Would you rate Walter’s first spell a success?

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?
Sir Duped cost us 10....back then there was no transfer window.
All Sir Duped had to do was bring in a couple of seasoned pros to help the weary team over the line. He, as a business man, never grasped that opportunity. If he had we'd be still buying merchandise from 10 iar and beyond....he was more interested in getting cash for Laudrup n Gazza...
 
I do but my older brother says he’ll never forgive him for coming out mid season saying he’s leaving and not getting 10in a row.
 
Domestically Walters first spell was a resounding success. Won every title going apart from the 10 and a good few cups, standard of the other teams was higher than it is today. Don’t see how he could have done much more there. Perhaps signing a better back up to Goram than Ally Maxwell could have got us another cup or two.

However even Walter isn’t above criticism. His European record over both spells apart from 3 seasons (92/93, 07/08 and 10/11) ranged from bad to absolute embarrassing. We should have done better for sure during his first spell, losing to teams such as Levski, AEK, IFK, Grasshopper etc considering what we spent relative to the time was an extremely poor return.
 
He achieved an incredible amount and brought fantastic players to Ibrox.. but it needs to be recognised that Walter Smith’s first period in charge was a massive opportunity missed in many ways.

Except for one season, the European campaigns were abysmal. And the one season of some measure of success seemed to suck the creativity out of Rangers in Europe especially... it was all safety first after that. Problem was that in Europe we never took a game to anyone half decent as a result.
 
Of course it was a success, but there’s also a case for saying he should’ve been canned after AEK Athens in 94. I can’t think of another club of comparable standing at the time who’d have let that fly.

I thought his second spell showed his strengths as a manager more.
 
Of course it was a success. Smith's reign is pretty much the reason we have the high standards of today. We got so used to winning. The 9IAR era is what made it unacceptable to finish second to Celtic.
 
I think their treble-treble changes my view slightly.

We were successful but we should have pressed home our dominance over the filth and learned the lessons of top level Euro football in the 90s.

We rested on our laurels, didn't keep up with tactical changes i the game (or even simply learn how to play possession based football) and the culture at the club wasn't professional enough.

It was still an incredibly successful period in our history though.
 
Yes, it was undoubtedly a success not least because he steered us to NIAR.

Some younger Bears may not fully appreciate it now, but until that point Timbo had not one but two big bits of ammunition he'd frequently use to demonstrate their superiority - the European Cup win, but also NIAR.

Negating one of those was therefore a massive once in a generation type achievement that will go down as Smith's defining moment.

However, at the same time we were riding high on the belief that we could also negate the other one too.

Reaching what was effectively the semi finals of the inaugural Champions League only fuelled that belief, but thereafter we failed horribly to keep the dream aflame and I too felt Smith could and maybe should have been jettisoned after the AEK Athens debacle.

If we'd done so however, would we still have won NIAR?
Agree, Handsome.

While the euro results were generally dissapointing. It was fairly well accepted that our chances of winning the European Cup were (realistically) slim.

Therefore to equal their precious NIAR was an achievement almost above no other. The Staypufft Marshmallow Man could have won NIAR for us and he would be a bloody Legend. So yes, Smith's first spell as manager was successful - to see it any other way is ludicrous.
 
Surely the title should be "Should Smith have achieved more in Europe?" in that case.

Anybody who doesn't rate it a success is mental.
We should have won back to back trebles.
We should have got over the line for 10.
We should have achieved more in europe.
We should have shored up weak links in the team at times instead of looking at superstars on 10x the average wage.

Would a more forward thinking, maybe foreign coach have achieved all that? Probably not, unless he was Smiths assistant manager or Smith had been his assistant manager.
Either or, with the influence, and balls to influence required.

It was successful, but I'll reiterate. We under achieved massively.
 
Last edited:
Domestically: yes. At least other than the last season, which he fumbled.

European competition: no. Other than 1992-93, consistently under performed.
 
Domestically: yes. At least other than the last season, which he fumbled.

European competition: no. Other than 1992-93, consistently under performed.
Even 92-93.
We let marseille run all over us at Ibrox until 2-0 down and then we ran all over the top of them until 2-2, before giving them the ball back for the last few minutes.
Lack of belief at times.
Not belief in ourselves or our fight. More belief we weren't as good as we really were.
 
In 1991, most fans were very underwelmed when Walter got the job.
Celtic were a basket case with the old board etc.
Europe mainly was a disaster.
I actually prefered his second spell.
 
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.

Would still like to see those Celtic comparisons

Funnily enough when trying to look it up, I stumbled upon a post of my own from a while back for the 9IAR years.


Souness

1988/89 -2,675,000 - 1,040,000
1989/90 -4,300,000 - 2,025,000
1990/91 -3,050,000 - 1,150,000

Walter

1991/92 -6,670,000 - 10,375,000
1992/93 -4,000,000 - 1,450,000
1993/94 -5,200,000 - 1,500,000
1994/95 -7,275,000 - 5,900,000
1995/96 -11,650,000 - 1,450,000
1996/97 -10,800,000 - 0

I'm assuming that one of the years Celtic "outspent" us was in his first season where the Trevor Steven fee is the anomoly. Given the position of power that we were coming from with the basis of the team that won the first seven of NIAR already in place, I can see how that might happen.

Over that period, our spending power way exceeded anyone else's in Scotland and we should have won the leagues. As I've said already, the pressure in the last two or three seasons would have been beyond immense but it's still the case that we should have been winning it (just as Celtic should have been doing just now as not only do they have more spending power, they're coming from a positive position in recent years)
 
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.

I don't think anyone denies Walter's successes during 9IAR. The issue is there were huge failings in a time where we could (should?) have had even more

People are excusing the Euro performances though. It's the sort of thing that's typical when any sort of (justified) criticism is levelled at a Rangers great...

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

While the euro results were generally dissapointing. It was fairly well accepted that our chances of winning the European Cup were (realistically) slim.

Both these comments on the thread do just that in trying to excuse things. They look to give a reason to defeats by Levski, Athens and other complete jobber teams compared to what we had at our disposal by comparing those teams to Juve.

It's not a sensible debate if people are willing to just ignore the points of failure by going nuclear and saying we couldn't expect to hit the heights of Madrid in the 50s.

That's not the point being made. The criticism isn't that Walter didn't win multiple European Cups. It's that we were routinely embarrassed by teams who weren't even in our stratosphere at the time.

I think people are too quick to write off the failures of the 90s in Europe because of the domestic success.
 
Yes and I'll be eternally grateful for what he's done for us, but you can't ignore how disastrous Europe was.

The 90s was probably our last chance to win the Champions League. In terms of money we could compete and the way it was set up was still in our favour. We'll never know if we would have been able to attract the necessary level of player required to win it (although Laudrup and Gazza suggest we could have), so could a more forward thinking manager have made a better fist of it with the resources we had? And surely if we had a strong enough to compete in Europe then 9 and even 10 in a row would have taken care of itself? It's an interesting "what could have been".
 
Simple really. Walter was a success. Walter Smith is our most successful manager in our modern era.
He won trebles, leagues, cups, NIAR. There shouldn’t even be a question whether he was a success or not.
Europe is a another story of course, apart from 2 good seasons over 2 spells, he was a disaster in Europe.
domestically, he was the king, Europe not so much.
 
For me Walter was a progressive young coach who by the very nature of his inherent understanding of what it required to be Rangers manager...Sacrificed style for substance in terms of building a team and tactical approach which guaranteed the league more often than not,

Walters true value was crystallised when watching others who truly didn’t understand what was required to be Rangers manager delivering abject mediocrity. At that point one truly understood how fit for purpose Walter was to be a truly great Rangers manager.

In his second spell he took the shackles off toward the end and had the team playing in an unshackled, free flowing manner especially toward the end of his final season. I think our expectations were Walters shackles in terms of Europe first time around and after the failed le Guen experiment he wanted to prove to us that he could be a bit continental and exotic.

As Joni Mitchell sang ‘ you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone’...We’d bite someone’s hand off for Walters consistency in today’s SPL climate, well wouldn’t we?
 
The first spell is a success. To suggest otherwise is mental. Could he have done more in Europe? Of course. I know we spent a lot in 97/98 and we probably should have won the league then but needed to be smarter with our spending that season. That has to be the most disappointing season.
 
1. Yes in terms of trophies.
2. No in terms of value for £ spent
3. No in terms of Europe

It is always better to win the domestic baubles than not win them.
 
It was a success yes. However, within that success, there were quite a few individual poor moments where this board would have 50 page threads afterwards had it been going.
 
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?
We all ridicule Celtic for their "tainted" 8 in a row - I can see the sentiment the OP has, but, the league was far more competitive back then, and yes, he spent well, but it has to be classed as a success.
What cost us 10 was the ageing squad - that included Gazza.
 
Signing Gary Bolland and Alec Cleland as flying wing backs to combat Juventus in 96 (Just one of many things I could mention) along with the pass it to Gazza or Laudrup tactics employed may have some believe that if he'd had a more tactical nous like 2nd time round then maybe some titles wouldn't have been as much of a struggle given the players we had. We'd possibly have won 10 and done better in Europe (92/93 aside). 2nd time round he was a much better manager. Fact. Not attacking his first spell at all but can understand why people would ask these sort of questions.
 
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?

I completely agree, especially about his departure announcement.

Because of the domestic league titles and trophies, it's impossible to say he was anything other than a success though, even though I totally get your point about money and the state of Celtic.

He massively underachieved in Europe IMO.

I actually thought he handled Gazza very well in general. We got the best out of him when he was at the peak of his career.

I'd say Walter was a mixed bag. He had great qualities but was lacking in some areas. He didn't have much of a clue about tactics, but he knew what made a good team.
 
Last edited:
He could of perhaps done more in Europe.

But it is 100% a success. He won everything domestically, repeatedly.
 
I'd say Walter was a mixed bag. He had great qualities but was lacking in some areas. He didn't have much of a clue about tactics, but he knew what made a good team.

A common opinion that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

He was #2 to Jim McLean in a championship winning DUFC side that went to the European Cup semi
He was #2 to SAF at Mexico 86
He was #2 to the Magnificent One for 4 years

To suggest he didn't know football tactics before 2005 is absulute hogwash.
 
I look back on the successes of the time and the players we had wearing our jersey with great fondness however, thought at the time he was the wrong appointment (totally lacked ambition) and at a time when we had the opportunity to win the European Cup we failed to make an impact (with one exception).

Celtic were on their arse (2nd only twice in our nine in a row IIRC) and we were making the "Marquee" signings of Europe yet at times we underachieved horribly. A more ambitious appointment and who knows what might have been?

Walter's 2nd spell was, however, a joy to behold. Definitely the right man at the right time!
 
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?

Ok…so the first post I open is about JJ apparently hitting our captain over the head with a pamphlet at training, which was regarded as being disrespectful…and now a question about Sir Walter’s first term being regarded now as a success?

Is this April 1st?
 
Signing Gary Bolland and Alec Cleland as flying wing backs to combat Juventus in 96 (Just one of many things I could mention) along with the pass it to Gazza or Laudrup tactics employed may have some believe that if he'd had a more tactical nous like 2nd time round then maybe some titles wouldn't have been as much of a struggle given the players we had. We'd possibly have won 10 and done better in Europe (92/93 aside). 2nd time round he was a much better manager. Fact. Not attacking his first spell at all but can understand why people would ask these sort of questions.

Completely agree.

I don't want to attack him and I believe he absolutely deserves 'legend' status, but he was found to be tactically wanting in his 1st spell.
 
What the cardigan achieved as manager in first spell was excellent but pretty much expected. However his 8 and 9 in a row wins proved he could get over the line against a good Celtic side.

What he did in his second spell proved how good he was. It was bordering on miraculous. 3 titles in a row, should have been 4 if not for corruptness and a European final.
 
The European record is probably the only twig with which to beat sir Walter. But, it’s easy to look back and be critical and sometimes forgetting some of the other factors involved. For the life of me I have no idea if some players maybe missed a tie due to injury or suspension. But, I bet it happened.
We should’ve done better in Europe but, the 3 foreigner rule was a huge disadvantage to teams like ours. Also, this period was just as the iron curtain was coming down but, much as most of the teams from the old eastern block may have had inferior players, they were more likely playing in settled teams (few foreigners yet there) and we’re also playing to showcase themselves to get a big money transfer and change their lives.
We also had the misfortune of coming against Western European teams who, to this day, are still revered by their fans.
As I say tho, we should’ve done better but there are shades of grey that mitigate some of the disappointments.
 
Back
Top