calscot

Where in my post does it say I wanted him to go? And how come you have missed out all the posts where I specifically said I wasn't saying that he should go? I think you need to pay more attention to what is being said instead of winding yourself up with stuff that isn't even there.

Apart from the last minute, that was a good shout... ?

Got to thank Wes for keeping the points. Not a good display by the rest.

Not sure if I'd use the word, "accurate" due to some quite green tinted thinking, even if it wasn't unreasonable. So maybe "reasonable" from a very Celtic perspective. Does anyone really think the gap between us is definitively indicative and as impossible to bridge as he and the others were making out? I don't. I think quite a big bit of the gap is their manager have a good run and ours having a bad one (perhaps due to inexperience, but he's learning). Without any changes in investment, I think the gap will vary quite a bit and average out far closer than what it is at the moment. I doubt it will be over 40 points come the end of the season. 30 maybe - next year, 20 if they are lucky but hopefully much closer or minus due to a bit more investment.

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.

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 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. 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.

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...

I agree that Aberdeen have a perfectly valid complaint, but also am in the camp for no sympathy. We've had tons of valid complaints and been laughed at and scorned in riposte. They helped set the SPFL up to be a joke, they are just reaping what they sow. They are also instrumental in voting in someone into power who gladly tells everyone that he is only interested in the well-being of Celtic, nothing else. So they are getting exactly what they voted for. I agree with Craig that Scottish clubs need to start thinking about the good of everyone, rather than the myopic look after yourself and forget about everyone else attitude that pervades our game.

When you read stuff like that you have to wonder if it's true, and if not is it just a click bait thing to get hits and attention, or these days, is it paranoid to think that part of it is an attempt to wind us up or even destabilise us? If it's true then fair enough to the reporting, but who is their source? It seems incredibly unlikely that a young guy who moved from Accrington to Rangers wants to move down again after so short a time, due to a lack of opportunities when he was actually injured for a while at the beginning of the season. When that happens and the team starts to settle before you're fully fit, you're going to have to bide your time at any club. The story just seems so implausible.

Does this only apply uniquely to the current manager, or does it also cover previous managers who were around in the last five years?

The problem is that you have to pay absolutely nothing as volunteers, or minimum of minimum wage if they are on a professional contract - it's to protect employees. Queens Park have really messed this up. There is obviously a mechanism paying expenses but would assume this would have to be audited with receipts etc. The tax man is pretty stringent these days and affects my work where we do things like getting students or staff to volunteer several hours for dev-testing our software - we used to be able to give some kind of gift, like a small value M&S voucher, or some other token gesture, but due to the tax man we can now only offer our sincerest thanks.

The one issue I have with the judge is the implication that the second guy had a fight because his team lost, and completely ignoring the massive provocation by the Hibs fans, which while not excusing his behaviour, does give a certain mitigation compared to the former. A guy that attacks people because his team loses is pretty dangerous to everyone, as his team will lose periodically and it seems like he can't control his anger which turns to violence. A guy that attacks people who charge up to taunt him and threaten him, by definition is not dangerous at all to your average, decent person - only to those who threaten and try to intimidate him - in this case when their team actually wins. I'm not condoning his behaviour but there are degrees of guilt - the latter is part of the natural flight or fight response that we all struggle to control, the former is just a bit sociopathic.

I think people are still missing the point about Barton - yes he was unfit and wasn't exactly rubbish (but also without showing any glimpses of being a class above), but I think most fans would have given him at least half a season to get fit and in form, or even the whole season if he played to a half decent level without fulfilling his promises. The problem is that is own lack of self control, his angry narcissism and his hubris removed from him the opportunity to improve and show what he could do - nothing else. When you look at it, footballing ability includes more than skills on the park - as it's a team game, you also have to have the skills to get on somewhat with your team and manager. In that regard, when you sum Barton's ability up, taking everything into account, for us he was effectively just shite. He spent over six weeks doing absolutely nothing for our cause due to his own actions and attitude. He wasn't even good enough in that regard to get us a small, token transfer fee - he was effectively worthless. Now if you compare Kranjcar, the contrast is that he showed glimpses of something classy from the start, but looked very unfit, but he worked at it and improved and started to look quite valuable to us, and was then unfortunately injured. No histrionics, he seemed fully committed and there is no record of him not having the skills to get on with the team and manager. With Garner, there's been no suspension, and no injury, and he's been working at it and putting the shifts in. Maybe he didn't or doesn't fit in the system, or maybe he's not quite good enough, but he seems to be giving everything, unlike Barton. So he deserves some time, and the manager looks like he's finally tweaking the tactics to suit the players we have, and the opposition, and it's working, so maybe Garner can benefit from that. But in the end, I think most folk will prefer a guy who tries his hardest to do his best and gets on with everyone, but isn't quite good enough; to a guy who says he's the best, doesn't show it and then throws the toys out of the pram, refuses to conciliate, basically upsets the whole apple-cart, and is rightly shown the door. We tend to prefer honest grafters to flouncing prima-donnas - with the exception that the latter is so amazing that the histrionics are just about worth it. Barton didn't fall into that last category. Garner does seem to fall into the first.

I don't think I'm in any way doing a hatchet job on Barton, but I must say that after his spat with Brown I gave him more of my attention while watching the game on TV, waiting for him to show himself as the class above he claimed to be. Now, like you say, a player doing well in his position can be less than noticeable; however, Barton to me was quite noticeable for his mistakes, giving the ball away, missing tackles and when he was beaten. He also did some ok stuff but like you say, it was less noticeable for being about what you'd expect rather than exceptional. His mistakes were below expectations. His performance for me was summed up with the drop ball against Brown, where he looked pretty arrogant and to me even cheated slightly with his stance over the ball -and still lost out. Brown had a far better performance albeit in a better team performance, but the problem is, like others, I don't rate him very highly as a player. I can't see how that is a hatchet job - and to me, the claims of that are way out of proportion to the criticism. Joey Barton obviously turned out to be a big mistake for Rangers, I can't see a case for the defence against that. He came on a fanfare, with a reputation and mouthed off in the press and twitter about how he would be the best player in Scotland, no matter how well you think he played, he did not live up to his own hype, but instead of getting on with it, he then lost it and mouthed off to the players and manager. In the end, the negativity he was adding was much larger than the positives of his performances. Due to his attitude and how little he contributed, not many Rangers fans were sad to see him go, nor have any fond memories. I doubt that has much at all to do with the rubbish we get in the press.

I think the one thing that makes the difference is glaring to all of us...

Sorry, it's the kind of mistake I make a lot...

It seems to me that plenty of defensive midfielders shine enough to become incredibly famous: We could start with Souness as a Scottish and Rangers example, then through the ages the likes of Matthaus, Deschamps, Davids, Rijkaard, Sousa, Keane, Scholes, Essien, Viera, Gattuso, Alonso, Touré, Gerrard, Makélélé, etc... Extras for Rangers we have since the Souness revolution: Wilkins, McCall, Reyna, Barry Ferguson, Hemdani and Mendes, who all made a far bigger impact and are generally fondly remembered even if their time with us was short. Other notables who made more a name in the role for other clubs were Tugay, Nerlinger and Arteta. In comparison, Barton's time with us was ignominious. He also shone enough to be Barnsley's player of the year in the previous season. I think you are right in that sometimes a holding midfielder who is doing a very good job can escape much attention, but one that is doing a pretty mediocre job at best, is probably much more anonymous. I think that's the case with Barton for us.

I'm of the thinking he sometimes looks dodgy by virtue of the amount of time he spends with the ball at his feet under pressure. A keeper who launches the ball up the park every time doesn't have the same chance to look dodgy, but that wouldn't be in our tactics, and it was very unpopular with the fans when it was Neil Alexander's preferred choice. So basically, I think the nature of our tactics makes him look worse than he is - you have to specifically compare him to other keepers who are required by the manager to play the ball out the vast majority of the time. I think we've also been spoiled with top class keepers in the past, and so maybe he doesn't live up to them, but for our present day budget, doesn't seem too bad.

That may be the future strategy of our current manager, but so far, in 1.5 seasons, his MO has been to not play our own teenagers. From past experience, his best chance of first team football would be a loan - which he can do from any club. In fact, his best chance to play for us seems to be to sign for Chelsea and then come to us on loan!

You have to wonder if he'll resign if they fail - the buck stops at the manager.

I think it looks to me that as he was off the pitch, our defence no longer treated him as a threat, and so he wasn't marked when he came back on. I think this is the reason for the rule. There was no real need for either player to step off the pitch and dally there, and while it's understandable in a kick-about, there's plenty of more pedantic rules we ignore which are used in a top class match. The reason for this rule to me is obvious, and professional players on high salaries should know them and play by them. For me, the letter of the rule was used here, and in this case it was necessary to apply the spirit of the rule. The "goal" was unjust. But looking at the footage, I'm also leaning towards the opinion that there is a 50/50 chance he could have conventionally been offside. It is hard to tell exactly when the pass was played, as even in slow motion he is onside just before and offside just after as Wallace moved his leg rapidly forward. When you look a the still, it's very difficult to see if the Hearts player is offside. A view along the line would be better, and so the linesman had a better view. At best, you'd give him the benefit of the doubt as being level. Now seeing it's so difficult to call with a still, then live, it's impossible to get it exactly right, and I'd put something like that down to a toss of a coin type of bad luck. However, the off the pitch rule overrides that anyway, and so it's pretty moot.

Got to agree with Pete, I clicked on the link and struggle to get what it was about, after a reading a bit and none the wiser, I googled the Frankish brothers and clicked on a press report, to find out what they were referring to... Pretty horrendous stuff and those guys deserve severe punishment or thinking about it, committed to the funny farm for a long course of intense therapy to hopefully turn them into human beings. They are not right in the head - and even if you don't care about animals, how soon are they going to graduate to cruelty to people? You really have to wonder how much risk they are from vigilantes as what they did doesn't half make people's blood boil, including mine. They have very good intentions but I personally don't see the implementation being that great. But Pete is so right in that the campaign gave a pretty garbled message, and I also agree that I'm not sure how a plane flying a cryptic message is going to help much...

I agree, and for me, that Championship season for them was one of those purple patch season's where lots of things went right and clicked. A bit like Leicester in the EP. It doesn't mean that it was sustainable or they could improve on it - and Leicester aren't doing a that good follow up season. All Hearts have really done since is cement their position in the financial hierarchy of things, competing with Aberdeen for the best non-OF team in the league, both with the highest budgets by a margin in that category, with Aberdeen I think having a bit more. Both teams really haven't done more than their relative budgets would predict. And to be completely fair, we are currently doing worse than ours would. I'm hoping the last two games show that we can at least take our place where our financial advantage should minimally take us - although we need to start to also be able to boast about our away form. For me, I think their inconsistency is based on the relative ratio of their wage bills compared to the rest of the league. They are only something like 2 to 4 times more, which is a level for me which suggests you will win most of the games but drop points quite easily if the you don't play so well and the other team does - you'll generally be better but not dominant in taking the points. However, when like Celtic (and previously like us) you have something like 15 to 20 times the budget of the smaller teams, then you should be winning most weeks with the odd banana skin. With Celtic still about 6 to 8 times that of Aberdeen and Hearts, they will have to play badly to drop many points against them. Their biggest problem should be us, at about 2 to 2.5 times the wage - which like Hearts and Aberdeen dropping points to the rest, they have a good chance of dropping some points to us while coming out best overall. So if you look at us, with around 3 times that of the two bests of the rest, then we can expect to drop some points but not many. However, with about 6 to 12 times the rest, we should only be dropping points to them now and again - but we've been playing like a side with 2-3 times their budget and have the points total to reflect that... This is why for me, second place in this league should always have been a foregone conclusion with Rangers for an average SP manager, never mind one who is supposed to be well above average. So if we want to challenge for the title, we either need to match Celtic on the players level by matching the wages, or we need Warburton to be so good, he gets the team playing above their value, while Rogers doesn't. The same goes for McInnes and Cathro if they want to challenge us - if we play averagely to our financial investment.

I think there's obvious reasons why you can't just leave the pitch and then come on willy-nilly. I think we all must have experienced this when playing in a more casual game where someone leaves say due to an injury and then comes on at an opportune moment when you don't expect it, spoiling an attack or robbing a defender, or intercepting a pass back or whatever. It always seems incredibly unfair when your playing to the team on the pitch and then are left thinking, where did he come from?

I've only seen the highlights but it looked to me that Hearts played a totally different game than the last time, under a different manager. I think Cathro did the Warburton thing of only thinking about his own team and how he wants them to play, but unless he has some genius that Warburton doesn't, it's not going to work against a team of better players who while also having a system, seem to have for once adapted it slightly to the opposition. I think Neilson set his team up mostly to take advantage to what we could all see as our weaknesses, and it worked. Looking at how we played there is also the factor that I think separately from the tactics, most of our players just played to a higher standard than last time. Form comes in peaks and troughs and compared to most of the games this season, our passing and control seemed a bit more skillful and accurate. But the real positive for me is that Warburton seems to have learned something from the Hearts defeat, and has changed the tactics to be a bit less rigid and predictable. The players seem more comfortable with the occasional long ball, and it seemed to be effective in attack, as well as reducing the pressure of the high press, which Hearts didn't seem to be able to keep up. Warburton seems to be starting to learn how to play in this league which will hopefully massively improve our points haul in the second half of the season - and possibly give us a bit of a chance of defeating the league leaders at home. Second place was looking like something we'd succeed by a whisker, now it's starting to look like we can possibly do it with a reasonable gap, as long as we can repeat the last two displays as a template for the rest of the games. I think Aberdeen are doing about as well as they can, and if we stop dropping the easy points we can easily distance them as I don't think they will stop doing so. But I can see the possibility of Hearts becoming more consistent against the smaller clubs under a new manager, although to be fair to the previous one, he seemed to be doing a half decent job.