Jump to content



Relentless Rangers refuse to take foot off the gas

Recommended Posts

I see you've not changed Cal. The difference between Warburton and McCoist is incomparable. What Warburton is doing is working, what McCoist did was god awful and flattered to deceive and turned the fans away in droves. Warburton has signed young, hungry players. McCoist signed average, run of the mill, lazy players. Warburton's tactics seem to be with the times, McCoist's, well, did McCoist even have any tactics?


It's scary to think you're defending the guy and it's even scarier saying what Warburton says and does is similar to McCoist. Jeez!


As for the players fitness levels, just look at Lee Wallace. He looks a machine these days. To suggest you're unsure if the players are fitter or not than when McCoist was in charge is laughable.

Edited by Gazza_8
Link to post
Share on other sites

To return to a favourite theme of mine at the level professional sportsmen operate at the differences in fitness are often psychological. The great Jock Wallace didn't make players run up and down sand dunes because it actually made them fitter, he did it because they thought it made them fitter. Thinking you are fitter can make a difference to how you play.

Psychology is so important at top level sport, particularly with individual sports like golf and tennis but also with team sports. A player believing they are faster or stronger or simply better performs differently to one who doesn't.


Probably why Tiger Woods wore red on the final day of tournaments - he felt red made him invincible. And it pretty much did, till his wife found out :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think fans stayed away because of the boycott. The shite that Ally was turning out wasn't as important in that respect


Might be but the crowds didnt materialise after king took over until warburtons football dazzled the disaffected. My boycott started a few years ago and was football related

Link to post
Share on other sites

An awful lot of words to agree that you have no evidence to suggest that the players under McCoist were every bit as fit as they currently are.


Firstly, it's an awful lot of words as you seem to misinterpret me very easily, and I see the volume has made no difference in that regard. I've always got a lot to say as I think about my points, and try to give detail to my thinking. I also seem to have to continual explain stuff that I should be able to take for granted that the other person should know.


Anyway, I didn't suggest that at all, I was asserting that there wasn't enough time to do more than marginal gains, and that any subjective viewpoint needed to take into account other variables. I never denied that there was the possibility they were fitter, I denied the assertion that it could definitively all be attributed to McCoist's training.


Where did you do that ? Your statement to pete that "you seem to be a fitness expert" is not the same as asking "are you a fitness expert". So clearly you did accuse him of being some fitness know-it-all.


If you want to think that then that's up to you. You are wrong. I was pointing out that assessing fitness of professional athletes by watching them play is a very subjective measurement. There is a difference between subjective and objective measurements. You might look at two rocks and think they weigh about the same (subjective), but to be definitive, it's better to weigh them (objective).


It doesn't matter if it is a fallacious question or not - the mere fact that you made the accusation and tried to denigrate pete's previous assertion doesn't mean that you shouldn't be called into question when doing the same thing yourself.


I have no idea where you get that from. I explained it twice and in other posts. I did not make a definitive assertion with specific cause and effect that needed evidence. Pete did. You are accusing me of doing what Pete did, when I didn't. I was saying that without evidence you cannot be definitive and gave other alternatives.


pete made his fitness statement from what he has witnessed this season - you stated that it is only his opinion and questioned whether he was a fitness expert and able to make such a statement - and then followed it up by saying that you think that motivation is a large part - but you can only suggest that from what you have seen i.e. that same basis as pete's original statement.


It's not the same. I don't even have to see it to know it can be a factor. For the umteenth time, how do you know when someone is less fit or not trying as hard? The point is that when there are multiple variables you shouldn't jump to conclusions. I showed a willingness to accept it with evidence.


The fact of the matter is that NEITHER OF YOU can know for sure -


Ah we agree.


but you have a knack of trying to make it look like you are closer to the truth.


If I made it look that way, then I would say that was down to the power of persuasion of my argument. And of course I am going to have belief in what I putting forward. It is up to the reader to decide. I think you are also doing me a great disservice in that I pretty much leave room in most of my arguments to suggest I could be wrong, but only with evidence or a very compelling argument. I really don't think you read me properly - maybe you don't have time, but you've also previously accused me of dressing up opinion as fact where I had to point out that not only had I used the words "in my opinion" but you should also do a count of clauses like, "I think", "it seems", "maybe", "perhaps", "it comes across" etc.


Reality is nobody knows - but from MY observations this season the current crop of players DO look fitter than last season's players. and yes, that is only my OPINION. However, I am also wise enough to recognize that trying to credit that to the current manager - or conversely, blame the previous manager - we very, very much need to be aware that, from the game at the weekend.... only ONE player started the game that played significant football under McCoist - Lee Wallace. The only other starter who was even at Rangers whilst McCoist was manager was Barrie McKay and he got very little game time under McCoist. So, I agree with you that to blame McCoist for the lack of fitness is to probably not have full knowledge - and you certainly couldn't make a proper comparison when comparing apples to oranges as this does.


You're now arguing against Pete, not me.


Please don't suggest I am being insulting. If my previous post was insulting to you then you have an extremely thin skin - and we BOTH know that isn't the case from previous verbal debates you have had on here. So please don't get precious and suggesting that I am being insulting - or, seeing as I cant see it, perhaps you could educate me as to HOW I was being insulting ?


It was insulting as it was derogatory and completely wrong (you accused me of calling Pete a "know it all" which I didn't and then ironically accused me of being a "know it all" which I wasn't). It was ad hominem, showed a complete disregard for what I was actually trying to convey and added nothing but antagonism to the debate.


But whilst you accuse me of being "insulting" you then continue on to accuse other forum posters of posting "nonsense".


You must skip my posts as although, yes I say stuff like that, but I explain in detail why it doesn't make sense. I can't see how that is insulting. People don't always make sense, although I'm always asking them to explain stuff. I tend to call things nonsense when I've already shown reason for it and then it's repeated. But I suppose If you think it makes sense that a team failed because the manger allowed one meal out at Nando's and that he laughed at a training session, then that's up to you. To me it doesn't make sense.


I think you're also missing the point that Pete started it by saying I had my head in the sand - and without any explanation or reasoning to back it up, but you didn't have a go at him.


It would probably do you good to look at yourself as much as you look at others sometimes.


Oh I do, and I try not to overdo it but it gets tedious when so many people make it so personal instead of dealing with the points.


You can continue to accuse me of pulling hair triggers or being more affable to people who don't explain their posts or being antagonistic or any other such term that pleases you, as is your prerogative. But I wont retaliate as it really isn't my style.


You're not supposed to retaliate (I can't even imagine why you even thought about that) - it's feedback, not a naked insult. You're supposed to challenge it in your head, ie think about it's validity and why I said it. If you then think I'm wrong, you can always explain that to me. Or maybe you'll conclude, that perhaps you were a bit harsh, and maybe apologise...


You have every right to defend McCoist, whether you are right or wrong.


It's not about defending McCoist, it's about defending criticisms that don't have much rationale or consistency. It's also calling out people for making up any old stuff to disparage people as some sort of running game. Is that really what we want on here? I've done it for lots of people, but Ally bashing is the most prevalent.


And you may be correct that he had more to deal with behind the scenes than Warburton - but McCoist himself was ALWAYS at pains to emphasise that the football team should only be concentrating on footballing matters. Now, human nature tells us differently, but it WAS his job to ensure that the footballers were concentrating on their jobs.


I think that's a bit idealistic and impossible in the real world. No manager achieves that all the time, there are always player who don't work out personality-wise. However, not many managers have had to deal with what McCoist has. I've said from the moment that we went into admin that Ally was not an exceptional manager who has the ability the players play well despite the goings on, but I didn't think we could definitely say that many other managers could have done so.


I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you cal - suffice to say that I actually agree with you that you cant necessarily say the players under McCoist were less fit than those under Warburton - as I said above,


And again it's not what I'm disputing, it's the implication that McCoist's training was shall we say, "useless" for the meme on here. It might not have been optimal, but I doubt it was outlandishly bad.


But I still maintain that your post showed a lack of tolerance towards pete.


I think YOU have to explain that to ME. I gave Pete the respect of painstakingly explaining why I thought he was in the wrong - and without misinterpreting anything he said. He didn't give me the same respect - with a one liner, concluded by telling me I had my head in the sand - and gave McCoist no respect either. If you want to talk about hypocrisy, I think your post showed a lack of tolerance towards ME and you should heed your own advice about looking at yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Warburton has shown up McCoist even more if anything


I think that's a disservice to Warburton. I think he's exceptional and much better than anyone we've had in Scotland for quite a while. I think to be shown up by him is a bit like being shown up in the gym by Superman - nothing to be ashamed of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said cal, I really don't have the desire to get into a long-winded debate on it, although obviously I could.


A couple of points if I may :


1. I wasn't defending pete's assertion about fitness under the current regime vs McCoist's regime - I was pointing out (you disagree with me, which is fine) that you were using the same observations as he was to justify your point, yet were suggesting he was wrong and you were right.

2. It is clearly your prerogative to claim that McCoist's training methods were "not optimal but not outlandishly bad" - however, the results would suggest otherwise. He had a squad full of internationals at his disposal and languished more than 20 points behind a youthful Hearts at the end of the season. Whether you think that is not "outlandishly bad" is, as I say, your prerogative - but he had THREE YEARS to build his own squad and when he had the first test of his managerial prowess he failed miserably. I would be astounded if any of us disagreed with that. Sure, there were extenuating circumstances but it was HIS job to ensure his squad remained focused on the job at hand. The fact they didn't shows that McCoist failed them and he failed the Club.

3. I'm really not sure what I should be apologizing for as I can see nothing in my original post that can be taken as offensive. You stated to pete "you seem to be some fitness expert" which, to me, is akin to saying "know-it-all" but if you want an apology over semantics than I apologise. Not sure how it was derogatory so happy for you to educate me. Likewise, I didn't call you a know-it-all - but if you took it that way then I can apologise for that too. I will say, though, that you are being very, very sensitive which is ironic given some of the verbal exchanges with others on here where you have called them an idiot, a weirdo or worse - yet you find it offensive that I might have accused you of being a know-it-all - please, come on calscot - we are both better than this.

4. Regarding the Nando's reference or the laughing at training reference - I think you need to stop taking people so literally. The point being made, rather than literally saying that "training takes place at Nando's (as I think Gribz said) is that it seemed that our training under McCoist was more akin to a holiday camp (I'm not prescribing to that by the way, just explaining why taking literally what is said doesn't really make a great deal of sense either - people say these things for emphasis.

5. I wasn't making any suggestions about fitness - but it certainly is illuminating to me that Kris Boyd looked lean, fit and healthy when at Kilmarnock and then when he returned to us he looked overweight and lethargic - now that could be put down to summer excesses... but in the cold light of day, he still looked that way when McCoist went on gardening leave. Same with Miller - he was blowing out of his arse after 20 minutes of the games I attended last year - yet look at him this year - he looks like a completely new player with nothing but energy. Could it be the changes off-field ? Sure. But with Miller I get the impression that the behind-the-scenes stuff mattered little to him anyway. He looks to me like a far fitter person this season than last. But I'm no expert and am only going on what I see.


Anyway, I don't want either of us to pollute the thread. So you have my apologies if you weren't calling pete a know-it-all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.