Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 To be fair, the younger age groups within the Academy do exactly that (pass, move and press) - it was when Sinclair got to use his "magic" with them that they lost all semblance of football players. I have heard it argued that some of it is because other teams are very physical so we match them for physicality (probably why Sinclair liked his big, strong, powerful types of player..... but matching fire with fire when the only thing they bring is physicality is so outdated it is unreal. I would far prefer we adopt the pass, move, press mentality the whole way through the program... if we don't win games or leagues at the U17 level then so be it - we would be preparing the kids for the 1st team, and they should be entering it being able to express themselves in the way football should be played, making it entertaining for the fans in the process. Interestingly..... Barcelona have a reverse mentality when it comes to footballing philosophy - they actually force the first team to play the way the Academy players play - the idea being that seasoned pros (admittedly Barca players have the technical ability to do it) can adapt to any style of play - so Barcelona get the best players into the Youth Academy and have the Club philosophy start there, not have the Club philosophy start with the first team. It is interesting and it works for them. They then purchase players who enhance the overall Club philosophy. I have heard nothing but good things about Craig Mulholland. Any half decent team plays possession based football with quick movement. Only bottom end teams play route 1 football because they lack the talent and intelligence to do anything better. It's just desperate stuff. No decent team has won big trophies playing horrific long ball stuff, at least in my lifetime. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) Agree with all of that except the wages. The wages on offer to McCoist were far in excess of what we should be paying. BPL managers get paid less than that. And don't be kidded by the "expectations" and "demands" on a Rangers manager. We should be able to attract a high quality coach on half of what McCoist was being paid. I won't disagree as I'm not really sure what wages we *should* be paying - it's something that probably needs some research or someone in the game in the know. Obviously the more we offer the more quality we can attract but at the same time it has to be affordable and in budget. One of the problems is that even forgetting all our troubles which will put the majority off at the moment, we're in an unattractive league and so will generally have to overcompensate with wages. Even if we're lowering our sights just to winning the SPL slightly more than every other season then we should at least be looking to match Celtic - or be skilled at finding someone better than theirs for a lower salary. Spotting an up and coming Scottish manager could possibly achieve that as you could treble their wages and also giving them the incentive of managing Scotland's most successful club (and if they are exceptional, a stepping stone to a more lucrative league). Don't think that works for foreigners - especially as you don't know how they will take to the Scottish game and the more usual two sided competition, along with the goldfish bowl that comes along with it. Edited January 23, 2015 by calscot 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudbertz 0 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) McCoist hadn't 'earned his stripes' either IMO but he was given the job. Exactly, that is what we should avoid happening again. If we had the choice, we would have a manager with experience and a good grasp of scottish football in order to take us forward. EDIT : I'd happily give Rino until end of this season to see what he can do though. Edited January 23, 2015 by Laudbertz 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Any half decent team plays possession based football with quick movement. Only bottom end teams play route 1 football because they lack the talent and intelligence to do anything better. It's just desperate stuff. No decent team has won big trophies playing horrific long ball stuff, at least in my lifetime. Wimbledon won the FA Cup playing route 1. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I would take Rino till end of season - it is surely better than having someone who doesn't want to be there and who is already on his notice period. But I remain very skeptical that Rino has it in him to be a good manager. He has failed where he has already been, so has previous. But as a stop-gap, on the cheap, worth a punt. As for his team playing with passion, be careful what you wish for - sometimes when players don't have the same passion as the coach you lose the dressing room quickly (possibly not a bad thing for our lot to be fair, we could be doing with a clear-out) - just ask Roy Keane - his passion has lost him both the Ipswich and Sunderland dressing rooms spectacularly. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,252 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Wimbledon won the FA Cup playing route 1. Nearly 27 years ago. That style of football well past its sell-by date !!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMc 2,463 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Any half decent team plays possession based football with quick movement. Only bottom end teams play route 1 football because they lack the talent and intelligence to do anything better. It's just desperate stuff. No decent team has won big trophies playing horrific long ball stuff, at least in my lifetime. Celtic under O'Neill were route one, long ball, win set pieces. It was only having Larsson in their side that gave them any guile, other than him they were all power and strength. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN63 0 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) long ball is not a football philosophy that creates a long term footballing legacy, it isn't something you can engender at a youth level, through all age groups, because you cannot forecast what size and shape those kids will eventually grow up to be. Teams like Wimbledon needed to buy players in for a long ball strategy, as did septic. However you can create a pass and move philosophy on any shape of kid at a very young age. that is the Barca way, that is now the Munich way (unsurprisingly), it is the retention of possession (if they don't have the ball they can't score), it is the probing all over the pitch, until you find the hole and exploit it. it is the high pressing (first line of defence being attack as soon as you lose that possession). it is the same as anything in life; if you start that instruction from a young age then it becomes the default, it is your philosophy, it is the only way you know how to play football, it becomes pervasive throughout the club, suddenly a player from the u13's can fit into any other team, the guy in the u17's can play in the first team, the injured first team player makes his comeback in the u18's and he slots in and on it goes. McCoist had that chance, he could have been a historic manager, but he and his cohorts did not recognise the opportunity, part of the reason we're in the footballing state we now find ourselves in. it will now take a lot longer to make that change, if any manager is brave enough to endorse and effect it. Edited January 24, 2015 by MikeN63 mistake 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.