Win - Lose - or Draw

[maineflyer 0]

Of all the managers Advocaats was the only manager to actually play football. the first two years were his best and if another manager came along with the same philosophy id be absolutely delighted.

 

Smith has bored and drained the life out of me wether we win or lose.

 

That is something no other manager has done in my lifetime, no matter how good or bad their team was.

 

Ahem, Rangers were great playing football way before Advocaat was even born.

[Norris Cole 0]

A resounding no. Kaunas must forever go alongside 9IAR in Walter Smith's epitaph. But leaving aside the fact he should have got the bullet after that debacle, the future under Smith doesn't bear thinking about - limping along from one month to the next, lily-livered lack of ambition on the field, constantly playing players out of position, 'Walter's boys' clique of off-form players, financially disastrous signings, contemptuous statements about fans in the media, and so on and so forth...

 

Calscot, you are right when you say we played some great stuff under Smith during his first spell. However that was 10-15 years ago now, and while he had a different class of player at his disposal then, surely no-one can honestly think our current squad is so weak we have to play one up front and pack the midfield against non-OF SPL opposition. Christ, even in the early-mid Eighties when we really were pish there was none of this 'playing for the draw' mentality.

 

As for Advocaat, I liked the guy and I liked his mentality. He just bottled it against O'Neill for me, but that �£70m wasn't his money - our custodian got us into that particular hole, totally reckless chairmanship throwing �£12m at a bad start to the season.

 

Alexscott - Davie Moyes and Kenny Miller are two completely different kettles of fish IMO. One thumped the badge of satan after scoring against us at Parkhead, the other carries himself with a bit of class, and is actually good at what he does. Would absolutely love Moyes at Ibrox but sad to say I think it's unrealistic, besides Murray doesn't have the ambition any more to even attempt to get someone like Moyes.

 

Martinez? A gamble but probably one worth taking. Wouldn't come with the crazy expectations Le Guen was lumbered with, and has the experience and knowledge of the Scottish and British game Le Guen didn't.

 

Billy Davies? Pretty uninspiring from a personal point of view, but a man with a record hard to argue with. Bags of experience and a Rangers man to boot. I'd regard Davies as a safe bet, and expect he would jump at the chance to become Number Thirteen.

 

Ronald de Boer (Frank?) - there's a left field name to provoke debate if nothing else.

 

Ultimately the appointment of manager lies with the chairman, and the fire went out in Murray after the Le Guen disaster. He may well look to someone like Davies but the post-Le Guen Berlin Bunker Murray tends to work only with people he knows. That would mean, in all probability, Advocaat - though even he is out of our league now I fear and would only take the job on as a favour to a mate, like Abramovich-Hiddink. Souness? Smacks of Newcastle and Keegan to me.

 

All of the above may be hypothetical anyway, if Murray is dead set on giving McCoist the job.

 

But we are patently not moving forward under Smith.

[Norris Cole 0]

Ahem, Rangers were great playing football way before Advocaat was even born.

 

If I had to choose the top three Rangers sides of all time, the team of the 1920s and 30s would be in it. Easily.

[alexscottislegend 2,112]

If I had to choose the top three Rangers sides of all time, the team of the 1920s and 30s would be in it. Easily.

Didn't know you remembered them, Norris. But seriously, love your idea of Martinez. What he's done at Swansea on little money is superb. Sadly, I fear the EPL willl snap him up first.

[maineflyer 0]

Didn't know you remembered them, Norris. But seriously, love your idea of Martinez. What he's done at Swansea on little money is superb. Sadly, I fear the EPL willl snap him up first.

 

I certainly remember the team of the late fifties and early sixties and I'm here to tell you that was some team. Dick Advocaat had a decent enough team for a couple of years but he didn't have Jimmy Baxter and he didn't have Willie Henderson and he didn't have Jimmy Millar and he didn't have Ralphie Brand. He certainly didn't have Eric Caldow or Bobby Shearer. Oh, and he didn't have John Greig either.

 

I never saw the etam that Norris refers to but I do believe they were very special too. The idea that Rangers started when David Murray arrived is popular enough but total bollocks of course. That was actually when the club started going backwards. Lately this has been transformed into freefall but plenty will still queue up for their new season tickets to ensure Murray remains fully vindicated.

 

Martinez? Best idea I've heard in a long time..... but pointless un;less Murray goes first.

[CammyF 7,041]

Eck's teams played some dreadful football and we seemed to get worse with every passing game. The team always seemed to look like a bunch of players who had never met before and didn't have a clue what tactics they should be playing.

 

IMO, that is a rather hash statement on the AMc's entire time as Rangers manager. It certainly describes the final 18 months or so where AMc saw all his best players sold and was left scrambling for players in the last minutes of transfer window deadline day.

 

During AMc's initial stages, he had us playing some wonderful football with a very attacking formation that including the glittering skills of R DeBoer, Mols, Lovenkrands, Cannigia and Shota (laterly Novo and Prso) bakced by players like Ferguson and Arteta from midfield.

 

Have a look at First To 50 and 51 And Counting DVD's to refresh your memories. Witness Rangers, expecially at Ibrox surge forward relentlessly and score goals for fun. We ripped teams apart and during that spell, AMc team managed to match the 2nd most succesful Celtc manager trophy for trophy (and he is the last Rangers manager to secure the SPL title and domestic treble).

 

His teams would regularly score 3, 4 and even 5 goals at places like Easter Road, Tynecastle, Tannidice and who can forget the vintage 3-1 win at Pittodrie that was crucial in our quest for title number 51? The performance capped off by Prso's deft back-healed goal.

 

IMO AMc was always harshly treated during his time as Rangers manager, even when he was succedding in the face of SDM's downsizing. I believed that in time, history would be a little bit kinder to AMc, but it appears not. Or, we haven't endured enough pain yet to realise that AMc whislt not be the greatest ever Rangers manager actually did OK.

 

Cammy F

[Jon 0]

Great points made there Cammy. Eck was never going to win over some fans but IMO he did a great job for us with very limited resources. His tactics at times could be questioned and players out of position could be questioned......does that sound familiar to us now?

[CammyF 7,041]

Great points made there Cammy. Eck was never going to win over some fans but IMO he did a great job for us with very limited resources. His tactics at times could be questioned and players out of position could be questioned......does that sound familiar to us now?

 

He was simply ignored by the majority of our support as we wasn't 'sexy enough' to repalce Dick Advocaat. We were all expecting another big name from Europe to continue the work Advocaat had started. Unknown to the msjority of fans, SDM had driven us to over �£74M debt and that had to change.

 

IMO, McLeish was brought in to look like the fall guy as SDM knew that we would be selling players right, left and centre and we would not be replacing these quality players.

 

Given that fact, IMO McLeish did an exceptional job in his first few years as managers and no matter what anyone says regading the way we won the two titles under McLeish, they were unforgettable and won under trying circumstances for the club.

 

Cammy F

[Whosthedado 1,545]

I agree about AmC and as you pointed out Frankie it wasn't until after he had left and we suffered those disasterous months under PLG that you thought hold on wait a minute he actually did remarkably well. OK he bought his fair share of duds but he was also responsible for bringing in the likes of Boumsong Prso and Hemdani IIRC. The two Title wins under Eck will be forever remembered in Rangers History. We'll be telling our our kids and their kids! about Helicopter Sunday and the other last day success- we should have had that one wrapped up long before the last day:rfc:

[calscot 0]

This is what I don't get, Walter Smith achieved as much and actually more than Eck did in the first year and a half - bar the last few games of the season where there was massive mitigation. A few less games crammed into the last few weeks and we'd be looking at another treble and a fantastic run to the final in Europe (and who is to say we couldn't have won with a proper rest?).

 

However, what he's done that Eck could not achieve, is to also still be in the title race in his second full season instead of losing the league in an inept season by a massive 17 points.

 

Eck inherited the legacy of our 70M of spending for his first season and a half with Celtic just starting to get their act together.

 

Walter was 3pts off what Eck did with a lesser squad but also had far less luck.

 

However, Eck is being praised for his subsequent 17 point loss whereas Walter is being pilloried for being 2pts behind.

 

There is obviously some perspective being lost somewhere.

 

To be honest I prefer watching our current team to those of Eck's after his 18 month honeymoon period. The football might not be any prettier but it's far more effective and I'm much more confident of a win.

 

It's funny as Walter in his second spell and Eck have many parallels and you can even compare Kaunas with Zhizkov. However overall, Walter is the one with the better record so far.

 

If Eck had stayed within a few points of Celtic in his non League winning years, I'd have wanted to keep faith in him. However, 17 and 18 points (and third) behind Celtic is just not good enough and it's obvious that a team who is that far behind is inept. If Walter falls that far behind I'll want him to leave also but I find it hard to sack a manager who is actually competing consistently - and far more consistently than our previous three incumbents.

 

Walter Smith has gained exactly the same SPL points in Celtic in the last two years while winning every domestic cup he has entered. None of the past three managers achieved this.

 

I think once you are 15 points behind Celtic you deserve the sack and all our previous 3 managers had that ignominy.

 

Walter's worst season has him finishing 3 points behind Celtic in what was an unprecedented fixture pile up while winning both cups and getting to the UEFA final. Hardly sackable.

 

Eck wasn't sacked for Zhizkov and plenty of Rangers managers have had a bad European result so while it's a black mark against Walter, I think the fact he had just been to the the UEFA final means that he's allowed one bad season in Europe. His average is still equivalent to two good European runs.

 

So to me, this and probably next season will define Walter's second dynasty at Ibrox. If he wins the league this season he'll be untouchable for another season where he'll have to have a better European run and compete again for the league and domestic trophies.

Edited February 20, 2009 by calscot