Walter Smith legend or myth?

Walter Smith is considered a legend at Rangers but is the job he has done in both spells really that impressive?

His first spell he won 5 titles but had no real challenge Rangers were spending big money on the likes of Gascoine and Laudrup. Celtic were skint and had a poor team. The fans were more interested in what was going on in the boardroom than on the field.

Tommy Burns took over and brought in some good players but Smith had a side that was together for years and Tommy never had that luxury. Wim Jansen stopped him from doing 10 in a row with a poor Celtic team. Walter still had all the big players in his side.

His record in Europe during his first spell was awful considering the money and talent he had at his disposal along with the fact they were winning titles in Scotland at a canter.

He came back in 2007 to steady the ship and did well getting to the UEFA cup final but they never played football. Long ball tactics and hope for penalties. He had a massive squad but never won the title that year despite going into the run in with a massive lead. He did spend money this season as well bringing in Cuellar, Whittaker, Beasley and Cousin.

2008/09 he did win the title but was knocked out of Europe at the qualifying stage by Kaunus of Lithuania. He did spend money though bringing in Davis, Lafferty, Miller, Bougherra and Edu. A lot of money spent over 2 years with only 1 title to show and a horrible UEFA cup run is very poor.

2009/10 we got the poor Walter has no money to spend rubbish. He had spent a fortune over the 2 years he was in charge some well, some not so well. He won a title but never looked impressive and refused to play anything that resembled football. Celtic were awful again which isn't his fault but it's not like he has been pushed all the way in the race.

This season we get the same old no money to spend rubbish he has spent enough down the years if he is a top manager he will be able to win a title on a tight budget. Although when you spend £4m on a striker in the summer that isn't really a tight budget. Then gets Diouf in although their was no fee they are big wages to take on for an apparent tight budget.

The current Rangers squad still cost more to put together than the Celtic squad so their is no excuses if he is a top manager Rangers will win the league if he isn't Celtic will. Walter has won 8 titles in 10 seasons with Rangers but only 1 has been a tight race against a decent Celtic team. Time to prove he is great. At Everton he was a failure and got the bullet and did well with Scotland but it was more glorious failure so it can't be called success.

Anyone disagree?

I think you'll find he did get 9 in a row, they stopped 10 in a row.
And he isnt great when it comes to europe although he is great when it comes to the domestic game.
Everton he was pish.
Scotland job he done great, but everyone thinks he's a tadger for leaving them to return to Rangers when most people would do the same.

He only won 5 of them though not all 9. I'm debating his domestic greatness very patchy and spent a lot of money for Scottish football. He never done great with Scotland at the end of the day he failed to qualify for a tournament so can't be called great.
I don't bleame him for taking the rangers job I would rather work in a sweater factory in Taiwan than for the SFA.

I'd disagree with you Prettyboy. Whether or not he's excelled enough he's put his heart and soul into the team and has bled blue for longer than I have walked the earth. Neil Lennon is constantly being heralded as a Celtic legend (granted not by every Celtic fan) even though he can't control himself and has not won anything yet (here’s hoping). Basically although he has many, many flaws I can't help but look with blue tinted glasses and see somebody who has done considerably more good that bad, acted professionally (including his digs at Chic Young who can blame him), kept our team afloat and has kept us in with a fighting chance this season. Passionate supporters always get behind a competent manager and both the Old Firm gaffers are the top flight in the SPL at the moment. No questions about it, if we win this year Smith should get Hall of Fame status.

Maybe for Rangers but I meant should he be regarded as a great alongside Stein and Ferguson? IMO no he doesn't.

Walter took Rangers to within a whisker of a CL final in his first stint, the side were unbeaten that year. He may not play the most attractive football when he doesn't have the money to buy players of Gazza and Laudrup's calibre, but his ability to get results and avoid the sort of bum collapse that Celtic suffered tonight certainly mark him out as one of Scotlands greatests managers. It is easy to say he never won a European Trophy, but he delivered two fantastic European runs in his tenure which is more than most.

As for who is the greatest, it is in no doubt that Sir Alex has delivered more than any other Scot, I wish him all the best against Barca at Wembley. It will be a stiff challenge.

He's a Rangers legend yes but not in the same league as Ferguson or Stein.

Or Mark McGhee


:run1:

prettyboykev wrote:He's a Rangers legend yes but not in the same league as Ferguson or Stein.

You going to keep saying that?

But it's true his first spell at Rangers he was nothing more than a chequebook manager who had little competition for the league. 2nd spell despite what people want you to believe he's had money to spend and has done well. Nothing truely spectacular though.

How many Celtic managers have ended up unemployed due to him?

During 9 in a row the board were more to blame and that's a fact only Burns which was harsh and Mowbray who never deserved the job are worthwhile.

What a pointless and bitter little thread this is, you'd think it was spawned after last night rather than before it. You'll find yours is a minority opinion, clearly driven by bitterness which is not going to be changed by discussing it with other fans. You are so transparent, any person that reads this can see this thread for what it is.

If you want to draw a line under greatness, draw it under the greatest and not a few notches down to include your own teams greatest (ie Stein). Ferguson's achievements stand alone in Scottish Football... everyone else is inferior.

I would put Ferguson as the greatest manager of all time. Stein isn't far behind him though his Celtic acievements are awesome.

If the thread is so pointless why did you bother commenting on it?

Smith is talked about like he is on a par with these 2 which he isn't.

I'm not bitter just not that impressed with his record or the fact his teams are painfully boring to watch.

It's a valid question to ask. His record isn't great when you scrutinise it. I was saying this before he came back to Rangers and he hasn't done much since to convince me otherwise.

Just won 7 poss. 8 trophies since his return while the club is skint.

His record in scotland is great no argument in europe and england abysmal.plenty of managers can have great records domestically but fail in europe and thats where greatness gets measured.So for me its sir walter myth. ps he helped them on there way to being skint

It is pointless in that you aren't looking to discuss it, you just want to run down some significant achievements. It's worth commenting on because I feel it's worth pointing out how transparent your veiled attack is.

Furthermore, I don't know anybody who tries to suggest that Smiths footballing achievements are comparable to Stein's or Busby let alone Ferguson's. However he is an elite group which those three are at the head of, that includes guys like Bill Shankly, Bill Struth, Willie Maley, Scott Symon, Willie Waddell, Jim Mclean, Kenny Dalglish... managers that did significant things during their careers. Only a really bitter individual would contest that.

I'm not contesting he is in that category although I wouldn't have Dalglish in it. He is a good manager no doubt. He's not one of the elite though.

His recent achievements are talked about like he has did it with no money which just isn't true. Therfore overrating what he has done.

I am willing to debate it but you calling me bitter and saying the thread is pointless isn't bringing much to the debate is it?

Just to show I'm not a bitter Celtic fan, I would rate him as a better manager than Martin O'Neill who enjoys god like status at Celtic Park.

You seem to be saying the fact I'm a Celtic fan discounts my view on Smith. I would allow you to have a few on O'Neill without discounting it because of who you support.

sorry pretty boy cant agree with that. can i ask you why you think he a better manager than o'neil.

At Leicster he had a great time excellent achievements can't argue with that. O'Neill won 3 titles in 5 years at Celtic and got to a UEFA cup final. He had an awesome team and spent a lot of money but could have achieved more if he was more willing to rotate his squad. At Aston Villa his team were so inconsistent a couple of times they got into good positions and faultered while this could be put down to inexperience on his squads behalf but he must carry some of the can for that.

Dalglish won English Prem titles with two different clubs, a much tougher league than ours, not many managers have managed that. He may have lacked the longevity of some of the others on that list but he deserves to be on it imo.

If O'Neil was Scottish he'd be on that list of mine. In fact now that you bring him into it, you knock Smiths style of football but I'd be interested in you take on the Wimbledon tactics of O'Neill. I think he was very one dimensional but like Smith he brewed a team that knew how to grind out wins and that deserves recognition.

Back to Smith, you keep raising the cash issue, Celtic have spent every bit as much or more and we also need to consider that Championship sides spend more than that. So to get to a Uefa Cup Final on that budget was pretty damn good, it's not like Scotland have produced a raft of talent to fall back on. It was pennies compared to what O'Neil was able to spend too.

You also choose to ignore the unbeaten Champions League side of 92-93, that was an excellent effort and also deserves recognition, a massive what might have been. It wasn't all a disaster the first time around.

That was the only year it wasnt a disaster.lucky though it was.he must have more draws in europe than the euromillions

marcellus wallace wrote:That was the only year it wasnt a disaster.lucky though it was.he must have more draws in europe than the euromillions

Lucky? To come up against two teams involved in bribery? The only luck I can think of was Scott Nisbets goal at home to Brugge. You'd think we didn't beat a damn good Leeds side home and away that year, or win in Moscow. Remind me how many points Celtic have away from home in the CL? One finger ought to be enough. You'd think it was easy the way you two are going on.

Redrage wrote:

marcellus wallace wrote:That was the only year it wasnt a disaster.lucky though it was.he must have more draws in europe than the euromillions

Lucky? To come up against two teams involved in bribery? The only luck I can think of was Scott Nisbets goal at home to Brugge. You'd think we didn't beat a damn good Leeds side home and away that year, or win in Moscow. Remind me how many points Celtic have away from home in the CL? One finger ought to be enough. You'd think it was easy the way you two are going on.

Who mentioned Celtics champion league record. Don't put us down as a two I don't agree with him about the 92/93 season. Apart from that during 9 in a row Rangers under achieved in Europe IMO.

marcellus wallace wrote:That was the only year it wasnt a disaster.lucky though it was.he must have more draws in europe than the euromillions

It happened to successive years they got into good positions and bottled it basicallly.

Redrage wrote:Dalglish won English Prem titles with two different clubs, a much tougher league than ours, not many managers have managed that. He may have lacked the longevity of some of the others on that list but he deserves to be on it imo.

If O'Neil was Scottish he'd be on that list of mine. In fact now that you bring him into it, you knock Smiths style of football but I'd be interested in you take on the Wimbledon tactics of O'Neill. I think he was very one dimensional but like Smith he brewed a team that knew how to grind out wins and that deserves recognition.

Back to Smith, you keep raising the cash issue, Celtic have spent every bit as much or more and we also need to consider that Championship sides spend more than that. So to get to a Uefa Cup Final on that budget was pretty damn good, it's not like Scotland have produced a raft of talent to fall back on. It was pennies compared to what O'Neil was able to spend too.

You also choose to ignore the unbeaten Champions League side of 92-93, that was an excellent effort and also deserves recognition, a massive what might have been. It wasn't all a disaster the first time around.

Agree to disagree on Dalglish he was poor at Newcastle.

Part of my problem with O'Neil is the style of play. The Old Firm shouldn't need to resort to long al boring tactics in Scotland the gulf is so huge between them and the rest.

He did get to a UEFA cup final on a decent budget but not much less than Strachan had to spend when he progressed in the Champions League 2 years in a row.

I'm not overlooking 92/93 they did very well but for the rest of his first stint Rangers under achieved in Europe considering the team they had. IMO.

no 1 is sayin its easy but should have been easier when your outspending most of europe.who was the TWO teams involved in bribes only 1 team got done for it that played in europe that year.without being pedantic rangers didnt win in moscow its all about opinions

What did david murray set out to do with rangers when he took over?Beat 9 in a row and conquer europe.walter was manager during most of the big spending days.Did he acheive what his chairman wanted him to do?

marcellus wallace wrote:no 1 is sayin its easy but should have been easier when your outspending most of europe.who was the TWO teams involved in bribes only 1 team got done for it that played in europe that year.without being pedantic rangers didnt win in moscow its all about opinions

The speculation was CSKA Moscow were offered a bribe or a reward to stop us and they were trying to bribe a referee, they were only caught out in a league fixture but you have to wonder what else they were actually up to.

http://www.eurocupshistory.com/match/11376/cska_moscow_vs_rangers/

Rangers beat CSKA away, if it was played at a neutral venue then I don't recall where it was and neither does the person running that detailed site.

maybes aye maybes naw.who knows.as i said 1team got done for it.the game was in germany because it was to cold cant recall what stadium.