calscot

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

You seem to be trying revisionism again. I agree I didn't always think that way - that would be called prejudice. I'm not that kind of person and happy to admit that. I'm not sure why you want to derail the thread with this, but I'll bite. I apologise to those who don't want to be distracted in the thread - please ignore. I started off thinking he was doing ok, and at a real 9 points ahead it was looking quite good. I was disappointed with the Europe stuff, but when you look at the last match thread about blaming the players, a couple of the Euro games were prime candidates. However, there are arguments about a shit preseason etc, but let's not go there. For me, I didn't blame him so much for the collapse as others as I did the off field problems that started to emerge. Again a lot of people were inconsistent and unjustified here - losing a 15 point lead was unforgivable they said. I give them the 9 but how can McCoist possibly be at fault for Celtic winning two games in hand against other teams? As you can see there was already a meme going here. So it's not surprising that I defended McCoist against nonsense like that. One retracted and said 9 points was unforgivable. Now this was against a side that had spent more money than us and correlated with off-field uncertainty due to Whyte and also the BTC. Fast forward a bunch of years and we have a manager with a solid board, no BTC, a budget factors larger than the nears opposition losing an 8 point lead, with no off field mitigation, and that being somehow forgivable. Can you see the inconsistency here? McCoist is obviously a target, and I could see that. So I argued that it's better to have a 9 point lead an lose it than be miles behind - how prophetic was that? We then went into administration, lost three games in a row IIRC and received a 10 point penalty. Now how can we judge a manager in those circumstances. We still finished a comfortable second and beat Celtic in a game - but McCoists card was marked and he was vilified like the troll above. I argued that we didn't know if he was any good without all the strife and that it could have been worse. It was arguing that in the second half of the season I admitted that while we didn't know if McCoist was a winner in normal times, we knew he was unable to stop the team from collapsing due to the external pressures and while the league table was almost irrelevant and he had done well before the implosion, the cup results were very poor. I said that he wasn't the kind of manager to motivate players despite the off-field stuff and that's the kind of manager we needed, therefore he wasn't right for us. We all know the story, the heartache over whether we could get a newco, and a CVA, the eventual takeover by dodgy characters, the TUPE, the players walking away, the demotion, the trophy grab, the illegal transfer embargo. (And it is to be remembered that the story goes that he saved our trophies, and he also rallies the fans). Again it's impossible to judge a manager under those circumstances. Half the players were youths, and we started badly. But we rallied and won the league as expected. At that time my mantra was while he wasn't outstanding, he was just getting passable enough results, not to be sacked by the board - and as things were improving, we didn't know what his potential was. So by now I was being vilified for the temerity of not agreeing he was obviously the worst manager ever, and all the circumstances were "excuses". Now compare and contrast with today... Give him time, there's this trivial excuse and that one... So this continued with McCoist hanging in there with his unbeaten league season despite another transfer embargo and no money to spend on fees which meant dumpster diving and being desperate for time, which made decent choices and bargains impossible. It was here where I had to emphasise that I wasn't "lauding" McCoist, I was just fending off the extreme vilification of him which I think by now you can see was over the top. By now, I'd seen him do a job which wasn't particularly good but not particularly bad in extreme circumstances and so labelled him for ever after as, "mediocre" as far as I could tell. Ever since, I've been vilified myself and incessantly accused of thinking he was great despite me consistently and repeatedly saying he was mediocre but that a lot of the demonisation was just ludicrous - like being unbeaten but "sussed" by the managers" or all the players being ruined by him despite the likes of McLeod and McKay. Again, C&C today. So maybe you can see why I didn't think much of that was particularly intelligent - there was very little rational debate about it, it was a mob mentality. Ever since I've been constantly attacked about it, including by two posters in this thread. Since then I've been pretty consistent, only changing my opinion to "not good" as some seemed to think that saying "mediocre" meant "good". He probably went down another notch in my estimation for not competing with Hearts, but that was again, coinciding with horrendous off field problems and I showed a graph which had a massive downward spike in form at the time of Llambias taking control - and stories of the worst atmosphere ever at Ibrox. Yet again, that was just "excuses", which compare with the massive dip in form of Warburton with the excuse being "we won the league" even though we had a cup final to come, where the players were totally switched off for the season. So McCoist resigned, I then warned that as McCoist didn't seem to be the worst, the results could easily get worse rather than better. I was told that was impossible, nobody could be worse. And there you go. After that I've said for people to be careful in their estimation of McCoist as Warburton would have to be judged in comparison. I was assured the results would blow McCoist's out of the water, but in reality they've not been any better. I know it's hard to compare but if you can't compare you can't say Ally is shit - as you don't know how another manager would have fared in the exact same circumstances. The funny thing is that my estimation dropped due to Hearts, but Warburton couldn't match Hearts in an easier league and now can't match them in the same league, despite a far bigger budget and similar circumstances - except for being a year behind. So I think my analysis has been consistent and fair all the way, the really weird thing is the total lack of respect I've had for that view and the bullshit I constantly have to deal with. Not one of my detractors is the slightest bit consistent in the analysis of Warburton, so I guess it's whether you like the manager or not - or maybe the style of football, but as I've been pointing out Warburton doesn't even have that now - and like I say in this post, I think his philosophy is flawed. It reminds me of Yogi - play the ball on the ground and forget the results. I've made a lot of points, warnings and predictions that came quite true and totally contradicted a large bunch of people on here. It's just made them angrier with me. So I'm probably a lot more combative now and have less patience for nonsense. All this is verifiable in the archives. And if you can't remember me repeating his averageness, hundreds of times, then to quote the Gunslinger, you must be mad.

"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement." At the risk of repetition, some people just don't do irony.

As you agree with me in first ones, it's not surprising I agree with what you said. I also agree that some are similar but to me they are still distinct. I'm trying to break it down into its components. Fair enough - we all have our opinions. I thought he went over the top on mild and valid criticism, after saying it's all about opinions, defended his own record in a spurious and cringe-worthy way, and then got stuffed by Hearts. Poor show. It was easy to just ignore. But that's just my view. He can protect players without jumping down the throat of every critic and the player's response should be to show the critic is wrong by how he plays on the pitch. Funnily enough, the guy he was defending the most didn't get a start... This is a scenario I'm willing to give some possibility to, and I've mentioned that above. However, no matter how bad Sinclair and his methods were, there's even recently been McKay and Lewis - and they are the most successful, like you say, you don't know till you try. I don't think this excuses him for not trying the likes of Burt even for the last 10 minutes when we're 3-0 up (although I admit that doesn't happen much these days), or in the league part of the League Cup, and last season after we had already won the league. Maybe he was keeping the first team match fit for the final - but that obviously didn't work. I can't see the harm, and I've been consistent in saying we should be blooding one to three players a season - which I've been derided for by some as too few. I see a lack of consistency from those who were saying we should be flooding the team with youngsters, as well as others who have attacked the likes of... let's choose Walter , for not giving youth enough of a chance.

That's a very extreme statement that cannot possibly be backed up. No-one is saying that McCoist even managed him well, but it is inconceivable that he does not get the credit for buying him and introducing him to the team. As he turned out to immediately be a good player, is hardly a black mark on his previous management - after all he was under the guidance of McCoist for years in his time of most crucial development - I can't see how Warburton can take much credit after a handful weeks of training compared to 34 first team games. THAT would be mad. Part of Warburton's development is to send players out on loan, and so you can't disparage Ally for that either. Maybe Ally was shit at managing him but that is pure speculation with contrary evidence. Again this shows how Ally is demonised and how much of his criticism is unjustified. Not that I think he was any good, mind. Indeed he's proof that Warburton is far better than super. That should be obvious to all.

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.

Again with the one line, unsubstantiated insult. Can the people who think I'M insulting please see the pattern here??? I'm doing my best to treat your posts with respect, I think I've answered you quite well even if you don't agree with my opinions. But some things are just facts. Can you tell me which bit you disagree with for some more normal type of discussion? I can't swear I've given true facts here but that is how I recall the information I have read online and watched the team on TV with my own eyes. I've checked Wikipedia - which I agree may not be the most reliable source, but is seen by enough footie fans to correct most of the glaring errors and has plenty of references. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrie_McKay "McKay was then signed by Rangers in the summer of 2011. He played regularly in their under-19 side at the age of 16 and ended the season as top goalscorer." "McKay made his first-team debut for Rangers on 13 May 2012, in a 4–0 win against St Johnstone.[9] On 11 August 2012, he scored Rangers first goal in the club's inaugural game in the Third Division" "On 27 December 2013, he joined Greenock Morton on a month's loan.[17] As there were no SPFL U20 fixtures until January, this was to give him some much needed game time; he will be available for five games whilst at Cappielow.[18] His loan was extended until the end of the season." "McKay signed for Scottish Championship club Raith Rovers on 1 September 2014, agreeing a loan move until 1 January 2015." [TABLE=class: wikitable] [TR] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Club[/TH] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Season[/TH] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, colspan: 3, align: center]League[/TH] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, colspan: 2, align: center]National Cup[/TH] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, colspan: 2, align: center]League Cup[/TH] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, colspan: 2, align: center]Other[/TH] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, colspan: 2, align: center]Total[/TH] [/TR] [TR] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Division[/TH] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Apps[/TH] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Goals[/TH] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Apps[/TH] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Goals[/TH] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Apps[/TH] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Goals[/TH] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Apps[/TH] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Goals[/TH] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Apps[/TH] [TH=bgcolor: #F2F2F2, align: center]Goals[/TH] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Rangers[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]2011–12[/TD] [TD]Scottish Premier League[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]0[/TD] [TD]0[/TD] [TD]0[/TD] [TD]0[/TD] [TD]0[/TD] [TD]0[/TD] [TD]0[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]0[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]2012–13[/TD] [TD]Scottish Third Division[/TD] [TD]31[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]3[/TD] [TD]2[/TD] [TD]4[/TD] [TD]0[/TD] [TD]3[a][/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]41[/TD] [TD]4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]2013–14[/TD] [TD]Scottish League One[/TD] [TD]2[/TD] [TD]0[/TD] [TD]0[/TD] [TD]0[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]0[/TD] [TD]1[a][/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]4[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

I want to emphasise that Warburton may be doing something that I don't understand with youths, or has other considerations. But I personally disagree with the not playing them philosophy. I'm very surprised that it's contentious as it's been a big criticism of a few managers who have a better record in this regard but not good enough for many.

Of course but most are now out on loan. I have no idea if they are any good but surely there is one or two worth a punt, especially when you consider the injury list (and Barton) given above. Burt, Hardy and Walsh.

What did I say that was wrong? Please educate me... I remember a ton of shit. McCoist was shackled, usually when you take shackles off, people run better - I don't know if McCoist would but it's normal. I'd really like to see him manage a team that is not in crisis and see how he does. At them moment I'm finding it hard to wish him well, but I'd be very interested, he might be great, he might be crap, or my prediction, is that he'd probably be not very good, possibly mediocre. I don't really get the relevance of that and as an employee, there is an obvious conflict of interest. His dream job was to manager Rangers, why would he just throw that away - especially when he can work on the inside - which by all accounts he did, and may have to thank him for saving some of our silverware. Again, I'm not lauding him, just giving an obvious viewpoint.

Other managers usually take what's there and develop them in their first season. 5 years is a long time if it doesn't work and it's looking more likely Warburton won't be here then. I think the lack of first team promotions is very unusual. As I alluded to, I think the teenage loans were counter productive in that sense.

Once again your trolling by twisting my words - I said McCoist was an easy example to surpass. "I'll once again emphasise that I'm using McCoist as an example of not a good manager therefore a very low bar for Warburton to surpass." The funny thing is that YOU lauded Warburton for McKay, when McCoist bought him at 16 I think, put him in the U21s, gave him captaincy there, gave him his debut at 17 in the SPL, made him a regular at 18, then when alleged attitude problems arose, put him on loan for one and a half seasons. Now considering all Warburton did was take a player who had been developed in that way, at 20 years old, who subsequently looked good in training, and put him back in the team at age 20/21. Now again, I'm not lauding McCoist (please read several times) but what exactly did McCoist do wrong and Warburton do right? I'm pretty sure if McCoist was brought back instead of Warbuton (note: I never wanted that, it's hypothetical) he would have put McKay in the team also. After all if he did it at 18 along with McLeod and has a track record of playing others from the academy... You are really showing your bias here and lack of objectivity. And the way you say it is obviously disingenuous and I'm afraid I agree, you are just trolling again. Like I said trolls like you on here are always calling me a troll as I call their bluff, but you can tell the troll by the condescending one lines not the in depth explanations. People like you don't like facts and as far as I can tell I've just given the facts, and you have interpreted that as "lauding" despite me emphasising that I wasn't. And people wonder why I'm not always totally respectful? As this shows, I have to put up with a fantastic amount of bullshit.

Warburton may be doing absolute wonders with the youth system, but so far we've had no significant promotions to the first team whatsoever (which is unusual even by maligned manager's standards) and our youth teams are winning nothing. It's easy to say give time, but what if it's all bullshit? Andy Roxburgh boasted about all the stuff he'd changed at grass roots and youth levels which would pay dividends in the future with a much stronger team - what happened there? I'm not sure if I even agree with Warburton's philosophy of not caring whether the youths win games or not. It sounds kind of tempting as you are taking the pressure of and concentrating on technique and playing against better players, but part or me wonders about how you make a winner out of someone so used to losing? How do you motivate them? When do they have fun and enjoy the game? Also how do they feel when they've been battered around the pitch by guys a few years older for game after game? A lot of questions there. What we need is proof that it works otherwise it's just an experiment that could go either way.

The problem is that when comparing Warburton to McCoist, he doesn't come out too well these days. I thought he might come good, but he's turning out to be possibly slightly better than mediocre. So as I said before, the worse you think McCoist is, the worse Warburton is. Ally had all the crap to deal with that Warburton didn't and yet you give the LATTER the free ride... I don't get it. I will admit to being dubious about McCoist's extended gardening leave after regime change and the non-vote, but it and whether I like him or not, doesn't affect his track record - which result-wise, although it's difficult to compare properly, isn't significantly worse than Warburton's.

Yes, I was surprised at that one.

PS All the players you mentioned have had a manager play give them their debut at a young age - McKay was 17 when McCoist played him and he was a regular at 18 (I think McCoist wasn't a good manager). So if a manager like McCoist can do it with one of the players you actually mention, then what's Warburton's problem? BTW Before anyone goes on about McCoist "having to play" youths, it's been mentioned several times, including today that he was given a load of money to spend by the board. So either he had to play them or he was backed by the board, they are contradictory (I think McCoist is not a good manager). BTW McCoist debuted McKay while in the SPL. I'll once again emphasise that I'm using McCoist as an example of not a good manager therefore a very low bar for Warburton to surpass.

Think I said 18 which gives him lots of scope. McCoist did it, Walter did it, McLeish did it. Why not Warburton? It's been a year and a half. You might disagree but there is obviously something to discuss.

That's true, but it doesn't explain his philosophies. Maybe you agree with them and that's fine, but I don't. Can I also point out that when McCoist had injuries, his training methods were blamed. The lack of injuries last year was touted as evidence of better training and fitness, so what happened? When McCoist falls out with a player he is also blamed - so what about the Barton debacle? Again, I think McCoist is not a good manager (why do I have to keep saying that?), but I think all the managers should be judged on equal terms (and what is wrong with that?). All clubs have injuries and pick squads to cope, our manager has had much more money for players than the rest of the league, so to me it's not an excuse that over-rides the philosophies I disagree with.

I refer you and some others to your posts and the definition given. YOU are the troll - you've come on made up and repeated a lie, just to spoil a thread you don't like. Trolls like you often call other people trolls to deflect their inadequacies when trolling. What trolls don't do, which I do, is painstakingly explain and logically debate all their opinions. Trolls don't like people like me... None of them are under 21. None of them were given a first team debut by Warburton. Warburton definitely has shown different ideas about developing youth from most people - especially Ally's and Walter's critics. But like I said, maybe he thinks none are good enough - but unless he tells us that, we can only see who he plays.

Just for clarification, what Gunslinger is doing is an example of "trolling". "In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement."

I think McCoist is not a good manager but the criticism of him is way over the top and much of it unjustified

BTW I can show a lot of games where McCoist played players who fit into that category - doesn't mean I'm defending him, just a fact about a manager you don't rate. But because you won't like it, you'll be assuming I'm defending him to the hilt...

I agree they are related and alluded to that. But they are still distinct and I'm able to explain each one individually without much repetition. I think saying we tried something once and it didn't work isn't a good point. Changing tactics requires coaching and practice, not a half-baked change in the middle of a match. But maybe you're just being contrary. Who was the youth? I've checked the line up just in case I missed something but, nope... Which player who joined as 18 or less, and that Warburton gave a first team debut to, played in the game? Ah, I see you want to argue semantics. I can't really imagine a description of youth development that would apply to any of the players here. I think you're just being contrary.

Once again, you only have to read the hundreds of post and thousands of words I've written on McCoist to see that I have never, ever backed him to the hilt. Many times I've even considered putting it in my signature. I've even emphasised that point hundreds of times. What part of "I think McCoist is not a good manager but the criticism of him is way over the top and much of it unjustified" can't people understand? Once again, someone likes to be contrary to me by making up stuff I never said... Total bonkers.

This is something I pointed out after the Celtic semi final last season (although some were too busy denying it even happened in front of their very eyes to actually discuss it, and weirdly I was insulted for condoning long the long ball with Ally and condemning it with Warbs, when actually my consistent view was that we used it too much under Ally and not enough under Warbs - they didn't seem to get I was actually criticising the quality, not the quantity. Which shows how little some people listen when they just want to have a go at me personally). My theory for the problem is that while the players may be capable of it, they just don't practice it enough - I suspect training is all about passing it on the ground. One thing I found out after trying to play football after a long lay off of about 6 years, was that I had no problem whatsoever with 10-20 yard passes along the ground. From the go, it was easy and I was accurate. However, long balls were trickier and it was something I tried to practice as much as possible in the warm up. It took me a bit of time and repetition to get the power, elevation, direction and spin to a passable level for a kick about. That seems logical. The more distance for the pass, the higher the difficulty factor. So if players aren't practicing and then have to do it in a game then it's not going to be great. Not only that, it's going to be a lot worse under pressure without the practice to make it automatic. If I'm correct (as the evidence suggests) then I see it as a huge failure in the coaching. As we know, any crap team can play the long ball - apparently except us. PS I think the one exception was Kranjcar, who admittedly had less than average exposure to the training regime.