Massive decision this summer

[Rousseau 9,399]

8 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

From Rousseau's Guardian article:

 

"When it comes down to it, most managers can be divided into two broad categories: pragmatists and idealists. Pragmatism adapts to meet the needs of the team. Rather than pursuing any long-term holistic vision, the raison d’etre is to win football matches in the short-term and everything else, such as style of play and how pleasing it is on the eye, is secondary."

 

After having Warburton and Pedro, who I'd argue are idealists, do we as a club need the stability a pragmatist would bring, rather than an idealist like Martinez?

I thought Pedro was kind of in the middle; not enough of either to make a difference. He had his principles but did change it to suit certain games. Clearly he wasn't good at either.

 

It's an interesting point. Clarke would be the obvious pragmatist. It's more short-term, which we could do with. 

 

I still prefer to look more long-term. The Idealist would bring a better tactical style, and also build upon our Academy, which is what we really need to do. Even in that article, Rodgers is an Idealist too, so it can clearly work in Scotland. 

[Rousseau 9,399]

A Martinez-Rodgers Old Firm game would end 5-5!

[ian1964 10,422]

 

[Bluedell 5,346]

2 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I still prefer to look more long-term. The Idealist would bring a better tactical style, and also build upon our Academy, which is what we really need to do. Even in that article, Rodgers is an Idealist too, so it can clearly work in Scotland. 

I'm not sure that we can look long term at the moment, although that's not to say we can't continue to develop our youths.

 

Yes, Rodgers may be an idealist, but he's got it to work in Scotland with a squad that cost £34m, and that's not including the loan players.  

 

We could make it work too if we spent that much but we're not in that market. We need to be more realistic.

[Gonzo79 13,699]

We only have a couple if years to stop them winning 10.  We can worry about nice football after we've done that.

[DMAA 3,603]

7 hours ago, Rousseau said:

He also bought players that he knew personally, which is not a great model

I agree it's not a good model in general, but I think it's harsh to hold it against him At Kilmarnock (I haven't looked at his other clubs). Firstly he'd been in the job for only 2-3 months before the transfer window. Secondly I doubt Kilmarnock spend much on scouting. Thirdly and most importantly he appears to have got far better quality players than would have been possible without the personal connection with Mulumbu and Tshibola.

 

7 hours ago, Rousseau said:

The only foreign man mentioned would be Preud'homme

He's one I was very impressed with. The advantage with him is that the job would be very similar to what he's used to, managing a team at the top of the table who need to know how break teams down and score goals. His experience and skills should be instantly transferable to the Rangers job.

 

My main concern with Clarke is that he probably has less experience managing a team who wins most games so has probably spent more of his career focusing on underdog tactics.

[Darthter 542]

1 hour ago, Gonzo79 said:

We need to win.  I couldn't care less if we play rubbish football in doing so.  

Winning should always be the number 1 priority....however, you know what football fans are like, we could be winning every game yet folk would complain about the manner it's achieved.

[Gaffer 1,665]

33 minutes ago, Darthter said:

Winning should always be the number 1 priority....however, you know what football fans are like, we could be winning every game yet folk would complain about the manner it's achieved.

Yes, I'm one of those fans I'm afraid.  There was a period of about 2/3 years during the NIAR years where I just couldn't get excited about the majority of games I attended.  It's perhaps strange but I'm enjoying it more now that we have a clear mission but with lots of risk involved.  Back then the only doubt was about how many we'd win by.  That's fun for a little while but not sustainable.

 

I do however understand Gonzo's point above about stopping their winning run, and I could be convinced to sacrifice a couple of years of decent football to get 55.

[Bluedell 5,346]

15 hours ago, Gaffer said:

There was a period of about 2/3 years during the NIAR years where I just couldn't get excited about the majority of games I attended.  

Out of interest, which years? 6IAR was a nightmare year but other than that I enjoyed it.

[Gaffer 1,665]

2 hours ago, Bluedell said:

Out of interest, which years? 6IAR was a nightmare year but other than that I enjoyed it.

4 and 6 were the hardest going if I remember correctly.  4 was because it was just too easy and although Hateley and McCoist were great to watch, it was always one way traffic in those games.  I seem to remember one game where the opposition (can't even remember who it was) didn't even make a single pass in our half of the pitch, never mind a shot at goal.  Then 6 was dire because our players were dropping like flies with injuries.  I seem to remember that it was the end of this season that Laudrup came in and just as well because there was no style to our play and we had no one worth watching.  Laudrup revitalised my interest and will probably always be the best player I've seen at our club.  What a player!!!  7 was really good and then 8 with Gazza, but strangely for me, 9 was poor.  We got it over the line but it was such an a shame that the mood was dampened a little, mainly I think because we knew Smith was going along with lots of other players.