Rangers Observer Analysis: Graeme Murty's caretaker reign so far

[der Berliner 3,551]

Lets face it Pedro was rank rotten from day one.

 

Let's face it, this opinion is rubbish.

 

See, I can also make pointless, self-opinioniated statements. And I'm no more right than you. BTW, no need to regurge "the Celtic and Aberdeen and Progres fiasco" stuff. Its been done to death and we would only debate opinions again. It would help if people would enter the grey zones of debate rather than steadfastly painting him black. For I don't think anyone is painting him white on here.

[pete 2,499]

Let's face it, this opinion is rubbish.

 

See, I can also make pointless, self-opinioniated statements. And I'm no more right than you. BTW, no need to regurge "the Celtic and Aberdeen and Progres fiasco" stuff. Its been done to death and we would only debate opinions again. It would help if people would enter the grey zones of debate rather than steadfastly painting him black. For I don't think anyone is painting him white on here.

 

Yes that's an easy one. Don't anybody talk about pedro's negative points then we can all think he is great like der Berliner does. Are you a politician per chance?

[pete 2,499]

The manager is but one factor of many and IMHO, Pedro's impact on Alves' and Cardoso's defending was probably as minimal as it gets. I doubt that either player has ever come up against the tactics employed by Scottish teams against us that often, or wing-backs who are more often in the opponent's half than defending, leaving them as exposed as they were. That said, PC was giving Tav quite a bit of FLAK indeed ...

 

There is a programme on TV at the moment where well known people have to direct an orchestra. While the Orchestra is made up of top musicians with the sheet music in front of them it normally ends up in a complete mess as they do not have a leader. The same is with a football team. If you have a leader who can't pull things together and is not clear on how the game should be played then it also normally ends up in a mess. It did with Pedro,he was just not getting his message across to the players.

[der Berliner 3,551]

Yes that's an easy one. Don't anybody talk about pedro's negative points then we can all think he is great like der Berliner does. Are you a politician per chance?

 

As long as people give him - or anyone else - a balanced opion, this corner of the debate will be rather quiet. But that is not going to be the case, as you proved up there. And, as always, it is interesting that those who highlight the at times unbalanced opinions of the negative-brigade are being given a hard time - more often than not with the same unbalanced arguments that were flung about in the first place.

 

Of course, one can start debating about what is "balanced" ... and we had that before. Players at his disposal, their current form, opposition (pitch, form (take the rout by a very dominant, way above their level punching Yahoo team last season against our ragtag band of underperformers), players), at what stage of training was his team ... if it was "his" team ... and so on. But people usually don't want to hear that. For how often have we heard that the manager of Rangers FC has to deliver, no matter the circumstances. Just get the "facts" (i.e. results) out and start the the piling of the wood.

And while I am at it, as it often seems to be implied, I'm still not saying that Pedro was a good coach or hasn't had his failures, far from it. But handing him FLAK for FLAK's sake is not for me.

[pete 2,499]

As long as people give him - or anyone else - a balanced opion, this corner of the debate will be rather quiet. But that is not going to be the case, as you proved up there. And, as always, it is interesting that those who highlight the at times unbalanced opinions of the negative-brigade are being given a hard time - more often than not with the same unbalanced arguments that were flung about in the first place.

 

Of course, one can start debating about what is "balanced" ... and we had that before. Players at his disposal, their current form, opposition (pitch, form (take the rout by a very dominant, way above their level punching Yahoo team last season against our ragtag band of underperformers), players), at what stage of training was his team ... if it was "his" team ... and so on. But people usually don't want to hear that. For how often have we heard that the manager of Rangers FC has to deliver, no matter the circumstances. Just get the "facts" (i.e. results) out and start the the piling of the wood.

And while I am at it, as it often seems to be implied, I'm still not saying that Pedro was a good coach or hasn't had his failures, far from it. But handing him FLAK for FLAK's sake is not for me.

 

My statement above was perfectly true. If you remember right the first thing that Pedro did put O'Halloran at right back and made a complete wobbly defence. So as I said from his first game he was doing things that were a bit dubious. I am not really bothered that he tried O'Halloran at RB because I would still like to see him tried there,

[Rousseau 10,019]

My statement above was perfectly true. If you remember right the first thing that Pedro did put O'Halloran at right back and made a complete wobbly defence. So as I said from his first game he was doing things that were a bit dubious. I am not really bothered that he tried O'Halloran at RB because I would still like to see him tried there,

 

'Dubious' implies he had a choice; he did not. There were 3 defenders -- and those that started weren't even first-choice, because of injuries -- that had to go off at half-time, and we only had Senderos on the bench, who wasn't even fit never mind good enough. The fact that he got us back in the game with a "wobbly" defence is credit to him.

 

Ultimately, PC was not good enough, but you're just taking every decision, every situation as proof he was a 'dud'. A wee bit of balance, please. Your arguments should not have to be so contrived; it was PC, FFS.