Is Ally the Man for the job? - The McCoist Thread

[calscot 0]

Not for me i'm afraid, 'amazing' is a huge exaggeration for how we're doing.

 

Maybe you should read it again, I said it was amazing how well we're doing considering the number of rookies we've played.

 

This is how we should expect to be doing with our resources.

 

Probably, but I said that Ally was doing a passable job - which you have also just implied. I think expectations are difficult to make realistic under the circumstances.

 

We may have greater resources but how much we spend is pretty skewed at the moment. We have not gone out and bought 22 SPL players, we have half a team of pretty much mediocre ones and it's obvious that many SPL teams sometimes struggle against lower league sides - even Celtic with about five times our spend.

 

How do you reconcile playing six youth graduates who cost next to nothing and are probably on reasonably low wages? I don't think you can just say we've got more resources and then expect half a team of inexperienced young lads to play experienced, older professionals off the park. Just how does that work?

 

You also have to take into account that for the more experienced SPL players we have signed (and some of them are still quite young) are not from the same winning culture as our previously resident experienced players like McCulloch and Alexander, and who are struggling to adapt to the pressures of performing and winning every game. I don't think it's a coincidence that the former two, along with Wallace are our most consistent players.

 

Now i'm not saying Ally doesn't deserve credit as it can be difficult to meet expectations and in many senses he's in a no win situation, but to make him out as a miracle worker at this stage just stinks of an extreme response to extremities on the negative side (of which there are some no doubt),

 

Read again, I said he's done a somewhat good and certainly passable job, no more. There is no mention of miracle worker but then I don't think you often read me properly.

 

I'll also never understand Calscot's constant negativity in regards to our young players, several graduates in the first team is what we've been hoping to see from Auchenhowie from the beginning and if we weren't going to really start using it after being demoted three divisions then we'd have been as well closing all our youth systems. Oh and even when things haven't been going well the youngsters have been encouraging, the senior players more of a let down.

 

I have nothing against young players but argue against the strange fascination for them by some people like yourself who think that they are a panacea and that teams should be full of them regardless of quality. I can never get your negativity against players over 21 who are the mainstay of the game. At the top level I don't see how a team full of kids is going to compete against a similar resourced team full of seasoned, international players with one or two youngsters in the mix. Everything else being equal it seems eminently logical that the more experienced side will win more often than not.

 

The strange thing is that now we are in a position to play lots of promising youngsters due to the lower quality of the opposition but the negativity from people like yourself when the team doesn't play so well is mystifying. I'm even being positive now about the youngsters and you are surprisingly taking a contrary view. I differ in that I give youngsters and rookies a bit more slack for the same reason that I don't think playing a load of them at a high level is a magic answer - because they are inconsistent due to inexperience and still being on a learning curve, as well as usually having a less stable temperament that is mellowed with age.

[calscot 0]

You SHOULD read it. It is a fair assessment of the season thus far including the trials and tribulations which have affected the resources we have.

 

The ONLY complaint I would have of calscot's post is the one thing that had you stop reading completely. I agree... "amazing" is an exaggeration for me. For any Rangers team with the resources we have comparative to all other SFL 3 clubs to be where we are is expected, but still good nonetheless - but I would stop a fair way short of calling it amazing.

 

But I guess that is what opinions are for

 

I was pretty much saying the youngsters are doing amazing, not the team as a whole. Well, I think they've been amazing at any rate...

[craig 5,199]

I was pretty much saying the youngsters are doing amazing, not the team as a whole. Well, I think they've been amazing at any rate...

 

All about opinions.

 

Much like kuznetsov suggesting Aird's goal at the weekend was "world class" I think you are over-egging some of their performances

 

"Amazing" to me is a superlative, and I havent seen that many superlative performances from ANY of our players this season. Good, yes. Very good, on occasion yes. Amazing, no. Amazing under the circumstances, no. If we were in the SPL and were 15 points clear whilst playing this many youngsters, then amazing would be apt IMO. But not in the 4th tier of Scottish football.

 

Again, all about opinions

[simplythebest 0]

Maybe you should read it again, I said it was amazing how well we're doing considering the number of rookies we've played.

 

But is that not what you expected? Of course you may have been different but the general view at first seemed to be that we'd be relying heavily on youth with McCulloch and some SFL signings thrown in, players likes Shiels were a surprise and we've seen less of young players than I initially imagined. Rookies or not you surely need to put it into some context, they haven't been thrown into a title challenge with Celtic or into big European games. It's the bottom division of Scottish football and they've been developed at one of football's top facilities, chances are they'd have been going out to the SFL on loan to get first time experience, Lewis Macleod alluded to this recently.

 

Probably, but I said that Ally was doing a passable job - which you have also just implied. I think expectations are difficult to make realistic under the circumstances.

 

We may have greater resources but how much we spend is pretty skewed at the moment. We have not gone out and bought 22 SPL players, we have half a team of pretty much mediocre ones and it's obvious that many SPL teams sometimes struggle against lower league sides - even Celtic with about five times our spend.

 

How do you reconcile playing six youth graduates who cost next to nothing and are probably on reasonably low wages? I don't think you can just say we've got more resources and then expect half a team of inexperienced young lads to play experienced, older professionals off the park. Just how does that work?

 

You also have to take into account that for the more experienced SPL players we have signed (and some of them are still quite young) are not from the same winning culture as our previously resident experienced players like McCulloch and Alexander, and who are struggling to adapt to the pressures of performing and winning every game. I don't think it's a coincidence that the former two, along with Wallace are our most consistent players.

It's certainly passable, long term I may have doubts but his job is under no question right now.

 

We bought some of the best SPL players outwith Celtic, Black and Shiels were cup winners, Sandaza one of the SPL's top scorers, Templeton one of the most highly rated young Scottish wingers etc etc. Their performances for us so far may leave much to be desired but I don't see how much more you could have expected the board to give with us at this level?

 

As I alluded to above, they're being developed at a world class place with an aim of playing in the top flight. Not everyone can make it but in general if we can't expect our youth system to be better than 3rd division level then a lot of money is being wasted.

 

I mentioned in another post some senior players being a disappointment, for example Hutton and Macleod have made the midfield much better when Black has been out, and that's two of your rookies. Our poor form previously still saw the youngsters come out with plenty of credit.

 

Read again, I said he's done a somewhat good and certainly passable job, no more. There is no mention of miracle worker but then I don't think you often read me properly.

 

You said it's amazing how well we're doing, read over it yourself and it seems a bit confusing but I apologise if i've picked it up wrong.

 

I have nothing against young players but argue against the strange fascination for them by some people like yourself who think that they are a panacea and that teams should be full of them regardless of quality. I can never get your negativity against players over 21 who are the mainstay of the game. At the top level I don't see how a team full of kids is going to compete against a similar resourced team full of seasoned, international players with one or two youngsters in the mix. Everything else being equal it seems eminently logical that the more experienced side will win more often than not.

 

The strange thing is that now we are in a position to play lots of promising youngsters due to the lower quality of the opposition but the negativity from people like yourself when the team doesn't play so well is mystifying. I'm even being positive now about the youngsters and you are surprisingly taking a contrary view. I differ in that I give youngsters and rookies a bit more slack for the same reason that I don't think playing a load of them at a high level is a magic answer - because they are inconsistent due to inexperience and still being on a learning curve, as well as usually having a less stable temperament that is mellowed with age.

I have never said a team should be full of them regardless of quality, I grew pretty tired of John Fleck for example. All the young players we've seen this season i've been impressed with, Tom Walsh aside since he's only had a cameo.

 

Surely you can understand why at least some fans want to see their youngsters making up a good core of the squad, especially considering all we've been through? Developing your own players helps make you very self sustainable, no big transfer fees involved and the increase in wages is more gradual. If they become so good that there's interest from elsewhere that can't be ignored, then you can get a big transfer fee which gives you a massive profit considering they cost very little. But outwith that side of it there's some general pride at seeing our very own home grown boys make up the future of Rangers.

 

I've not nothing against older players if they're good for Rangers, however, for too long we became reliant on just spending spending spending and too many wages were wasted, even some players that were good were probably more than we could afford. Of course i'm not suggesting at all that we don't buy senior players again but there needs to be much less of a scattergun, boom or bust approach and rather than making up a squad of 30 odd highly paid players for example we should be relying on our young players to come in to help with injury situations and the like.

 

I hope in your labelling of me you've noted my much reduced complaining since results started going very well. I'm not negative towards the youngsters and never have been, I don't consider them the cause of previous problems because some senior players have been more of a let down, the manager has had things to answer for and Lewis Macleod aside all of them have been in and out of the side, the core and spine has still got plenty of experience.

 

It comes across as negativity when you keep saying they're the reason things haven't been going well at times, yet they've been one pretty constant positive of the season. And you don't seem to feel much pride at our academy graduates like I mentioned above, it comes across like you just want a return to the days of us constantly buying players and pretty much ignoring the youth. I mean why should it only be one or two in the mix if more than one or two are good enough?

Edited January 2, 2013 by simplythebest

[pete 2,499]

I wasn't very impressed with Cole today to be honest, I thought he was pretty poor.

[Gazza_8 233]

I was playing golf with my dad and two of his mates today down at Lochgreen in Troon (shot an 81. Not to bad considering I haven't swung a club since August) and we got onto the subject of Ally McCoist. We all agreed that he isn't the right man to take Rangers forward but how far and how long do you give him? We'll win Div. 3 and Div. 2 at a canter and probably Div 1. as we'll be allowed to sign players by then. You can't (shouldn't) sack a manager for doing well and winning league championships but personally, I don't think he'll take us much further than entry in to Scotlands top league again.

 

So, the question is, when is enough enough?

[kuznetsov 0]

I wasn't very impressed with Cole today to be honest, I thought he was pretty poor.

 

he got roasted for their goal. poor lad. he had done alright too in previous matches.

[Super_Ally 0]

I wasn't very impressed with Cole today to be honest, I thought he was pretty poor.

 

Back to work today, missed the game. But that is disappointing to hear. Still first start in ages and he's not played much first team football.

[Cotter 0]

He's absolutely cantering the league we are in under an illegal transfer embargo. He has never been in a position where he can sign players he actually wants. Ok maybe templeton, (in the third division, we signed templeton? aye right) but he's pure pish right?

 

Honestly how long do we give this muppet mcoist ?

 

 

I really should stop replying to stuff like this. I just can't help myself

[calscot 0]

Ah but he's put us back 10 years! (I have no idea how a manager can do that - it took Souness one season to correct a decade of neglect.)

 

And there are people on here who reckon they could do a better job - I can't imagine they'd even know where to start; I wouldn't either but can imagine most wouldn't know how to even start to put together a fitness programme that includes a balance of anaerobic, CV, plyometrics, flexibility (what does PNF stand for?), agility and other stuff I don't know about (although I'm sure SuperAlly on here would be in his element).

 

And imagine your average Joe walking onto a training pitch of professional players and telling them how to play football... Just how would they take it?

 

And think of the leadership skills where the likes of Sandaza would be told he's dropped because he's the worst striker that this new manager has seen...

 

Imagine telling McCulloch he needs to "lose two stone" even though it's highly unlikely he has two stone of fat on his body in total...

 

But then after their first draw with a "bunch of postmen" they'd be calling for themselves to be sacked anyway.

Edited January 3, 2013 by calscot