Smith's future up in the air

[Danny 0]

Perhaps it's the 13 point lead that has turned opinion about Walter. He's a really great guy, a committed Rangers man and he's achieved some amazing things as our manager. I think the world of him, his composure, his dignity, his loyalty. I haven't posted here that he's tactically poor and not pro-active - but neither would I be posting that he's a tactical genius or that he's highly pro-active. He's good in parts, effective under certain circumstances but I'm not going to buy into the nonsense that there are no better managers or that accepting the virtues of a better manager is somehow being overly critical of Smith.

 

No one has turned on the club in the last few days and it's hard to see where you pull that one from. I've got no particular track record of agreeing with wabash but I see nothing unreasonable about his first post on this thread - the one I replied to. His second post on the other hand is less composed as a result of your own knee jerk.

 

Sorry, but his first post is unreasonable. He's making an implied statement that with better finances and a healthier club, Smith couldn't make us any better than we currently are. That Smith is completely limited and to improve in tandem with better resources at our disposal, we need a better boss.

 

I don't see how fair a conclusion that is to make about Smith who has done wonders in his second spell with fairly limited resources. The money he's spent he's generally spent extremely well, but I don't see how another manager under the same circumstances would do 'so much better for us on the wider stage'. Or why Smith with more to work with wouldn't.

 

Kinda like the observation below that a better manager must be a highly paid foreigner, something only the poster actually suggests.

 

I just don't see why Smith is being described negatively in this thread. From struggling to be third under PLG Smith has turned us round completely - with more than just loyalty and dignity.

[Danny 0]

If we win this SPL title I'll be happy for Walter Smith to stay despite what happened in this season's CL and no matter what happens in the Cups. If however, we manage to throw away our lead and lose the SPL title, I'll be happy enough to see a change of manager. It really IS that simple for me.

 

I'm not completely sure why Smith is getting the sole blame for our CL failure?

[Danny 0]

I thought you'd want rid, whatever. Assuming we retain the title, another season under The Tim-Skelper will do me. SPL trophy = CL football = Stronger finances. Nothing else matters for Rangers atm.

 

I'd love to see progress in the CL. If not qualification for the KO stage, then a credible showing in the group stage.

 

Something which can only be done with a better squad.

[Zappa 0]

I'm not completely sure why Smith is getting the sole blame for our CL failure?

.

I don't think he is though, is he?

[Danny 0]

.

I don't think he is though, is he?

 

So why did you say you'd be happy for him to stay despite what happened in the CL?

 

That implied you were blaming him for our displays there.

 

I'm not saying he's totally innocent, but you seemed to be inferring the opposite.

[maineflyer 0]

I thought you'd want rid, whatever. Assuming we retain the title, another season under The Tim-Skelper will do me. SPL trophy = CL football = Stronger finances. Nothing else matters for Rangers atm.

 

I'd like to see a better manager, as I'd like to see better players. I can see weaknesses in Smith as a manager, most people can. But I can also see strengths and there simply is no denying where we are today, so it would be daft not to give credit where it's due.

 

As for next year, it isn't only about taking a view on Smith compared with alternatives (who can't yet be identified). It's also about both the potential and the risk of new owners. About the possible benefits of continuity or the prospect of a fresh start. All sorts of stuff.

[Zappa 0]

So why did you say you'd be happy for him to stay despite what happened in the CL?

 

That implied you were blaming him for our displays there.

 

I'm not saying he's totally innocent, but you seemed to be inferring the opposite.

.

You're reading things into that comment that weren't necessarily implied though, but that's ok! I said 'despite what happened in the CL' mainly because of the fact that we didn't take a single point from 3 games at home and since Walter was the manager, he automatically gets a portion of the blame for that. In my mind he was the one with the last word on what the team sheets were going to be and I wasn't at all happy with his choice of line-up for some games. Now, not agreeing with a manager's team sheet is a common thing in football, but playing Lee McCulloch in central defense was unacceptable for me in the away game at Rugby Park at the beginning of the season, never mind in a Champions League group stage match!! Walter played McCulloch in central defense for two reasons - a) He wasn't sure about playing Wilson, when in fact he should have known how good Wilson is/was & b) He was trying to shoehorn McCulloch into the team despite the fact that he should have known that it was a bad idea to play McCulloch in central defense. There is indeed a 3rd possibility which is that Walter thought McCulloch was an acceptable stand-in for Bougherra, but that option would shine an even worse light on Walter, so I'm ruling that one out....

[Super_Ally 0]

.

b) He was trying to shoehorn McCulloch into the team

 

Never bought into this ridiculous theory. Not sure why it gets so much support.

[Zappa 0]

Never bought into this ridiculous theory. Not sure why it gets so much support.

.

I know what you mean, but it's not as ridiculous as the notion that Walter saw McCulloch as an acceptable stand-in for Bougherra in a CL game, is it? Maybe they're one in the same, but the fact that playing Lee in that position was a poor decision remains..

[Super_Ally 0]

.

I know what you mean, but it's not as ridiculous as the notion that Walter saw McCulloch as an acceptable stand-in for Bougherra in a CL game, is it? Maybe they're one in the same, but the fact that playing Lee in that position was a poor decision remains..

 

I agree it wasn't the best decision.

 

I just think there is a huge difference between a manager picking a player because he believes that player to be his best available option at that momment in time (even if the player is being asked to play out of position) and just trying to find any position on the field to accomodate a player he has some sort of man-crush on, which is how this "shoe-horn" theory comes across.

 

It may be the wrong decision, but it is an honest "error" imo.