legalbeagle
-
Posts
10,880 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by legalbeagle
-
-
Nonetheless, McDowall dropped something like 12 points in 8 games, which was what landed us in 3rd spot.We were horrific the whole season,even under McCall.
Edit (just for the record):
McCoist dropped 16 in 17 games
McCall dropped 13 in 11 games.
-
Hibs at the time were slowly creeping up on us. I don't think we would have been hammered 4-0 under McCoist but we would still get a tanking after the previous two games at Ibrox.
The record McDowall had was beyond horrific. The pressure on Ally to leave was rightly because we were falling way behind Hearts, not because people though Hibs were going to catch us. I could go and try and dig out the stats, but we were comfortably stuck in second, which was not good enough.
-
OKThat is very much true, the collapse that we had was when McDowall took over and we were horrific until McCall came in and steadied us a bit.
-
...or the 'jobs for the boys' pish was used in the past as frustrated people vented their anger at a club that was managed terribly at all levels...and is being used now as some sort of pointless wind-up.
So when they were all having a go at Ally for 'jobs for the boys' and postponing games and stuff like that, they didn't really mean it they were just using any old excuse to have a go at him? I think we are all in agreement then?
-
I don't actually agree with your first point, I think given Warburton and McCoist are entirely different, it's perfectly reasonable to like one and not the other (unless I have misunderstood the point you were making?)
I can only speak for myself, but I did not start off disliking McCoist, I grew to do so due to his terrible management, it was worsened after the gardening leave.
Warburton is a breath of fresh air, and something we've been crying out for.
For the record, I thought Warburton's decision to call off the game was a bad move, as I did for McCoist, that hasn't changed, however I felt confident enough in MW that the anger or disappointment was not there.
It is totally fine to like or dislike whoever anyone wants. The problem is when them making the same decision is described as an utter embarrassment, cowardice or whatever but then just accepted from the other and it makes people look odd.
Genuinely stand by my earlier 'angry mob' quote.
-
People are accepting it.
For many, it's a case of trusting MW and not trusting McCoist, with results on the pitch to back it up, being the reason he does not get as much stick.
If McCoist had us playing like Warburton does, he wouldn't have had the abuse he did.
I am sure you realise that your last sentence is exactly the point. If people start from a position of disliking someone therefore hating everything they do, then liking someone else therefore loving everything they do, then they will pretty much be stuck with being hypocritical.
For what it's worth, I am delighted with the start we have made with Mark, seem to be going in the right direction, it is also good to see that he seems to be getting the support in having the right infrastructure in place.
It is quite easy for me, I am happy to back the manager in postponing games for international breaks, and always have, so don't need to tie myself in argumentative knots to justify some random changing of mind.
Managers will always want to be surrounded with staff they are familiar with, and in the absence of a scouting network thus far, also, with players they are familiar with. That makes complete sense regardless of the manager.
The point that the dude and albear is making is absolutely correct, and the debating gymnastics people are employing to try and get out of it are comical.
So, I have tried to stay out of it because I can barely be bothered, but, for the record:
I am very happy with our current manager, happily have moved on and am looking ahead, and loads of people on here are massive hypocrites. (None of these things cause me any pain, more often laughter)
-
We are the angry mob
We read the papers everyday day
We like who like
We hate who we hate
But we're also easily swayed
-
Being smug doesn't mean you haven't just made an arse of yourself.
Anyway.
Yeah, good point, saved me saying it to you.
-
You're telling that to someone who has called out and contributed to getting around 3 banned in the past 7 days?
What can I say, I just follow the rules of the forum.
-
I am sure there are some rules about timposters?I'll be reminding you of this when he's eventually banned.
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=265883#entry1062188842
-
-
Is it just me or does anybody else find themselves buying Warburtons bread even though loads of other loafs are cheaper?
#staunchasfuck
Blue, orange, green or the farmhouse?
-
How many assists has Templeton had? Many times has he played out of position?
I'm not saying Shiels is a world beater, but he is definitely one of our best players and can play anywhere apart from defense.
Honestly no idea how many assists, and I am not sure we even know his best position.
You are entitled to your view on Shiels, I cannot see how he is definitely one of our best players, not even close to Waghorn, Tavernier, McKay, Zelalem or Halliday this season for my money.
-
I think Templeton has played about fifty and scored about 25, it's pretty comparable with Shiels.How's that the same? Shiels has played less than Law, Templeton hasn't scored or played as much as either od those two players.
My point is he is pretty much on a par with the other players we have had in an attacking sense over the last few seasons, it's nothing to write home about.
-
You have a problem with Loyalist players being supported? that's the way it seems.
How does it seem like that? Utterly bizarre conclusion to jump to, I want all Rangers players supported.
-
In what way?
For goals scored and not playing as a central striker.
-
Not really - well is there any difference to that and giving a young player extra support because he's young or homegrown?. Try and take everything I've said in it's entirity. I know it can be hard.
Apart from you agreeing with me while trying to act like you are arguing with me, I have no idea what your point is.
-
Always thought he was top class in a team full of top class.
-
6 seasons? Where you getting your stats from?
Goat said 20 odd assists, 3 and a quarter seasons, about 6 a season?
-
Also, Daly and Jig played up front through the middlle when they scored their goals. Little played through the middle when he was scoring for fun. Shiels has never had that position for any length of time, if at all.
Pretty much on a par with Templeton and Law then?
-
Your moving the goalposts a few times now from your original narritive.
For what it's work I'm not fussed on Shiels, I thought Lafferty did a decent job despite no-one really rating him when he was here and being a rat prick leaving us and I like Halliday albiet I thought he was not trying a leg in the St Johnstone defeat. Not everything's black and white is the point I'm making.
Nothing wrong with a Loyalist fanbase giving Loyalist players the extra support.
Compared with nationalist bastards like Foster looking like a spazie shagging a door nob
So, you agree with me then? If you think the fans give certain players extra support?
What goalposts have I moved?
-
It's decent for a player who hardly plays and plays out of position.
It's his assists I'm more impressed with.
Again, 6 a season isn't setting the heather on fire.
-
Why should you remember he plays out of position and only has one eye?
Do you not think that severely hampers his game?
Unless you think we should play him because of it, I am not really sure what the point is?
-
Andy Halliday's got more support in 2/3 months than Lafferty did in 2/3 years and he's a Govan Loyalist compared to an Ulster Loyalist.
I would imagine his performances and work rate may also have something to do with that.
OK
More Jobs For The Boys
in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom
Posted
Unlike you to miss the point the guys are making, I don't believe anyone is having a go at Warburton at all, just at the turnaround in poster's attitudes towards certain decisions.
The frustration with that is that I had these arguments about postponements and staff last year with people, for those to have changed their mind despite such vehemence is annoying for those of us trying to stay consistent.
The best example is: I defended postponing games and was just called a blind Ally lover, loves Ally more than the club, the decision was roundly referred to as a joke, he's a clown, running scared, etc. Now we have done it again, apparently it is a sensible position, gives the players a break and all that.
Makes me think when BP9 accused people of just being Ally-haters that it is being demonstrated as correct, as there seems to be no thought behind their opinions other than that he was the one who made the decision.
Whoever drew a parallel to the boardroom earlier in the thread is entirely correct.