Pressure from the stands is beginning to mount on Philippe Clement at Rangers.
Yesterday's 1-0 defeat to Kilmarnock was a damning indictment of the club's season so far - all too predictable.
Marley Watkins put the Ibrox side to the sword in the Scottish Premiership encounter.
The game looked to be heading for a stalemate, however, over the balance of the play and chances created, Killie edged it on the afternoon.
The result leaves Rangers six points behind title rivals Celtic and Aberdeen after eight matches.
Read more:
A stunning stat to be revealed in the aftermath of Sunday's encounter is that when Rangers won at Rugby Park in February, Clement had 18 wins from 20 league matches. Since it's 9 from 18.
So, with Clement's win rate clearing faltering, how does he compare with other managers Rangers have had since their return to the top flight in 2016?
We've taken a look to see, using permanent appointments only - so, there is no Steven Davis, Graeme Murty or Jimmy Nicholl on our list...
Philippe Clement
Played: 57
Won: 38
Drawn: 9
Lost: 10
Win percentage: 66.7
Points per game: 2.16
Michael Beale
Played: 43
Won: 31
Drawn: 4
Lost: 8
Win percentage: 72.1
Points per match: 2.26
Giovanni van Bronckhorst
Played: 68
Won: 42
Drawn: 11
Lost: 15
Win percentage: 61.8
Points per match: 2.01
Steven Gerrard
Played: 192
Won: 124
Drawn: 41
Lost: 27
Win percentage: 64.6
Points per game: 2.15
Pedro Caixinha
Played: 26
Won: 14
Drawn: 5
Lost: 7
Win percentage: 53.8
Points per game: 1.81
Mark Warburton
Played: 82
Won: 55
Drawn: 14
Lost: 13
Win percentage: 67.1
Points per game: 2.18
Clement has a poorer win percentage than Michael Beale, although he's been in charge for more competitive games.
On the flip side, having managed 11 fewer games than Giovanni van Bronckhorst, the Belgian has a superior win percentage.
There are obvious caveats to consider here too, with a decent portion of Mark Warburton's games coming in the Championship.
Meanwhile, Steven Gerrard's win percentage might not be the best on the list, it's certainly the most impressive given the length of time he was in charge for.
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