Murray voices faith in McCoist

[Zappa 0]

What "others" are those then? Smiling, joking, needing to be loved?

 

Without going into the abilities of someone we don't know anything about in managerial terms, who would you suggest as a better option Maineflyer?

[Zappa 0]

What "others" are those then?

 

FWIW, I think that the 'others' are the fact that he's probably got a better relationship with the players than anyone in the past decade (perhaps more). He's a very good tactician because he's been in the game (in various forms) for long enough to know what to do & what not to do in general terms. He's good with attacking tactics. He's also good with midfield tactics, in the sense that he knows what's desired of a midfield from an attackers POV. He knows how to unlock a defence & knows how to capitalize on the opposition's defensive weaknesses.

 

I might be wrong, but I think Ally might be one of our best managers ever.

[Bluedell 5,329]

FWIW, I think that the 'others' are the fact that he's probably got a better relationship with the players than anyone in the past decade (perhaps more).

A good relationship with players doesn't mean good man manager. Does he have the balls to leave out Ferguson, for example. Can he discipline McGregor for his off-field antics?

 

Being everyone's friend is easy, but that's not what good management is about.

 

He's a very good tactician because he's been in the game (in various forms) for long enough to know what to do & what not to do in general terms. He's good with attacking tactics. He's also good with midfield tactics, in the sense that he knows what's desired of a midfield from an attackers POV. He knows how to unlock a defence & knows how to capitalize on the opposition's defensive weaknesses.

 

I might be wrong, but I think Ally might be one of our best managers ever.

 

I don't see that playing the game for a long time means that you are a master tactician. Most players know the game in general terms, but that doesn't mean that they all have the ability to be a Mourinho.

[Bluedell 5,329]

You've got to be on the wind up here....

 

If you have evidence to suggest that he has then I'm all ears.

[Gribz 743]

I always look at management as 2 - the assistant is as important for me. IF and big IF Ally got the job, whoever was his No.2 would be important.

 

It would be a risk and like a few others id always prefer a big proven name, but I do see Ally as manager one day and I hope he is successful.

[maineflyer 0]

FWIW, I think that the 'others' are the fact that he's probably got a better relationship with the players than anyone in the past decade (perhaps more). He's a very good tactician because he's been in the game (in various forms) for long enough to know what to do & what not to do in general terms. He's good with attacking tactics. He's also good with midfield tactics, in the sense that he knows what's desired of a midfield from an attackers POV. He knows how to unlock a defence & knows how to capitalize on the opposition's defensive weaknesses.

 

I might be wrong, but I think Ally might be one of our best managers ever.

 

The reason you're right to say you might be wrong is that neither you nor anyone else can point to a shred of evidence to support any of the claims you make for McCoist.

 

You know nothing about his relationship with the players. You know nothing about his abilities as a tactician. You have no real knowledge of his perception of midfield requirements. In fact all you have a basis for claiming is that he has been a great goalscorer in the past and part of a successful dressing room for a sustained period. Hell, even now we have little idea what his contribution as a number two might be - like much of what comes out of Ibrox these days, McCoist is evaluated purely at tabloid level and that is hardly enough to judge anyone.

 

And surely that's the whole point about McCoist. We know almost nothing about his abilities because he is entirely untried. Everyone who supports his appointment as manager does so on the basis of hope alone.

 

I happen to think that the selection of a Rangers manager should be based on a little more than wishful thinking. Hope alone doesn't do it for me. I'd like to see a Rangers manager chosen on the basis of known ability, some kind of track record that at least allows people like you to support him from a platform of knowledge rather than speculation.

 

Try to take your heart out of this and give your head a chance. Rangers have won two out of the last eight titles so this is hardly the time for us to be basing managerial selection on what someone achieved as a player more than eleven years ago and who has devoted most of his energies to pursuing TV celebrity status during the period since.

 

McCoist MAY be a good manager but it is blatant irresponsibility to assume he will be without him ever demonstrating he can achieve results at a club like Rangers.

 

What particularly worries me is that Murray seems willing to gamble like this with Ranger's future. Does he really have so little concern about our success that he is prepared to appoint McCoist as manager? Or is it just that this would give him sufficient distance from criticism to meet his personal needs?

Edited November 23, 2008 by maineflyer