that criticising the manager is unrangerslike, and you don't detect any hypocrisy in that at all?

 

I mentioned the club's difficulties because of the ongoing issues with finance and thus player investment into the team going forward. Not as some avenue back into the life and times of our former manager.

 

Quite simply comparing MW's tenure with Ally's is like comparing apples with oranges because of a range of differing circumstances - no matter your opinion on either manager. As such it's effectively pointless.

 

I don't know if you fully understand what you are saying - this means we can't compare any manager and therefore can't conclude if they are good or bad. You are saying that it is impossible to debate such subjects unless within some kind of controlled experiment. You're saying all managerial debate is pointless.

 

Now, the discussion is about how good our form is currently and hopefully we can continue that in this and other threads with another win on Saturday lunchtime. I'd thank people to stay on topic.

 

Yes, keep to the party line.

 

It seems we aren't allowed to question the fairness and consistency of peoples' arguments while our own opinions are being criticised.

Edited December 22, 2016 by calscot

[Frankie 8,806]

cal:

 

I think you need to calm down.

 

You brought Ally into a discussion that had no previous reference to him. And I don't read and/or respond to every topic on here so can't be the all-seeing eye you think you are when it comes to consistency of opinions. However, for point of record, yes some people are less than fair to Ally McCoist and if they don't consider the external factors on his tenure then their argument is equally disingenuous or tedious.

 

Of course managers can be compared - however that comparison is flawed when the competition is different, the players different and the over-arching circumstances different. As such, IMO, it's a waste of time attempting to compare Warburton with Ally. Especially when, as in this case, there was absolutely no effort to mention another manager as part of the point being made. And it's a point I understand fully thank you.

 

Finally there's no 'party-line' on any issue on this forum. I just want people to stay on-topic wherever possible to avoid the kind of complaints we receive about trolling and insults. In that sense, bringing Ally McCoist into a discussion about how well the current manager is or isn't doing seems less than helpful and definitely not relevant to the post I made. Ergo, any effort to introduce him seemed somewhat desperate.

 

Now, please, please move on...

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Ok, fair enough. So if we take that as a benchmark to assess Warburton then we have to wonder that why, under far, far less "difficulties" , that we haven't seen much of a measurable improvement in results over a manager with no good side? It seems in that context, his critics have been incredibly mild and forgiving...

Probably as we moved up a league.

 

 

[JFK-1 1,693]

Not good enough for second ? At the same time as having come up from a lower league with a bunch of journeymen ? At the same time as bringing in a full team of new players ? At the same time as having to see them gel together ?

 

Aye, right enough.... patience isn't something in abundance as Rangers fans !!

 

The media pundits who posit themselves as 'experts' are every bit as contrary as anybody else is. Just a couple of months or so ago Jackson at the record was proclaiming that Aberdeen are indisputably the second force in Scotland. Then just this week was executing a U turn to say that Rangers will come in second by a comfortable margin.

 

Wondering if that makes me more of an 'expert' than he is because all along I said we would be minimum second and that wasn't simply blue bias. I could see that in bursts we were a far better team than those sheep and presumed the bursts would eventually become more of a pattern than a burst. I don't know how Jackson forms his opinions but if it's from watching then analysing he's no expert.

[Frankie 8,806]

Journalists will always try to be controversial to manufacture readers/listeners/viewers. I doubt even less than half the time they believe what they say themselves.

 

The likes of Jackson may well have good contacts in terms of football news stories but when it comes to analysing the actual game he's no more learned than you or I.

[JFK-1 1,693]

Journalists will always try to be controversial to manufacture readers/listeners/viewers. I doubt even less than half the time they believe what they say themselves.

 

The likes of Jackson may well have good contacts in terms of football news stories but when it comes to analysing the actual game he's no more learned than you or I.

 

What made it all the sillier coming from a so called expert is that he made the proclamation about the sheep being the second force after the match at pittodrie when we totally outplayed them but just didn't get a result for a variety if reasons including ref incompetence in the last minute. Made me wonder if he had even watched it or just looked at the result and came up with that babble.

 

I could have done that then said the sellick were among the best in Europe after they got a draw against teenagers at Man City.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Not good enough for second ?

Second place is the very minimum we should be achieving. It really is no achievement. The idea of us not finishing second is just absurd. And as I said, 7 wins out of 15 was pathetic.

 

At the same time as having come up from a lower league with a bunch of journeymen ?

The players we came up with are hardly journeymen by Scottish football standards. They're certainly not paid journeymen wages.

 

At the same time as bringing in a full team of new players ? At the same time as having to see them gel together ?

Against Hamilton 9 of our starting XI played last year too. I don't get your point.

 

Aye, right enough.... patience isn't something in abundance as Rangers fans !!

We give managers far longer than they deserve. I don't include Warburton in that as I never wanted him sacked.

[calscot 0]

What made it all the sillier coming from a so called expert is that he made the proclamation about the sheep being the second force after the match at pittodrie when we totally outplayed them but just didn't get a result

 

I think to be fair, you can't judge two teams on one game between them, especially in favour of the losing team - which was us in this case.

 

That kind of analysis can get into a rock, paper, scissors type of circular argument. A team can win the league by a long way and yet have a negative record against one team, where they were consistently out played; it doesn't stop them being the best team in the league.

 

For me, it's our current position above them that makes us currently more plausible as the better side, but it would be stretching it to say it was undisputed.

 

Even league tables lie during the season, as you don't take into account who two teams have played and where (and often games in hand). We were quite into the season before we played Hearts - twice, and that could have flattered us considering we dropped three points. For a lower team they could have been 4 points behind another with two Celtic games coming up which the other had already played.

 

You need big gaps to make bold statements and the table is "virtual" until the end of the season or at least until things become mathematically certain.

 

I've always thought we had better players than the teams currently below us, and the wage bill is testament to that. The issue was whether the manager could make those better resources count.

 

Irrelevant to previous managers, a previous popular viewpoint was that with Rangers resources, was that your average granny manage us to finish second. While that is obviously hyperbole, there is a real world point there. A Rangers (or any) manager will not be seen as successful if they are not better than clubs who spend less money on the team.

 

Thankfully that is now happening after a less than impressive start, but I suspect you're average Rangers fan will not be satisfied with progress while the gap between us and the rest is smaller than the gap between us and Celtic - especially when that defies the relative differences in finances.

 

A Rangers manager not only needs to be better than cheaper teams, the nature of the club also demands him to be better than teams with similar finances, and really a bit more. Otherwise, we will never compete with Celtic or in Europe. We can't just buy more and more expensive players to more easily defeat the smaller Scottish teams... We need a manager who can do it on a level playing field, as well as being able to demonstrate any extra superiority.

 

Hopefully Warburton can do that, and like any manager, needs a bit of time to build a team and develop it his way. But you also have to be able to gauge when it's likely that it just won't happen and be vigilant to that along the way.

 

We're finally seeing a glimpse of a bit of progress but it's been a long time coming and I'm hoping he's going to use the transfer windows to follow his plan, rather than just throw money at a problem.