A CRITICISM often aimed at those of us who steal a living from watching football is that we never get anything right. Nothing. No story is accurate, every link with a player is an utter fabrication, match reports are biased and not one of us is brave enough to slaughter a new player or manager before they’ve had the chance to make a mess of things.
Take Joey Barton, for example. When he was kicked out of Rangers, it was one in the eye for every hack who had predicted he would be brilliant, although I can’t recall anyone writing that, when instead we should have known he would be useless and not last long.
But the trouble with the old predicting game is that none of us, sadly, can see into the future. Guesses, and that’s all they are, can be wrong. I tell you, if I had a crystal ball, I would only need one good day at the bookies and then I’d retire.
So, in the spirit of not being Nostradamus, this is all I or anyone can say about Steven Gerrard becoming the next Rangers manager.
His appointment could be inspiring, an utter disaster or somewhere in between. We simply don’t know because it’s a bit tricky to judge someone who isn’t even in the job yet.
But I see it has a huge risk. Gerrard is an exciting name, sure, but he has done nothing in management. He is walking into a club on its knees, a dressing room full of players who are simply not up to it and the task of stopping Celtic is, frankly, mammoth bordering on impossible.
If I had to guess, my feeling is that Rangers are going after a good man but the wrong man at the wrong time. However, we all need to give him time, which of course you don’t really get in Glasgow.
Those behind the scenes at Rangers believe this big name will attract other big names. But with the best will in the world that is just not going to happen for so many reasons – money or the lack of it being the biggest.
Time will tell. It always does. But for the life of me I can’t see the logic of going for a 37-year-old with a season working with kids as his only coaching experience.
One thing Gerrard will get is respect, which the man he will follow lost. Graeme Murty is probably sick of being patronised by people like me who call him a nice bloke, as if that’s all there is to him.
I’m told he knew on Monday night that he was going and yet still turned up to watch Rangers Under-17s beat Celtic 4-0 in the Glasgow Cup Final at Firhill. He said some goodbyes and had the good grace to commiserate the defeated team. That’s class.
But he wasn’t up to it and I wonder if he had his time again whether he would have walked as statements from his own club undermined him. In saying that, I’m glad he won’t be there for the final three games for his own sake.
Rangers fans have pointed out that he did want the job, it was his team, his tactics and his handling of the Kenny Miller/Lee Wallace debacle was clumsy in the extreme. It is hard to argue against these facts.
A better coach would not have allowed any Rangers team to lose nine goals against Celtic in the same month. Andy Halliday would not have been played at left-back, Graham Dorrans would not get a game and, well, we could be here all day.
Gerrard is on record as saying he would want any team of his to be hungry and physical. That’s everything those wearing blue were not on Sunday. On that evidence, every single one would be shown the door.
At Hampden Park last week, in the excellent museum of Scottish football, Archie Macpherson launched his new book.
The big man was in fine form when speaking about “Adventures in the Golden Age” about his years covering Scotland in World Cups, which he admitted seemed a long time ago.
It’s a great read, Archie knows how to spin a yarn, and it got me thinking about what our 23-man squad would be had we made it to Russia. Not a single Rangers player would make it. In fact, if you wrote down 40 names, only Ross McCrorie, at a push, would make it and he wouldn’t make the final cut.
I applaud Gerrard for taking this on. I wish him luck. My word, the lad will need it . . .
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel