calscot

I don't know anyone who is claiming McCoist was a better manager than Warburton, and certainly not me. I've been totally consistent in saying he's a much better manager and considering him excellent with McCoist as mediocre. However, I think we have to beware of the hype surrounding both managers which I think has highly skewed a lot of people's views, and the stats show that results-wise the improvement might not be as big as people think. There is no doubt that the style football has improved and there is a sign of progression and better things to come, although even there for me it's not as black and white as people suggest, as last year there was too much poor play but there was still some reasonably good stuff now and again, and this year there is a lot of good play but still some bad stuff, and maybe too often it's been a bit tedious and frustrating - with what one poster succinctly described as "U football". I have to disagree here and looking at the stats, if Hearts were in the league this year and had the same results against the same teams, we'd have been struggling to win league and they would have the advantage. Of course being in a straight race with another club could change how each team but there is no way of saying whether that would help or hinder us. The only real world comparison we have is the results in isolation and Hearts would have been massive favourites even up until the Celtic game. We'd probably have needed something like 3 wins and draw against them, and our results against Hibs and Falkirk don't bode well for that. I think Hibs are about the same a last year overall, and Falkirk have improved, Morton are better than Cowdenbeath but I doubt all the rest of the clubs have also improved. However, Hearts were way ahead of St Mirren, so for me it's no contest. To be fair to McCoist, take away Hearts and the stats show that without the shenanigans of the board and his resignation, the most likely scenario based on result trends would be for him to narrow win the league. So while people WANT to think that the seasons are black and white, the reality much closer than people think with the most deciding factors for league position looking like being the board and Hearts, rather than the Warburton factor, but that's not to say he's not a very good manager. To me it does say that it's a work in progress and a lot has to be done. There is a slight shade of style over substance at the moment, for me the signs are that while a lot of what we are doing is not vastly improving results, it has the foundations to do so. We can see where we need to improve - with a leaky defence and profligate attack, whereas a year ago, while the results were coming in, it was more about having better, fitter players but there was so much mediocrity everywhere that there wasn't much view of what needed to be done to raise us up to the next level. I think, that this season results-wise we've not done much more than expected for any Rangers manager, certainly when you look at the criticism of McCoist, with the one stand out result against Celtic, which result-wise again was a draw in 2 hours of football - BUT the quality of the play was massively encouraging. Which kind of sums our season up.

Granted that did happen, but not so relevant here as I'm trying to show a comparison of results against similar teams and narrowing it down bit by bit to the exact same teams. Not only apples and apples but the exact same same varieties. There is no way of replaying seasons with different managers so these are the only tools we really have to take us out of the subjective. There are obviously qualitative aspects that also need to be taken in to consideration.

Yeah, I made it all up... You do know that football leagues are basically statistics, with the most important ones being who scores the most goals in a game and who accumulates the most points in a season? The is a message behind that quote but most people just use it to trash stats they find disagrees with their entrenched way of thinking. Stats are all about the validity of the qualification of their calculations. If you have some doubts about that for any of them I'm happy to explain and debate. As I said I've tried to make them as fair as possible. I don't get the problem a few people have with them and noone has explained what that is. Not even a teeny bit.

Can you explain how they are "massaged"? To fit what argument? I gave multiple stats, each tell a certain story and they are fair and justified. I'm guessing by your tone you have a bit of a problem because they somehow don't agree with your own argument, which would also explain why your accusations are totally without a qualifying rationale. It's amazing how people can get uppity about plainly laid out facts without an opinion attached them. If anyone has a problem with the validity of any of them, I'm happy to discuss and debate their rationale but without the baseless innuendo. It's all about trying to compare like with like and trying to make some kind of sense of it. If you're the kind of person who chooses an opinion and then twists reality to fit then feel free to ignore.

Ha ha, complete irony bypass. Yes, I know that naked and objective facts seem completely delusional to you, hilarious! If you don't want to shatter your delusions then keep away from stuff like reality. Just because the facts are incompatible with your opinion does not make them wrong. Oh yeah, speaking of your delusions, congrats on Chelsea winning the league again... For others, the point of the topic is to look at the results stats, to assess how much we've progressed in that sense and how far there is to go to compete in the top league with a comparison against Hearts. I've given a lot of comparisons and as I said is up to you to look at them and decide which comparisons are the most valid.

I think it's been a bit like that since Walter came back. I hardly pay attention to all the rumours these days unless they turn up for a trial - or sign on the dotted line.

I think it's one of those situations where fans are caught in two places. Firstly we want good value from our licence fee, secondly we want more money for our club. You can't really blame the BBC for not spending more money than necessary - although you can complain about the amount spent on Linekar... As has been said, the clubs, the governing bodies and the fans (mainly by watching English football) have created a situation whereby our game is worth very little. Although a big part of the problem is that English football is immensely over valued and we're paying the price for that. Our main two hopes are for a European league that is built on the premise of nurturing football from all countries, or the pay TV bubble to burst in a spectacular way in the big 5. You'd think if the "Bettter together" campaign was in any way genuine, they'd find a way of letting us join a UK league.

49 games including St Mirren.

The collapse in results after winning the league is a significant part of it, not so crucial but still not really acceptable.

I wasn't meaning that there was an offer or a tangible opportunity, I just mean that there was a chance if we put the effort into negotiating it at that time. The chance to me was that the English First division was at a pretty bad low and needed an injection of glamour. The fact we weren't interested at the time doesn't change that - and to me the point is that maybe in hindsight (which is obviously easy to see compared to then) perhaps we should have been. I think part of the problem then is that it wasn't attractive and we were enjoying our renaissance. But the only time to join is when it's not attractive as otherwise the door is firmly shut. There are other factors like Celtic being in meltdown which could have detracted from it, or motivated them to push it harder. It's a subjective viewpoint.

Not sure if I hate them, that's a bit strong, but I take pleasure in some of their troubles, not because of hate, but because I like a bit of karma, a bit of come-upence, whatever you want to call it. I think if Rangers fans do dislike or hate other clubs, they usually have good and consistent reasons generally about how that club and its fans have treated us. If we like a bit of poetic justice, how does that justify those people's actions? The attitude from Dundee Utd is like, "We stole your money, kicked you repeatedly when you were down, continually say you're dead, and slander you at every opportunity. You now hate us, so we must have done something right!" Weird stuff from someone who is a spokesperson.

Variety of win % stats - hard to decide what is the most like with like (apples with apples) so you decide which is the most valid comparison Overall (includes extra time wins but not penalties wins as is the convention ie wins in open play): AM 72.6% (71.9% without extra time win) MW 70.0% (72.0% with penalties win included) RN 62.2% (not looked for anomalies) Championship season: AM 73.1% (69.2% without extra time win) MW 70.0% (72.0% with penalties win included) RN 75.6% Championship only: AM 62.5% MW 69.4% RN 80.6% Championship only but without Rangers, Hearts and St Mirren (where valid): AM 71.4% MW 68.8% RN 84.4% Championship only but without Hearts, Rangers, St Mirren, Cowdenbeath, Morton (where valid): AM 66.7% MW 67.9% RN 82.1% Championship season, all games against the teams both Rangers managers played at least once (including cups): AM 75% MW 65.7%

Really weird and nefarious way of thinking. Is there some kind mental disease being passed around in Scottish stadiums? I find it highly embarrassing that these people are from my home country.

Forgot he came from Hearts. Billy King also if he's played enough games. Still can't happen too often.

Just wondering, how many players win a Championship medal twice in a row - like Danny Wilson?

About 1988, I think there was a chance...

I completely agree with you but want to point out the current contradiction from the SFA - who went on about how good it was for the SP without Rangers in it, how competitive, interesting and attractive etc. Surely for that to make sense they would really have to remove Celtic too (without which they were just being complete dunces), and so the solution to that was there. The problem was that while we are part of the UK and the English(/Welsh?) leagues captivate a Scottish audience coupled with the effects of TV money from large paying audiences in large, rich countries, preserving the tradition of our own leagues has been a suicidal or at least crippling move. The Welsh model is there to mock us with our finances being dwarfed by the likes of Swansea City. The OF could have been on a par with Man U and Arsenal. I think in the late 80's and early 90's they'd have taken us to boost their failing game around the time they were moving to form the Premier League. To be fair to us, according to Wikipedia, TV money for the old 1st divistion was about 6.3M in 1986, but rose to £44m in 1988, and although it was rising sharply who would have guessed it would now be 1.7b a year? Ours is now about 17.8m a year - just over 1% of that. They get 20.4m for TWO games. With 12 teams lets call it about 2% per team - they get 50 times more for 10 times the population and you've got to imagine at least 10% of the subscriptions coming from Scots. It just shows how our game has gone from a at least having two clubs that can compete with the best in Europe, to total minnows. But even a proportional 500% increase in TV money wouldn't fix it. The only chance of ever surfacing again is the other smaller countries in Europe lobbying for a Euro league - otherwise football will be dead as a true international game and be the preserve of the top 5 countries. Funnily enough catering just to the top 5 seems to be the plan for some in UEFA.

It's not what they can afford, it's what they can get away with...

Yes, in hindsight it was a massive mistake not to try when they were recovering from their European ban. Football can no longer thrive in a small population country - and we've chosen that disadvantageous side of our duel existence.

For me Setanta was my best option for watching Rangers games and I've struggled in that department since they went under. I refuse to pay for Sky for a multitude of reasons, but it will never get by the sticking point that it would end up being about £600 a year to watch about 15 Rangers games - as I'm not interested in all the other stuff they chuck into the package including a land line. Compare that to a season ticket... I do have BT Sport 1 but Rangers games are few and far between and annoyingly the last one was on BT Europe. Alba have been my best shot...

I think one thing I really disagree with your here is the fundamental part where we actually sympathise with their victims - they openly laugh at ours. We say what happened with them was a terrible thing, they think ours was a good thing. It's pretty much white against black at that level and I don't see how they can be equated.

We will never get much from Sky due to Scots watching English football. So many already subscribe without Scottish football, so Sky just want the SP games to keep them sweet, but with as minimal outlay as they can get. Scottish fans of the EP have been slowly killing the income of Scottish football for decades. If we like it so much why didn't we join while we had a chance? Although we know the answer is hubris. The only answer was to give a different TV company the contract - and Setanta filled that hole, until they got too big for their boots and tried to take on Sky with the EP. However, you did get Scots who would only pay for one and not the other, and many chose Sky over Setanta...

Roy Keane would be great for us... But the lack of noise on Moyes except by the bookies suggests to me he's likely to be top of the list and I wouldn't be surprised if something is going on now behind the scenes. They need a big name if for nothing else but to appease the hoard. I think they are crapping themselves and will start to throw money at it, as that's where they still feel superior. Our board and Warburton need to watch carefully and make sure that we're not building a side to compete with this season's Celtic team and manager. It's a moving target.

It shows why we need at least a 70k stadium - although Murrayfield at 68k would do here.

I've always thought that shots on goal etc that while interesting, should not be used without qualification to measure whether a team "should have won". It's a quantitative analysis, not a qualitative one, which has the benefit of being to some extent a bit objective. There is still some subjectivity in interpreting what constitutes a shot, which can give skewed results. For, a think a better analysis would be to count the number of attacks that we very good chances and also count the good chances. Trouble here is that that is very subjective and goes back to the tinted glasses caveat. However, thinking with the top of my head, I do believe they had more very good chances, like the sitter and hitting the woodwork, plus a couple of good saves. This does mean that fate played a slight hand and we could easily have lost the game had luck turned against us. That does not take away from an excellent and dominant performance, but not only shows that football is a funny old game, it highlights some of our weaknesses. The usual analogy applies that your only as strong as your weakest link, and we a few to strengthen. If it was last year and the game went the other way around, although I wouldn't be arrogantly asserting that we should have won, I would definitely be taking heart in the fact we could have won. However, the difference for them is that doesn't work when you expected to give the opposition a hiding. Any coulda, shoulda just doesn't apply in that context.