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

[54andcounting 0]

Souness...Souness

[GovanAllan 0]

Well it doesn't stop any of us does it!

I don't expect them to give coaching tips, simply to set the goals for the club to achieve on the pitch. Whether that's to win the league, play passing football, develop young players to sell etc is irrelevant.

 

This is true but we don't own football clubs, well not yet anyway.

 

We need to start something that's new and for me a DF is the way forward.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I'm actually with amms here. the directors may say look win the league nothing else is important.

 

they may also say look play with style play on the deck at pace and with verve.

 

that's not something you need to know about football to say.

 

its up to the football guys to deliver it.

 

if super is delivering what the board want then they should go. if he isn't then he's got to be on a shoogly peg.

[calscot 0]

I was hardly an advocate for Le Guen staying myself and who knows what would have happened, but I do think all managers should be judged the same way, whether it's a club legend or a random frenchman.

 

Exactly, if Le Guen had as good a record as McCoist's in the league last season (before administration), he would not have been so unpopular - even if he had been put out of Europe.

 

If he was where we are now, and top of the league, he would be safe.

 

PLG's league record was unprecedentedly poor, McCoists (before Admin) was well above average.

 

So while some things may have changed in terms of the league we're in and playing staff it still totals to 15 months of poor football, signings and results.

 

Maybe i've been fairer now?

 

You think you're fair? I'll give you that the standard of football and signings are subjective, but the results? Are you new to Rangers per chance?

 

I'll give you the cups but in the league, without administration, McCoist was at worst looking at about 90 points total - and that's with all the background stuff and rumour happening. 90 points may not have been enough to win the league that season as Celtic played a blinder and also cheated their way to a few more, but most seasons that would win the league and there are few seasons where we have gained more points.

 

What you say is about as fair as saying McCoist is a world class manager.

 

And that's my problem. If you're going to criticise, at least keep it somewhat real.

 

I think the sad thing is I suspect you really do think you ARE being fair...

[calscot 0]

Thats it!! If Ally walked:

There'd be no-body with any football knowledge to select a replacement.

 

If Ally was sacked (as above) Catch 22.

 

And yet there's a load of people on here that feel they are experts and can choose one...

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Exactly, if Le Guen had as good a record as McCoist's in the league last season (before administration), he would not have been so unpopular - even if he had been put out of Europe.

 

If he was where we are now, and top of the league, he would be safe.

 

PLG's league record was unprecedentedly poor, McCoists (before Admin) was well above average.

 

 

 

You think you're fair? I'll give you that the standard of football and signings are subjective, but the results? Are you new to Rangers per chance?

 

I'll give you the cups but in the league, without administration, McCoist was at worst looking at about 90 points total - and that's with all the background stuff and rumour happening. 90 points may not have been enough to win the league that season as Celtic played a blinder and also cheated their way to a few more, but most seasons that would win the league and there are few seasons where we have gained more points.

 

What you say is about as fair as saying McCoist is a world class manager.

 

And that's my problem. If you're going to criticise, at least keep it somewhat real.

 

I think the sad thing is I suspect you really do think you ARE being fair...

 

you do know we didn't go into admin until Feb don't you?

[calscot 0]

you do know we didn't go into admin until Feb don't you?

 

Yes. Check the figures. Extrapolating our early season form would give you about 100pts.

 

It's pretty easy anyway. We finished with 83 pts, and had an uncharacteristic three losses in four games straight after administration. The more likely scenario judging by the rest of the season would have been three wins and a draw, giving us 90 pts. That's despite off field troubles which probably affected far more results - and the fact that our last loss to Celtic was a nothing game.

 

Seeing as your opinion is obviously bases on falsehood, it seems to me, that you need to rethink your position... Or are you too entrenched?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Yes. Check the figures. Extrapolating our early season form would give you about 100pts.

 

It's pretty easy anyway. We finished with 83 pts, and had an uncharacteristic three losses in four games straight after administration. The more likely scenario judging by the rest of the season would have been three wins and a draw, giving us 90 pts. That's despite off field troubles which probably affected far more results - and the fact that our last loss to Celtic was a nothing game.

 

Seeing as your opinion is obviously bases on falsehood, it seems to me, that you need to rethink your position... Or are you too entrenched?

 

he had already thrown away a 10 pt lead by admin and many fans wanted him gone.

 

indeed admin rather saved his job.

[calscot 0]

he had already thrown away a 10 pt lead by admin and many fans wanted him gone.

 

indeed admin rather saved his job.

 

This "throwing away a 10pt lead" is a weird one. I thought you were judged on the full league season - unless you lose it well before the end?

 

That means you can have a bad start and recover, or a good start and have a bad patch.

 

Imagine a runner who leads all the way and then trips up and loses his lead near the end - do you think he's worse than the guy who finished equal with him after a bad start?

 

Wanting someone to get the sack for losing a lead they got themselves in the first place even though they are still doing well above average is the strangest thing I've seen. Talk about making up a criticism. The worst part is that the 10 pts is actually not even true.

 

The other strange part is that we know nothing about what was happening behind the scenes at the time but we do know all about the stuff that was being printed every day.

 

But even then it doesn't matter. We lost one of our best two players to injury and the other one was gearing himself up for a transfer. We then had a bad patch - what team doesn't? But were recovering before admin actually happened. And like I say, this is all with the background of the behind the scenes stuff.

 

But the fact stands that before admin, we had an above average points total and were still in the title race. Going on about where we lost the points is petty in the extreme and shows why the whole campaign against McCoist is very extreme and hardly rational.

 

I really wish PLG had thrown away a 9pt lead but you can't do that from 17pts behind. Now *there* was a manager.

[Gazza_8 233]

Yes. Check the figures. Extrapolating our early season form would give you about 100pts.

 

It's pretty easy anyway. We finished with 83 pts, and had an uncharacteristic three losses in four games straight after administration. The more likely scenario judging by the rest of the season would have been three wins and a draw, giving us 90 pts. That's despite off field troubles which probably affected far more results - and the fact that our last loss to Celtic was a nothing game.

 

Seeing as your opinion is obviously bases on falsehood, it seems to me, that you need to rethink your position... Or are you too entrenched?

 

Rubbish. You can't predict results.