Ally McCoist and Rangers: Time for some home truths

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Looking for comparable examples to McCoist's time in charge is a futile task.

True, I don't think anyone has ever been able to spend £14m on wages to get up 2 part-time leagues.

[forlanssister 3,050]

Yet we still had a handful of very decent chances against Malmo at Ibrox - I remember Naismith missing a couple of gilt-edged chances that, had he taken, could have resulted in a far different sequence of events.[/quote[

 

That's like saying if the Germans hadn't scored 7 Brazil would have won!

 

I don't disagree that we were very unprepared - but you cant also deny that the team didn't carry much luck in that first tie either.

 

The preparation of the team is the sole remit of the management. McCoist knew months in advance that in all probability we would face a team well into their season and did absolutely nothing to counteract that against the express advice of the then fitness coach.

 

It isn't revisionism by the way - those things DID happen. My recollection from the Malmo game was that if all half decent chances had been taken we could have won the game something like 5-3. As it was, the game never played out that way. Did we deserve to win that game ? No. Did we deserve to lose ? Not in my opinion. And I think it is these things dB mentions.

 

My recollection is Malmo scored more than us and I have the same recollection of Maribor having had the misfortune to witness every minute of those 4 games in the flesh so to speak.

 

To call him some nonsensical revisionist is overly harsh. I would suggest softening the tone a bit.

 

Criticising those who cricticise McCoiist for his culpability in the disasters that were Malmo and Maribor, now that's overly harsh.

[der Berliner 3,249]

Yet we still had a handful of very decent chances against Malmo at Ibrox - I remember Naismith missing a couple of gilt-edged chances that, had he taken, could have resulted in a far different sequence of events.

 

I don't disagree that we were very unprepared - but you cant also deny that the team didn't carry much luck in that first tie either.

 

It isn't revisionism by the way - those things DID happen. My recollection from the Malmo game was that if all half decent chances had been taken we could have won the game something like 5-3. As it was, the game never played out that way. Did we deserve to win that game ? No. Did we deserve to lose ? Not in my opinion. And I think it is these things dB mentions.

 

To call him some nonsensical revisionist is overly harsh. I would suggest softening the tone a bit.

 

That essentially covers it. We had Whittaker making a hash right in front of our penalty area, where he was robbed of the ball and the Swedes scored with a smashing strike they probably didn't repeat all season. Naismith and Jela missed decent chances in both games, while Whittaker even managed to get himself send off early on in the second. One can hardly blame the manager for that. Likewise, as we have seen against Ventura CF, having played competitive football for weeks can give you the edge - Malmö was 7 match days into their campaign, Ventura 14. To quash that all aside or even say that "Rangers should beat these teams hands down" would actually call any football wisdom (I assume acquired over decades) of those who say it into question. You sure should win these games and professionalism, experience and quality more often than not win you the day. But not 24/7 or 100%. But that is not even the point here, as these results are taken as prime examples of a manager's supposed failure, when they are "just" a handful of games of what 160 under his reign? And that's not saying he is a decent manager or one I would like to carry us forward. It is simply looking at those results and performances as a whole and no cherry-picking of one factor of those defeats and proclaiming it as the main thing for our shortcomings.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

That essentially covers it. We had Whittaker making a hash right in front of our penalty area, where he was robbed of the ball and the Swedes scored with a smashing strike they probably didn't repeat all season. Naismith and Jela missed decent chances in both games, while Whittaker even managed to get himself send off early on in the second. One can hardly blame the manager for that. Likewise, as we have seen against Ventura CF, having played competitive football for weeks can give you the edge - Malmö was 7 match days into their campaign, Ventura 14. To quash that all aside or even say that "Rangers should beat these teams hands down" would actually call any football wisdom (I assume acquired over decades) of those who say it into question. You sure should win these games and professionalism, experience and quality more often than not win you the day. But not 24/7 or 100%. But that is not even the point here, as these results are taken as prime examples of a manager's supposed failure, when they are "just" a handful of games of what 160 under his reign? And that's not saying he is a decent manager or one I would like to carry us forward. It is simply looking at those results and performances as a whole and no cherry-picking of one factor of those defeats and proclaiming it as the main thing for our shortcomings.

Ah right that explains it.

 

What about Falkirk, Dundee Utd X 3, Queen of the South, Inverness, Dundee Utd, Forfar and Raith Rovers?

 

Remember the time we drew with Albion Rovers at Ibrox?

[Super Cooper 0]

True, I don't think anyone has ever been able to spend £14m on wages to get up 2 part-time leagues.

 

First team squad costs including the management team is well over £20m for the 3rd and 4th division mate. Just shy of one third of this £67m fans think the board have made go missing! The actual club running costs are astronomical and that includes the player and football staff wages.

[Super Cooper 0]

Ah right that explains it.

 

What about Falkirk, Dundee Utd X 3, Queen of the South, Inverness, Dundee Utd, Forfar and Raith Rovers?

 

Remember the time we drew with Albion Rovers at Ibrox?

 

It has excuses for each and every one of those humiliations mate, and the rest too!

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

It has excuses for each and every one of those humiliations mate, and the rest too!

If the penny never dropped when we went 2 months without an away win in SFL 3, it never will.

[pmu 0]

Yet we still had a handful of very decent chances against Malmo at Ibrox - I remember Naismith missing a couple of gilt-edged chances that, had he taken, could have resulted in a far different sequence of events.

 

I don't disagree that we were very unprepared - but you cant also deny that the team didn't carry much luck in that first tie either.

 

It isn't revisionism by the way - those things DID happen. My recollection from the Malmo game was that if all half decent chances had been taken we could have won the game something like 5-3. As it was, the game never played out that way. Did we deserve to win that game ? No. Did we deserve to lose ? Not in my opinion. And I think it is these things dB mentions.

 

To call him some nonsensical revisionist is overly harsh. I would suggest softening the tone a bit.

 

As admin craig we can take that as another warning to back off on db! His use of the term "ally bashers" is becoming quite offensive as it used in context as if anyone who has a go at the diety is some kind of trouble making oik whose opinion is not worthy. Feelings in many of the support, on ally, are on a par with feelings on the board! Dont often see board bashers being asked to tone it down..

Ps can't talk for others but my problem with mcoist is i feel his performance is a BIGGER problem than the boards. Lets face it whatever they are up to they have provided him with unbelievable level of funding

[der Berliner 3,249]

Just to be plain here, I do not exactly view the term "Ally bashers" as offensive, not least when we get a smiley featuring it. If people feel offended, I beg your pardon.

 

The central point remains that despite all deficiencies McCoist has as a manager, the games mentioned as "his failures" have been failures of the team as well as the manager, indeed, credit will have to go to the opposition as well. More often than not, team, opposition, and other circumstances are blocked out when it comes to giving McCoist FLAK and citing those games. Hardly the basis for any sort of impartial debate.

[pmu 0]

Just to be plain here, I do not exactly view the term "Ally bashers" as offensive, not least when we get a smiley featuring it. If people feel offended, I beg your pardon.

 

The central point remains that despite all deficiencies McCoist has as a manager, the games mentioned as "his failures" have been failures of the team as well as the manager, indeed, credit will have to go to the opposition as well. More often than not, team, opposition, and other circumstances are blocked out when it comes to giving McCoist FLAK and citing those games. Hardly the basis for any sort of impartial debate.

 

This is not saying i am right, but when i look at allys record as a whole i see lessons not being learned (very poor cup record, poor squad management, wasted millions on pay offs and high paid players surplus to requirement, or favour! No discernable system to speak of other than defender overload, poor player development at all levels to name but a few). Take each disappointing result in isolation or an individual promising player that failed to flourish, or a certain game where tactics were tried and failed and you can easily make a case for excusing that as a mere blip. I think i have enough nous to see what is staring me in the face!