There’s been a lot of screaming for Tom Renney’s head lately. Ranger fans are desperate for consistent success and the only consistent product put up in the past five games is disappointment. Is firing Renney the solution, though? Sometimes it seems like a change behind the bench is the best solution for team that should, by all appearances, be a dominating force every night.

Other times, though, not enough shrift is given to the benefit of consistency in management, and recognizing that skids can happen … and so long as they are righted and the end result is a winning record, with measurable successes … dismissing a manager or coach amid disappointing spells could do more harm than good. Let’s shift over to English football’s Premier League. It is arguably the best football (soccer) league in the world with teams consisting of some of the best international talent, which are largely run by great managerial minds. Some clubs, though, despite their storied histories or great pedigrees, are perpetual disasters. Like Newcastle United.

In the mid ’90s Newcastle challenged a club nearly everyone has heard of, Manchester United, for the Premier League title. They played some of the best football there was to be seen. But that was the best they’d do, and since they’ve been a perennial disappointment. Newcastle has since gone through manager after manager, all of whom were fired, and no one has been able to bring them back to their old form.

At the end of last season, they hired the sixth man to take the managerial post since their last successful manager, Kevin Keegan, resigned. This new man, Sam Allardyce, was touted to be Newcastle’s savior. The man to right the ship. Well, after eight months in charge and some disappointing results over the last month or so, he was fired. With Allardyce gone, Newcastle was promptly stomped by Manchester United today.

Bringing this back to hockey, I think there is something to be said for giving a coach a good amount of time to make a difference. Constant changes behind the bench can be disruptive, and like it or not, Renney has — by many measures — been successful as the Rangers coach. I think the biggest problem the Blueshirts have is the unpredictable nature of their captain.

Jaromir Jagr is temperamental, inconsistent and spoiled. True that he is also immensely talented, but that really doesn’t matter if he chooses not to play to his abilities. Rather than be left worrying which Jagr is going to show up, I’d gladly take a player of lesser skill and bigger heart, who will play hard all game, every game.

Newcastle is fraught with problems. The Rangers are not. The difference between the Rangers being the consistent losers they’ve been lately and being consistently dominant winners is as close as rooting disruptive influences from the bench, ice and locker room. To have a team requires a roster of team players. Even the stars must be so. Jaromir Jagr played best in the shadow of someone greater, namely Mario Lemieux.

Jagr is not an outright leader — he is not a captain, but a lieutenant of the highest order. He would be better off as an alternate captain behind Chris Drury or Brendan Shanahan.

I think Renney is the right man for the rest of this season. He’s had two winning seasons already, which should buy him until April … or longer should the Rangers make the playoffs.

If the Rangers miss the playoffs, I’ll be the one holding the door when they show it to Renney … until then, though, let’s see if he can right this ship. And let’s also see if Glen Sather has the acumen to unload Jagr, who is wholly useless if he doesn’t play up to the standard expected of him.