Would you rate Walter’s first spell a success?

ChristchurchBear said:
This is to far fetched and argument in my opinion.

your talking about a period when Italian football was so dominant and the fact remains that players like Vialli, del Piero, baresi, Maldini etc would never come to Scotland.

could we have been more savvy in the market- yes.

Berkamp for me is a player we should have went for
Click to expand...

It wasnt AC Milan or Juve putting us out. It was Levski, Athens and Strasbourg or us being embarrassed by Grasshoppers if we managed to sneak past the likes of Famagusta by a goal over two legs.

I can't believe anyone excuses the post 92/93 European stuff when you look at what the likes of Gotherberg achieved knocking Man u and Barca out.

We didnt even get close to that in 6 attempts with way more spending power and what should have been better players.
 
Yes it was.
I’ll cut Walter some slack on Europe as the focus on getting 9 was all encompassing for both Murray and much of our support. Walter achieved that and deserves credit.

However it was very clear by the time we got 9 that Walter and his entire team were running out of steam and we needed renewal. It will be to our lasting regret that Walter didn’t step down then with Advocaat brought in a year early
 
Laudrup1 said:
I'd love to see that written out as fact.
Click to expand...
Ive still got the spreadsheet somewhere, it’s been done a few times in these threads. Before the last season Walters net spend was actually really good. Then Murray blew the whole thing up in Walters last year and Advocaat.

Burns actually spent more twice I believe.
 
Laudrup1 said:
It wasnt AC Milan or Juve putting us out. It was Levski, Athens and Strasbourg or us being embarrassed by Grasshoppers if we managed to sneak past the likes of Famagusta by a goal over two legs.

I can't believe anyone excuses the post 92/93 European stuff when you look at what the likes of Gotherberg achieved knocking Man u and Barca out.

We didnt even get close to that in 6 attempts with way more spending power and what should have been better players.
Click to expand...

It's not excusing it. His spell in charge can still be ruled a massive success even though there are things that could've went better.
 
In terms of the league and the quality of the players he attracted then 100%! Europe was a disappointment (92/93 excluded) but on the whole he delivered us 9IAR so I can’t fault him. His last season did blot his copybook somewhat and I can’t help but feel the way he announced he was leaving us cost us 10 (would have been 12!). My criticism of Smith was always the type of football he played and I absolutely loved the exciting football we played under Advocaat when he came in. But would I change 9IAR or Manchester 2008 for exciting football? Hell no.
 
All those league titles, beating Leeds the English champions home and away, champions league semi final , treble , more legends signed than you can shake a stick at and so many with Incredible longevity and not huge transfer fees.

Ally
Durrant
Ferguson
Goram
McCall
Gough
Brown And so on that formed a back bone for a long time.

Yeah, I'm just gonna say that's a success to me.

I would also add , Jesus bloody Christ....
 
Thread title is ridiculous but yes he was a success and yes he could and should have achieved more in Europe
 
Both his spells were a success. We underwhelmed in Europe in his first spell, then magically got us to Manchester in his second spell. So many great memories thanks to Walter
 
For me it was the 92-93 season that seemed to give him unlimited time/money with Sir Duped. Every season after that one it seemed we were going into the qualifiers with no fear and when we got dumped out it was a case of 'ah well he got us close before, we will get it next year'.

That's how i remember the conversations going with people i spoke with at the time. We were annoyed but because we knew we would win the league we knew we would get another crack at it the next year.
 
El Chico de Natura said:
I’m fully aware this is a controversial title but bare with me. We spent a fortune during that time to win a league in which celtic were nowhere to be seen most years and suffered several embarrassing European exits. His departure announcement and mishandling of Gazza also cost us the 10. I’d argue that he should have been asked to resign after AEK. Of course, if that had panned out, we wouldn’t have had his messianic second spell so it’s probably for the best.

What do you all think? Was his trophy-ladden years enough or should we have achieved more?
Click to expand...

It’s a moronic question that needs no answer
 
StrathbungoLoyal said:
Domestically yes, there is no debate about that for me. He and that squad produced the goods time and again when it mattered most and won us nine in a row. Could it have been even better? Undoubtedly, as we should have had more trebles and should have dished out more hammerings to a Celtic side on their knees, but no one can seriously deny that Walter Smith's first spell as Rangers manager was a success.

In Europe it was a different story sadly, but the domestic game is more important.
Click to expand...
Don’t agree that domestic game more important tbh. Obviously want to win title and beat Celtic, but if that’s all we’ve got football will leave Rangers behind in the future.
An example, calling Celtic ‘the invincibles’ when they’re getting pumped 7-0 in Europe. Is there a bigger joke than that ?
Rangers need to do well in Europe.

On Walter smith’s first spell-like him and great rangers man (much prefer him to souness)...but if he hadn’t won all the titles given how much more rangers spent you’d need to ask serious questions, and we were utter cr4p in Europe other than one season)
 
Of course it was a success, moreso in the earlier years - getting us over the line for 3, the great sides of 4 and 5 along with European run and adjusting for three foreigner rule. 8 was a good year too domestically, and got over line for 9. There were plenty failures in there too, done to death on here, but overall a success.
 
El Chico de Natura said:
I’m fully aware this is a controversial title but bare with me. We spent a fortune during that time to win a league in which celtic were nowhere to be seen most years and suffered several embarrassing European exits. His departure announcement and mishandling of Gazza also cost us the 10. I’d argue that he should have been asked to resign after AEK. Of course, if that had panned out, we wouldn’t have had his messianic second spell so it’s probably for the best.

What do you all think? Was his trophy-ladden years enough or should we have achieved more?
Click to expand...
9 in a row? Yes I would rate that an overwhelming success.
 
Yes but on hindsight we should have done more in Europe with the players we had at out disposal but that goes for DA as well.
 
Yes. Definitely a success. I think had we the exposure to European football that we can see on TV now, we would have done better in Europe. I still think it felt like European teams were ahead of us in the way we were ahead of the rest of the league. You can see the change in tact in Europe from Walter’s first spell to his second.
 
Domestically we were a huge success under Walter Smith. One season aside we were awful in Europe, truly awful. We spent a shit load of cash on players and were thrashed regularly.
 
Of course he was a success, daft thread title to be honest, we under achieved in Europe in his first spell, but we won many titles and cups which it what it’s all about.

Worth pointing out that for all his failures in Europe, he took us a to within a single, solitary goal of a Champions League final, no manager of a Scottish team will get close to that again, not in our lifetime anyway.
 
One season apart, we seemed to have this mental block/crisis of confidence in Europe in which we showed teams far too much respect and doubted our own abilities. Given the quality we had, I'm at a loss as to why this was the case.

But yes, Smith's first spell was nevertheless a huge success. The bulk of our 9IAR was won with Smith at the helm. Some may argue that with Celtic being so poor for most of that period it was a given that we would win those titles but I don't agree. There was tremendous pressure on us throughout that period and a lesser manager may have failed to win the nine.

I just wish Smith had been bolder in Europe. Sometimes you crash out due to complacency, but for us I always felt it was the opposite. We were too timid.

The 1990s was the last decade in which you could say we had a realistic chance of going all the way in the CL. The financial gulf which has opened up since then between leagues like that of Scotland and the big five European leagues has put paid to that. One day I hope there is radical change in the set up of European league football which allows big clubs from smaller nations to compete, but I can't see it.
 
Walters80 said:
Yahoos still had some pretty decent players during the later period of Walter Smiths spell.

Di Canio, Mcstay, Collins, Cadete, Van Hooijdonk. Stubbs, Thom (full German international) as well as a few other international players.

Walter deserves praise for any titles he won during that period.
Click to expand...
You forgot Boyd.
 
cooprfc said:
It's not excusing it. His spell in charge can still be ruled a massive success even though there are things that could've went better.
Click to expand...

I said it was a success as a whole.

The Euro performances were embarrassing and can still be considered so depiste everything else.

It's not that things could've gone better, they absolutely should have given what he had at his disposal.
 
TPP said:
Ive still got the spreadsheet somewhere, it’s been done a few times in these threads. Before the last season Walters net spend was actually really good. Then Murray blew the whole thing up in Walters last year and Advocaat.

Burns actually spent more twice I believe.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing about our net spend. It was good til 97 since Souness arrived.

Be stunned to see that over the period they were outspending us with the exception of the year we only bought Durie and one other player and they panicked under Burns to try and stop us around 8 when we didnt have to shell out much as we were ahead.

That said, none of that excuses Smith's Euro exploits post 93.
 
A silly thread title.

I think we all agree he could have done better in Europe first time round, but domestically we were utterly dominant, with far more of a challenge than currently as the rest of the league was stronger, especially Aberdeen
 
I would be more than happy to witness the same lack of success in the next decade (assuming I am still breathing) as I saw during Walter’s first and second spells with us.
 
Laudrup1 said:
I said it was a success as a whole.

The Euro performances were embarrassing and can still be considered so depiste everything else.

It's not that things could've gone better, they absolutely should have given what he had at his disposal.
Click to expand...

People on the thread aren't excusing the Euro performances though. They are simply answering the OPs question that yes the spell was a success.

Everyone knows we could've and should've done more in Europe.
 
Gave me the greatest days of my life following rangers both spells maybe could of done better in europe but when we got to the cl groups we came up against some real top quality sides juve ajax dortmund etc
 
El Chico de Natura said:
I’m fully aware this is a controversial title but bare with me. We spent a fortune during that time to win a league in which celtic were nowhere to be seen most years and suffered several embarrassing European exits. His departure announcement and mishandling of Gazza also cost us the 10. I’d argue that he should have been asked to resign after AEK. Of course, if that had panned out, we wouldn’t have had his messianic second spell so it’s probably for the best.

What do you all think? Was his trophy-ladden years enough or should we have achieved more?
Click to expand...
He also blew a double treble.

As much as it pains me to say it. Walter did not have the outright hatred for that lot as they reserve for us.

There was NO way they were gonna blow any of their trebles.

His record on his return was far more impressive.
 
Look at the rangers team when Rogers won his titles and the perception outside the Ibrox family is that he can walk on water.
Walters achievements are beyond question. Can’t be denied Europe was a let down ( as was the back pass in the 94 cup final)
 
Christ on a bike. Sir Alex Ferguson struggled to win multiple Champions leagues with the richest team in the world, he probably goes down as a failure
 
Domestically yes...Europe no...

But what a ridicules question OP, Walter played a huge hand in 9IAR, of course its a success.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top