Rangers can put aside three years of failings by hiring the right man

[MrGaryValentine 85]

22 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Here's a video on FdB's tactics when he was at Crystal Palace (obviously he was sacked three games after):

 

 

 

Saw this yesterday.

 

I quite liked the look at. 3-4-3 with someone like Windass as a false No9. 

 

Also watched an interview with him from Palace where he said before signing players he looks to the Academy first which would fit with the road we seem to want to go down. 

[Frankie 8,185]

 

2 hours ago, Bluedell said:

We need a safe, less of a gamble appointment.

 

Although any appointment is a gamble, I'm not sure that an idealistic manager like FdB is what we need right now. We've had that with Warburton and Pedro to a lesser extent. I believe that we need a more pragmatic manager

 

7 minutes ago, MrGaryValentine said:

 

I have to agree with this. Will a McInnes or Clarke for example win us the league? I really can’t see it myself. 

 

1 hour ago, Rousseau said:

I agree, but I can't help feel deflated at that.

 

A part of me still thinks an idealistic approach can work. And, I do worry that a pragmatic manager won't better Rodgers -- McInnes has an awful record, Clarke's a bit better.   

I'd imagine most bears can see both sides of this and that's probably reflected in the boardroom when it comes to selecting the new manager.

 

FWIW, the idealistic guys haven't worked (Warburton and Pedro) but the pragmatic choices (McCoist and Murty) haven't really either so it really is a tough decision.

 

Easy to forget we need to add in the Mark Allen factor too in that any new manager may not actually be a manager per se but a head coach. 

[Bluedell 5,356]

34 minutes ago, Frankie said:

FWIW, the idealistic guys haven't worked (Warburton and Pedro) but the pragmatic choices (McCoist and Murty) haven't really either so it really is a tough decision.

 

McCoist and Murty were both first time managers, so the fact that their approach wasn't successful is perhaps more down to that than their pragmatic approach.

[Frankie 8,185]

1 minute ago, Bluedell said:

McCoist and Murty were both first time managers, so the fact that their approach wasn't successful is perhaps more down to that than their pragmatic approach.

Absolutely (and I was especially unfair on Murty) but it could be argued Warburton and Caixinha were both fairly inexperienced as well.

 

Interestingly though, Warburton, Pedro and Murty have all pretty much used the same formation so tactically they're not that far apart despite what may be considered different outlooks.

 

Like I say, it's very tricky - do we opt for a Clarke or McInnes knowing their football may not be the most exciting but results could be better?  Or do we maintain the open system and hope a higher calibre manager can iron out the kinks?  In this case I don't envy the board.

[Bluedell 5,356]

2 hours ago, Rousseau said:

I agree, but I can't help feel deflated at that.

 

A part of me still thinks an idealistic approach can work. And, I do worry that a pragmatic manager won't better Rodgers -- McInnes has an awful record, Clarke's a bit better.   

An idealistic approach possibly can work but it's too big a risk and it's not what we need right now. A pragmatic approach doesn't need to be limited to these two.

 

1 hour ago, Rousseau said:

Here's a video on FdB's tactics when he was at Crystal Palace (obviously he was sacked three games after):

 

 

His inability to change sounds like Warburton. Plus I want a manager who can come up with tactics based on the players he has and not force players into a style that's not natural to them just because it's sexy.

[Bluedell 5,356]

4 minutes ago, Frankie said:

 

Like I say, it's very tricky - do we opt for a Clarke or McInnes knowing their football may not be the most exciting but results could be better?  Or do we maintain the open system and hope a higher calibre manager can iron out the kinks?  In this case I don't envy the board.

If we go for a Walter mark 2 and start getting results like we did in 2008 then I'll be a lot happier than I am at the moment.

[Frankie 8,185]

Just now, Bluedell said:

If we go for a Walter mark 2 and start getting results like we did in 2008 then I'll be a lot happier than I am at the moment.

I'd always prioritise results over product but finding a Walter 2.0 isn't as easy as it sounds.  Maybe we should just stick with Walter 1.0?

[MrGaryValentine 85]

1 hour ago, Frankie said:

 

 

 

I'd imagine most bears can see both sides of this and that's probably reflected in the boardroom when it comes to selecting the new manager.

 

FWIW, the idealistic guys haven't worked (Warburton and Pedro) but the pragmatic choices (McCoist and Murty) haven't really either so it really is a tough decision.

 

Easy to forget we need to add in the Mark Allen factor too in that any new manager may not actually be a manager per se but a head coach. 

That could sway the decision towards a manager from abroad because it does look like Mark Allan takes a hands on approach, especially with transfers which may put a UK born manager off?

 

Must point out I have always thought a DoF was the way to go for us - if done the correct way as seems to be being done now. 

[ian1964 10,455]

You do wonder why we brought Jimmy Nicholl in? he is vastly experienced so what exactly is his input? is Murty listening to him? will he still be here if Murty is not the manager?

[Unicorn 206]

I don’t think our support has the patience for an idealist, project type manager like FDB.  Two bad results and it’s ‘sack everyone’ and ‘bring back Walter!’.

 

We want results and we want them yesterday!