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 National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel