Stuart McCall officially confirmed as new Rangers manager

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

I take it that's the league record only. Haven't had time to do that myself.

 

However, the "all competitions" stats, Rangers currently have a 67.5% win rate, under Ally it was 81.5%. I personally think you have to take all competitions to look at a manager's overall record and with SPL teams played, those don't skew the results in his favour due to lesser opposition.

 

If you want to look specifically at performance in the league then that's different but you should at least qualify it.

 

For Ally in the league I make it 11/2/4 and 65%. It was up at 77% until 2 weeks after Llambias was appointed to the board and declined sharply thereafter.

No it wasn't.

[colinstein 294]

It was refreshing on here that most posts "play the ball and not the man" as Frankie has urged a few times. Obviously it's difficult when outraged by dickheads but this site is better than most.

Better than them all actually, and much more informative

keep it up chaps

[calscot 0]

You could also take the view that the league is the teams "bread & butter"....It gives an indication of team performance over a sustained period. We've all seen instances of minnows beating the "big boys" in cup competition. It also gives a more accurate (IMHO) comparison since it is all the same teams that are playing. During a cup run, one team could get the luck of the draw & breeze into the latter stages, another team could come up against SPL opposition and get knocked out immediately.

 

The bottom line is that both McCoist & McDowell performed below par - especially this season. McCall would find it difficult to do any worse.

 

Fair points. Although I do think Hearts sacrificed the cups to do better in the league which gives them an advantage - we never have that luxury.

 

You've also got to be fair in that part of McCoist's fierce criticism comes from the cup results, so Hearts deserve the same kind of criticism. But to be fair to them they were knocked out by Celtic twice who are really the only anomaly in the cup for the likes of Rangers and Hearts.

 

I agree, the league form wasn't that good although a big part of that was losing to Hibs and Hearts where I personally believe that was hugely helped by them wanting it far more than our players rather than raw talent. We were a club heading for the rocks, they are both clubs that have been renewed and have fresh impetus. Hopefully we can now match them for that feel good factor. Well Hibs anyway.

 

One of the reasons I've been concentrating on win rates is that, no matter how horrible the team play football, it's irrelevant to promotion; that's all about winning games. Our team have shown they can do that, but so far have looked dodgy against two of the most likely teams we'll face.

 

The trouble is that while McCall looks like a solid manager, he's no protegy, and his record in big, one-off games isn't great, and that's really a place where we need massive improvement.

Edited March 13, 2015 by calscot

[calscot 0]

this is starting to look like slightly obsessive behaviour Calscot. most of what you are saying is probably technically correct but it's coming over as a load of drivel...

 

Can you show me where you've been clear yourself.

 

I've explained myself in a way that I thought was reasonably clear. Then I had to repeat it in very, very simple terms several times.

 

I don't think any interpretation of drivel has much my blame on my part. It's hard to explain to those who won't listen properly when they are too busy getting their knives out for anything about McCoist that doesn't look derogatory enough.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Sorry for boring the rest of the forum, but there's some strange accusations and misrepresentations to deal with here.

You've been doing it for 9 years so why stop now.

 

I would be happy for both our histories reviewed and compared. I admit mine are more aggressive after I'm personally attacked - but not before. It would be quite something to see all your insults highlighted...

Your posts are dripping in passive aggressiveness.

 

You've been wrong every step of the way - in fact you backtrack so much that there's pretty much no logical way you can be right. For instance - just define the word, "worst".

Well no, you're just talking nonsense again. I have been consistent in calling out McCoist on his complete lack of ability. I was able to see what you couldn't. I have been proven correct, you have been proven wrong.

 

Despite my umpteen clarifications to help you, you still can't even get that right! You are priceless!

 

I've said tons of times that he's pretty average and given a lot of evidence for that. You've given only insults. About a year and a half ago, I said his time was up as he had shown he wasn't going to make the grade for Rangers.

 

I *have* argued against him being the "worst possible manager" - and proven to be right. All I've done is try to show some proportionality.

He's a lot worse than 'pretty average', having failed at every challenge. Winning part-time leagues was no challenge. You have spent the last couple of years defending him vociferously against any of his critics and it's time you eat some humble pie.

 

Well it's actually 81.48148148 to 10 significant figures but that's splitting hairs but to 3 sig fig you are completely wrong again. It is a fact for this season in all competitions which is what I stated. Please show evidence that I'm wrong as I admit I do sometimes make mistakes but my intention is to be accurate. I'll show you my working if you show me yours.

 

G 164 W 119 D 22 L 23 % 72.56 (edit - you were referring to just this season - Rangers won 21 out of 27 games - 77% win rate)

 

Again you wrong (do you get anything right?). I said he had the "best win record in all competitions than any team in our league". I was pretty specific. Hearts now do but that has happened since he left. So again you're just wrong.

See below.

 

Would you care to prove that my stats and graphs are not correct and just made up? Or are you scared of once again showing how wrong you are?

 

To help you, all the results are here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/results

 

To help you some more: Ally stopped being manager on 21 December.

Hearts won 17 out of 22 games - 77% win rate

Rangers won 21 out of 27 games - 77% win rate

 

When KMD took charge we were 12 points behind Hearts. We had also been defeated 4 times in the league, whereas Hearts had been defeated once. Somewhat embarrassing we're even discussing this.

 

Eh, then what ARE you arguing about? You also agreed with posts that argued that. Flip-flopping again are we?

 

The weird bit is that the worse you think Ally is, the more you'd think you'd agree with my whole point in this thread. Funnily enough - can't see your agreement anywhere...

I'm arguing that you're speaking nonsense, as usual. I would like to see examples of these posts you mention. As a rule of thumb I generally don't agree with anything you say.

 

Can you explain? If you mean that he is responsible for the current slump as he created it, I think the "silly graphs" you don't like for obvious reasons, are too extreme for that.

I shouldn't need to explain. Pretty much all the players McCoist signed regressed. Which players improved under his management?

 

Again you're arguing against yourself. He seemed to get these crap players to do ok results-wise while he was a manager - so are you saying he's a good manager? You're flip-flopping again.

Ok result wise? 12 points behind Hearts in the league with 4 defeats and embarrassed constantly in the cups?

 

You just said you weren't arguing that - but caught out being wrong again even about what you're arguing about.

Come again?

 

You also ignore the fact that Ally had very little choice in the transfer market. It's like going to the dump and picking up the best free stuff you can. But I'll bet you find that irrelevant as it doesn't fit your view.

He had the second biggest budget in Scotland to compete against the worst teams.

 

I'm going to stop responding to you now as you just don't seem to be able to keep it real. When you have to explain to someone dozens of times about your view and they still continuously argue and insult you about stuff you didn't say, there's just nowhere to go.

I know the feeling.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Ser Barristan Selmy

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

One of the reasons I've been concentrating on win rates is that, no matter how horrible the team play football, it's irrelevant to promotion; that's all about winning games. Our team have shown they can do that, but so far have looked dodgy against two of the most likely teams we'll face.

How horrible we play is irrelevant to promotion? No, that's precisely why we likely won't be promoted.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

McCall has done more in 4 games than Ally and Kenny managed in 4 years. I don't think McCall is the long term answer at all but it shows just how terrible they were.

[simplythebest 0]

McCoist and co simply weren't proper football coaches, you can see the difference of having one even if he isn't exactly Jose Mourinho

[craig 5,195]

McCall has done more in 4 games than Ally and Kenny managed in 4 years. I don't think McCall is the long term answer at all but it shows just how terrible they were.

 

This. Absolutely.

 

Do any of us think McCoist or McDowall would have got that win against Hibs last week ? Does anybody think they would have done anything than go with the same, tired formation and personnel ? Me neither

[Laudbertz 0]

This. Absolutely.

 

Do any of us think McCoist or McDowall would have got that win against Hibs last week ? Does anybody think they would have done anything than go with the same, tired formation and personnel ? Me neither

 

Wish they played by the philosophy 'if it aint broke, dont fix it' ...cause it was extremely broke, and needed fixed.