calscot

Depends on your definition of success. For me he was the world's most successful con man.

What do you suggest we do? Boycott Ibrox after each bad performance? Start a petition? How is screaming for blood and exaggerating our negatives after every game doing us any good? The thing is, if you were reasonable, you'd have no problem with me as my views are hardly extreme and not even the opposite of yours. I support the team and the management and you seem to have a problem with that... As for the forum, I think we should at least be realistic and respectful in our criticism. I really don't get the witch hunt attitude. There are some weird ones who still want PLG to given more time. I gave him time and then wanted him to go. The same may happen with Ally. Le Guen didn't have Ally's problems and wasn't top of the league. Ally needs to turn it around or he has to go. However, that doesn't mean we have to demean him in the mean time.

I think it's obvious that money guys don't make rash decisions or knee jerk reactions. The make certain decisions and stick by them until they are proven to be wrong. They need a lot of proof. The strange thing is that people think we can pay Ally off, bring another guy in and all our problems will be solved. What if the next guy is worse? What if he's just the same? What if he's only just a wee bit better? It's a big financial risk to get rid of a manager, you better have good reason.

You do understand football don't you? The best team does not always win. That's why we have a league. The best team is the one at the top of the league at the end of the season. Cup games are different and are considered more "romantic" as any team can beat another on the day. Kind of shows where we're sinking to when you have to explain what football's about...

Maybe he'd be more successful if he dressed like Steve Jobs...

As said on another thread, if this is NOT the worst Rangers team ever, then shame on the worse one. Rangers have previously always been in the top division and always with massively more resources than most. If we have ever been as bad as a makeshift team put together in the third division after financial collapse then that's embarrassing for them. We SHOULD have the worst team of all time right now, some people need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Really? After last night? I doubt you can have it both ways but is indicative of the funny logic being used so much these days.

I deeply hope so. We've just had our company put into liquidation and are in division three, or hadn't you noticed? If there was a worse defence you've seen then it's pretty damnable on them and the manager at the time.

Don't know what our training is like but your regime is pure over training. All that would give us is knackered, unfit and injured players. How will that help?

Is there not other factors involved? Are we saying Aberdeen DON'T raise their game against us? Is that just a myth? Surely these teams are trying far harder against us than they were against Gretna? Also were Gretna actually playing 5 young players in every game including a couple of 17 year olds? I always get a bit sceptical about these comparisons where both teams win a league but one did it with more to spare. Does it really make it so much better? There are different conditions every year and the whole point is that it is a bit of a marathon and so there is time to get it right. Sometimes you are lucky and get it right from the off and sometimes it takes a bit of time. If we were way down the league there may be a point to make, but clear at the top is a strange one. Perhaps we should do what Gretna did and buy a load of players from the English lower divisions and take on a load of loans from English clubs higher up? Or should we try and develop our youths by giving them game time even though it means we will not set some league record for points and goals? To be honest, I can't help but agree with Brown. Our squad needs more depth and the fans are too impatient to put up with what we have now. Perhaps the return of Temps can be a bright spot on the horizon.

Why does he criticise the team and management when they have just secured their first away win and gone clear at the top of the league? Why is it the one obvious point that counters his argument is something "forced" on the manager? When things are improving is that the time to nitpick? That all sounds a bit aggressive to me.

Eh? I'm trying to raise the level of debate above empty criticism and glib answers and get accused of being sensitive? There's a lot of effort in that post, way beyond what you'd expect from a sensitive reaction. Perhaps you could actually engage with the points...

Nothing of the kind? Then just what was your article about? You go on about Ranger not having "a proper footballing strategy" and that having one will "build a solid footballing foundation and structure that will serve them well for decades to come". Now for Rangers to be "served well" and do anything different from the past this pretty much means becoming a top European club but maybe I just interpreted in that way. If it's something else then why not be more specific? In fact your whole article could do with being more specific. What exactly is your version of "a footballing philosophy"? Is is a football tactics manifesto that should be written down and consulted on a daily basis - and what should be in that manifesto? Surely it should be SMART - specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely? The only specific you give apart from certain players should play better or in different positions, is that the long ball should be banned. Now this is where I start to look at you're whole approach, you are implying that you know that Rangers don't have a philosophy and that other teams do - how do you know this? Where is your research? Do you have some references I could look up? You then mention a couple of clubs that have often been no more successful than ours and ones we tend to think of as peers and yet they come from countries where we cannot compete with their grass roots football. Portuguese teams pick up the best young players from Brazil and the Dutch have massive infrastructure. How do you know that whatever their philosophies are that it gives them success before these other factors? The arrogance is what makes you think you know so much about this than people who have been former top footballers and are highly qualified and experienced coaches? Fair enough they don't seem to be setting the heather alight at the moment but considering the time they've had under incredible circumstances, maybe their philosophy has not yet kicked in... Who knows? But it does seem like they can do at least a passable job when it comes to the league. But to get back to this "ban the long ball", what experience do you have that it works? It seems a bit silly to me but I'm only a layman - however, I expect you are too. But imagine in you own job that where you're doing ok but are very experienced and some guy comes in off the street and tells you you're an idiot and to improve dramatically you just need to was stop doing one glib thing that is one of your many choices of techniques? You'd laugh at him. Now there is nothing wrong with fair criticism but to think you have all the answers and then fail to give any sounds arrogant to me. Claiming that Ally is only playing kids "because he has to" also comes across to me as snidey and kind of tells me how "fair" you are being. Tell me, which top managers CHOOSE to play two teenagers and three other youngsters just to develop them? Ferguson doesn't do it, Chelsea and Man City don't do it, but maybe Arsenal do. However, despite being an incredibly rich club they cannot compete with the first three. They always come across as an example of what NOT to do - unless you're more interested in a dividend than success on the pitch and have a very expensive stadium to pay for. I was trying to find out from you what this philosophy entailed as you seemed to think it was the answer and I was curious to know. The only specific thing I could find was, "When you have much better players, why would any team play the way Rangers are doing with big lumps up the park? Why would any manager sit and watch that on one single occasion (never mind continually) and not effectively ban it, unless itâ??s defensively necessary?" Seems to me that now you are saying that Rangers answer is obviously this one esoteric thing but you can't describe it... doesn't seem very helpful to me. He shouldn't be cut slack? I don't think that the "greatest Ranger" thing is relevant to anything and don't know why you brought it up. However, I think ANY new Rangers manager under the present circumstances deserves a bit of slack. As you say we'll likely win the league at a canter, so isn't this and ideal opportunity to sit back and relax a bit, get off the manager's back and allow him a bit of time and space to get things the way he wants it as long as we're going in the right direction? Would we have done so with Le Guen? Would we have criticised the Frenchman if we were top of the league but the team wasn't quite flowing yet? Le Guen was not a Rangers legend and yet he was given far more slack. I think many want Barcelona football now and are going to go apeshit if we don't get it or God forbid have the odd bad result. The ironic thing that I find is everyone is all going on about playing youth and playing proper football, but where is the time to develop this? Where is the patience for going backwards before we go forward? For all you know that there is a philosophy, but it's hard to work it immediately when you have half a team of kids playing against experienced pros who are determined to get our scalp. This is not the Harlem Globetrotters here, it's competitive football. I would like to know why everyone thinks we have obviously "much better players" when we're playing so many untried kids, two or three of whom are 17 or 18? Just what makes them automatically run rings round seasoned professionals in the 3rd division? Don't they need some "development" and time? Just who said that? please show me the quote. Or are you making it up? I can tell you, when you want excellence you don't read some ordinary fan's blog and say, "That's the answer, let's get this guy in to tell us more." Top of the league is mediocrity? Where do you get that definition from? In most cases that would be considered excellence. I'm not saying we're excellent or 100% happy with how things are at the moment but then I temper my expectations and allow a bit of time for something to be developed and for some acclimatisation. It is very difficult to judge McCoist as there is no other manager anywhere near in his position so comparisons are rare, so for me he has a season to at least win the league and hopefully do well in the cups. What I'm interested in and the answer which is never given, is that seeing as this philosophy thing is so obvious, which teams with our kind of budget should we be emulating? There are 41 other Scottish league teams, surely some of them, run by seasoned professionals and highly trained people, are doing something right. Who are your exemplars? Ajax, Porto, Barcelona, and Premiership teams, even Celtic are not attainable in terms of budget so probably not relevant. Other countries also have other factors which are not transferable to Scotland. Falkirk lately under Yogi were considered to play good football and are more in line with our current squad budget but then they were relegated and Hughs sacked so are kind of a negative example. Motherwell? But then we put them out the cup. Aberdeen, Dundee Utd? Just give me a pointer...

How did they get on without videos of their own and other teams? And players without lightweight boots with blades? And a multitude of other modern thinking that I can't be bothered to list? Perhaps one day, a manager got hot and sweaty walking, running and jumping up and down the touch line and thought, "What the hell am I doing wearing a suit for this?"

Not sure what you don't understand - or should I write it again with caps lock on for the hard of hearing? :-) To clarify, Struth was manager between 1920 and 1956. I believe that in those days most men wore suits at the weekend including at football matches. Using him as an example therefore means you have to include the slipping standards of the fans.

During Struth's time I am sure most of the crowd wore suits - is it time to have a go at the fans for slipping standards? And surely YOU don't let the side down and are suitably attired if you attend?

I agree with everything you said. As far as I can tell from Wikipedia, out of a squad of 25 Porto have 6 Portuguese players, one of whom is home grown. They have 14 South Americans and 3 Africans - I can't see us even being allowed to have a squad like theirs. They are a weird example for a club for us to copy.

Rangers are probably playing the youngest team in modern history with half the team being home grown players which is something many have said would prompt them to be patient and accept a step or two backwards - however it's those very same people that are first to complain vociferously not just when we lose but also when we win. Even the OP snidely only accepts that youths are playing by applying the context that it's through necessity rather than choice. Like the top clubs in the Premiership have "chosen" the same strategy... Just another load of arrogant claptrap from someone who thinks he knows how to develop a club into one that will be world beaters for decades. Is the guy actually putting his amazing knowledge to work? Eh, no. What is the main tenet of this philosophy? Banning the long ball. That's it. That's how a club recovering in the Scots 3rd division takes on Barcelona for European dominance. Or it will entertain the crowd while it creates exhibition football to sweep aside the SFL sides. However, it could have denied us what was one of the best moves of the last match and a contender for goal of the season to open the scoring in front of an increasingly impatient crowd.

Being proud to be protestant may not be a crime but it is an oxymoron. In the protestant religion pride is considered a sin. You'd think that people who profess to be protestant would know that... Have they never heard of a British cultural saying that pride comes before a fall? But the question is: why are they using a football club to further their own self serving agenda at the expense of the rest of that club's support? What gives them the right to do that? I think there is lots of religious and political crap at one Scottish club that I find pretty sickening and it saddens me that some people want to attach similar baggage to my club.

I thought they were HMS402?

Won't they boycott us anyway?

Your question makes it sound like playing good football is easy. That being the case then you'd expect at least a third of the Scottish league teams to be doing it. So which 14 teams should we be emulating? Maybe we could watch them on the telly and see how we should be playing. We can't expect Barcelona but we can perhaps expect to be in the top third of Scottish football. So what's the list of teams that are the exemplars?

What an incredibly strange comment. A tracksuit is the normal and appropriate attire for a professional sports coach. It might be sloppy dress for going to a business function or out for a fancy meal but then so is a football shirt - so are our players and fans tinks for wearing them?

So the most interesting game in Scotland clearly, and Reporting Scotland don't even mention the score... Nah, there's no BBC agenda against the club!