Is our problem a lack of philosophy?

Northampton_Loyalist

Well-Known Member
As in, we do not have any kind of set ethos or playing style. Smith was ever the pragmatist, Advocaat had millions to spend and had us playing expansive football, Warburton wanted to go possession and Pedro fancied a counter attacking game. Going manager to manager is fine, so long as they are not ripping up the work of the man before, in a short space of time, with limited funds. If we are not going to give managers time to fully implement their ideas, and we are not, the succession probably has to look as much at style as anything else. Pedro has bought a bit of a mish mash of styles, he started with 1 formation and dropped it immediately despite targeting players specifically to play that way, but with another appointment on the horizon and with the same limited funds, bringing in a manager who has a defined style that is nothing like we have been playing could well set us back yet again. Perhaps the DoF does not need to look at how he wants us to play and target a manager for it, but look at what we have, how they are best suited as a team already and find a manager that plays in that kind of style, perhaps sacrificing 'name' or ability or potential for something far more pragmatic? It might not lead us to an exciting capture, but it would almost certainly lead us to getting more out of the current crop, therefore allowing cash to be spent in a targeted manner, rather than on a 4th squad in 3 years.
 
I’m not sure I agree with you but is this not supposed to be one of the benefits of the DoF.
We develop an ethos and the DoF ensures this is maintained through the hiring of like minded head coaches.
My problem here is what if the chosen ethos is wrong or not working.
Who oversees the DoF?
 
I’m not sure I agree with you but is this not supposed to be one of the benefits of the DoF.
We develop an ethos and the DoF ensures this is maintained through the hiring of like minded head coaches.
My problem here is what if the chosen ethos is wrong or not working.
Who oversees the DoF?


That is an issue, but I think the DoF has to be realistic; There is no point saying we are aiming to play like 2010 Barcelona with SPL players and the odd youngster. Likewise, if he decides that Wimbledon 1995 is the way to go, the support would go apeshit rapidly.

I think we need to, for at least this next appointment, look at what we have already and pick a candidate that suits it, and then look at an evolution of style and staff rather than pick a style, pick a manager and chop the players who do not suit. We cannot afford a decent squad in one window, we need to use the players we have first and foremost and I think that kind of pushes towards some managers and away from others.
 
Surely any good manager and coach could play a system that best suits the players at his disposal and can adapt a system from game to game depending on the quality of the opposition.
 
Surely any good manager and coach could play a system that best suits the players at his disposal and can adapt a system from game to game depending on the quality of the opposition.

Well, you would think so, but it is a cold hard fact that certain managers set up their teams in certain ways and build squads around that. Mourinho at ManU is the perfect example; one of the best managers in the modern game, but you know his style of play on any given game as soon as the fixtures are announced.
 
Yes, we do need an 'ethos' and, to a degree, I think we will - hopefully - see it shine through. As stated, MW was all about possession, keep the ball, move the ball. Whilst ultimately it didn't work - due to his own failings and, to an extent, players who couldn't make it work - I enjoyed the fact that we were playing a game I recognised as 'football' rather than us playing like every other SPFL kick-and-rush team. Caixinha was much, much more direct. It was more exciting and is was faster paced - but we still struggled.

What I've seen, in Murty's 2 games, is an attempt to develop a 'hybrid' of the two. Yes, we still get the ball forward quickly on occasion, but I've seen more of a willingness to just keep hold of the ball as well. In truth, this 'hybrid' may well be the way for us to go.
 
We should be able to demonstrate an ethos with the manager working with a DOF. We have a varied squad of players for the coach to work with
 
Mark Allen talked about that in the interview he gave the other day, covered excactly what you are asking about.
 
Rightly or wrongly, I see football as a relatively simple game. A very good manager/coach with a team of very good players, will normally beat another very good manager/coach who has a team of average players. There are occasions where the average players come out on top due to their manager coming up with a game plan which catches the opposition out. All managers/coaches will have a preferred style of football, but in my mind a top manager/coach is one who has the ability to be flexible in style, is tactically aware and can spot what's not working.
Maybe I'm naive, but appoint the right manager/coach and his ethos will become ours.
 
I also like Murty's hybrid: Much more direct than MW but less aimless punts up the field than Pedro. We kept ball better yesterday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TQ3
I also like Murty's hybrid: Much more direct than MW but less aimless punts up the field than Pedro. We kept ball better yesterday.

Murty said he felt we passed it for passing sake at times. I can't ever remember Warburton criticizing the team like that.
 
Surely any good manager and coach could play a system that best suits the players at his disposal and can adapt a system from game to game depending on the quality of the opposition.
Who was the last manager you can think of who turned poor quality players into a successful team?
 
Murty said he felt we passed it for passing sake at times. I can't ever remember Warburton criticizing the team like that.

I think Murty was correct. Most of the second half the players didn't seem to know what to do and just passed the ball about with no real purpose. We have actually looked like that for too long.
We don't have a noticeable style or purpose.
 
I also like Murty's hybrid: Much more direct than MW but less aimless punts up the field than Pedro. We kept ball better yesterday.
There has to be some sort of trade-off between playing direct football and dominating possession. I.e. meaningful possession where the intent is always to set up a scoring opportunity but without hoofing it up the park to the 6ft centre half.
 
Is our problem a lack of philosophy?
Personally, I think there's too bloody much 'philosophy' in the game.
Football is a very simple game, over-complicated by people who want to overthink, overcook and overwork every single aspect of it.
It needs defenders who know how to prevent attackers getting through; a goalkeeper who can command his box and keep the ball out of the net; strikers that know how to score goals; and midfielders that know when to attack and when to hold up play. Aside that, it needs fitness, a good attitude and the ability to think.
Everything else is secondary to that, and the vast majority of it is an unecessary distraction from the importance of fundamental skills - as is the obsession with stats and data.
Get on the park and play the fcking game.
 
As in, we do not have any kind of set ethos or playing style. Smith was ever the pragmatist, Advocaat had millions to spend and had us playing expansive football, Warburton wanted to go possession and Pedro fancied a counter attacking game. Going manager to manager is fine, so long as they are not ripping up the work of the man before, in a short space of time, with limited funds. If we are not going to give managers time to fully implement their ideas, and we are not, the succession probably has to look as much at style as anything else. Pedro has bought a bit of a mish mash of styles, he started with 1 formation and dropped it immediately despite targeting players specifically to play that way, but with another appointment on the horizon and with the same limited funds, bringing in a manager who has a defined style that is nothing like we have been playing could well set us back yet again. Perhaps the DoF does not need to look at how he wants us to play and target a manager for it, but look at what we have, how they are best suited as a team already and find a manager that plays in that kind of style, perhaps sacrificing 'name' or ability or potential for something far more pragmatic? It might not lead us to an exciting capture, but it would almost certainly lead us to getting more out of the current crop, therefore allowing cash to be spent in a targeted manner, rather than on a 4th squad in 3 years.

Rangers philosophy is winning. It's all the fans care about & not much time will be spared to create a philosophy if we can't win games.
 
When I hear people mention philosophy and football it makes me want to stick a fork in my eye.

Never heard so much sh**e in my life.
 
Yes, we do need an 'ethos' and, to a degree, I think we will - hopefully - see it shine through. As stated, MW was all about possession, keep the ball, move the ball. Whilst ultimately it didn't work - due to his own failings and, to an extent, players who couldn't make it work - I enjoyed the fact that we were playing a game I recognised as 'football' rather than us playing like every other SPFL kick-and-rush team. Caixinha was much, much more direct. It was more exciting and is was faster paced - but we still struggled.

What I've seen, in Murty's 2 games, is an attempt to develop a 'hybrid' of the two. Yes, we still get the ball forward quickly on occasion, but I've seen more of a willingness to just keep hold of the ball as well. In truth, this 'hybrid' may well be the way for us to go.

I agree with you that the team has to be able to play a mixture of styles but the ethos has to be a winning one. Just WIN!:D

W.A.T.P.
 
Back
Top