The Mark Warburton Legacy - Unorganised, disjointed, lightweight

[Hilly86 709]

13 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said:

It's possible, and the Statements released make it even more possible that a parting of the ways was inevitable, for all sides, and that this would happen in the summer. If that was indeed the case then W&W may have been open to other offers, to be taken in the summer. I think in that situation, if that was the case, they would be entitled to do that.

Indeed, and something we'll have to get much better at getting used to!

[cushynumber 25,178]

1 minute ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

so given the players we have at our disposal, how would you have played at tynecastle 2 weeks ago?

I cant remember who we had at our disposal  - it doesnt matter because the Hearts game was just one of many, many games, where we approached the game with far to open a formation. Our away form is dire - if we had just shut up shop a bit more away from home we wouldn't have the away record we do have.

For the record in tough away matches i would have brought Wilson in at CH alongside Kiernan and Hill - I would have told wallace to concentrate on the defensive and limit his runs going forward. I wouldn't have started Toral as he was obviously unfit.

Starting with a completely untried midfield 3 and having three forwards was another example of just throwing caution to the wind and hoping for the best.

We were all over the place in that game,  as we have been in most away fixtures and adjusting your tactics to suit the opposition I dont think is being unreasonable. Whether anybody agrees or not is irrelevant as his away record speaks for itself.

I never understood why he kept repeating failure. 

[Hilly86 709]

4 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said:

No loser had us playing the football we played in that first half at Hampden. If he was such a loser then how did that come about? You may counter it by going through all subsequent matches, including the final, but what about my question though, did a loser of a manager get his team, built on a small budget, playing that whole semi final, particularly the first half, so well? And yet people still argue he didn't know the game, or was out his league. The fact is he should have been backed with more investment, and he knew he needed more money in order to compete for the title this year. 

Would you allow the 'all subsequent matches' argument from someone who never suggested that he doesn't know football or is out of his league (if that's even possible in Scotland)? If the semi-final is an example to counter the 'loser' description, fine, but it carries very little relevance for what we see now.

And who didn't know that he would need more money to compete for the title this year? That's the very reason he wasn't asked to do so and given more modest and reasonable expectations to meet.

[AlCapone 7,678]

1 hour ago, Johnnyren said:

If he went to forest ,how many of our players do you think he would try to or like to take with him ?  

None, they already have a better team 

[Turnberry18 3,204]

Just now, Hilly86 said:

Would you allow the 'all subsequent matches' argument from someone who never suggested that he doesn't know football or is out of his league (if that's even possible in Scotland)? If the semi-final is an example to counter the 'loser' description, fine, but it carries very little relevance for what we see now.

And who didn't know that he would need more money to compete for the title this year? That's the very reason he wasn't asked to do so and given more modest and reasonable expectations to meet.

No I wouldn't, because unlike cup games, and this was similar with Le Guen, to do well in a league race you need a proper spine of talented players, something we didn't have, and where we did have it injuries and so on prevented even what we did have from being tried anyway. I don't understand your last point, because all judgement on the man's abilities deny the fact, to an extent, that he was working with a very inadequate budget. Can you remember a top league Rangers team with so few full internationalists in it? That was a point raised by Warburton a few weeks ago, and I think it was quite a good example of how bad our team is right now.

[Young Bob 1,360]

2 hours ago, cushynumber said:

Thats the legacy that Mark Warburton and David Weir have left as they slink out of Scotland back to their homes down south:

• A stubborn (or lazy) disregard for the opposition
• Schoolboy tactics and team formation
• A team that cant defend  - and when asked to do so are almost comic to watch
• A forward line that cant score
• A midfield that gets pushed off the ball at will and seem unable to put in a tackle of consequence.
• A team that are an abject failure away from home
• A team that were lucky to beat Morton at Ibrox

You didnt send the fans home happy Mark - you jumped before you were pushed as it  dawned on you that your playground formation and painting by numbers fantasy football had been found out by your own supporters and by run of the mill teams that were no more than organised. In fact, any decent team hammered you.

You always gave the impression you viewed Rangers as a stepping stone to bigger and better things - thats your prerogative. However, you have failed -  and this will be as good as it ever gets.

 

 

and David Weir - shame on you.

 

I hope they both read that at some time. Anybody who wishes to employ Warburton should just look at what he has done to us.

Why Weir hangs on to this guys coat tails is beyond me. He really has gone from hero to zero. Sad but true.

[eejay the dj 31,964]

22 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said:

No loser had us playing the football we played in that first half at Hampden. If he was such a loser then how did that come about? You may counter it by going through all subsequent matches, including the final, but what about my question though, how did a loser of a manager get his team, built on a small budget, playing that whole semi final, particularly the first half, so well? And yet people still argue he didn't know the game, or was out his league. The fact is he should have been backed with more investment, and he knew he needed more money in order to compete for the title this year. 

The one semi final that we drew mate

Cmon . The man was a loser .End of .

Heard someone else get all tearful about his fantastic time here . Not for me .

The myth is already being fabricated .

On very little occasions did Rangers play the way I think a Rangers side should be playing . And get this .WINNING .

It is bollocks to suggest he had us playing any fantastic football for lengthy time .

Name me 5 games that were important that we were breath taking .

And if you are struggling for the 6th or 7th ,there is your answer .

We are well shot of him .

It's like a cup final win for me

[Turnberry18 3,204]

1 minute ago, eejay the dj said:

The one semi final that we drew mate

Cmon . The man was a loser .End of .

Heard someone else get all tearful about his fantastic time here . Not for me .

The myth is already being fabricated .

On very little occasions did Rangers play the way I think a Rangers side should be playing . And get this .WINNING .

It is bollocks to suggest he had us playing any fantastic football for lengthy time .

Name me 5 games that were important that we were breath taking .

And if you are struggling for the 6th or 7th ,there is your answer .

We are well shot of him .

It's like a cup final win for me

The first half of that match was the best I'd seen us play against them in years, probably since Advocaat. They had a couple of missed chances, but we had the ball, and in open play didn't have an answer to it. I stand by the fact that he knew what he wanted, but it would have taken time, or money. Had he had better players than we have, particularly a proper CDM, which I don't think he ever had, then I think he'd have had success here.

[jamess 3,435]

I would argue that we were unorganised - we had some,  but it was simplistic and easily spotted.  He spoke well,  but time showed there was no substance behind the 'new thinking' - amateurish.  We were out thought a few months into his tenure and have been flat lining ever since.

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

Other bits of the legacy the 3 of them leave behind are maybe a bit harder to gauge at this time.   Not all of it may be negative.  For instance:

'Back office' (for want of a better term) & Academy Restructuring.    I don't know whether all the talk of a football philosophy at Ibrox was created and led by Warburton, or how much any of the re-org etc (including recruitment) of the Academy was down to Warburton's work.  In King's 2nd statement he emphasised he wanted to continue with and entrench the footballing philosophy that was in place, ad to protect and support the work being achieved by the Academy.   How much of this is Warburton's legacy - only those who have good knowledge of the inner workings of the Club at the Academy would know.

Scouting.   Was McParland operating substantially as a one man scouting network or has a scouting network been established (in full or partially complete) that Rangers and a new manager can access?   If its the former, then surely questions would need to be asked of Robertson and King as to why we continued to fail to build an effective scouting network and placed reliance on a single person who has now gone.   We'd be back to square one (or more precisely we'd never really have moved off square one in the first case).   If the latter then it may yet be a useful structure for a future manager to access.  But again, only those with good knowledge of the football management and Academy operations would know. 

Risk of 'Poison Pill'.    Apart from some of his signings (some of which trace back to his Brentford etc days) a number of other folks were signed on at Ibrox.    The unknown unknown at least from my point of view is whether enough of the reason for joining Rangers was down to wanting to work with Warburton more than the pull of the privilege of working for Rangers.    If its the former for some of them then maybe there is a risk of more departures.   If its the latter then 3 leaving is just 3 leaving with no risk of a sort of 'poison pill' effect taking place where other key posts are vacated over a short period of time which creates a weakening of the Club which a new manager then has to fix as well as fixing the first team performance and results.

I think a point might be that whoever arrives as the new manager may have more than just creating a much more effective winning mentality into the first team squad, there may be the risk of wider legacy matters to be managed or sorted.  

[Hilly86 709]

1 minute ago, Turnberry18 said:

...to do well in a league race you need a proper spine of talented players, something we didn't have, and where we did have it injuries and so on prevented even what we did have from being tried anyway.

That depends on your opinion of what doing 'well' in this league might be, whether the squad he chose to be left with after injuries is no better than Aberdeen or Hearts because of resources alone. Even foregoing the usual comparison of finances, he still made seemingly bizarre choices with the money available to him. 

 

1 minute ago, Turnberry18 said:

 I don't understand your last point, because all judgement on the man's abilities deny the fact, to an extent, that he was working with a very inadequate budget. Can you remember a top league Rangers team with so few full internationalists in it? That was a point raised by Warburton a few weeks ago, and I think it was quite a good example of how bad our team is right now.

Again - a budget inadequate for what end? Who are the full internationalists playing for Aberdeen, Hearts and all the other teams we struggle so badly against?

It's quite the opposite of what you suggest in my case - my judgement of him certainly takes into account the money available to him and what could reasonably be expected to follow from it.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

Just now, Hilly86 said:

That depends on your opinion of what doing 'well' in this league might be, whether the squad he chose to be left with after injuries is no better than Aberdeen or Hearts because of resources alone. Even foregoing the usual comparison of finances, he still made seemingly bizarre choices with the money available to him. 

 

Again - a budget inadequate for what end? Who are the full internationalists playing for Aberdeen, Hearts and all the other teams we struggle so badly against?

It's quite the opposite of what you suggest in my case - my judgement of him certainly takes into account the money available to him and what could reasonably be expected to follow from it.

Unlike the players of those clubs, Rangers players have to win, are under a bigger spotlight, and they have to perform more consistently. That requires players with a proven pedigree to carry that burden. Doing well in this league has to be challenging for the title, the fans rightly demand that, and they won't cease to demand it just because Warburton is away. Will there be a budget to challenge for the title next year, or will success be demanded on a similar budget? We will be back here again if it's the latter, most probably,

[Prso's headband 35,577]

Snakes don't hiss they say we trained well this week. The man was a con artist and got found out big time. Any person that attempts to undermine the club the way he has done deserves everything he gets. He gave me my best day in football in 5 years that day at Hampden and I'll never forget the tears of that day. Even the way he spoke the past few weeks were enough to get the sack and he lost a lot of respect and credibility in football 

[Hilly86 709]

4 minutes ago, Reformation Bear said:

Other bits of the legacy the 3 of them leave behind are maybe a bit harder to gauge at this time.   Not all of it may be negative.  For instance:

'Back office' (for want of a better term) & Academy Restructuring.    I don't know whether all the talk of a football philosophy at Ibrox was created and led by Warburton, or how much any of the re-org etc (including recruitment) of the Academy was down to Warburton's work.  In King's 2nd statement he emphasised he wanted to continue with and entrench the footballing philosophy that was in place, ad to protect and support the work being achieved by the Academy.   How much of this is Warburton's legacy - only those who have good knowledge of the inner workings of the Club at the Academy would know.

Risk of 'Poison Pill'.    Apart from some of his signings (some of which trace back to his Brentford etc days) a number of other folks were signed on at Ibrox.    The unknown unknown at least from my point of view is whether enough of the reason for joining Rangers was down to wanting to work with Warburton more than the pull of the privilege of working for Rangers.    If its the former for some of them then maybe there is a risk of more departures.   If its the latter then 3 leaving is just 3 leaving with no risk of a sort of 'poison pill' effect taking place where other key posts are vacated over a short period of time which creates a weakening of the Club which a new manager then has to fix as well as fixing the first team performance and results.

I think a point might be that whoever arrives as the new manager may have more than just creating a much more effective winning mentality into the first team squad, there may be the risk of wider legacy matters to be managed or sorted.  

The Academy stuff might well be the most positive thing he did and I can't believe that the importance of it will be lessened now.

The 'poison pill' stuff is a definite risk for us and just an extension of the situation for players, where we can't compete with clubs who come with money. Is that fixable?

It still puzzles me that wanting to be at Rangers doesn't seem to persuade a few more players to swap prestige for cash, but I would say that...

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,607]

57 minutes ago, Hilly86 said:

Even after his lack of fortune with new signings, that's still one of the most damning points - he assembled that squad.

If you wanted to play a 4-3-3 come hell or high water, would you repeatedly choose to have Andy Halliday as your defensive midfielder or would you adapt?

adapt with who, he tried crooks (a supposed defensive mid) and hearts battered us as well, the point i made to cushy is that i dont think anything different would have helped, the squad is a championship winning squad not a premiership winning squad, we play halliday because there's no one else there,

[blueretro 704]

We weren't lucky to beat Morton. Just look at the stats 9 times out of 10 we win that game. Genuinely I thought we were well worth the victory today, even though we were shite.

 

[Hilly86 709]

10 minutes ago, Turnberry18 said:

Unlike the players of those clubs, Rangers players have to win, are under a bigger spotlight, and they have to perform more consistently. That requires players with a proven pedigree to carry that burden. Doing well in this league has to be challenging for the title, the fans rightly demand that, and they won't cease to demand it just because Warburton is away. Will there be a budget to challenge for the title next year, or will success be demanded on a similar budget? We will be back here again if it's the latter, most probably,

Fair enough, but I've yet to meet anyone (cranks excluded) who defined success this season as a challenge for the title, let alone demanded it. Next season - any season - and the next manager should be allowed the same leeway when allowing for a budget understandably less than septic, significantly more than the rest. Success measured in progression.

[Juniorsparkie 491]

2 hours ago, Johnnyren said:

If he went to forest ,how many of our players do you think he would try to or like to take with him ?  

Al Hasawi might be a rocket but he's not daft.

Normally if a manager leaves there's a clause saying they can't come in for players.

Our Board tried to insert a clause saying they must, that's why the deal went tits up.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

Just now, Hilly86 said:

Fair enough, but I've yet to meet anyone (cranks excluded) who defined success this season as a challenge for the title, let alone demanded it. Next season - any season - and the next manager should be allowed the same leeway when allowing for a budget understandably less than septic, significantly more than the rest. Success measured in progression.

What was success then? If you are going to say "a good second" then that is ambiguous, because even when we were second Warburton was being heavily criticised. I'm not saying the demand at this club or any big club are ever going to be realistic, you are saying that though, but even if people trying to be rational they cannot resist the desire to win the league. Next season the demand will be greater, and the issue is what we do this summer to deal with that. When you say the same leeway you just know deep down that this will not be the case. I agree with you, that should be the case, but it won't be.

[Juniorsparkie 491]

13 minutes ago, blueretro said:

We weren't lucky to beat Morton. Just look at the stats 9 times out of 10 we win that game. Genuinely I thought we were well worth the victory today, even though we were shite.

 

Nice to hear stats getting trotted out, how are you keeping Mark ?

[Juniorsparkie 491]

6 minutes ago, Hilly86 said:

Fair enough, but I've yet to meet anyone (cranks excluded) who defined success this season as a challenge for the title, let alone demanded it. Next season - any season - and the next manager should be allowed the same leeway when allowing for a budget understandably less than septic, significantly more than the rest. Success measured in progression.

Do you see any progression ?

[Turnberry18 3,204]

18 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

adapt with who, he tried crooks (a supposed defensive mid) and hearts battered us as well, the point i made to cushy is that i dont think anything different would have helped, the squad is a championship winning squad not a premiership winning squad, we play halliday because there's no one else there,

This is all too true, and greatly overlooked at times.

[Guest]

Good riddance. We will be the better without him. He's ruined his reputation by showing himself to be a sleekit sneaky bastard. And regardless of that he's not a good enough manager to succeed in the EPL. 

I look forward do the day that's soon approaching where we stop talking about him and he's forgotten while we focus on the Rangers because he will just be a wee dot on our glorious history and our prosperous future

[Hilly86 709]

13 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

adapt with who, he tried crooks (a supposed defensive mid) and hearts battered us as well, the point i made to cushy is that i dont think anything different would have helped, the squad is a championship winning squad not a premiership winning squad, we play halliday because there's no one else there,

I think we only disagree on the extent to which MW is culpable for being in the position where he has this particular squad given his finances and his 4-3-3.

Ignoring how bad Halliday is in the role he's asked to fill, why is he ever the only option available for such an important role? Maybe that 'Rossiter is 7-10 days away' thing was really believed and he was caught short, but still...

I do agree with you on the lack of quality available - we're not awful because of MW alone -  and how difficult it is to see simple changes as being effective right now. Trying to think up lineups is an exercise in putting square pegs in round holes.

[jimgers 565]

I desperately wanted to buy into the Warburton dream and for a while i did, but like all dreams you wake up eventually and  can't remember what you were dreaming about. The football got stale, no progress and we never seemed to learn from our mistakes. The Hearst game was the final nightmare for me, the team were sleep-walking through games, for me the alarm was going off big time.