calscot

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, it could easily be unconscious (or even conscious) conditioning. If nothing else there is great evidence of them attempting to condition the referees to be more favourable to them and worse to us - it even resulted in a referee strike. The question is whether it succeeded.

It's got to be said he has a great SPL record so far. And a shit CL record... His SLC record is also fine.

Disclaimer: I don't claim to be an expert on football management, but I've been around enough to learn a bit about life and a bit about football, through experience, books and media - at least enough to make some opinions. My perceived wisdom may be bollocks to some but I have developed these opinions with effort of thought and there is a certain amount of logic or sense behind them that I think deserves the respect of debating the actual points I've made rather than offhand or insulting dismissal. I am fully open to people after pretty much understanding where I'm coming from, disagreeing due to having a different viewpoint, or because they have an insight that I haven't thought of. If I'm unclear, ambiguous or used inappropriate words, including typos and brain farts, I'm happy to explain further in different words. I ask people to at least try to receive what I actually mean rather than merely what they want to argue against, even if I have not communicated it well. Warburton has been lauded since his arrival for his footballing philosophy; however, after experiencing about a season and a half of it, I am finding much of it disagrees with my own philosophies on success, footballing and otherwise. For the sake of debate, here are seven instances of how I perceive Warburton's philosophies that I disagree with and think are contributory to what I believe is our current underachievement: 1. Using a specific formula for success While following a formula can and often does get you reasonably good results it applies in isolation to competition – so if you follow well known rules in a business, you probably have a good chance of making a reasonable profit. However, if you want to be the best in the business, then doing what all other rivals are doing competently won’t rise you above them, you’ll probably just be rubbing shoulders as much of a muchness. To be the best you have to do something different from the pack, something better, you have to adapt and tweak and do what others aren’t. The top of the game are the ones writing the newest, latest rule books, not the ones following them. Not only that you have to constantly be looking to change and stay ahead of the game, as once you write the book, everyone starts to catch up. 2. Doing plan A better This is fallacy which is usually mentioned near the beginning of any management or self-help book. Trying harder at doing the same thing that never works isn’t going to make it work. You have to acknowledge when something isn’t working and change something. The hardest thing is to know what to change but you can’t improve without changing something. It’s very arrogant and self-destructive to assume that you are right when all the evidence suggests otherwise. Perserverence is great – look at Edison with the light bulb – but every time he failed he tried something different. There are plenty of wise quotes which tell you it’s not logical to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. 3. Sticking to one style I think this is the most obvious one – in a competition if you do the same thing you become predictable and game theory suggests that your rivals will work out a way to counteract your tactics. This is not about a simplistic choice of either always playing the ball on the ground or always hitting it long. If you do either of these, you will eventually be easy to play against. It’s about developing a much wider repertoire and using the right tactic when it’s appropriate and when you need to be creative, using all your repertoire to be unpredictable and therefore difficult to counter. A simple example from boxing is that you need to block punches to your face and your torso – if you stick to protecting your face, your opponent can pummel your torso and vice versa – therefore you need to be able to do both and change to the appropriate one when attacked. In attack, you need to be able to attack both the face and the torso, if you only attack the face then your opponent just needs to keep his guard there, and vice versa – so you need to use both in an unpredictable way to create an opportunity to score a hit. Obviously only having two tactics in attack and defence is still not enough and it’s about have a large gamut of tactics and skills to choose from, and have the ability to use all of them in an instant, without having to think too much about it. I also don't believe that concentrating on any particular style, automatically results in wins. I think you have to concentrate on what wins, and that becomes your style - even if it is not the most aesthetic. A good example is the modern tennis players who no longer use the very exciting serve and volley style. 4. Not adapting to how the game is unfolding This is related to being immovable on tactics and the formulaic attitude and extends to the substitutions at 60 minutes that seem predestined. There is many a genius of a manager who set up his team and tactics, saw it not working, thought of a solution and implemented it. This is by either changing the tactics, the formation, swapping positions, assigning a man marker or making inspired substitutions etc. These managers earn their crust by being able to change a game around. Apart from the training ground, it’s the biggest difference between reality and fantasy (or computer game) football. When you boil it down, the genius of management is to see what’s not working and being able to change to what does. There is another manager trying to do what you are doing and it’s up to you to outsmart him or otherwise better him. 5. Not doing research on, or adapting to other teams It seems common sense that in most things in life there is rarely a time when one solution fits all. It’s like a joiner only using a hammer. It seems obvious that for every situation we use a variety of tools and adapt our strategy to the job in hand. I doubt there is a profession where this is not true and is where skill and experience pay dividends. For me in football it is more-so, and the best managers study the opposition, assess their weaknesses and strengths and adapt the team and tactics accordingly. They like nothing better than getting one over their opposing manager. Ferguson took this to extremes by also using his famous mind games. It’s very naïve for a top manager to think that his tactics created in isolation will just work everywhere, and seems more suited to something Sunday league where there is not the professionalism to check out the other teams, nor the likes of handy video footage. 6. Rejecting criticism out of hand Criticism is feedback and can be useful to question and see yourself without your own filters that come from your ego. It needs to be acknowledged and objectively challenged – then rejected or accepted. If accepted then it needs to be acted upon or be a lesson learned. Rejecting all criticism out of hand means that you are only looking at things through your own filters and are missing the bigger picture. You can’t change what you don’t acknowledge and this kind of attitude leads to you make the same mistakes over and over. Even when you think criticism is slightly invalid, it’s often best to show don’t tell. If it’s outrageous then it might be good to point that out, but you can’t say it’s all about opinions and then lambast someone for what is not an extreme one. If you think they are wrong in this kind of case, it’s best to prove it and take your satisfaction from that. There’s nothing worse than attacking your critics and then falling on your face. All this does is create a bunker mentality where you are more concerned about attacking critics than fixing what they are criticising. 7. Not playing youths The manager has been previously lauded about his policies on youth development and yet in a season and a half, not one academy player has had a run of games in the team. The only teenagers to play have been loan players which is arguably counter-productive to our own development as it limits the chances of our own teenagers – as you can’t have too many in a team challenging for the title. He may be developing these loan players but that is no use whatsoever to developing our own team of the future. Maybe he has a plan and the current crop he inherited are not good enough, but he doesn’t make us privy to that and so all we can see is that he is the worst manager in our history for giving youth a chance. I’m completely against having too many youths in the team unless they are ready and exceptional and prefer a couple at most, but we’re not even seeing one in more than a blue moon – not even when the second tier title is sown up and the first team are playing abysmally, or in an easy League Cup group, or the Pertrofac Cup, or as a sub when we’re well ahead.

If budgets are meaningless then we should be happy with mid table from now on. We've been continually successful throughout history due to the golden circle of being successful, which means being popular which means having a bigger budget, which means being successful. That was cemented by Struth who started to spend more money for excellence. There are other factors in the past which are less relevant now - popularity meant more choice of the best kids, more players want to play for you, and the crowd always helps. But the biggest factor in football now, is how much money you spend. What generally makes a difference and either makes you better or worse than your budget, is a savvy manager. If you're doing worse than your budget, then your manager is doing something wrong or performing badly - or if it's by a place then maybe your manager is quite good but the other manager is doing something a lot better than yours, with maybe a bit of other factors thrown in, like luck, confidence, a team just gelling for a while - Leicester being a good example. Modern Rangers and Celtic managers will usually get sacked for third place, not just because the budgets are a bit bigger - but because they dwarf the others. McLeish won 7 trophies but had to go for that reason, and is not fondly remembered. I don't want McLeish back and wasn't enamoured at the time, but even his last helicopter Sunday win, now seems like a pipe dream.

I thought it was a perfect example of interfering with play - as was the Celtic one. Obviously offside, no question. Shame, as it was a great strike.

We'll be lucky to be less than 40 points behind the Tims at the end of the season. That's not a good thought.

We're not really joint second. We're more realistically joint third, and fourth on a big goal difference. We have Hearts and Aberdeen games coming up too and not looking capable of beating them. Thinking we're second is a false sense of security. The fact is that with our budget we should have something like a 10 point buffer for second right now. Our manager is floundering.

Hearts finished third on a fraction of our budget but probably higher than the 9 of the teams and lower than Aberdeen. We have multiples of Aberdeen and Hearts on budget, not just 10% or something. Our budget is a hammer to crack the nut of second. We have gone through a lot of shit, but on the pitch, I don't see how it affects us more than Hearts have been affected. It's still a game of football and there is minimal off-field crap to deal with. It's funny how these arguments did't come out when McCoist was manager, when they were actually infinitely more relevant. In fact it was quite the opposite. For him being second to Hearts with no transfer fee spending while the guts were being ripped out the club by the old board and Llambias and during a fan boycott was unacceptable, but give Warburton a decent board, total fan backing, a budget to play with, good optimism at the club and it's suddenly fine to finish behind them and Aberdeen? It makes absolutely no sense. If McCoist was given a bit more slack then maybe I'd understand the arguments. In the end McCoist wasn't good enough, neither is a manager who finishes 3rd in the club's current shape and budget.

Not with our budget multiple times that of Aberdeen and Hearts. Unable to challenge for the title - acceptance for the same reason. I might be wrong, but I think Celtic have about double our wages whereas we have about 3 times Aberdeen and 4 times Hearts. I base this loosely on press reports and chairman statements and so is pretty rough and don't know the accuracy but seems plausible. If that's the case then anything but second is poor. However, a cup win or double (impossible now) could be mitigation for more time after finishing lower.

This also convinces me that given the job instead of McCoist a couple of seasons ago, league place wise, Warburton could have done no better. I also think he'd have quit about the same time as the machinations of Llambias made the job impossible. So it would have been impossible for him to do better in major cups unless he stayed long enough to beat Celtic. He may have improved the showing in the challenge cup and had a slightly better gap in the league. However, he would have been as hampered as McCoist in his recruitment so don't think he could have brought in the same players, especially on a zero fee budget. All in all there's not much chance he would have been a significant improvement over McCoist. McCoist wasn't a particularly good manager, but I can't see that Warburton is much better on the evidence. It would be interesting to see Ally, Mark and Robbie all head to head in League One next season with similar budgets...

Given the relative budgets, Warburton needs to be well ahead of hearts to show he's a better manager than Neilson. Unfortunately there's no scientific formula to calculate how much so it's up to the subjective view. I doubt we can continue to compare the managers so easily from now on if Robbie moves. So for now the Scotsman is well ahead on performance in the Championship and SPL despite a much lower budget, as well as head to head. For me it's quite conclusive as a results comparison. But best manager in definite reality is difficult to judge with all the variables. However, it's easier to base it on results and I'm sure that's what most boards do, and right now I wouldn't be disappointed if we gazumped the Dons.

4th is failure and sacking. Third needs

Is with the manager.

Back on the thread and it pains me to say that tonight's result further shows up Warburton's idle boast, he really needs to do the talking with his team on the pitch. He's obviously in denial and this surely has to be a wake up call. Instead of badly arguing with pundits he needs to concentrate on a real plan B. Surely we've now done plan A better and better and better and better etc? If doing plan A to your best ability doesn't work, it's time to bin it and go back to the drawing board. Warburton's flimsy, home game, unbeaten run defence has me really questioning his understanding of the job. The result was depressingly unsurprising. We've been beaten by the top 3 sides in the country and struggling to beat the rest. Luckily Hearts and Aberdeen are prone to dropping points elsewhere, so second place will not take that much. However, your average manager should achieve that at Rangers with the relative budgets. He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.

I see the point, but as I've said before, when you're falsely disparaged in public, it's difficult not to defend yourself in public. The fact that previous lies about me have grown arms and legs vindicates this. I've already said to Craig that it's boring and asked him to stop so I'm aware of this. My last post was supposed to be pretty final but now this one will be.

Craig, that is some rant and I really don't know what you're on about. You clearly won't stop misrepresentating or at least misinterpreting me. To clarify how far off the mark your post is, I will requote myself from earlier: "I believe Warburton's facts but question the relevance and interpretation of them." I think this unambiguously shows you owe me an apology but I won't hold my breath. I don't know what your problem is, but it would help if you could read my posts and understand them, instead of repeadly going off the handle attacking me for stuff I didn't say or mean. I'm always happy to clarify my position if I am being ambiguous or not making things clear, or maybe not using words where we agree on their semantics. I'm sorry for the swearing but the point was that enough is enough, you've gone too far. It's not nice to be repeatedly attacked in public for mistruths about what you said. Please desist from further libeling me on this forum, it's hard not to defend myself and subsequently just gets boring for everyone, especially when all you do is repeat the mistruths without any evidence. The forum is archived, please reread them before erroneously bringing past stuff up.

Sorry Craig, but you have shown no capacity for understanding my posts. I responded in caps as you once again attacked me with stuff I didn't say - it was a response. The only time I "chase people away" is when they attack me instead of making a point. It's incredibly tedious. You are the one being supercilious. I'm just asking you to stop attacking me with made up stuff and make points and rebuttals. If you think that's superior and personal then you have problems. This is the way it always happens with you: you attack me with rubbish, I point that out and ask you to debate the points, you attack me again and get personal, I point out that you are guilty of what you are accusing me of, and then you throw the toys out of the pram. You are one to talk about chasing people away, I've seen many others react badly to your posts too and could empathise with them. Craig your last paragraph is weird, I don't ignore evidence, you do, as in this case. There is one point to discuss in this exchange and you refuse to and refuse to see my point. I don't mind people arguing against my points but you have to get it to rebutt it. Or ask for further explanation. The problem I have on here is that many people generally have an entrenched viewpoint and refuse to see the other side. I admit I'm wrong often enough when it happens - but it won't happen often if I'm the only one seeing more than one side. Craig, you belittled me, I only responded to the belittlement. Read it back - please. Next time I'm just going to have to report, report and report again as you really lack respect most of the time.

I was only responding in kind to stuff that isn't quite comparable. However, seeing as you're at it, Ally is supposed to be the worst manager in the world or have you forgotten? He had Craig Whyte as chairman. Ally had the last board when in the Championship as well as Hearts who did better than Warburton. He quit while second in the league and still in the cup. However, you hypocritically don't point any of that out. What are you on about - he quite before we played them. Get your facts right. I really don't know where you're going with that. Just when is it apples and oranges? When you disagree with it? Craig, it's always different circumstances, it's up to us to make sense of that otherwise how can you tell if one manager is good or bad or better than another - you can't really do that unless the circumstances were exactly the same which is impossible - and makes this site completely redundant. We make adjustments to compare. The fact is that Ally did quite well with a half decent team, after a frustrating transfer window, until other external circumstances kicked in. Then it went pear shaped, we lost games and had a 10 point penalty - he was still in comfortable second place - not bad for the worse manager in the world. Warburton does not have the same problems and yet is doing incredibly badly with a budget that should have better rewards. However, you would have it that Warburton is a 9 and Ally is a 0. We'll have to agree to disagree there. I've explained my position on that and I've heard a ton of criticism of the football on here. Who and when? No some just point out when the criticism is just overboard and demonising - the nonsense is still happening and he's being blamed for everything. I'm not impressed with his gardening leave or non vote but it doesn't change how I see the football. But I've pointed out how weird people get and when they argue against ludicrous stuff against someone - they get accuse of lauding them. How do you know Warburton would have done any better? You're own logic says you cant. He might have had the team playing the ball on the deck but that doesn't mean he'd have won the leagues. I think that point has been made by what we're watching now. Warburton's footballing philosophy doesn't guarantee results or entertainment - and I predicted that before he arrived. "Only a blind man" would disagree with you, hmmm? As said Warburton didn't have McCoist's problems. And again there is no guarantee that he could recruit players in the lower divisions who would deal with the off-field stuff, play entertaining football and win. You are making it up. For me, the most likely scenario is that Warburton would NEVER have got us promoted from the three divisions. Absolutely not. He would have quit well before. He was on track before he quit - and under extreme circumstances and the presence in the league of a better team than Warburton's team. But you don't want to accept that do you? Hypocrisy again. Did you read the "possibly"? Yes disagreeing with you means it's ludicrous. Of course. Again your hypocritical, Warburton didn't play in the same Championship as McCoist which had a team on fire which Warburton's team didn't match. Ally was also hampered by the board - the most awful atmosphere the club has ever had, and didn't have the transfer budget of Warburton. But of course you like apples and oranges when it suits you. You ignore all McCoist's problems and then mitigate for Warburton because of the terrible circumstance of "winning the league". That's not true, I have had a lot of patience for him; however, there are many things about him that don't rock my boat - his results since the Celtic game being the major factor. I don't agree with a lot of his philosophy and have explained that and why before he even came and a lot since. When you make a stance, it's best to do it with something decent to say rather than trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. And I resent the accusation which seems to say I buy into the negative Rangers press, I am very vociferous against it which you would know if YOU READ MY POSTS. Again you are insulting and trolling and bringing the forum down. You are totally out of order. I really don't know why you have to continually make up stuff to attack me. Please desist. Neil McCann is not known for his anti-Rangers agenda, and I didn't write about agreeing with him, I wrote about not liking Warburton's response which I thought was poor as his interpretation of the stats don't hold true. Once again, Craig, you have to twist things to try and defend an indefensible position. You don't have one consistent point in this post. But I have to ask you why you had to digress with this stuff instead of actually debating the point which I have asked you several times in this thread. It's boring for others and it is 100% instigated by you. It's a terrible waste of everyone's time and bandwidth.

Please show evidence of your accusations. Again your twisting things. I put up some stats with no interpretation to see how people would take them. They took them badly and denied them as facts. So I asserted they were facts. You really are now being really insulting and not telling the truth. What? Are you Mary Whitehouse in disguise? Or in an episode of Sorry - "Language Timothy!" If you were thick skinned you'd not even mention it. And you wonder about the swearing? FFS! No, that's you. I don't have to be swayed by other factors - I can take them into account and still have a different viewpoint than yourself. I debate EVERYTHING and have the ability to mitigate and "seasonally adjust". I have been 100% consistent unlike yourself. You have been consistent only in your own hypocrisy and then throw the toys out the pram when it's pointed out. Of course I am - he deserves it, he has insulted the intelligence of the support. I have good reason - and you are again hypocritical in not once pointing out when people actually make stuff up about McCoist to attack him, or use absolute nonsense. It's here all the time and I've grown tired of pointing it out. How come you have never or rarely have done so? Of course it is, this site is here to debate the performance of the club, team and manager. If you have a problem with it - DEBATE THE POINT. That's what we're supposed to be here for. I've explained it TWICE. READ MY POSTS! Is there something I'm missing here? To me it's sooooo obvious, but you have to actually think about it. If you think it's fine then please rebut my points and possibly make one or two of your own instead of just attacking me with made up nonsense. Craig, come on, last, last time. Your really messing up the thread with personal crap.

Did Warburton do as well as Ally in the first 14 games of the SPL? Did he beat Celtic in 90 minutes? Did he have as good a win record against SPL teams? Is his current football a decent level? Some people just don't like McCoist (and maybe they now have good reason but it's irrelevant to football). The fact is McCoist wasn't good enough, Warburton hasn't shown he's any better. If you use all the McCoist judgements on Warburton he'd be one of the worst managers in history. Some people care more about how they like a manager, than about the actual results. Warburton is not doing so well - even possibly worse than McCoist ever did and without the shit boards and the turmoil that caused. See it as it is. He's under pressure and starting to say stuff that does actually make him less likeable, as he's patronising the support.

Craig, for the last time READ MY EFFING POSTS!!! You make up a load of nonsense almost every time about me and what I write. I have repeatedly said that you have to justify your stats and their interpretation, I do. I have shown why I think Warburton's stats are erroneous - it's pretty obvious. They are not relevant. Read my reason why again and if you have even a slightly reasonable point I will happily debate it. Read it and reply in the spirit of this site instead of trolling me. The only time I go on about stats being facts is when you weirdly deny them as such when you don't like them. I don't do that, I believe Warburton's facts but question the relevance and interpretation of them. I have been 100% consistent with that. Show me where I haven't. Do you just read what you want to read? READ MY POST! You cannot prove "whatever" with stats - I just said that in my last post and explained why (you even quoted it FFS) - you are 100% wrong there. You don't prove anything with stats, you make a case which may or may not be compelling. That's what people say when they don't understand stats and don't like someone else's. It's their get out of jail free card. You can try prove "whatever" - but like Warburton, your assertions can be scrutinised and criticised. In this case it's pretty facile, he's trying to pull a fast one and it doesn't wash. The reality is that people can show their stats and then have to justify their choice and their interpretation. They are supposed to make you see things objectively. Warburton has proven nothing as his stats are not relevant to Rangers. Unbeaten runs are interesting but not a good measurement of success - except when they win a cup. Being merely unbeaten at only home won't guarantee that either. I showed you in my post which you quoted, an example of this where you can win 32 games away and 31 at home and also lose one at home. That wouldn't meet Warburton's measure of success which is quite an extreme flaw. So I have shown why they are not justified in defining his success - if you just read my post that you quoted. Every time I use stats I try to use them fairly, know their drawbacks, explain my choices, and I'm willing to defend and debate that. I also qualify my interpretations - your's often don't even come close to explaining the stats and so you dismiss them as facts - even though I sometimes tailor them to your own criteria. Next time, can you actually read my post and have a valid point? Hmmmm? I realise I'm not always the most diplomatic these days, but FFS my patience has been sorely tested. You seem generally a decent bloke, but once again you have made stuff up about me to attack me with; I really don't get why. As I've said before, I shouldn't have to spend most of my time debating about how to debate. For once it would be good to actually properly debate an actual point. So once again, as a real debate, why do you think that Warburton's stats are not erroneous?

Might be interesting to see if he can do a job there. I think the Dons have the potential to be a regular Championship side - MK has a population of over quarter of a million which is larger than Aberdeen and two thirds bigger than Dundee. Just from that you can see a potential average attendance of about 18k - double what they have now. Their excellent stadium holds over 30k. Against them is the lack of a history which lowers the number of grass roots fans but that could change in the following generations - if they are reasonably successful and if not everyone focuses solely on the Premiership. The fact most people come to MK for a job from elsewhere also doesn't help. While there are plenty of clubs not too far from the town - Northampton, Luton and Watford aren't too far, and London is pretty easy to get to; there's none within about a 20 mile radius. The people I know tend to mostly be Arsenal or Spurs, with the usual Man U, and a bit of Chelsea and Palace, so not many for the nearer sides - even Watford with the current sojourn in the Premiership, so plenty of kids could be encouraged to travel the few miles to Stadium MK on a far cheaper budget for the parents compared to London. They are doing a lot of local projects to engage with the community including a large youth academy, so that might also pay dividends on future supporters. They had a brief flirtation with the Championship after many years of perpetually and agonising, just missing out on promotion, but are now doing badly in League One, humiliatingly a country mile behind the continually progressing Wimbledon FC. So a lot of work to be done, but a lot of potential - there could be money available as the investors in the stadium really need some of that paid back with the bigger crowds that EC football would bring. That is probably the attraction for Robbie - a reasonable budget, and a chance to showcase himself for bigger clubs in England.

I recall under another manager the opinion that most people's grannies could get second place on our budget - so what's changed? We seem to have gone from demonising to approaching sycophancy... Warburton is not performing well this season - or since the unexpected penalty win over Celtic, and although he might be fully aware of the shortcomings, his spats with people giving what seems like valid criticism doesn't reflect that, nor is it constructive - at best it's distracting, but looks more like detracting. Celtic have about 2.5 times our wage bill, the ratio of ours to all other teams is greater, mostly much greater. McCoist would not have been given such an easy ride for the relatively poor results we've been having for that investment, and neither should Warburton. The criticism from McCann was fair and reasonably mild - Warburton should be able to take it on the chin and do his talking with his team's performances. The fact he can't looks very weak to me and his lack of acknowledgement smacks of the ostrich-like behaviour of Le Guen. A manager shows his true worth in times of difficulty and pressure, Warburton has not exactly been impressive to me in that regard so far. I'm all for giving him a bit time but coming out with this nonsense doesn't give me confidence in his ability to progress the team to where we should be - as well as other factors. He has to remember that he's not just talking to the press he's also talking to the fans, and we rarely get much from him that is encouraging or even slightly interesting.

You would think that fans of a club that went into administration and got out with a pretty eye watering (for the creditors) CVA, would be loath to go down the new club route for a fellow club. Unless you're just a bit of a wank...

Warburton really doesn't sound like a Rangers manager at times. An an unbeaten run with a bunch of draws at home is fine for a middling EC team but not for Rangers. Unbeaten at home is an erroneous statistic for our club without it being backed up by stats of a high number of wins and a very good away record. We really need about 2.5 points a game and about a 78% win rate to have a good chance of winning the league and a cup, and we're at 1.86 and 62%, and the latter is exaggerated by a lot of LC games against lower division teams. Out of those 32 unbeaten games, only 9 have been against top tier teams. Overall win rate is a much better metric for Rangers than unbeaten at home records - which in comparison is pretty irrelevant - winning 61 games home and away but losing 1 at home would be fantastic but not match that record... Some say you can prove anything with stats but they are wrong, it's all about the relevance and qualitative assessment of the stats. Warburton is either at it here, has a bunker mentality, or not showing much nous. He needs to respect people's valid opinions and concentrate on changing those opinions by what happens on the pitch. Being in complete denial is very dangerous for our chances of success - you cannot change what you don't acknowledge.