Roaming the forests of Nottingham. On how to build a Robin Hood.
The confessed goal of this post is not necessarily to reinterpret King's statement because I'm not interested in getting into a sides dispute to reach a relative truth. The truth is many times it is not the concrete truth resulting from the facts but the triumph of a statement in the world of public relations. I can only say that the King´s statement shows a fracture that until now was only speculation and machinations of the press. I feel a big disappointment for the handling in different areas of both MW and King. With sense, unreason or lucubration, King's statement looks like Tyson vs. Holyfield and King has MW's ear right now. Disappointed in Davie Weir, not the behavior of a true Ranger, that is today the most painful.
All this would be very difficult. Under current conditions, I would leave Kenny Miller in charge to finish the season because he knows this squad well (this season can´t do much more given that the covert temptation of the former manager threw everything away) or some interim that knows the abilities and defects of the team to finish worthily the season (that should include some sort of classification for Europe). But in the meantime they should hire a manager to start organizing the next season. Honestly, I want a manager for the future, not one of the past, however successful they may have been. No one who wants Rangers as "stepping-stone to achieve manages in the EPL”. In football there is first to be successful, leave a mark to aspire to something else.
De Boer is extremely tempting, he knows our club and meets the requirement of having passed a model club like Ajax, which puts emphasis on training young people. He even dared to promote many youngsters to the first team. (From 2007 to 2010, Frank led the youth team of Amsterdam, knew well the youngster who then came to the top level, as happened with Guardiola in Barcelona). The question is whether the Rangers with the imperious needs for success can accept a formative, long-term stage in which there are not necessarily successes. Yes, we manage that sense of thought and resist the impossibility of winning things to create a solid structure of future, the chosen one should have been Ian Cathro, but it is already out of battle.
In Frank's case, we would also have to talk about a taboo subject, money. I do not know how to write pinnacle in Dutch, at least that I read in the subtitle of the interview to Frank that is circulating virally in Twitter. I do not know if he's going to stake his pinnacle if there is not an investment. A strong investment in structure and players does not necessarily mean that we will return to the madness of the long debts on the back (I am not ignoring the whole obstacle of Ashley, but, repetitively, already seems an excuse that an argument). I am not alien to our history but I try to think beyond. Even within the periodic transcends of the last hours, the repeated expression was "a severely limited transfer budget" how could the Dutch manager work with this limitation? That would have to be thoroughly checked to avoid "sudden escapes". Against Frank, he took the reins of Inter, a team not organized by him, and failed foolishly. In his favor, the Italian team was plagued with prima donnas with egos through the sky.
Of the other names I have listened to do not fit the idea of modern football that I aspire to. We are going to have a big problem of imagination in that aspect. Because we always choose those close, thinking that it can be successful. I love Big Eck, a referent for us even when he did not from Ibrox. I would look elsewhere. McInnes is the automatic bet before every storm, but that's the best we can aspire to? Billy Davies? Seems to have a friend in the club because they offer it periodically for almost any position! lolz
But let us look for some archaeological evidence in the stage that ended abruptly. Warburton came here as a reformist, and somehow it was. Although there were still many open questions about the effectiveness of their system, which I personally disagreed with. In the Championship, the team showed a dynamic and impressive common understanding. In the final months of the previous season the system began to fail. Obnubilation with 4-3-3 many times did not let the forest behind. From systematic defensive failures (including individual performances not as a whole, the misunderstanding the indispensable defensive tasks, from avoiding the rival pull the center to mark the striker in the small area) to the inability to define after a game play that was backed up in statistics. The basic science is like this, you can have the ball all the time but without resolution it is useless. It takes someone who encourages players to give them: tactics, strategy and belief that they are the best. In this season we have seen that the players fell in gaps of game, without determination and after the rest in the dressing-room they returned to eat raw to the rival.
An attack often out of focus. The theory of playing without a center striker of reference. Thus, the steps to the area come from the second line and by surprise, also with the diagonals of the ends. But there was no surprise, no diagonals. The idea of surprise was interesting, rivals can´t predict where he appears, what he will do, in which direction he will go or where he will shoot. But it made no difference. Garner came with a record of goals, but with an obvious drought, which was only contrasted with the bunch of editions of youtube videos that showed him as the new Ally McCoist. The former Preston stood out for fighting with strong defenders and not hiding, but more like a second striker, the one who supports and wins the divided ball. In the last days, it began to be repeated by social networks that he was not playing in his position, etc. More excuses.