calscot

Sorry for boring the rest of the forum, but there's some strange accusations and misrepresentations to deal with here. I would be happy for both our histories reviewed and compared. I admit mine are more aggressive after I'm personally attacked - but not before. It would be quite something to see all your insults highlighted... You've been wrong every step of the way - in fact you backtrack so much that there's pretty much no logical way you can be right. For instance - just define the word, "worst". Despite my umpteen clarifications to help you, you still can't even get that right! You are priceless! I've said tons of times that he's pretty average and given a lot of evidence for that. You've given only insults. About a year and a half ago, I said his time was up as he had shown he wasn't going to make the grade for Rangers. I *have* argued against him being the "worst possible manager" - and proven to be right. All I've done is try to show some proportionality. Well it's actually 81.48148148 to 10 significant figures but that's splitting hairs but to 3 sig fig you are completely wrong again. It is a fact for this season in all competitions which is what I stated. Please show evidence that I'm wrong as I admit I do sometimes make mistakes but my intention is to be accurate. I'll show you my working if you show me yours. Would you care to prove that my stats and graphs are not correct and just made up? Or are you scared of once again showing how wrong you are? To help you, all the results are here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/results To help you some more: Ally stopped being manager on 21 December. Eh, then what ARE you arguing about? You also agreed with posts that argued that. Flip-flopping again are we? The weird bit is that the worse you think Ally is, the more you'd think you'd agree with my whole point in this thread. Funnily enough - can't see your agreement anywhere... Can you explain? If you mean that he is responsible for the current slump as he created it, I think the "silly graphs" you don't like for obvious reasons, are too extreme for that. Again you're arguing against yourself. He seemed to get these crap players to do ok results-wise while he was a manager - so are you saying he's a good manager? You're flip-flopping again. You just said you weren't arguing that - but caught out being wrong again even about what you're arguing about. You also ignore the fact that Ally had very little choice in the transfer market. It's like going to the dump and picking up the best free stuff you can. But I'll bet you find that irrelevant as it doesn't fit your view. I'm going to stop responding to you now as you just don't seem to be able to keep it real. When you have to explain to someone dozens of times about your view and they still continuously argue and insult you about stuff you didn't say, there's just nowhere to go.

I take it that's the league record only. Haven't had time to do that myself. However, the "all competitions" stats, Rangers currently have a 67.5% win rate, under Ally it was 81.5%. I personally think you have to take all competitions to look at a manager's overall record and with SPL teams played, those don't skew the results in his favour due to lesser opposition. If you want to look specifically at performance in the league then that's different but you should at least qualify it. For Ally in the league I make it 11/2/4 and 65%. It was up at 77% until 2 weeks after Llambias was appointed to the board and declined sharply thereafter.

I don't see how just saying something is off the record allows you to say what you like with impunity. If you say something damagingly slanderous about other non-present parties to deliberately try to deceive people and twist their viewpoint of that third party, then I think your right to confidentiality is forfeited. Confidentiality in such circumstances is in place for giving an open, honest, personal opinion that might not be flattering, not for outrageous, demeaning lies.

Again, why do we have to have this kind of antagonistic crap on here? I really wish some people could really just make a decent, intelligent point. I think you should change your user name to "The Jellyfish". You sound like you're a bit demented with your constant hilarity at anything demonstrates you are constantly wrong. You obviously have no idea how dire McCoist was as you don't understand the results and you were adamant that it couldn't be any worse... His record this season is a relevant fact no matter who we were playing and no matter your opinion of good or bad Ally was - that's the point of facts, stats and graphs, the give some objectivity in juxtaposition to a highly subjective view. It also seems you strangely don't realise we're still playing in the same league with the same teams - part-time or not. BTW Here's a point about facts and graphs - any guy who watches telly thinks he knows what a good picture is by looking at it; a guy working for Samsung on a new telly, uses measurements, stats and graphs, to show him when he's made a telly with a better picture. A guy who's stacking shelves at Tesco has no use for stats and graphs, the CEO has a lot of use for them. It really is weird that some people are so into trashing McCoist that they don't even get that they vociferously argue against themselves when they assert our team can't get better without him. I'll re-iterate: The logic is that the WORSE you think McCoist was as a manager, the MORE potential the team has under a good manager. Therefore the WORSE you think McCoist is, it seems to me that the MORE you should be agreeing with my point. At least try to get some consistency in your views, the constant flip-flopping so you can insult people and pretend your are right is really tedious.

Ha, offence to your intelligence! Yes, I must admit I expected a higher level. Read the post again and this time try to be the little brain that could... Why do so many have start with this kind of antagonistic crap just because they don't see things exactly the same? The simple point you're failing to grasp is I'm not saying McCoist was a decent manager, I'm saying that if we now have a much better manager than him, shouldn't the players now be able to do better than they did under McCoist? After all he had the best win rate in all competitions in our league despite being handicapped by all our off-field problems. Another way of looking at the point is that if you think our team can't get better than it is at the moment, then how could a poor manager like McCoist get so much more out of them with the backdrop of a constant crisis of a board ripping us to shreds? As for comparing Ally with McDowall, I've consistently maintained that the former is pretty average (another thing you should perhaps concentrate your offended intelligence on before jumping in), and I think the latter has clearly demonstrated things could have been worse - although there are mitigating circumstances which may exacerbate the difference somewhat. I'll explain it once again so there's no excuses: if we now have a BETTER manager than McCoist (whatever his level) then it obviously follows that the players have the POTENTIAL to be BETTER under the new one than they were with Ally. However, whether that potential is realised in time is another thing and depends on a lot of diverse factors. I personally believe we now have a better manager (although his cup record is suspect) and I also believe that we've hit rock bottom and the only way is up. I personally think we have a squad of slightly better talent to Hearts and somewhat better than Hibs - but I think those two are right now, playing better as a team. In the head to games, I think they were far more up for it than our players (and manager) and that always makes a difference. I think a half-decent Rangers manager has the opportunity to create a better team from our squad than those in Edinburgh - if he can get the players apply themselves, become motivated and really want it with a passion.

You must think Ally is a great manager then as when he had the same shite players, they were the most consistent winners in our league despite all the off-field problems. We've gone from 81.5% win rate under McCoist to 30% under McDowall, don't you think that with the boardroom change, the new optimism, the crowds improving, and a new manager, we should at least be able to have an upturn from 30% back up to over 80% win rate? The players have it in them to be better as they've already been better this season - even with supposedly the worst manager in Scotland and supposedly playing the shitest football. Surely, without the boycott and fan acrimony, without the continual boardroom crises, without the depression over Ibrox with the job cuts and everything else that's happened, without all the uncertainty about getting paid, or that there will be a Rangers at all, there is potential for vast improvement from the players from where they were in the first half of the season, never mind now? McCall will have something that McCoist and McDowall never had - a boardroom of guys who have the interests of the club at heart, a board who are not just there to fill their pockets with as much loot as they can. The players are obviously despondent, apathetic and totally lacking any motivation - and some of the problems that caused that are still there such as contracts ending, Newcastle loanees taking places in the team, low confidence etc. Motivation is where a new manager can often shake things up - the feel good factor, players looking to impress for a place in the team and new contracts, a new sense of purpose and drive, and even just the enthusiasm of a new guy and sense of change for the better. If McCoist and McDowall were really the poor managers that the memes suggest then we should be expecting better results than both of them (and better football) from the players we have - which pretty much points to at least a 90% win rate. With that kind of form, you would have to think it probable that we'd get promoted.

Another one coming in to help a bit late in the day...

Question is, how many jobs could we have paid for with the money for the EGM and L&L pay-off demands? What's that £340k? Say 20 part-time jobs for a year?

The strange thing is that they are defended more than Somers and Easdale - but at least those two both resigned without pay-offs and would have allowed us to save money on the EGM. You've got to be horrendous to appear a lot more damaging to Rangers in your last actions than those two incompetents. We've now got the good guys, perhaps Somers and Easdale were merely the ugly, L&L are shown to be the bad guys.

You seem and your strange friend seemed to have missed the point several times despite much repetition. It's not about McCoist as a manger, it's about whether we have a team that has the potential for promotion. I can see why you don't like graphs and spreadsheets - they produce a more objective picture.

I don't think anyone wants him back, but we need time to find the best coach, so some are thinking that he's obviously better than McDowall and won't cost us any more than we're already paying, so might be a short term option. I can see the point, but don't see it working for various reasons.

He was referring to two losses where only one existed so I'm not sure what season he was talking about. In any case, I think it's fair to point out any relevant facts that fit. What you do with them is open to interpretation. Censorship of facts you don't like is just twisting things to suit your own view. See what? Not many see anything your way - you disagree acrimoniously with most people on here. You got it wrong - you said he was the worst manager ever - he leaves and our results go from 81.5% win rate to 33%. That's a massive difference. You also agreed with someone that the board and off-field stuff made no difference, so you can't even blame that. Doing much worse than "the worst ever" should be very surprising... You're just flip-flopping to delude yourself you're always right. Does it not seems a huge coincidence that we consecutively had the TWO worse managers of all time, with the second being far, far worse than the first one? No idea what that's about. But I've already shown that under McCoist, the team had the best win rate in the league which has put us in with a shout of the play-offs. If it wasn't for the downturn after McCoist left and the same level of form continued, I think it's obvious we'd still be in with a shout for the title, albeit having to beat Hearts twice. This doesn't mean Ally's a great manager or they are great players, but how do you explain the the win rate when we had the worst management duo in the world, the worst coach, the worst youth coach and a completely shit team? Not to mention the worst board, a boycotting support and crisis after crisis? That is some run of immense good luck on the park to overcome that lot. Your opinions just don't add up.

I think for evidence of that you need to compare pre and post McCoist resignation attendances. For evidence it was the boycott you need to compare pre and post EGM attendances. Your second statement looks a bit weird when you consider McDowall's record - how can we have far worse results after the worst manager in history left? It doesn't make sense. McCoist certainly wasn't up to scratch but I really don't know why people have to exaggerate to the nth degree ignoring all facts and reasoning.

For interest (well mine anyway), thought I'd add a few more teams as it's pretty easy.

You could do one yourself.

Funnily enough, I was pointing out how a few recent head to heads isn't enough data to base a prediction on. Overall form over a period of time is much better in my opinion. However, teams do have bogey clubs... The point is that a team may be much higher in the league than another one but lose a couple of games to them. I'd still probably bet on the higher to win a third meeting, if they are on top form in the last 10 games. As I said the problem with McCoist is that's he's dodgy on big games - and he's lost two cup ties to QotS. BTW QotS - 1 : 3 Falkirk - 4 : 1 Raith - 2 : 1

Weren't we talking about Ally's record against Hibs? I put the previous results as an addition for fullness, but I can see why you don't like facts that interfere with your agenda. It makes me wonder how you're coping with your prevous, "no-one can be worse than Ally" type posts with regards to our recent results... BTW Isn't there the possibly we will have about half a team of different players in the play-offs from Ally's two games against Hibs this season?

Ally vs Hibs: 1. Division (Scotland) [TABLE=width: 100%] [TR] [TD]29/09/14, 20:45[/TD] [TD]Glasgow Rangers - Hibernian[/TD] [TD]1 : 3 (0 : 3) (1 : 0)[/TD] [TD]7. Gameday[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=colspan: 4]SFL Challenge Cup (Scotland)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]05/08/14, 20:35[/TD] [TD]Glasgow Rangers - Hibernian[/TD] [TD]2 : 1 (1 : 0) (0 : 1) n.V.[/TD] [TD]1. Round[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=colspan: 4]Premier League (Scotland)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]28/01/12, 16:00[/TD] [TD]Glasgow Rangers - Hibernian[/TD] [TD]4 : 0 (1 : 0) (3 : 0)[/TD] [TD]25. Gameday[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]10/12/11, 13:30[/TD] [TD]Hibernian - Glasgow Rangers[/TD] [TD]0 : 2 (0 : 0) (0 : 2)[/TD] [TD]18. Gameday[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]01/10/11, 16:00[/TD] [TD]Glasgow Rangers - Hibernian[/TD] [TD]1 : 0 (0 : 0) (1 : 0)[/TD] [TD]10. Gameday[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Kenny vs Hibs: [TABLE=width: 100%] [TR] [TD=colspan: 4]1. Division (Scotland)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]13/02/15, 20:45[/TD] [TD]Glasgow Rangers - Hibernian[/TD] [TD]0 : 2 (0 : 1) (0 : 1)[/TD] [TD]24. Gameday[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]27/12/14, 13:15[/TD] [TD]Hibernian - Glasgow Rangers[/TD] [TD]4 : 0 (2 : 0) (2 : 0)[/TD] [TD]18. Gameday[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [TABLE=class: wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter] [TR] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: left] Ally McCoist[/TD] [TD=align: left]16 May 2011[8][/TD] [TD=align: left]21 December 2014[9][/TD] [TD=align: center]3 years,219 days[/TD] [TD=align: center]167[/TD] [TD=align: center]121[/TD] [TD=align: center]22[/TD] [TD=align: center]24[/TD] [TD=align: center]391[/TD] [TD=align: center]123[/TD] [TD=align: center]72.46[/TD] [TD]1 Fourth-tier league title 1 Third-tier league title[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: left] Kenny McDowall†[/TD] [TD=align: left]21 December 2014[9][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD=align: center]0 years,77 days[/TD] [TD=align: center]6[/TD] [TD=align: center]2[/TD] [TD=align: center]0[/TD] [TD=align: center]4[/TD] [TD=align: center]5[/TD] [TD=align: center]11[/TD] [TD=align: center]33.33[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] http://fussball.wettpoint.com/en/h2h/866-862.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rangers_F.C._managers

Won one, lost one. For promotion it's the results that count. In any case, Man U lost to MK Dons 4-0, who would you bet on, if they meet again? 1 or 2 games are not much to base things on. Actually, looking again since Ally took over and he won the series 4-1.

Past form suggests Ally would easily attain 2nd place, but has a 50-50 chance in big games - so likely to win the semi and lose the final for the play-offs...

Seeing as the data is in my quickie spreadsheet, here's the graph for the percentage win rate for all games this season starting at the 10th game.

This is the 10 game rolling win percentage rate for Rangers, Hearts and Hibs this season from the 10th game. There are lots of influencing factors like which teams were played, especially in the cups but it's a quick 10 minute graph. But as can be seen, the most consistent side in our league for wins, has been Rangers under McCoist. Some people will hate this and try to twist it to fit their agenda. The point is again that even under McCoist and with a background of horrendous off-field problems and a boycott by the fans, the Rangers team, under McCoist was consistently winning the most games, often equal with Hearts. IF McCoist is a terrible manager, and IF the off-field problems are causing the team to play poorly (evidenced by the form since McCoist left) then surely the team has a potential, given the right circumstances to be the most consistent team in the league? This does not suggest they will win (or lose) individual games against the likes of Hearts and Hibs, but form often counts for something. The graph suggests we have better players than our play-off rivals, including Hibs, but they need motivation, leadership and a damn good game-plan for the play-off matches. We should not fear that we don't have the talent, we should fear that we have the misery and apathy and lack of character, that could put us back in this league for another season.

Again, you seem to be meandering in your points. I'm not even arguing that McCoist is any good. I'm arguing that whatever the merits of the manager, I think the off-field issues dramatically affect the team form. You seem to be arguing against that which looking at the facts, suggests that McCoist was doing some kind of job as it's hard to get dramatically worse than woeful when you remove what you think is the cause. I think you have to make up your mind which it is or what the alternative is. If McCoist is the worst manager ever, then how can anyone be fantastically worse if the team are immune to other influences? My whole point which you seem to be struggling with is that McCoist consistently was winning 8 out of 10 games - no matter how bad he was, this was the case. This is despite him being the "worst manager in Scotland" to some and despite all the off-field problems. The point is that if even with that, the team has an 80% win rate, then surely they have the potential to be at least that level again, and probably better, given a decent manager, the off-field problems sorted and a big and happier crowd cheering them on? In fact, the worse you think McCoist is, it suggests the more potential the team has. You seem to have three completely incompatible opinions unless you have some alternative way of tying it all in, in which case, you seem to be trying your hardest to keep it from us.

Here's a simple graph of our rolling 10 game percentage win rate starting with the 10th game: 90 ..........A................ 80 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA......... 70 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKK.... 60 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKK.. 50 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKKK. 40 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKKKK Games with Ally in charge have an A and games with Kenny in charge have a K. Now it seems to me that there is a major difference in form immediately after Ally resigned. Whether it was the manager change or the moral at the club or something else is up to interpretation. Coincidence looks very unlikely.

The strange thing is that you seem to be arguing against yourself. He may have had the highest relative resources (although I'm not so sure) but if he's the worst manager ever, it wouldn't matter. The paradox you are presenting is that McDowall has the same resources plus some Newcastle guys and he has the worst record ever. There is a massive difference between having the highest win ratio at seventy something percent and having the lowest at 33% with similar resources. How do you explain it? Is it that McCoist is NOT the worst manager ever and indeed is considerably better than an experienced coach who has worked for the two biggest clubs in Scotland? Your answer seems to be no. So is it that the off field stuff affects the players so much that the results reflect al the turmoil with the most recent crescendo leading to the massive downturn? Your answer seems to be no. So come on, how do you explain it? For me, it's either/or or a mixture of both of those above. I think you could highly correlate the results with the off-field shenanigans. If that's true, and you look at the win rate before Llambias came on board on October 28th. 18 days later, our win rate of 85% in all competitions, started to fall with a draw and loss against Alloa, and losses against Hearts and QotS. A month later Ally resigns amid a lot of off-field stuff at the club and our form goes into freefall, with Kenny McDowall acheivng 3 wins in 9 games. All this is also against a background of fan revolt and a hostile take-over. Is this really just coincidence? I'm surprised certain people are arguing against it, as doing so really doesn't fit with their opinion of Ally being the shittiest manager ever...