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.
