Rousseau

I'm surprised by the Chelsea back-three: they had played a back-four during the majority of pre-season, iirc.

A 50% conversion rate means an xG of 0.5?! They would have to be exceptional chances; almost tap-ins. That's fair - I did say we did actually create more than that. It was 7 in total during the first half. I don't think that's enough. They're certainly not high quality chances. It would be phenomenal if we scored 2 goals from 4 shots. It's just not consistently repeatable. We can't expect our players to score 1 goal from two shots - we don't have Messi or Ronaldo. The whole premise of my position is that we need to be able to consistently create a good amount of good quality chances against the low block.

My point was - and will continue to be - we did not create enough against the low block. Just because we created a flurry of chances when the game opened up is irrelevant. It's 'flattering' because for 80 minutes (74 minutes? Whenever the 2nd went in) the performance was p*sh. I mean, you say, '4 or 5 chances against the low block'; in 80 minutes?! Is that really good enough? It was more than that, but it's not enough. It is an issue because we need to create and score more against the low block. If we don't we're going nowhere.

That's a lot of 'should's. I'm only interested in what actually happened. There's only so many times I can say it: we did not create enough when facing a low block. That's the entirety of my point. Oh - we can disagree; that's fine. What's obtuse is you continuously missing my point.

I agree that Cifu is a stick-on. I'd personally have Cantwell as the #10: Danilo - Lammers Cantwell Raskin - Dowell - Cifu Barisic - Souttar - Goldson - Tavernier Butland Jack misses out, though.

This Brentford-Spurs game is surprisingly heated.

Servette 0 - 1 Rangers FGS Danilo

Servette vs Rangers

I think he should play as the #6, freeing up Raskin to move forward. I think I'm alone in that thought, though. @DMAA gave me a right good scolding...

Start delayed in the Brentford-Spurs game. There's no water getting into the stadium, which represents a health risk.

I had to rearrange my team after Kane left.

No I haven't: I mentioned them in the other post: 7 shots with an xG of 0.51. (Cifu's 'goal' is irrelevant; it was disallowed. And it was a set-piece.) I'm remembering all the chances we've created. It's not enough against the low block. I'm sorry, it's just a fact. Great build-up, great finish, but low quality chance. Are you really expecting Dowell to score a worldie every week? Again: it happens when Livinston opened up. We did well then - I'm not denying that - but we need to be better in the bread-and-butter moments; i.e. against the low block. You're being deliberately obtuse.

Just making the point that we've covered this before, and I turned out to be correct in my worry. Did I not say 'bugger-all', initially, in regards to chances? That's not specific, but I always meant quality - quantity is part of it, I suppose. No - they were not 'quality' chances: Dowell's, for example, was a worldie, where the xG is 0.04, or something. We're not scoring those every time; it's not a high quality chance. Quality goal, but not a 'quality' chance. Danilo's was a high quality chance. The Dessers shot was a high quality chance. I think 1.8 xG in that second half was much better. If we can hit 3.5 - 4 xG over a match, that would be better. I'd be more optimistic. If we're taking 20 shots from 40-yards, I'd be very worried - we're not that bad, though. However, the majority of those chances were towards the end of the game, when Livingston opened up. We've taken advantage of the state of the game, which is great, but my concern is still a lack of quality chances against the low block; that's our bread-and-butter. We need to be able to churn - see what I did there? - out chances against a low block, both quantity and quality. I don't include penalties. I don't include set-pieces either. Set-pieces are important, but as a top team in our league, we can't be relying on set-pieces for our goals. That's just a bonus, IMO. I don't need xG to confirm it. I watched it with my own eyes. We didn't create enough against the low block. I'm sorry, that's just a fact. You're too caught up on results. It's football: a team can dominate for 89 minutes with 90% possession and lose the game 1-0 to a fluky, scuffed shot. You're the type to say, 'job done' if it's Rangers that won. I'm the type to be concerned about needing a fluky, scuffed shot to win the game. It's just a matter of interpretation. I think I'm right, over the long-term. If teams are consistently lucky, it'll come back to haunt them.

You said 20 shots in your previous post, so it was 20 chances. It was actually 22 shots / chances. Quite good, but that's not unusual. My issue is the quality of the chances: 7 shots in that first half, with an xG of 0.47. It's not enough. Hopefully it'll come, but we're not clicking yet. I'd like to see the 1.8 xG from the second half in the first against the low block, not when they're opening up, which suits us. If we can consistently create good chances against a low block I'll be more optimistic - we don't even have to take the chances, although I think we have better quality now so that shouldn't be an issue. I remember we had this same debate a couple of seasons ago when you were waxing lyrical about a 4 goal win against Hearts, whereas I thought it was a poor performance. I might be wrong but I think GvB was sacked... ?

There's more than one defensive tactic, though.

What happened to your 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics' patter? I suppose stats are alright when they help your argument. I disagree. We dominated, but created very few chances against the low block. It was only when Livingston gambled that we created chances - which was great, don't get me wrong: you want to see MB taking advantage of the state of the game. You can be happy with the final result if you wish, but, for me, we still have the same issues. If Livingston kept their defensive shape it would have been a poor 1-0 victory. Our xG was 2.3. We need to be creating more.

Yes. That and striking the ball. That's his whole game.

He should be fine. Not only do most probably speak English, one is Canadian and at least two others are virtually English through their parents or being in English youth academies. He should be learning German, though.

What are your thoughts, folks?

Kane left Spurs to win trophies. Bayern were pumped 0-3 in the German Super Cup. At the Allianz Arena. You can take 'Arry out of Spurs, but you can't take Spurs out of 'Arry...

I think 4-0 flattered us. The switch to more of a counter-attacking style when Livingston chose to gamble was great; that got us three goals. However, the inability to break down low blocks remains: We created bugger-all for the majority of that game. Defensively we were solid - that block or interception from Souttar at the near post when it was almost a tap-in equaliser was superb - but Livingston didn't do much.

I'm a big fan of Tavernier, but he was rinsed a couple of times. He looks sluggish; slow in thought and action. Barisic was good.

Newcastle and Villa surprised me. Newcastle did much better than I expected and Villa did much worse than I expected. I still think Newcastle will not make the CL spots, though. It may just be early season rustiness for Villa.

I don't think we're playing to Dessers' strengths just yet. He's still not quite match sharp either.