Walter Smith's Rangers team of 92/93 v the Unwashed Invincibles

MrStruth

MrStruth

Well-Known Member
The so called Celtic Invincibles season is being rehashed in the Scottish mhedia once again. It was during a time in Scottish football when any form of competition in the Premier league was almost non existent.
Rangers were still in the process of rebuilding after being condemned to the bottom tier of Scottish football giving Celtic a clear and easy run to pocket millions of pounds in guaranteed Champions league football without any viable opposition.

However during their 'Invincibles' season they love to brag about they neglect to remember that they lost to the mighty Red Imps of Gibraltar. Lost 7-0 to Barcelona, Lost 7-1 to PSG and 3-0 to Bayern Munich. They also lost to Astana Ber Sheva, Borrusia Mönchengladbach and Anderlecht.

It's perhaps worth revisiting the record Rangers had in season 92/93 when we just missed out on a Champions league final. The eventual winners Olympique Marseille failed to defeat Rangers home or away and were later found to have been using bribes.
During this time Rangers went 44 games unbeaten INCLUDING ten in the European/Champions league.
Defeating English Champions Leeds United home and away and winning the Treble.
This was the greatest Rangers team of my lifetime.
I was also fortunate to have been in attendance at almost all of those matches.
It was a wonderful time to be a Bluenose.

Had that Rangers side came up against the so called Celtic Invincibles I have no doubts whatsoever Rangers would have came out on top.

It could of course be said that the present Rangers side could perhaps have given both of them a good run for their money.
 
Even without my blue-tinted specs on, it wouldn’t be a contest. That 92/93 side would have slaughtered the vincible invincibles.
 
When you have a team that are inept against European teams, getting battered the way they did and have no realistic challenge in their own domestic competitions then it's fraudulent to say they are invincibles.

They couldn't live with our 1992/93 team and add to that our team with Laudrup and Gascoigne would have seen them off and embarrassed them at the same time. As for the Advocaat side we would have a game of men v boys such was the gulf in class from Advocaat team.
 
Brian Laudrup said:
The 92/93 team would have wiped the floor with them
Click to expand...
Andy Goram or Craig Gordon?

Trevor Steven, Ian Durrant and Ian Ferguson or Scott Brown, Callum McGregor and Stuart Armstrong.

Richard Gough and Bomber Brown or Mikael Lustig and Sviachenko?

Ally McCoist (Golden boot winner) and Mark Hateley or Leigh Griffiths and Moussa Dembele?

Hmmmmm, tough choices
 
Dembele up against the likes of Richard gough.

Their boyata trying to stop Hateley and mccoist.

That would be comical to watch
 
The mentally challenged “invincibles” was the exact same side that won the league the following season with the lowest points total ever for a league winning side.

An average team with no competition, which the Red Imps result and the regular thrashings in Europe proved.

Some of the decisions they got to ensure they went the season unbeaten were also a disgrace. Craig Thomson robbed St Johnstone of a win against them with what must be the most blatant 5 minutes of cheating you will ever see.
 
I think they'd have struggled to even score against that magnificent team of ours.

That arsehole 'Broony' actually having to share a pitch with Ian Ferguson and Stuart McCall... :)) :)) :))
 
Not only would Walter's side have won, but the mentally challengeds would have left the pitch a broken and quivering wreck.
 
Smiths team by a mile. It was properly unbeaten in 44 games across Europe. Not just in games that people decided. it's straight from the "nobody has covid apart from the people who have it" book.

Our current team would beat them both imo. A very controversial opinion I know but, for me, 92/93 wasnt Smith's peak team in his first spell. That came with the addition of Gascoigne and Laudrup. And it's that team (8/9 in a row) that is his best.

I also think this current team beats any of Smith's second spell teams.
 
Last edited:
cooprfc said:
Smiths team by a mile. It was properly unbeaten in 44 games across Europe. Not just in games that people decided. it's straight from the "nobody has covid apart from the people who have it" book.

Our current team would beat them both imo. A very controversial opinion I know but, for me, 92/93 was Smith's peak team in his first spell. That came with the addition of Gascoigne and Laudrup. And it's that team (8/9 in a row) that is his best.

I also think this current team beats any of Smith's second spell teams.
Click to expand...
Our 1992/93 team was a class above todays team and I say that as an admirer of the team/squad that Gerrard has put together.
 
Johansen said:
Our 1992/93 team was a class above todays team and I say that as an admirer of the team/squad that Gerrard has put together.
Click to expand...

Fair enough mate. It's a valid opinion and mine is controversial. I know that.

I just think this current team are only one small blip against st mirren, where the team was rotated too much, away from having a similar unbeaten record at home and abroad. So a comparison can be made. I think our current team are better on the ball and tactically while 92/93 had the best team ethic we've ever had.

I think our current team up against our 8/9 in a row team loses due to the brilliance of Gascoigne and Laudrup.

Whereas I don't feel you can compare Rodgers team as they were beaten every 4 or 5 games heavily.
 
MrStruth said:
The so called Celtic Invincibles season is being rehashed in the Scottish mhedia once again. It was during a time in Scottish football when any form of competition in the Premier league was almost non existent.
Rangers were still in the process of rebuilding after being condemned to the bottom tier of Scottish football giving Celtic a clear and easy run to pocket millions of pounds in guaranteed Champions league football without any viable opposition.

However during their 'Invincibles' season they love to brag about they neglect to remember that they lost to the mighty Red Imps of Gibraltar. Lost 7-0 to Barcelona, Lost 7-1 to PSG and 3-0 to Bayern Munich. They also lost to Astana Ber Sheva, Borrusia Mönchengladbach and Anderlecht.

It's perhaps worth revisiting the record Rangers had in season 92/93 when we just missed out on a Champions league final. The eventual winners Olympique Marseille failed to defeat Rangers home or away and were later found to have been using bribes.
During this time Rangers went 44 games unbeaten INCLUDING ten in the European/Champions league.
Defeating English Champions Leeds United home and away and winning the Treble.
This was the greatest Rangers team of my lifetime.
I was also fortunate to have been in attendance at almost all of those matches.
It was a wonderful time to be a Bluenose.

Had that Rangers side came up against the so called Celtic Invincibles I have no doubts whatsoever Rangers would have came out on top.

It could of course be said that the present Rangers side could perhaps have given both of them a good run for their money.
Click to expand...
The Celtic team that went unbeaten wouldn’t beat Tommy burns, Martin O’Neils or Gordon Strachans Celtic teams.
 
aldoshmaldo said:
Come on you!!

McCoist & Hateley would tear our current centre backs to shreds and that’s not a criticism.
Click to expand...

Aye they'd give them a hard time no doubt. I've explained it a bit above. Football has changed of course and it makes a comparison of teams from different eras difficult.

But I think our current team would give them plenty problems going the other way. Not least in how we stop the ball from even getting up the park in the first place.

As I say, our 8/9 in a row team beats this one comfortably due to the addition of Gascoigne and Laudrup to that 92/93 team.

I'm not going to argue the point or anything as I see the other side as well. Just think we'd have too much tactically and the way we move as a unit for them. But again, it's difficult to compare eras as everything has changed.

Just don't think Rodgers team can even be put into the comparison.
 
Brian Laudrup said:
The 92/93 team would have wiped the floor with them
Click to expand...
With plenty to spare.
The scum team of 03, would’ve beat their “invincibles” with a bit to spare.
For me, the scums invincible season was almost exclusively down to the poor quality they were up against.
Their team of 03 and ours of ten years earlier had genuine opposition to overcome and all this without saying their team from 03 weren’t even the best in the country!
(Which, of course, I just did :)) )
 
Rodgers' first season was against a Championship level Rangers. Big deal.
 
Bluethruandthru said:
Please......... it's not even up for debate ffs.Without exaggeration I'd strongly fancy Walters team to take maximum points over the four old firm games v that septic team.
Click to expand...
Dembele, brilliant against Kiernan or Martin.
Against Gough, McLaren and/or Brown?
Aint getting a sniff.
 
cooprfc said:
Smiths team by a mile. It was properly unbeaten in 44 games across Europe. Not just in games that people decided. it's straight from the "nobody has covid apart from the people who have it" book.

Our current team would beat them both imo. A very controversial opinion I know but, for me, 92/93 wasnt Smith's peak team in his first spell. That came with the addition of Gascoigne and Laudrup. And it's that team (8/9 in a row) that is his best.

I also think this current team beats any of Smith's second spell teams.
Click to expand...
Lol, I’ll crack the jokes mate. The current team have yet to win a trophy or even participate in the CL!

I think the overall quality of the league has regressed significantly since those days too.
 
cooprfc said:
Aye they'd give them a hard time no doubt. I've explained it a bit above. Football has changed of course and it makes a comparison of teams from different eras difficult.

But I think our current team would give them plenty problems going the other way. Not least in how we stop the ball from even getting up the park in the first place.

As I say, our 8/9 in a row team beats this one comfortably due to the addition of Gascoigne and Laudrup to that 92/93 team.

I'm not going to argue the point or anything as I see the other side as well. Just think we'd have too much tactically and the way we move as a unit for them. But again, it's difficult to compare eras as everything has changed.

Just don't think Rodgers team can even be put into the comparison.
Click to expand...
The 92-93 team was better than the teams that had Gascoigne and Laudrup.
 
Scaramanga said:
Andy Goram or Craig Gordon?

Trevor Steven, Ian Durrant and Ian Ferguson or Scott Brown, Callum McGregor and Stuart Armstrong.

Richard Gough and Bomber Brown or Mikael Lustig and Sviachenko?

Ally McCoist (Golden boot winner) and Mark Hateley or Leigh Griffiths and Moussa Dembele?

Hmmmmm, tough choices
Click to expand...
What was our second eleven like back then?
I’d think I’d be backing them over that Celtic team.
 
Lono said:
I think they'd have struggled to even score against that magnificent team of ours.

That arsehole 'Broony' actually having to share a pitch with Ian Ferguson and Stuart McCall... :)) :)) :))
Click to expand...
That so called " Hard " Man Brown up against Fergie???? The Feckin Rhetard would fill his Kecks.
 
cooprfc said:
Smiths team by a mile. It was properly unbeaten in 44 games across Europe. Not just in games that people decided. it's straight from the "nobody has covid apart from the people who have it" book.

Our current team would beat them both imo. A very controversial opinion I know but, for me, 92/93 wasnt Smith's peak team in his first spell. That came with the addition of Gascoigne and Laudrup. And it's that team (8/9 in a row) that is his best.

I also think this current team beats any of Smith's second spell teams.
Click to expand...
The current team haven’t won anything yet, it’s ridiculous to think they would beat Walters side, a trophy laden team who were 1 single goal from a Champions League final, they went 10 games unbeaten in the whole competition, the current side are a nowhere that level.
 
Scaramanga said:
Lol, I’ll crack the jokes mate. The current team have yet to win a trophy or even participate in the CL!

I think the overall quality of the league has regressed significantly since those days too.
Click to expand...

You're correct but I've explained it above.

I guess if you took today's team and put them back in 1992 and the way people thought about football then, they would have no chance v that team as there was no place for your Glen Kamaras and the like then. Full backs were also there to defend.

Equally if you took the 1992 team and brought them to now and the way football is now, our current team would beat them for almost the inverse reasons plus the greater focus on tactics. I guess I was looking at it from this viewpoint that if our team now had the tactical ability and moved as the unit like they do then 1992 team would struggle to break that down and we'd exploit them because there's more focus on that type of thing now.

Equally thought, you could look at it from the other view, so, in essence,I guess it's actually impossible as the game itself is totally different.

As I said above, I'm not gonna argue the point as I can see the other view as well.

Just feel they deserve to be "compared" due to the runs they have been/are on in Europe and the league. Whereas Rodgers team does not.
 
Johnny Yen said:
The current team haven’t won anything yet, it’s ridiculous to think they would beat Walters side, a trophy laden team who were 1 single goal from a Champions League final, they went 10 games unbeaten in the whole competition, the current side are a nowhere that level.
Click to expand...

Explained my thinking several times on the thread mate and not going to argue the point as I can totally understand the opposite view as well.

I was thinking more in the way the game has evolved in that Smith's team wouldn't have known what to do with a team as tactically well drilled as tactics that went down to such minute details weren't huge then. That's why I said the 8/9 in a row team was better equipped due to the individual quality of Gascoigne and Laudrup who would win games on their own.

But it's impossible really.
 
cooprfc said:
You're correct but I've explained it above.

I guess if you took today's team and put them back in 1992 and the way people thought about football then, they would have no chance v that team as there was no place for your Glen Kamaras and the like then. Full backs were also there to defend.

Equally if you took the 1992 team and brought them to now and the way football is now, our current team would beat them for almost the inverse reasons plus the greater focus on tactics. I guess I was looking at it from this viewpoint that if our team now had the tactical ability and moved as the unit like they do then 1992 team would struggle to break that down and we'd exploit them because there's more focus on that type of thing now.

Equally thought, you could look at it from the other view, so, in essence,I guess it's actually impossible as the game itself is totally different.

As I said above, I'm not gonna argue the point as I can see the other view as well.

Just feel they deserve to be "compared" due to the runs they have been/are on in Europe and the league. Whereas Rodgers team does not.
Click to expand...

It’s hard to compare sides of different eras I agree. But just going on how good they were relative to the rest of Europe at the time, that old team was far ahead, they could compete with the best in Europe; at present out side haven’t yet earned the right to even compete with the best in Europe. Out of curiosity how old are you mate?

I do take your general point. If you took the current French side full of elite athletes and stuck them up against the Brazil side of the 70’s I’d fancy the French to hump them even though in the context of the time and I’m history of the game that Brazil side were a far better side and will be remembered as such. That’s an example with a huge gap between the eras though, it’s not quite as significant comparing the 92/93 sides and the current one.
 
MrStruth said:
The so called Celtic Invincibles season is being rehashed in the Scottish mhedia once again. It was during a time in Scottish football when any form of competition in the Premier league was almost non existent.
Rangers were still in the process of rebuilding after being condemned to the bottom tier of Scottish football giving Celtic a clear and easy run to pocket millions of pounds in guaranteed Champions league football without any viable opposition.

However during their 'Invincibles' season they love to brag about they neglect to remember that they lost to the mighty Red Imps of Gibraltar. Lost 7-0 to Barcelona, Lost 7-1 to PSG and 3-0 to Bayern Munich. They also lost to Astana Ber Sheva, Borrusia Mönchengladbach and Anderlecht.

It's perhaps worth revisiting the record Rangers had in season 92/93 when we just missed out on a Champions league final. The eventual winners Olympique Marseille failed to defeat Rangers home or away and were later found to have been using bribes.
During this time Rangers went 44 games unbeaten INCLUDING ten in the European/Champions league.
Defeating English Champions Leeds United home and away and winning the Treble.
This was the greatest Rangers team of my lifetime.
I was also fortunate to have been in attendance at almost all of those matches.
It was a wonderful time to be a Bluenose.

Had that Rangers side came up against the so called Celtic Invincibles I have no doubts whatsoever Rangers would have came out on top.

It could of course be said that the present Rangers side could perhaps have given both of them a good run for their money.
Click to expand...
The 92/93 team was IMO the best since my dad first took me across the Irish sea from Belfast to watch the Gers as a youngster in 1971, there have IMO been more entertaining sides such as the eight and nine in a row side with the great Gazza and the sublime Laudrup but for all round entertainment, flair and never contemplating defeat the 92/3 team had it all.
 
Scaramanga said:
It’s hard to compare sides of different eras I agree. But just going on how good they were relative to the rest of Europe at the time, that old team was far ahead, they could compete with the best in Europe; at present out side haven’t yet earned the right to even compete with the best in Europe. Out of curiosity how old are you mate?

I do take your general point. If you took the current French side full of elite athletes and stuck them up against the Brazil side of the 70’s I’d fancy the French to hump them even though in the context of the time and I’m history of the game that Brazil side were a far better side and will be remembered as such. That’s an example with a huge gap between the eras though, it’s not quite as significant comparing the 92/93 sides and the current one.
Click to expand...

That's kinda what I was getting at mate. I'm old enough to remmeber that team mate don't worry about that. I just think the game is so much more tactical now and about being good on the ball which would've caused Smith's side huge problems. I was also thinking of it more as an era rather than just 92/93 which is why I made the point about Gazza and Laudrup making that team far better as they could win games on their own. And thinking about seasons either side of it with the same players which weren't so dominant. Which was taking liberties with the time period I guess.

But it is unfair to compare as if you took today's team and took them back to then and let them go up Sauchiehall street every Tuesday and Wednesday for an all day shot, they'd get relegated!
 
Brick_Top said:
The mentally challenged “invincibles” was the exact same side that won the league the following season with the lowest points total ever for a league winning side.

An average team with no competition, which the Red Imps result and the regular thrashings in Europe proved.

Some of the decisions they got to ensure they went the season unbeaten were also a disgrace. Craig Thomson robbed St Johnstone of a win against them with what must be the most blatant 5 minutes of cheating you will ever see.
Click to expand...
Agree sure they got a joke of a penalty away to Motherwell to bail them out
 
Scaramanga said:
Andy Goram or Craig Gordon?

Trevor Steven, Ian Durrant and Ian Ferguson or Scott Brown, Callum McGregor and Stuart Armstrong.

Richard Gough and Bomber Brown or Mikael Lustig and Sviachenko?

Ally McCoist (Golden boot winner) and Mark Hateley or Leigh Griffiths and Moussa Dembele?

Hmmmmm, tough choices
Click to expand...
There is not one player in the mentally challenged invincibles who would have gotten anywhere near our 92/93 team
 
cooprfc said:
You're correct but I've explained it above.

I guess if you took today's team and put them back in 1992 and the way people thought about football then, they would have no chance v that team as there was no place for your Glen Kamaras and the like then. Full backs were also there to defend.

Equally if you took the 1992 team and brought them to now and the way football is now, our current team would beat them for almost the inverse reasons plus the greater focus on tactics. I guess I was looking at it from this viewpoint that if our team now had the tactical ability and moved as the unit like they do then 1992 team would struggle to break that down and we'd exploit them because there's more focus on that type of thing now.

Equally thought, you could look at it from the other view, so, in essence,I guess it's actually impossible as the game itself is totally different.

As I said above, I'm not gonna argue the point as I can see the other view as well.

Just feel they deserve to be "compared" due to the runs they have been/are on in Europe and the league. Whereas Rodgers team does not.
Click to expand...
Yeah because Gary Steven and Robertson were only there to defend. Utter nonsense

I’m thinking that you’re to young to appreciate how good we were in 92 or just don’t get fitba
 
Taking away our obvious bias, it’s an absolute no contest, the best teams in Europe couldn’t beat us and we beat the champions of England home and away.

They were a very good side in an extremely poor domestic league and got pumped continuously against the good side in Europe.

Ive no idea how any fair minded person could ever conclude their side was at the same level.
 
DMac said:
Yeah because Gary Steven and Robertson were only there to defend. Utter nonsense

I’m thinking that you’re to young to appreciate how good we were in 92 or just don’t get fitba
Click to expand...

No need for that mate. If you read other posts on the thread you will see my thinking and I have acknowledged that it was perhaps unfair to think of it from the angle I was.


However, on the point you've replied to about fullbacks, If you can't see the difference in the role of fullback now compared to then then it's you who doesn't get football mate unfortunately. I'm not saying that our current full backs are better than the ones then. Just that the difference in the way fullbacks are in football now is different from then.

FFS I'm talking about two good rangers teams. I'm not saying a Celtic team is better than one of ours.

And again, if you read the posts on the thread, you will see exactly what I was getting at and have said that I'm not arguing the point as I can understand other viewpoint.

And no I'm not too young and I've been involved at football at a high enough level to show that I understand it perfectly so no need for that that type of response on numerous levels.

I've also latterly acknowledged why it's probably unfair to compare them in any case due to the differences in football.

And especially not when it was in reply to a point about the differing role of full backs which really isn't up for debate surely?
 
Last edited:
cooprfc said:
No need for that mate. If you read other posts on the thread you will see my thinking and I have acknowledged that it was perhaps unfair to think of it from the angle I was.


However, on the point you've replied to about fullbacks, If you can't see the difference in the role of fullback now compared to then then it's you who doesn't get football mate unfortunately. I'm not saying that our current full backs are better than the ones then. Just that the difference in the way fullbacks are in football now is different from then.

FFS I'm talking about two good Rangers teams. I'm not saying a Celtic team is better than one of ours.

And again, if you read the posts on the thread, you will see exactly what I was getting at and have said that I'm not arguing the point as I can understand other viewpoint.

And no I'm not too young and I've been involved at football at a high enough level to show that I understand it perfectly so no need for that that type of response on numerous levels.

I've also latterly acknowledged why it's probably unfair to compare them in any case due to the differences in football.

And especially not when it was in reply to a point about the differing role of full backs which really isn't up for debate surely?
Click to expand...
I read the thread and I think you’ve been digging hole since your first post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top