calscot

Seeing as we're on this thread, perhaps you should peruse the stats in the first post, check their validity, and then maybe rethink your accusations of me after remembering that AM achieved those results under far more difficult circumstances than MW. So if your test of who watched any games is our opinions on McCoists ability when purely looking at his win rate, with my opinion being not good but probably mediocre, and yours being worst manager ever, I don't think you come out well... The problem is that if I give AM 5/10 for his win results, under impossible circumstances, I can't really give MW more than 5/10 either, maybe he gets a 6/10 when draws are factored in. If you give AM 0/10 you can hardly give MW more than about 1/10 or with a bit of bias, 2/10. For style I assume you give him 0/10 while I argue it wasn't that bad and probably give about 3/10 under difficult circumstances and about 6/10 for the start of the SPL season. I think if we showed the footage to a neutral who's never seen Rangers and compared with other Scottish teams, I think again you'd lose. With Warburton I assume you give him 10/10, whereas I'd be giving about a 7.5/10, sometimes U football is very dull and it needs mixed up a bit. Also the defending is not very stylish as yet. I think the results themselves were a bit disappointing compared to AM's and therefore he should really lose marks for that. Winning ugly is still ultimately more entertaining for me than passing the ball around without penetration and goals, and ultimately drawing or losing. I certainly wasn't entertained much in both cup defeats - although really enjoyed the Celtic game. Ironically, the St Johnstone game was the one I hoped to go and see on my yearly viisit to Scotland but couldn't arrange visiting friends and family around it and ended up visiting friends near Aberdeen, and so watching it on telly... Not the worst one to miss out on.

I do think we are still in the middle of a transitional phase - we need to compete with Celtic immediately, and once again, that gets in the way of squad building and development.

To be honest, I do enjoy England getting beat for many, many tangible reasons, but don't think it would ever make me celebrate like that, unless it was Scotland doing the defeating.

So you're saying he DID get value for money and spent well, but "ruined" the players (whatever that means and if it's possible). But if that's the case you can't slag him for spending badly, just for not getting the players to play to their ability. BTW I can't remember who said it, but I don't believe you can get an SPL level player to move to Rangers for £26k a year... May I also point out that people said we should have copied Queen of the South who didn't spend much but were easily promoted to the Championship, I didn't agree with that as I predicted they'd finish about 4th or 5th at best most seasons after that and so was not suitable for us. Going cheap was never going to work.

I always think a DoF leads to a weak manager...

I'm thinking the money might just "disappear"...

Not that long - I still vividly remember the Battle of Britain. But our full league can never compete with 5m population for 12 teams against 55m population for 20 teams.

I felt the same but I'm not sure if it really works for competing against the big leagues. You end up with a lot of games like Aberdeen vs Molde, and is Rangers vs Brugge or FC Copenhagen going to attract a huge, international TV audience? The money would go up, but not to anywhere near the 100m on offer in the EPL. Mabye 10m if we're lucky.

I don't think any management is immune from valid criticism and signing too many older players is a worry for any fan. Personally, I like a balance throughout the ages, as it brings a blend of enthusiastic, energetic, developing youth, players at their peak, and older players, with experience, temperament and wisdom. However, I don't like it when it becomes too unbalanced with too many youths or too many older players - and for either, I think they need to bring a certain amount of exceptional ability. Keepers are a different animal, especially when they are the second goaly - as they don't get much game time and so young players are unsuited as they need development. For that, an older, very experienced keeper who has done it all at a high level, has nothing else to prove, and just wants to extend his career at a big club, it's perfect. Outfield players, really need to bring something extra to the table.

You obviously don't get the paradox. It's obviously contradictory to say he got very bad value for money and then complain he should have done better with these really expensive players. Come, it can't be that hard to just understand the point... I really doubt he chose these players freely - he chose them because they were free. He was dumpster diving and taking what he could find. He didn't have the luxury of a philosophy.

Still going with you weirdo lies to cover up you being caught out about not watching games? What a saddo.

Just thinking that while amused at England's embarrassment, I feel a bit embarrassed for us also. Iceland have got to the quarter final, and we've yet to get to the knockout stages of any tournament... Same with Wales who are in their second quarter final (in two attempts), and NI have been in the second round a few times I think with one quarter final. It's not all bad as we have "effectively" been in the quarter final in 1992 and finished 5th which is higher than those two other home nations so far with with 6th and 8th. And we've qualified 10 times to their 2 and 4.

I see his point but what I don't like is that it restricts opportunities for our own U20s. I think there is a longer term plan now at Rangers that King has just explained, which emphasises youth development. Contrasting this with the Moneyball system at Brentford who were just trying to compete with less money than most, I think his love of the loan system may be shelved. The odd, highly skilled player that fits in the system would be fine - a player like say Weiss might now suit us, where he didn't fit in under Smith. Vuckic did okay and I thought he was good quality. The likes of Oduwa and Zelalem, you would hope would now struggle to get into the team with the new signings and in future. Same with Ball, while he was decent enough, I'd hope that we aspire to usually have an U20 or two of our own of that level in future.

Since women's tennis gained the same prize money as the men's, I've lost all respect for women's sport as I abhor sexism including that against men. For me sport is meritorious and to be non-sexist I think you have to be gender agnostic. I don't want to choose to watch men and women's sport, I just want to watch sport, with the best people. At a lower level I can see the need for perhaps separating the genders for participation purposes but even then, why not just put the same level against the same level, no matter the gender? Many boys and men miss out on participation on sport due to only the best being allowed to play, while women and girls of a low standard are indulged. For me, everyone should be able to participate, no matter how bad you are or what handicap or disability you have. There's maybe more of a point in very physical games but then I think the top levels need to be self funding. Women will always find it hard to compete with men but as people that's just life - like a short guy will find it hard to get to the NBA due to his genetics - doesn't mean we should have an equal pay basket ball league for short guys. And you never hear many women campaigning for top male models to get equal pay to their female counterparts even thought the difference is astronomical. But one of the reasons that women can be so bad at sport is the lack of participation - which I would reckon is about 20:1 men to women. A remember seeing a women friend receive a 7th place trophy on a Strava hill segment and thinking that's good; however, I looked at it and although there had been about 150 people through that segment and she was dead last, but only 7 women had tried it. To get 7th in the men's or overall would mean you have to be in the top 5%, which isn't very easy even with weekend riders. And that's another reason that the tennis "equality" is so unequal. For me it should be equal opportunity and equal pay for equal work, everywhere.

There should be a plan but good luck with trying to implement one with the boards from Whyte to Llambias. With McCoist I think all plans had to go out the window, it was about coping from one crisis to the next. No one implements plans while they are "firefighting". It's all about damage limitation and getting back to square one intact. As I keep saying, we KNOW what happened but it's continually brushed under the carpet to continue the McCoist narrative. I also said at the end of the Whyte season that while it was terrible circumstances McCoist showed he didn't have the ability to keep the team winning, and we needed a manager who could - although I couldn't name one that I believe would be capable and still can't. We don't even know if MW could, and seeing as he was incapable of motivating the team due the most terrible crises of winning the league and beating Celtic on penalties [sic], therefore losing the most important single game of the season, it's pretty doubtful he could have coped with those much more real crises.

While I agree we spent too much on certain players of an average standard, I think people tend to try to argue both sides of it. I don't think you can argue that they were worth much less and then complain that McCoist had as much bigger a budget than other managers than the accounts suggest. It's got to be one or the other. If the players weren't worth it then his budget was effectively much less. It also has to be recognised that we were a bit toxic at the time, were shopping for players in short period of time that were almost all free agents, and were playing in the lowest league. Good luck with getting good value for money in that scenario. The same paradoxical argument is used when saying McCoist had more money to spend than MW which means the latter was a better coach, but then argue Warburton had a better team. So you have to pick your criticism, as they are not mutually compatible. Either McCoist was bad at buying a team for the money, or he had great players who he caused to play crap. If you go for both, then McCoist had shit players and made them worse, and so the marginal difference in results by Warburton who had a much better team, once again, makes him look really poor, except that they are nice to watch.

I'm never sure about a lot of those targets as I've generally never seen them play or know much about them. For previous players I'm not a great fan of going back but in this case, we've at least seen him play for us, and he seemed fairly decent and probably in our price range. Depends if the manager rates him and thinks he fits in to the plan.

I pretty much agree with all that. Where our opinions differ is probably the actual proportion of blame to McCoist. As I say, for me he's not great but when you take somethone not great and apply a load of incredibly bad circumstances to them, they becomes a lot worse. If they just keep their head above water instead of drowning, then they must have a smidgen of effectiveness. I would like to see McCoist get a job for a club with a supportive board and see how he gets on, and way can see his style of football in comparison to other clubs in the same league - I'm assuming the lower ones. My viewpoint has always come from the fact that he could not be fully judged due the goings on. His best spells were when there was relative calm in the massive storms. But those calms were still rough and full of squalls. My prediction is that he'll be fairly average, and partly due to the level of player, not particularly good to watch most of the time - but doubt it will be the worst in the league.

Wow, I don't know whether you are massively egotistical or just paranoid... You'll also probably get offended at that...

I watched a fair amount of live games online, some on TV, and a lot of highlights, but I didn't see it through an "Everything McCoist does is shit" filter. That doesn't mean I thought it was good (generally it was't that good) but there were some ok spells and ok games. Did you see any of the games which were reasonably ok? I think the only game I got to see live was the Newcastle game and that was quite enjoyable, although I did have a few beers beforehand and was on holiday... However, I do follow quite closely what's going on, and don't make stuff up or deny what happened. My opinions are based on fact and take into account what is actually happening at the club - so my eyes are open when making judgements.

The meme is that everything McCoist did is the worst and he is to blame for everything. Celtic have a similar meme for Rangers. People seem to be following the meme instead of reality and so twist everything to be all McCoists fault without a reasonable explanation. The "McCoist finished 3rd and didn't get promoted" is an obvious example. The meme is so strong that when I just defend reality, you even seem to think I think McCoist is a good manager, when I have repeated many, many times, that I don't think he's any good. The best I've said about McCoist is that his results were about passable enough to avoid the sack under the circumstances he was managing in. The fact he wasn't sacked kind of agrees with me there. The point here is that the two factors I think I have clearly shown are the most significant in finishing 3rd are the machinations of the board and all the related negative fall out of that including the fan boycott, and the presence of a Hearts team who had a fantastic season that MW couldn't emulate with more money and without the handicaps of the previous season. The fact that we achieved a new board and had had the most successful Scottish manager we could hope for, and still didn't get promoted, I think showed it was a lot more than McCoists failings. I agree he had failings but still contend that considering his record, the most likely scenario had the new board taken over instead of Llambias, would have finished second and would have had more than 50% chance of getting promoted through the playoffs. I also believe his form shows that the most likely scenario for this season would be at least narrowly winning the league. Now this doesn't mean he's a good manager, it's just that he's not crap enough to bugger it all up with the amount of money we spend on higher quality players in the other teams. After that, he's already shown he can highly compete with a more expensive Celtic team in the SPL despite having the likes of Whyte running the club. Again it doesn't show he's a good manager as he was up against Lennon but he showed he could at least do the minimum and not completely mess it all up. He wasn't good enough but there is no need to completely twist the truth to make out he was at fault for everything. Like I keep saying, if he's that bad then MW hasn't shown he much better results wise or in other ways like introducing teenagers from the academy to the team. I think for arguments sake, it's best to give the benefit of the doubt that all things being equal he would most likely have finished 2nd. I think that is by far the fairest way to judge him. Third place mostly came from the melt down after he left and having a manager who didn't want the job. He could still have finished third but I wouldn't have blamed him from that, history showed how bad Ashley's influence affected the dressing room. The thing I find strange is that the chairman of the club just publically acknowledged this, but those that want to demonise McCoist don't. Because of that, I don't think McCall was a worse manager than McCoist despite being a lot worse with pretty much the same team under a better board. Again, that because I don't completely agree with you, you think I have a more opposing view. I didn't think McCoist's brand of football was good but I'm pretty sure you only remember the worst. We had plenty of watchable games under him and a smattering of quite good ones - especially in his first half season where he had the least board restrictions and off-field effects - and was allowed to have a reasonably good team. So like I say, I lot of that is exaggerated. The most illogical viewpoints I seen that after administration, newco, players leaving, effective demotion to the 4th tier, a transfer embargo and a bunch of ****s on the board, people said it was the worst Rangers team they had ever seen - and then fully blamed McCoist. That just shows the power of the meme. I don't think McCoist has a good brand of football but I do think it was made a lot worse by external circumstances and then judged in comparison to previous Rangers sides without the troubles. And the funny thing is - I've seen plenty of shit football by much better Rangers teams and managers. McCoist was not a good manager but was also dealt horrendous hand after horrendous hand, it's not surprising that with the massive pressure to still win every game, under those circumstances the attractiveness of the football suffered even more. I don't know how to get through to you. My point is that the dreadfulness of it was exaggerated and external influences ignored, while expectations were obviously unrealistic. My expectations were tempered by the circumstances and I seen winning our way back to the top as more important. I don't think McCoist had the ability to do that and make the team play "nice" football. I also believe that we played better football than most of the other teams we played, albeit we had a higher standard of player, and not only that we usually won. So I tried to suppress feelings of a "spoiled" nature by realising that fans of far less successful clubs come out to support their team which does not produce champagne football and also lose a lot of the time. I knew things would change when we got back to the top so I had a bit of patience especially as I was well aware of the circumstances. That was a general comment, but I do notice you often have no problem with others' fabrications. Who thinks he was a decent manager? You can think what you like about the style, but it does seem extreme to me when maybe as more of an optimist, I remember some ok stuff. Maybe you liked it better under McDowall, or maybe McCall, but the results were worse. I do remember a lot of the criticism was "fabricated" by some or at least highly exagerrated. "We can't string more than three passes together", "Every second ball is a long ball" etc. A lot of it didn't even slightly agree with what I was seeing. For me there WERE too many high and long balls and a lack of cohesion and long boring spells, but there were rays of sunshine in all of that. I think our current style can also be incredibly boring and tedious for long periods - especially against sides who park the bus and act like it's a cup final. The Ibrox crowd has been restless last season at times. So I do think you tend to remember what agrees with your current thinking which was why I think you couldn't acknowledge the increase in long balls against Celtic which to me was obvious. I think it messed with your opinion that we play the ball on the ground all the time - which to be fair we usually do. The irony is that you actually thought I was criticising the use of the long ball, when in truth, I was criticising the quality of it - which was horrendous, and subsequently criticising the fact that we don't practice it enough in other games. I've consistently advocated "judicious" use of the long ball. The tone (which I think you may be over-reading)? Some of it is frustration that you accuse me of things like conjecture etc but then use it yourself - especially when mine has more basis on what has gone before. All opinion is based on conjecture but I think I keep mine from being a bit wild and will always back it up with facts and figures. I would maybe be softer if you would apply the same kind of arguments to the extreme fabrications I've been referencing - which are so obvious but seem to be immune as they ultimately agree with your opinion. To be fair, for the first time in a long time, you have actually pointed out that I have made reasonable points to other posters. However, that happens less so when I am addressing your good self.

Post 22 Originally Posted by limeburner you cant get basic facts right,when you dont you blame other people for"making things up". FFs. When you deny the facts and say they are made up, that shows ignorance of the subject, and makes it impossible to debate with you. Instead of getting offended once again (there's a pattern here) you should have showed your knowledge. Again show don't tell. You seem to be unable to rationalise when some of your viewpoints which don't seem to be based on reality are questioned. When debating, we need to at least have a grasp of the facts instead of getting all hot and bothered when they are pointed out to you. When aggressively, insultingly and repeatedly accuse me of making up indisputable facts then yeah, it's very difficult to have respect for their knowledge.

Reply to Limeburner Post 21 Originally Posted by limeburner We had to get rid of him to have a chance of finishing third.Carry on though,im enjoying youre re-writing of history. Where did I say you weren't a Rangers fan? I said you didn't follow the team, as in you don't follow what's going on. This is in response to you saying I rewrote history for saying McCoist didn't finish 3rd as he resigned while in second place. Something you deny which is actually a fact about Rangers. Then also in your reply you said, "We had to get rid of him to have a chance of finishing third." when in actual fact he resigned... Couple that with a lack of acknowledgement of the boardroom turmoil and fans boycott and saying I was rewriting history when pointing out facts and it certainly looks like you didn't follow what's going on. Instead of getting so offended at a reasonable assumption to of your denial of the facts, maybe you should have demonstrated your knowledge of what went on at Rangers. As they say, show don't tell. Originally Posted by limeburner We had to get rid of him to have a chance of finishing third.Carry on though,im enjoying youre re-writing of history.

When did he fail? The times you are talking about he comfortably won the league - on one occasion without losing a game. His budget for the championship was zero and he had to take what was available, MW had money to spend, the wages were in a similar ball park. Warburton would have probably failed to win the league two seasons ago too. Hearts were way ahead in games against the same teams, discounting the games between us. And all that without taking into account the board and the fan boycott. MW has done nothing yet. I actually find him a bit of disappointment so far results-wise as they are no better than Ally's and worse than Hearts who had a harder league and far less money. I was impressed with his draw and penalty win against Celtic, although it has to be said they were under so much pressure they were there for the taking. The loss against Hibs, as you are pointing out, was a horrendous failure which badly impacts our next couple of seasons. That was against a team with far less resources. The St Johnstone failure was pretty poor too - a team Ally defeated the previous season. BUT I like him. Because I don't demonise a manager because a few failures and because he's not much better than a much maligned manager in results. I look at the bigger picture and I think we may have a chance of good progression, something I didn't foresee under Ally - but then we never were able to see him under a board who had more than their own short term interests at heart.

Eh, conjecture? Huge conjecture. Two subsequent managers bombed after McCoist. Many people here wrapped up in the memes predicted success after McCoist due to a complete misunderstanding of the situation. Just as it's conjecture to say we wouldn't have won the league. But just as unlikely as third place. We have enough information to surmise the most likely outcome would have been second place - without the arrival of Llambias, which I think was the main catalyst. I didn't see you kicking in the "conjecture" argument for some of the more extreme posts of that style on here... Strange. Again, you're following the memes which massively exaggerate that, just as they massively exagerate the entertainment of our current style. I much prefer our current style but it has plenty of flaws. McCoist's wasn't good, but was in the context of our situation at the time. I don't think he's a good manager, or a progressive one, but that doesn't mean I enjoy the very strange demonising of him. I prefer things to agree with reality. Like I say, if he's so bad, there is no need to fabricate anything. When you put MW though the same distorted glasses, he looks pretty shit too. He's repeated (or near enough) many failures that McCoist was slaughtered for and his win record is hardly better no matter how much you try to manipulate it. I have no problem with people thinking McCoist was shit but when people make up fiction, I'm inclined to point it out.