calscot

I didn't watch it as I think the Panorama team are a bunch of terrible journalists who make things up and twist things without having any real evidence. Sounds like they did it again. I refuse to watch the programme since the OF, "Scotland's shame" one which was incredibly poorly reported. We do have a problem but it shouldn't be twisted and exagerated for sensationalism. They made out the word "Tim" was sectarian so it's no wonder they're making out that if you say you like a player it means you're up to something dodgy... They just have no credibility at all and I'll take anything they say with a huge pinch of salt.

Yeah, totally confused me too? Someone in the graphics department having a laugh? I thought the second half was very enjoyable. First half started off ok and deteriorated. Novo is just not good enough, his final ball and shooting let him down all the time and all his three back heals were easily intercepted - stop it! He works hard but just doesn't deliever the goods. The team looked far better with Buffel in his place. Martin was much better than Sionko but looks like a bit of a shitebag in the tackle... Thought Hemdani and Papic were great at the back and Hutton had a good game too. Adam didn't really distinguish himself and Burke and Smith were quiet. Can't really remember Rae doing much either. I think we're really missing Prso for his tenaciousness around the box.

To be consistent with other players who haven't set the heather alight, I think that Svensson should maybe be dropped to the reserves for a few matches to get some time improve his game and get his confidence up. If he does well there he can get recalled back to the first team. If you can't do it in the reserves then you can't expect to be picked for the first team, appart from friendlies or cup games against the wee teams, it's the only time a manager can see you play without risking results. You can only take risks with the teams for so long. Svensson hasn't paid yet off and we've now lost too many points for the luxury to stick by him hoping he'll suddenly become better. I'd stick with Hemdani - Papac for now as they looked solid.

PS Am I the only one that thinks putting all things aside, Rangers comparitive spending in the SPL (even if less than it used to be) should ensure them at least half the trophies? To be considered a very good manager you have to win more than that IMO. Obviously the league has great weighting to the cups, Eck won two SPL's out of five (one handicapped by DA but he didn't do any better in the second half) averaging over 10 pts a year less than Celtic, while winning half the cups - so I'd say that makes him average at best. Eck won 5 of his trophies in the first year and a half which made him pretty good then although spoiled by his European perfomances. He only won 2 trophies out of 6 after that which is well below average, suggesting he just didn't have the staying power.

And his record would have looked a hell of a lot better had he left a year earlier.

Walter Smith received a lot of criticism for our European performances post 93. The criticism meant he even agreed to leave leave the club after he'd won about 7 championships in a row, the latter ones quite convincingly. The 92/93 run was so good he wasn't far away from winning it, making us think he could do it again and that gave him a lot of leeway. In contrast, Eck left his best (which wasn't anywhere near comparable to 93) till we already wanted rid of him as he took us through our worst ever sequence of results without a win. It was too little, too late. Eck had won nothing two seasons previously and while he won the league the season before, it was hardly convincing. DA started with a bang and made us look a consistent, credible force in Europe. We looked like we could do very well given a bit of luck but we seemed to get the opposite against the likes of Parma (the first time), Bayern and Monaco. Who can forget the thrashing doled out to PSV and Sturm Graz as well as great wins against Leverkusen, Parma and Monaco. His only bad losses were against Valencia (a great team) and Fenerbache. But he stopped winning the league and so he got it in the neck and was forced out even before he had the chance to take us further in Europe. He lasted less than Eck. So all three managers got the pelters. I think WS had the hardest treatment really as he didn't do much wrong at home until he'd already decided to leave. It was his latter European record which drove him out and his development of very poor tactics which when questioned he infamously replied, "what's a tactic?" DA went from hero to zero very quickly after he lost the dressing room and it's hard to forgive his spending policy which put us in financial danger. But Eck gets it the worst for being the only manager who had a team that looked like permanent underdogs to Celtic while just not cutting against European minnows until it was too late. He also finished third while going 10 games without a win while playing consistently the worst football seen at Ibrox since the Souness revolution.

That's pretty damn good!

I thought we were but have reread the thread...

Rae might be a good shout, is he fit? It's looks like it might be an experimental team, but after the last couple of games we have to change something.

I agree with your team but not quite the formation at the front. Burke is more likely to run the wing. However if Clement is injured we need a rethink and maybe Martin will keep his place. I'm starting to sway to the opinion that two wingers isn't the way to go in the SPL but I also feel it's too early to make those conclusions.

To be honest I don't remember every personal performance by him but I was more alluding to the feeling I got from all the posts here that he was generally considered a solid squad player. If he wasn't then my mistake. Like I said, my mistake, but I seem to remember him as being pretty solid in most games I seen him in (obviously on the telly) which eventually got him a call up for the Scotland team in the Kirin cup - where I agree he didn't do much. Dropping him doesn't suggest he liked him. He bought Mladenovich but I don't think he liked him either, or Emersson, Capucho, Fanfan and Bernard. BTW he may have liked each player as a person for all I know, but I'm alluding to his liking of how they play. Again I don't remember all his individual performances especially as I was quite young but I do remember not being impressed with signing him and Ian Ferguson from Dundee (Was it Jock's first signings in his second stint) and we didn't do very well for the next couple of years so I wasn't impressed with anyone really. Then Souness came along and I was impressed with his signings (ok except Colin West). Why not? I said young players "tend" not to be bought for the first team in the OF. However I think PLG is different and is building a very young team, goal keeper apart. Celtic on the other hand seem to be signing seasoned, big name players, and Riordan looked more of an afterthought as he was available for virtually free and we had dropped our interest. However my point seems to ring true for Furman, Loy, Stanger and Ponroy who don't seem to be straight into the first team. I would also make exceptions for exceptional young talent and I think PLG sees Clement in this light while I think you're of the opinion that Riordan is not exceptional, perhaps Strachan is too. Perhaps it's quality not quantity that counts. But basically I think PLG rates Clement higher than Strachan does Riordan. He also has the wonder bhoys [sic] McGeady and Malonie for Derek's position. That may be so, and I don't know much about it, but he still may not have got in the team if he was training well and behaving himself. Anyway, he was a good player last season despite his young age and I think there is a good chance he'll eventually make the Celtic team. He's not a bad squad player in the mean time. I don't see how this proves or disproves he was bought as a first choice. My interpretation of events suggest he wasn't considered a key player.

Yes, my fault for questioning whether chucking in a season ticket was good for the team. Perhaps a new thread should be started to allow people to avoid the off topic posts?

Exactly, that's why you sound fickle when you sound like you are not prepared to wait for the present young team to develop, maybe your are but you didn't sound it. I may have mis-assumed a meaning from your post but I can only interpret what I read, like I said I'm a forum reader not a mind reader. Instead of going on the attack you could easily have explained what you really meant and we would probably have been agreeing to agree. Ironically Cammy you are assuming my assumptions about Gersfem, and despite me clarifying for you on several occasions your assumptions are still wrong so why are you spreading them? And where did I dictate to anyone? I don't see one command in my post. How do you dictate to someone by asking questions and pointing out how things look? And if I do that, what business is that of yours? Am I not entitled to my opinion on anything anyone says in this forum or is it just you? What business is it of yours how often I put the word "fickle" in a post? Do I not have freedom of choice? You definitely seem to think that "fickle" is a heinous insult. Except for me eh? Cammy, should I sit back while you assume the worst in me? Even though I've explained things to you, you continue to use something as fact that is not even true and that you have no way of knowing. You think I oppose debate? Have you read my posts? You seem to be making a whole load of stuff up about me, you think you know me better than myself? If I don't agree with someone, I write about why I think they've got it wrong. I try to back up my arguments with evidence and with explanations of my own thinking which may contain things they haven't thought about. I'm usually polite and put in a lot of reasoning. I think I'm actually quite well known for this on the forum. That, I would say is the nature of debate. I would say your style is completely different. I'm selective of my liking of people generally. I don't know you enough to say whether I like you or not, but I don't like it where you seem to always turn a debate with me into a fight. Cammy, can you truthfully look back on your original post and say that you entered the debate in good spirit? Have you really been encouraging debate on this thread? I realise that, but wonder if you do. I disagree with you there, and I personally prefer it when it's win-win all round. That's when we've all had a decent debate. It seems to be lose-lose today. Cammy life is all about changing to help the channels of communication. You can't be difficult and then expect an easy ride from everyone. You don't have to change for me, but if you thought about it, it might be in your interest to do so, we could have some cracking debates...

To be honest I'd have been very surprised if you did. So were you being sarcastic? That would make sense. yes they are expensive and not always very good value for money, but I'm sure you weighed it all up before you bought them. But that's what the board is for and to be fair if some of the players were trying their best, then their best is just not good enough. If that team was trying then we definitely need a new team. I would hope they are better than that and it was a combination of Hibs on fire, too many of our players off form at the same time and few not used to trying their best in every game. They also have a chance to prove themselves every time they walk on the park. Belief in winning everything is the Rangers way no matter who the manager is. I still think we have a chance in all competitions, but I know it will take time although time is starting to run out... I was hoping that we'd have improved from the first few games and the Hibs game was not the type of performance I expected from our new manager - ever. We still have to give him time but some people are starting to suspect he underestimated the Scottish league and some of his signings are not yet performing to even an SPL level - the trouble is we have no replacements for the likes of Svensson. Ultimately we have no choice but to be patient for moment.

I don't recall that, but when a person changes their mind quickly, the word "fickle" comes to mind. It doesn't have to be an insult, usually I would use it to point out that someone is being inconsistent and while that is not a crime, it does tend to water down any of their arguments or convictions. Basically it is a challenge that says, "if you want me to take you seriously, you have to show me how you are being consistent." Freedom of choice does not exclude fickleness and in fact by definition fickle people use freedom of choice more than others... That could all be true and gersfem just needed to say that. That's why I said she was coming across as fickle as that was the interpretation of the information she gave. I did not call her fickle as I don't know the whole story. I'm a forum reader, not a mind reader. I didn't call her fickle, I said she came across fickle. Cammy, I am 100% positive that if it was me instead of gersfem writing that post, you would be replying calling me a fickle fan. I said it sounded fickle because it did. Maybe by hearing that gersfem could challenge it and use that to clarify her decision to herself. So you don't write the CammyF rants then? Haven't you just been lecturing me on what I can say and what I can't even though you never read my words properly? You seem to think fickle is a terrible accusation, even when it isn't an accusation. My nose probably is out of joint not surprising when I get a petty, personal attack. Pot calling kettle. I actually like it when people disagree with me, as long as they are open minded to other opinions and like to debate things rationally and with reasoned arguments. I've had many good debates with people which is why I'm here. But that's not your style Cammy, and you've admitted that no-one can change your mind on a subject no matter how good their argument and it shows. You argue subjectively and to win at all costs which is why I find you difficult. You always seem to have an agenda which is why instead of discussing the fickle point you went straight on a personal attack and accused me of thinking EVERYONE was fickle except me. Yeah, Cammy, you're the voice of reason...

Anyone can get rid of something they have bought, in fact fickle people do it all the time. It doesn't mean you're fickle though. However buying a season ticket is usually done by a supporter so they can go and support their team. Changing their mind because the team has a couple of bad games is not very strong evidence of a very loyal supporter, and the terms sometimes used to describe such people are "fickle" and "glory hunter". Whether that is right or wrong could easily have been up for reasonable discussion but somehow it didn't. You can do a lot of what you like in life, but what you do also defines you in the eyes of others. I have the right to avoid cracks in the pavement while walking along the street but that doesn't mean I should give people abuse when they tell me I appear to be a bit mad.

Do you take the telly back if you don't like the programmes?

What are you on about Cammy? I haven't been calling everyone fickel... So saying you want to get rid of your season ticket because your team aren't playing well isn't fickel? Also I don't see the insult, I didn't even call gersfem fickle, I said she came across as fickle - which she does. I was trying to point out to her that maybe she's not acting in true character and should think again. I also pointed out that I was in no position to judge - did you read that? Or were the Cammy filters on? Cammy for someone who goes on and on about personal attacks, why are you personally attacking me? Your post has absolutely no relevance to anything and is completely petty. I've argued with you over a few points on the forum and your nose is obviously well out of joint. Get a grip for god's sake.

Cammy it is obviously hard to compare as there are arguments from both sides. You might only have to win two games to get to the EC last 16 but they were against one of the top 32 champions in Europe, not Viktoria Zhizkov, Fenerbache, Panathanaikos, Maritimo, Auxerre, Armedia Bratislava or Villa Real. You could also say it's easier to progress from a group than a knockout stage especially as we've been knocked out in the first round by the eventual champions in the past eg Red Star Belgrade. If we had drawn inter milan in the 2nd round we'd have been out. So using your own argument you can't really say that Eck's achievement was overly significant in the context of the last 30 years. But to be honest I do think our recent UEFA history is pretty horendous but would never boast about an isolated last 16 finish. Consistantly in the last 16 and sometimes better would be the real achievement. Eck's consistancy in Europe was probably the worst of all time and is one of the reasons he was never popular. Winning the treble was massively soured by going out in the first round of the UEFA cup to complete minnows. Then when he just about punched our weight (but not above) in the CL, he ruined it by winning nothing and unforgivably finished 3rd in the league. Not only that, he did it with a brand of football which was painful to watch. Ultimately he even left us with a team that had little merit in it and we're back to a rebuilding job again. Is it any wonder he's not so fondly remembered?

Living in England without a season ticket, I'm in no place to judge, but should you lessen your support of the team just because they are not playing so well? Isn't that the time to get behind the team? Your words come across like they are from an archetypal fickel fan...

Rangers have got to the last 16 many times in European competitions in the last 30 years - 14 times in fact... 8 times in the premier tournament and 3 times to the last 8. Every other manager in the last 30 years did it at least twice. He also only managed to get to the last 136 in a European competition, the only year we were worse is 81 when we didn't even qualify. Eck's average is about the last 64. DA's was about last 24 as was WS, GS and JW. JG averaged about 40 if you count the DNQ as 128. So in many ways you could argue Eck was easily the worst manager in Europe for Rangers in the past 30 years... *2006 Last 16 Eck (CL) 2005 Last 48 Eck 2004 Last 32 Eck 2003 Last 136 Eck *2002 Last 16 DA (Eck lost in last 16) *2001 Last 16 DA 2001 Last 32 DA 2000 Last 32 DA *1999 Last 16 DA 1998 Last 64 WS *1997 Last 16 WS (CL) *1996 Last 16 WS (CL) 1995 Last 32 WS 1994 Last 32 WS *1993 Last 8 WS (CL) Really last 4 had there been a semi final. 1992 Last 32 GS/WS *1991 Last 16 GS (EC) 1990 Last 32 GS 1989 Last 32 GS *1988 Last 8 GS (EC) *1987 Last 16 GS 1986 Last 64 GS 1985 Last 32 JW *1984 Last 16 JW 1983 Last 32 JG 1982 Last 32 JG 1981 DNQ JG *1980 Last 16 JG *1979 Last 8 JG (EC) 1978 Last 32 JW 1977 Last 32 JW *1976 Last 16 JW (EC)

I doubt anyone would say that John Grieg was better - although I suppose you could argue that he had his hands financially tied considering the comparitive megabucks given to Eck...

I thought that when Murray was fit and playing he was generally considered one of our most consistent players. Despite playing in multiple positions, I don't really remember him letting the team down. He's had a few injuries including all of this season so far and for some reason wasn't very popular with Eck, but I would be hard pushed to say he hasn't delivered in Rangers jersey. And to be honest I see him as a far better player than the likes of Cammy Fraser. Riordan may not have broken into the Celtic team but he's only just moved there and it tends to take a young player a season or two to become a regular after a step up to the big two. We didn't buy Kenny Miller to go straight into the first team even at £3M, so why should Riordan? Miller never even made it at Rangers yet became the mainstay of the Scottish strike force.

I would like a win but a draw would be acceptable.

Cappucho was given plenty of time. Jeffers was a dud at two previous clubs so a very poor choice of example there. He also failed to score in over 20 games so I think the criticism was well justified. Sebo has already beaten that record by scoring in his first full league game, so I don't know what your comparison is... Emerson was also not performing at his previous club and was given plenty of time as well. He did not even look like he was trying and was being outplayed by SPL journeymen. When you have a car that breaks its gearbox and then get another car that breaks its gearbox - it does not mean you have failed to fix the old car - it is not the same problem, it is a similar problem. However, it does mean you have to fix the new car. We are not creating chances yet have scored 14 goals in 7 games including 1 in the last game. Eh, so I've proved you wrong and you "change the game"... Good bit of diversion there. Maybe you don't realise that being the highest scorers and champions is not mutually exclusive? It seems to me that your analysis is wrong, we are not drawing games due to lack of goals, more by letting in cheap ones at the back. Let's see, it's well known Prso has a dodgy knee and was injured in warm up against hibs and Burke is just back from injury. Boyd has played quite a few games and we need to try out Sebo. Barry needs to get back to full fitness. We've got two games a week for a while and you're against resting players while getting others up to fitness and trying out new players while a new team is being formed. You definitely act like one of those "fickle old firm fans" who would rather put a win today before long term success. A manager with a new team has to tinker at the beginning and plan for the long term. No, a new manager with an impeccable record needs time for his influence to count. We are not a club who have 3 different managers in a season and nor would I want us to become one.