And that's why WS should leave!

[chilledbear 16]

I can remember plenty poor perfomances when RDB was in the team, and how much did that team cost. We can all remember the Euro Final Rangers reached, with all those Dutch Internationals in the team.

 

What makes a team good one week and bad the next, is consistency, I'm sure all managers strive for this, even Alex Ferguson.

 

As for team selection yesterday, apart from pushing Davis into the middle, we were very short of midfielders, and the two who played were very short of match practice. Probably the main reason Falkirk looked better than us yesterday.

As for the Dailly substitution, I would have liked Wilson to have been given a run out, BUT there was only one left, and in the worst scenario, there might have been extra time and penalties. So pragmatic Walter went for the safer option, why not.

 

The job Walter has done since taking over from PLG, has been spot on, why change now, a new manager is no guarantee we will continue to win, or play better football.

[johnnyk 158]

He won't keep winning things? Negativity in the face of a double. Jesus.

 

The blame for yesterdays performance lies squarely with the players. First half was dreadful so WS moved Davis inside and switched to 4 3 3. This was precisely the move that all the tactical geniuses in the stands, myself included, were crying out for. Wlater was going fucking ballistic at the players. What more do you want?

 

They just want rid of Walter Smith m8 it doesn't matter how many trophies he wins for us. I must admit at the start of the season I thought he should go as well but has proved me wrong so I hold my hands up. He deserves another season at least IMO. The players as you say have to take some blame they are great one week and crap the next............

 

Maybe they want someone like Wenger in to silky stuff in the SPL (I mean you get time to do that up here:whistle:) but win bugger all...............

[Super_Ally 0]

The Dailly substitution on first inspection looks bizarre.

 

However on closer examination, you are only allowed 5 subs in the cup. The keeper takes one. We had Novo and Naismith as attacking options on the bench with Wilson the defensive option and Dailly as a utility man to cover in a variety of situations. Not ideal but I understand the reasoning. If it were not for the injury situation would quite possibly not have made the bench.

 

Smith made an attacking change, removing Boyd for the pacier Novo. He then brought on Naismith for the tiring Miller.

 

In making his final substitution, his options were Dailly or an untried 17 year old centre back. Hardly ideal to bring him on for Weir/Bougherra when the team was misfiring. What would people say had we conceded a late goal.

 

Then there's Dailly. As has been said, he started out as a forward and lafferty would have been knackered playing most the game in that heat too. It was perhaps the only option to Walter to fully utilise his bench without taking too big a risk with the result.

 

Sure he could have brought him on in midfield I guess but often players need a few minutes to get upto speed with the game and if he had replaced say McCulloch (who I know was not performing either) it could have backfired.

 

So he put utility player Dailly on to play a role he has played before and help seeing out the game chasing the ball up front.

 

Whilst the Dailly substitution did look bizarre, looking at what happened over the course of the game and the options available, it was not that strange. Arguements could be amde over the make up of the bench, but again we were handicapped here by injury and Smith needed to include midfield/defensive cover on his bench.

 

Though I will admit to once again asking "in what possible scenario is Dailly a good option off the bench" before kick off.

 

I wouldn't have him on the bench most likely, but of the players picked on the day it was probably the right decision to run out the last few minutes. It is less likely you will lose from a winning position by making a "time-wasting" substitution up front to run the clock down and have fresh legs to chase any balls up front.

[calscot 0]

That's a pretty spot on analysis.

[Super_Ally 0]

That's a pretty spot on analysis.

 

I expect to get tore a new one by the rest of the forum. :devil:

 

I think people are more worried about their pals who support other teams slagging them for having Dailly up front in a cup final rather than looking at the resoning behind the decision.

 

Still don't think i'd put him on my bench, but I guess Walter's reasoning is that with less subs than usual it helps to have a player who can cover a number of positions.

[calscot 0]

I don't think fans of other Scottish teams can slag us off much as what have their teams done, even with not playing Dailly up front?

 

To be honest, although Dailly wasn't spectacular I thought he did an ok job - well except for that shocking tackle after he came on - although to be fair he was playing up front and it was a typical striker's challenge...

 

I think the guy get's a lot more bad press than he deserves which is due to him not being the most confidence inspiring player which is then confirmed in peoples minds when he has the odd bad game - although he does have too many odd bad games.

 

He's been praised a few times on here only to then have a shocker which puts everyone on his back again.

 

He's still pretty professional in his attitude and in better physical condition than most his age.

 

Anyway, that's likely to be his last game for us so after lifting the double not many can really have too much complaint about him.

 

However, I thought it was a shame Fleck didn't get a bit of a game after coming on last season. I hope he gets himself more into the team next season.

[Super_Ally 0]

I don't think fans of other Scottish teams can slag us off much as what have their teams done, even with not playing Dailly up front?

 

To be honest, although Dailly wasn't spectacular I thought he did an ok job - well except for that shocking tackle after he came on - although to be fair he was playing up front and it was a typical striker's challenge...

 

I think the guy get's a lot more bad press than he deserves which is due to him not being the most confidence inspiring player which is then confirmed in peoples minds when he has the odd bad game - although he does have too many odd bad games.

 

He's been praised a few times on here only to then have a shocker which puts everyone on his back again.

 

He's still pretty professional in his attitude and in better physical condition than most his age.

 

Anyway, that's likely to be his last game for us so after lifting the double not many can really have too much complaint about him.

 

However, I thought it was a shame Fleck didn't get a bit of a game after coming on last season. I hope he gets himself more into the team next season.

 

Unfortunate for Fleck, but we already had Naismith and Novo on the bench so I guess there wasn't really room for him.

[Norris Cole 0]

Form's not important when it's the last game of the season, we won the cup and that's that, the next Rangers side to take to the pitch will be a different one with different players.

 

Anyway back on topic. There seems to be a rather lazy school of thought that by winning the league this season the 'Walter argument' has somehow been 'won' by the Smithites, when in fact the same problems remain. We're still getting dominated by pisspoor sides, we're still seeing dodgy team selection, in fact it's gone tits up for us on so many occasions this season that ultimately we were helped over the line by a Celtic side well past its sell-by date. That should in no way take anything away from our achievement in winning the title, but most neutral observers would admit it was a factor.

 

Walter has achieved his mission domestically this season, to bring the championship back home. But does that necessarily make him the man to take us forward? We've won the league, the natural next step is to retain it while trying to make some sort of progress in Europe. Walter's earned the chance to have a bash at the Champions League by getting us there this season, but for all that people say he's a different manager to 1990s Walter, I can't say the prospect of him leading us out in the Champions League makes my mouth water.

 

So while I can't argue with the fact he's earned another year (even if I'd rather see a fresh dugout), he is patently not the man to take us forward. Too many Rangers fans live in the short term and accept a club run so badly it will damage us in the future so long as we get trophies now. What better example of Rangers fans' short-termism than the two polls on this very website about whether we wanted Walter to stay or go. The first was conducted during the season before any of the big prizes had been handed out. Gersnet wanted Walter out. The second was taken in the aftermath of Tannadice euphoria. Unsurprisingly a slightly different result.

 

The euphoria will disappear soon enough. There's a long summer ahead for us and it'll be interesting to see how Walter uses his wheeling and dealing to take this team to the next stage. We have the makings of a team for the next three or so years, captained by the club's best player, Kevin Thomson. I just hope Walter has some sort of plan so we can once more become the convincing team we were not so long ago, and not just for a one-off last day title triumph. Sadly I'm not convinced we'll get that sort of stability until we have a custodian who isn't (supposedly) trying to sell the club. But that's perhaps an argument for another thread.

 

Incidentally what has impressed me more than anything football-wise about Walter this season has been his actions off the field. Boydgate, Boozegate, Divegate, 'We Deserve Better', Boyd's sulk, all dealt with in a manner only Smith could. Finally speaking out about corrupt officials will also have won over some fans I'm sure.

[Super_Ally 0]

I don't think it's a case of pro-Smith fans thinking that's the arguement settled. Merely saying that he has earned himself a crack at next season and the CL, as you have stated.

 

Have to agree with much of the rest of it though.

 

Having said that, when were we last confident ahead of a Europen campaign. I'm not 100% convinced we have a lot to look forward to. But that's as much a grim acceptance of the quality of our squad and the finances to bolster the team as it is an assessment of the manager's capabilities. Do we judge his ability to achieve success in Europe on the "group of death" performance and subsequent UEFA cinfal or on Kaunus? Obviously with his struggles first time around (barring the excellent run of 92/93) taken into account? Much will depend on the strength of the group we are drawn in (likely to be very high), the squad we take into the tournament and ultimately carrying a bit of luck.

 

McLeish and Strachan did not have outstanding squads or tactical acumen when they managed to qualify from a CL group.

 

I would be contented by at least 3rd spot, and as likely 3rd seeds it would be churlish to describe that as a disappointment. Again though, a fairer assesment can be made when we see the group we are drawn in.

[Gazza_8 233]

100% wrong. Dailly was actually playing in his "natural" position according to the definition on this forum. He started out his career as a striker, and a good one too; so if you go by this forum he's been played out of position as a defender ever since.

 

It WAS a strange decision but ironically it's EXACTLY what people like yourself have been crying out for.

 

Maybe you need to decide what you really want.

 

So you're classing Dailly as a striker? You know that's utter bullshit.

 

I've heard it all now.