calscot

PS "I wont be reading the above" lol, how I know it...

As I said please read my posts for what is in them, not what you imagine is in them. Once again you are arguing against points I specifically said I was NOT making.

All I can say to this is please read my posts, they really can't be that hard to understand. I really can't see the slightest relevance of your post... You are arguing against a point that no-one has ever made.

I think we're all thankful but some of us don't feel the need to use the success of Warburton to trash everything a previous manager did, whether is was good or bad. See, you compare apples with oranges for something you like and then say but that's apples and oranges for something you don't. Why you wouldn't like promotion is anyone's guess. As I've said I think McCoist was mediocre as I manager and don't need to constantly twist reality to feel justified in that, and I also feel Warburton is an excellent manager, and likewise don't feel the need to constantly praise everything he does and gloss over the negative. But the fact still remains that McCoist had the most horrendous working environment, figuratively speaking, of all time and Warburton just doesn't. You have no idea how he would have coped and it's ignoring stuff like transfer embargoes. That is just factually wrong. Totally and utterly. Once again there is no way you can tell if McCoist would have got promoted last season. And, again you're conveniently ignoring what went on behind the scenes, the fan boycott and the presence of Hearts. McCoist had a better than 50-50 chance to get promoted from the playoffs. Had we go the new board a year earlier, I'm sure he'd have done a lot better. Had he been the manager this year, all the evidence points towards him winning the league. It doesn't mean he's any good but your view is highly skewed, hypocritical and not even close to reality. Yes, and Warburton means everything he says right? Like when he said McCoist was under incredibly difficult circumstances? If you don't believe something was going on, look at the results, as I said before I expect you to understand trends and anomalies - there was a massive one last year. And if you're going to ignore that then why do you baulk at comparing the one season where McCoist had relatively smooth waters, even though it was still a horrendous board? If you can ignore the circumstances you can ignore the different leagues or at least make some adjustment for both. But again, I'm not championing McCoist as a manager, I'm championing reality and against the senseless twisting of it to grind a man's reputation into the ground. NOBODY is disagreeing with that, it's the black and white logic that because MW > AM then MW = 100%, and AM = 0%. The reality is that it's something in between and it's tedious to hear the same old nonsensical stuff being brought again and again, like the "your deed" stuff from them. Irrelevant stuff snipped. I have no idea to what or whom you are referring to. As I said you are so wrapped up in your meme you don't even see the reality of the argument, or what my opinion is, no matter how much I specify it.

See, you are incredibly inconsistent - and you keep going on about apples and oranges. You are comparing a player from when he's 20-21 to when he was 17-18, and playing in totally different circumstances. If that's your case then it's about as impressive as a Thomas the Tank Engine lunch box. The funny thing is that it could can easily turn your argument round that McCoist got McKay after Kilmarnock developed him and he was the player he was then, Warburton pretty much took the player after McCoist developed him and now look... You also have no idea how well he'd have played if McCoist was still here under the new board. But again the point is that none of it "proves" anything, it's very complex and we can't go back in time and change things for comparison. All you are doing is twisting absolutely everything to fit the meme you seem to have been suckered into.

So four years at Rangers from the of age 16 to 20 means nothing - no credit at all for his development? Really? So four years don't count in developing him including 41 games in one season and yet Warburton gets all the credit for developing him after about 6 weeks with him, and also for his continual development after that? Sorry Craig, don't get you at all. How do you "produce" any player, do I really have to spell it out? To produce something worthwhile, you take some raw materials and make something better out of it. Rangers took a 16 year old, promising, young player from Killy and 5 years later he's a top player. This may have been just a natural progression but it's normal for us to give the coaching staff some credit. Well usually "normal" except when it comes to McCoist. He played for our U19s when he was 16 and had his first team debut a year later. I would assume he was therefore training with the first team for that season. He then went on to play 41 games when 18. He was still in the first team squad for half of the next season but only played 4 games. His form was off and the rumours are he had developed an attitude problem. He was then sent out on loan just like plenty of young players at the moment. During that time he was exposed to our training methods, fitness training and nutritional guidance. In what way is that not developing player? Warburton gets credit for developing players in half a season and I haven't seen you disagreeing with that which seems a bit fickle. As I said the actual point is that whether McCoist may have helped or hindered young players, we don't really know for sure, but using a success to "prove" he badly hindered them just does not make any sense. Unless you're omniscient, for all we know doing anything differently may have led to him being less of a player. You can hand wave away as much as you like, but at least be a bit consistent.

I really struggle to work out if Moyes is actually any good. I can believe he's above average but he's not shown he's anything exceptional yet in my eyes. As he was a Celtic fan I can see him getting easily tainted very quickly by their way of thinking.

Ha ha, like I said, the pantomime logic on here is that if a player is really good it proves McCoist is shit and if a player doesn't make it, it proves McCoist is shit. Pity Lewis McLeod was so unfortunate... If McCoist puts players out on loan he's shit, if Warburton does it, he's magic. Which of our teenagers has Warburton played regularly? None. His record on the three loans is pretty mixed, but if Oduwa or Zelalem become great players after leaving Ibrox, it will NOT prove MW is bad. If most of our current teenagers don't make it, it won't prove Warburton is bad. If our players come back from loan and play better, it will not prove Warburton is bad. The same applies to all managers, including McCoist.

Give what a rest? Sense and logic? I'l leave you to your pantomime thinking.

In what way? That's just a backwards way of thinking. So if the a player developed during McCoist's tenure is good, McCoist is bad, and if the player is not so good, then McCoist is bad? How does that work? Is McCoist proven again to be bad due to Lewis McLeod being good? McKay was developed by the coaches at Rangers - then McCoist debuts guy in the SPL at age 17, plays him 41 times at 18 with his form being up and down, then sends him out on loan for two seasons to help him mature. Warburton comes along and tries him in the team and is a great player. Yeah, it really shows McCoist to be shit... Just what did the former management team do wrong by producing arguably our best player?

It's amazing how one sided the law is. Maybe we should start calling them huns again for being Nazi sympathisers. Or there's always HoMoS for HMS402... What was the Rangers banner that was offensive? It can hardly be "Zombies are fictional, paedophiles are real" since that is just a true statement that cannot possibly offend a reasonable person.

Celtic boycotted them anyway...

He has never won a proper title race and couldn't compete very well with a lesser financed McCoist before the off-field problems induced our downfall.

Above 10 teams there will always have to be a split. Eg 14 teams, top 8 play again twice, 40 games so bye from group section of League Cup, bottom 6 play twice, 36 games, 2 relegated plus 2 in play off to meet winner of Championship play off, all 6 enter into group stage of League cup. Better than what we have at the moment and 6 teams get 4 OF home games plus there are 4 OF games.

It agree has become overused and now a bit dull...

I would rather he was a lot more like Bazza was at 19...

To be fair, only McDowall has had that one chance...

Besides, I want Kilmarnock to stay up due to their abstention in the SPL vote. Even though they didn't vote for us, I get the impression they wanted to but were compelled to do the neutral thing by Celtic fans, the rest of the SPL fans, and a minority of their own.

Before this season I had a reasonably neutral attitude towards Hibs - except for the SPL vote. Taking the latter away I would normally think it's better for Scottish football for them to be in the top tier as they have the potential to make it more competitive, and it brings more fans out for the Edinburgh derby which gives one more big game for neutrals and non-Scots to look forward to. They would bring more fans generally than the likes of Hamilton. However, after seeing the attitude of their manager, players and fans towards us, I'd probably take some minor pleasure in their suffering. Schadenfruede rules!

I think that was about as minor a mistake you can make and not one I'd ever get on the back of a referee for - it was the tiniest of deflections off our player. Even the consequences were pretty innocuous - a throw 40 yards out, which makes the mistake for all intents and purposes too distant a cause to make it relevant to the goal. Who is to say we wouldn't have won the second ball from the throw and done the same thing? It's totally different from a bad penalty or offside goal call where a mere change in that decision brings a very high certainty of a goal.

I'm thinking our semi-final win and the nature of it, may have turned the tide on the attitudes of the less green tinted columnists... The memes of the haters are losing their appeal.

Killie did abstain...

I also agree we shouldn't get too carried away - in 120 minutes we did only draw with them despite the possession, and when we played like them in our UEFA final run against more technical opposition to gain a draw, we felt quite justified. But that's the crux of the matter, they have had four years of much more money, a stronger league and European experience, but the game panned out for them pretty much equivalent to a reasonably good result (bar the penalties) against a very decent European side. For us it was a slightly disappointing draw against a less skilful and technical but well organised team that sat back and defended most of the time but were pretty good at hitting us a lot on the break - and corners. Basically they played like the underdog, but we need to make our superiority count more... I think that will come with a bit of judicious spending on the squad.

While I generally agree, I think we did have a few good chances but the finishing at times wasn't quite accurate enough - although taking the stats, the goals and the penalties, it was slightly better on average than theirs...

Crossword answer: Goa?