Tweet
Dave McIntyre/BBC 606 - Magilton's high-risk approach
- Jim Magilton’s criticism of Akos Buzsaky immediately reminded me of the night Ian Holloway turned his guns on Richard Langley.
As Magilton was talking last night, I recalled Holloway standing in the same place after Rangers had been humiliated by Vauxhall Motors.
- Magilton’s verdict on Buzsaky was nowhere near as venomous as Holloway’s on Langley that night.
- But there were some similarities - not least the fact that both players were trying to re-establish themselves after serious knee injuries.
- And in both cases, a number of players could have been slated after a woeful team display. Only one - the man widely regarded as the jewel in the Rangers crown - was unexpectedly singled out.
- Referring to Langley, I remember Holloway saying: “I’ll start with him - because he’s the biggest.”
- It seemed a clear attempt to prove his own authority by showing he was prepared to ‘take on’ the club’s most popular player.
- It’s a tactic sometimes employed by managers. The message is obvious: if even the top dog isn’t safe, then no-one is.
- And by prefixing his comments last night with: “I know he’s a crowd favourite, but…” Magilton was subtly making this point too.
- Many of Buzsaky’s admirers will today be wondering if this signals the end of his QPR career and worry he may respond by looking for a way out.
- It’s a justified concern, but no manager worth his salt will ever be held back by it if he feels something needs to be said.
- In the case of Langley, I believe Holloway’s stance, both during that awful November of 2002 and in general, backfired badly.
- I think it knocked the player’s confidence in the short and long term, that his confidence was affected by events both at QPR and then Cardiff and that this was almost as significant as the injuries he suffered.
- More importantly, I’ve always believed it ended up costing Rangers promotion that season.
- During that spell, Langley was banished in much the same way Gino Padula was. Only injuries to others led to their return, after which Rangers went on a brilliant run and narrowly missed out on the top two.
- They of course might have won the play-offs had Langley not got himself sent off and suspended for the final. But were it not for that turgid mid-season spell, those play-offs may not have been necessary.
- Coincidentally, Holloway also managed Buzsaky at Plymouth, where he was cajoled into some great performances but never quite established himself in the way he did after joining QPR.
- That could be taken as proof that Magilton’s approach will not bring the best out of the player, but there reasons to be more optimistic.
- The first is that Langley and Buzsaky are very different players and characters.
- Buzsaky is older and more experienced than Langley was in 2002 and I think is more likely to come back strongly rather than take it to heart.
- But in my view the crucial thing - and the biggest reason to stay optimistic - is what Magilton was actually criticising Buzsaky for.
- Some managers will not warm to a player like Buzsaky purely for ideological reasons.
- Going back to Langley, he was always on a sticky wicket given Holloway’s musings about “piano shifters” as well as “Fancy Dans” and “flitty farty QPR.”
- Buzsaky’s fans would today have serious reason to worry if Magilton had singled him out for not working hard enough, not putting a foot in or for failing to track back.
- He didn’t. He was angry with him for giving the ball away. That's very significant and Buzsaky ought to take something positive from it.
- If Magilton was trying to change him as a player, then alarm bells really would be ringing.
- Another key difference is that while Langley was a lovely player, he was very much an instinctive one. His strength was producing flashes of brilliance in the final third of the pitch.
- Buzsaky has that instinctive side to his game but, unlike Langley, also has the ability to be more deliberate and precise.
- That means he should be - and is - expected to pull strings in midfield in a way someone in the Langley mould cannot.
- Keeping the ball is therefore crucial, and giving it away cheaply really isn’t on.
- Personally, I disagree with Magilton’s comments but think a far more serious issue for Buzsaky and others is the formation currently being used.
- The last three managers angered their bosses by not sticking to 4-4-2, but all three played a certain way for a very good reason.
- Buzsaky misses playing just off the front man – and he isn’t the only key QPR player who needs that shape to be reintroduced.
- Adel Taarabt also needs to play in a withdrawn role. He is not a striker, while playing wide he will always cause as many problems for his own full-back as the opposition’s.
- Rowan Vine is another who isn’t being helped by the emphasis on two out-and-out strikers.
- He’s a quality player but was always going to find the going tough after his injury.
- Playing slightly off the front puts the emphasis on effective movement, which still suits him, whereas a striker is often required to run flat out.
- Angelo Balanta and Martin Rowlands also operate better in that kind of system and so too, I expect, will Lee Cook.
- I think this is a more urgent worry than Magilton’s comments.
- But publicly criticising a star player always raises eyebrows. It’s also a very risky move.
- At Rangers, there is a growing pool of players the regime would gladly offload if the chance arose. Buzsaky isn’t one of them.
- He is popular with the board as well as supporters, so Magilton has stuck his neck out by taking him to task.
- But that’s what management is all about.
- Many have been calling for the manager to be given a free rein and this is sometimes what that involves.
- It’s an important judgement call by Magilton.
- Time – and Buzsaky’s response – will tell whether he’s got it right.
so..... BBC606
- Jim Magilton’s criticism of Akos Buzsaky immediately reminded me of the night Ian Holloway turned his guns on Richard Langley.
As Magilton was talking last night, I recalled Holloway standing in the same place after Rangers had been humiliated by Vauxhall Motors.
- Magilton’s verdict on Buzsaky was nowhere near as venomous as Holloway’s on Langley that night.
- But there were some similarities - not least the fact that both players were trying to re-establish themselves after serious knee injuries.
- And in both cases, a number of players could have been slated after a woeful team display. Only one - the man widely regarded as the jewel in the Rangers crown - was unexpectedly singled out.
- Referring to Langley, I remember Holloway saying: “I’ll start with him - because he’s the biggest.”
- It seemed a clear attempt to prove his own authority by showing he was prepared to ‘take on’ the club’s most popular player.
- It’s a tactic sometimes employed by managers. The message is obvious: if even the top dog isn’t safe, then no-one is.
- And by prefixing his comments last night with: “I know he’s a crowd favourite, but…” Magilton was subtly making this point too.
- Many of Buzsaky’s admirers will today be wondering if this signals the end of his QPR career and worry he may respond by looking for a way out.
- It’s a justified concern, but no manager worth his salt will ever be held back by it if he feels something needs to be said.
- In the case of Langley, I believe Holloway’s stance, both during that awful November of 2002 and in general, backfired badly.
- I think it knocked the player’s confidence in the short and long term, that his confidence was affected by events both at QPR and then Cardiff and that this was almost as significant as the injuries he suffered.
- More importantly, I’ve always believed it ended up costing Rangers promotion that season.
- During that spell, Langley was banished in much the same way Gino Padula was. Only injuries to others led to their return, after which Rangers went on a brilliant run and narrowly missed out on the top two.
- They of course might have won the play-offs had Langley not got himself sent off and suspended for the final. But were it not for that turgid mid-season spell, those play-offs may not have been necessary.
- Coincidentally, Holloway also managed Buzsaky at Plymouth, where he was cajoled into some great performances but never quite established himself in the way he did after joining QPR.
- That could be taken as proof that Magilton’s approach will not bring the best out of the player, but there reasons to be more optimistic.
- The first is that Langley and Buzsaky are very different players and characters.
- Buzsaky is older and more experienced than Langley was in 2002 and I think is more likely to come back strongly rather than take it to heart.
- But in my view the crucial thing - and the biggest reason to stay optimistic - is what Magilton was actually criticising Buzsaky for.
- Some managers will not warm to a player like Buzsaky purely for ideological reasons.
- Going back to Langley, he was always on a sticky wicket given Holloway’s musings about “piano shifters” as well as “Fancy Dans” and “flitty farty QPR.”
- Buzsaky’s fans would today have serious reason to worry if Magilton had singled him out for not working hard enough, not putting a foot in or for failing to track back.
- He didn’t. He was angry with him for giving the ball away. That's very significant and Buzsaky ought to take something positive from it.
- If Magilton was trying to change him as a player, then alarm bells really would be ringing.
- Another key difference is that while Langley was a lovely player, he was very much an instinctive one. His strength was producing flashes of brilliance in the final third of the pitch.
- Buzsaky has that instinctive side to his game but, unlike Langley, also has the ability to be more deliberate and precise.
- That means he should be - and is - expected to pull strings in midfield in a way someone in the Langley mould cannot.
- Keeping the ball is therefore crucial, and giving it away cheaply really isn’t on.
- Personally, I disagree with Magilton’s comments but think a far more serious issue for Buzsaky and others is the formation currently being used.
- The last three managers angered their bosses by not sticking to 4-4-2, but all three played a certain way for a very good reason.
- Buzsaky misses playing just off the front man – and he isn’t the only key QPR player who needs that shape to be reintroduced.
- Adel Taarabt also needs to play in a withdrawn role. He is not a striker, while playing wide he will always cause as many problems for his own full-back as the opposition’s.
- Rowan Vine is another who isn’t being helped by the emphasis on two out-and-out strikers.
- He’s a quality player but was always going to find the going tough after his injury.
- Playing slightly off the front puts the emphasis on effective movement, which still suits him, whereas a striker is often required to run flat out.
- Angelo Balanta and Martin Rowlands also operate better in that kind of system and so too, I expect, will Lee Cook.
- I think this is a more urgent worry than Magilton’s comments.
- But publicly criticising a star player always raises eyebrows. It’s also a very risky move.
- At Rangers, there is a growing pool of players the regime would gladly offload if the chance arose. Buzsaky isn’t one of them.
- He is popular with the board as well as supporters, so Magilton has stuck his neck out by taking him to task.
- But that’s what management is all about.
- Many have been calling for the manager to be given a free rein and this is sometimes what that involves.
- It’s an important judgement call by Magilton.
- Time – and Buzsaky’s response – will tell whether he’s got it right.
so..... BBC606
Comment