Smith's future up in the air

[Super_Ally 0]

There's a real danger in putting all criticisms down to sour grapes though SA. There will always be comments spawned by jealousy or rivalry but our own opinions should count for more ..... and should be as honest as possible. So although the anti-football jibe was motivated by whatever pissed off Barcelona, the fact is that it was as far from the football I want to see from Rangers as I can imagine. I endured it rather than watched it and it was fukking rank awful, close to embarrassing. I don't care how much money Barcelona have, no Rangers team should serve that up to its fans. Pragmatism only stretches so far and there is a limit to how low we should let our expectations drop.

 

We are doing better than we were 2 or 3 years ago and players and manager alike deserve credit for that. But better isn't synonymous with best and we need to set our sights well above the current level. In my nearly 50 years as a Rangers fan, I reckon the current team is struggling to come up to average and is nowhere near the standard of the best Rangers teams I watched before the Murray era (the money era). You'll forgive me if I share some sentiments with wabash because I also stood and watched Jimmy Millar, Ralph Brand, Eric Caldow, Bobby Shearer, Davie Wilson, Willie Henderson, John Greig, Ian MacMillan, Jimmy Baxter ..... every one of whom was light years better than their counterparts today. IMO, only McGregor bears comparison in goals. And that's not just old-fartism SA, it's a cast iron fact from nearly half a century ago. I'd like to see that again at Ibrox before I head skywards and I don't see it happening if we remain a club that is so afraid of failure that we can't bring ourselves to succeed.

 

Success is winning. Winning games. Winning enough points to reach the next phase or secure a leageu title. Winning a tie over two legs.

 

If achieving that success means we sometimes have to realise we are playing a team with greater quality than ourselves and our best chance of success is to be solid defensively and score on the counter thats fine by me. The alternative is glorious failure and not even Celtic fans are buying into that pish this season.

 

Jose Mourinho demonstrated the same pragamtism with a far more expensive and technically blessed Inter Milan team last night.

 

You can sit here and reminisce about better quality players but playing kamikaze attacking football just for the sake of it will not get us back there.

[maineflyer 0]

Yes, realising that sometimes you may have to change your game plan and play to your strengths, even if they are predominantly in defence, is the reason we haven't won a European trophy in 38 years.

 

Actually mate, it's just because we haven't been nearly good enough in any department. Even when Murray and Smith were waving the chequebook. I think back to watching us being humiliated by Juventus and realising we weren't even close and how they were playing a different game altogether from us.

 

We can't become the best on demand but we can start by wanting to be better than we are, rather than being content we're better than we were.

[maineflyer 0]

Success is winning. Winning games. Winning enough points to reach the next phase or secure a leageu title. Winning a tie over two legs.

 

If achieving that success means we sometimes have to realise we are playing a team with greater quality than ourselves and our best chance of success is to be solid defensively and score on the counter thats fine by me. The alternative is glorious failure and not even Celtic fans are buying into that pish this season.

 

Jose Mourinho demonstrated the same pragamtism with a far more expensive and technically blessed Inter Milan team last night.

 

You can sit here and reminisce about better quality players but playing kamikaze attacking football just for the sake of it will not get us back there.

With respect, I'm not talking about kamikaze football. None of the Rangers teams I mentioned played kamikaze football.

[Super_Ally 0]

Actually mate, it's just because we haven't been nearly good enough in any department. Even when Murray and Smith were waving the chequebook. I think back to watching us being humiliated by Juventus and realising we weren't even close and how they were playing a different game altogether from us.

 

We can't become the best on demand but we can start by wanting to be better than we are, rather than being content we're better than we were.

 

The post you quoted there was sheer sarcasm echoing the point wabash had made with the waffle stripped out. Of course that is not the reason we haven't won a European trophy, but it is what he insinuated (sp).

[Super_Ally 0]

With respect, I'm not talking about kamikaze football. None of the Rangers teams I mentioned played kamikaze football.

 

No, we should play in the manner that gives us the best possible chance of success. Precisely what Smith did en route to Manchester and I for one am glad he did. No getting misty-eyed about a quality of player we no longer possess, but more enjoying a team of poorer individuals achieving something that should have been beyond them.

 

That doesn't mean I don't want better, but it just means I'm sensible enough to respect what they achieved agains the odds and am not so churlish that I dismiss their achievement because it does not fit with my own footballing ideal.

 

Attack is only one half of the game, defence is the other. It seems many of our fans forget this just as much as Walter appeared to.

[calscot 0]

And that is why we haven't won anything outside of Scotland for 38 years, you may be happy with parish success I'm not, we should be at least competing against the best, not ending up with record low points totals and playing like fish out of water, if anyone thinks major changes are not required they are deluding themselves, or perhaps they are happy to win a piss poor SPL and have a few games in Europe for the day out.

 

Sorry but you sound like a typical England fan, "We haven't won anything for 38 years." Rangers and England won something once in their entire history, there is no compelling reason to expect either to win anything again.

 

Rangers are unlikely to win anything in Europe these days and it's nothing to do with "anti-football" or 4-5-1. In fact those tactics brought us nearest to winning something in Europe for 38 years so what is you point?

 

There are bugger all major changes that Rangers can make to make it easy to win a European trophy and to think so sounds amazingly out of touch.

[Dr Preston Burke 0]

Sorry but you sound like a typical England fan, "We haven't won anything for 38 years." Rangers and England won something once in their entire history, there is no compelling reason to expect either to win anything again.

 

Rangers are unlikely to win anything in Europe these days and it's nothing to do with "anti-football" or 4-5-1. In fact those tactics brought us nearest to winning something in Europe for 38 years so what is you point?

 

There are bugger all major changes that Rangers can make to make it easy to win a European trophy and to think so sounds amazingly out of touch.

 

My own, probably unpopular, opinion is that anyone who thinks that a team who hasn't signed a player for 2 years should be competing for European trophies is totally and utterly deluded

 

At best, the next 20 years might produce a run to the 1/4 finals of the Champions League or maybe another Europa League final, but a team from Scotland will never be a regular success story in Europe regardless of tactics or who their manager is. Advocaat couldn't even pip Sturm Graz to CL qualification despite spending the best part of �£50 million

Edited March 18, 2010 by Dr Preston Burke

[calscot 0]

In my opinion only arogant idiots who don't understand football think anti-football exists in a way that can be defined to account for Rangers performance.

 

I've argued before that Barcelona played far more negative tactics, as well as far more tactics to remove flowing play from the game than Rangers did.

 

Evidence:

 

1. Did Rangers score? No, Barcelona played so defensively and negatively Rangers couldn't score.

 

2. Did Rangers have many chances? No, Barcelona played so defensively and negatively Rangers couldn't create chances.

 

3. Did Rangers play much open football? No, Barcelona played so defensively and negatively Rangers had no time on the ball to play open football.

 

Conversly:

 

1. Did Barcelona score? Yes.

2. Did Barcelona have chances? Yes, Rangers gave them room to play and create chances.

3. Did Barcelona play open football? Yes, Rangers gave them room to play open football.

 

The reason Rangers didn't play "good football" was NOTHING to do with Rangers tactics, it was 100% due to the negative tactics by Barcelona which limited how much Rangers could play. Barcelona defended excellently and tenaciously, closing down Rangers at every opportunity and not allowing us to play football.

 

Rangers CAN play nice football - when the opposing team gives us some space and time - the Dundee Utd game for instance.

 

So it seems to me that if "Anti-football" exists it is Barcelona who are guilty not us.

 

The reason they don't get slagged off for "Anti-football" is there is no such thing, there is only excellence at different aspects of the game.

 

Teams that don't play negative football are the ones who have plenty of scorelines where BOTH teams score 3 goals or more.

 

When Barcelona allow teams like Rangers to play open football, to create chances and score goals then they can stop being the second most hypocritical and whinging team in the world.

[Frankie 8,187]

I think it is obvious an allowance for player quality and lack of finance is a fair argument for finding reasons why we can't compete in Europe for the most part. I also don't have a problem with 4-5-1 per se and think it has served us well at home and abroad in a general sense since Smith returned.

 

However, these reasons don't explain some of the dreadful performances in some European games. The fact we still seem to have motivational problems for many games (home and away) worries me most and I'd still like the manager to be less cautious in some games than he is currently.

 

While we can't play cavalier, open football in every match, our best spell under Smith came in December when we employed two wingers and just the one holding player. I'd hoped we'd have went back to that by now since most of the squad is fit.

 

All in all, the return of Smith has done what we knew it would - steady the ship, find competitiveness and achieve success. I'm not sure anyone in world football would have done a better job considering the various issues in the background but that in itself is not a reason to explore ways we can improve.

 

Unfortunately, with finance so important in the SPL and winning the league so vital in terms of profit/loss then the gamble of managerial change is a risky one. Smith plays the %ages pretty well and usually wins against the house. Would another manager play as well?

[wabashcannonball 0]

Calscot, I see you are an advocate of Corinthianism. "“It’s not the winning, it’s the taking part that counts" problem is that with a few notable exceptions we take part very badly in Europe. Rangers have actually won two trophies in Europe.

Edited March 18, 2010 by wabashcannonball