Rousseau

MB hinting at a new deal for King and one other player in the coming days.

I think De Paul and Mac Allister are more important. But, I agree the lad has done really well: goals are what matter. (Shame he's at Man City... )

It goes further than just one foil, IMO: it seems like the whole set-up is designed to carry Messi - because he does nothing off the ball. It's Messi, so, fair enough.

According to Transfermrkt - for what that's worth - he has a value of £3.5m. It's in our price range.

I was also impressed by Morocco's Sofiane Boufal in the African Cup of Nations a while back. I looked him up at the time and he was a free agent! He was 29, though. He's now at Angers, too.

We should be looking at players like Morocco's Azzedine Ounahi. He's played really well in the WC; he's only 22, and plays for Angers - that's just one letter off The Famous.

Argentina's tactical set-up is remarkable. Ostensibly, it's a 4-4-2 in defence, but they have what are two central midfielders (Mac Allister and De Paul) playing in the wide midfield spots. However, building on my 'formations are largely meaningless in the modern game' rank from yesterday, in possession it morphs into more of a 3-5-2, with one central midfielder (Fernandez) dropping in-between the CBs, and those wide midfielders move inside to create a three. Then it morphs again into a 3-2-5, with Mac Allister moving up into the left half-space. The tactical flexibility is astounding. The Argentina manager, Lionel Scaloni (he played for Deportivo during their glory years), has no managerial experience. It's only when I dug a little deeper that I learned that he had been an assistant to one of my favourite managers, Jorge Sampaoli. It just goes to show that you don't necessarily need experience, just a solid playing philosophy and the tools to implement it. Of course, it helps when you've got a plethora of top-class players - although, I wouldn't say they are a better group than Brazil, for example; A 'keeper from Aston Villa vs one from Liverpool; a CB from Benfica vs ones from PSG and Chelsea; a midfielder from Brighton vs one from Real Madrid!

Fewer points than I expected. Gonzo, Rousseau, Yorkie, dB, compo, Onevision, Dado, BEARGER and Devil got the Correct Result. dB got the Correct Score. Gonzo gets an extra point for applying his JOKER. Latest Standings:

Just waiting on @Ted McMinnime and @BEARGER...

Rangers 1 - 0 Hibernian FGS Colak

We're back! Rangers vs Hibernian

Teams now generally adopt different shapes in different states of the game. Man City and Arsenal, for example, line up in a 4-3-3 on paper, but in possession their RBs play as a third CB and their LBs invert to create a double pivot, so it's more like a 3-2-5. Then when they defend, Man City adopt a 4-4-2. We've seen this flexibility in the WC with France, Brazil and Argentina etc. adopting different shapes in different states of the game. I really couldn't tell you what formation Argentina play! Moreover, it doesn't describe how a team will play. Man City and Liverpool both adopt a 4-3-3 on paper, but the way they play morphs into wildly different shapes. That's why 'on paper' formations are largely meaningless. However, you can certainly use formations to describe the shape in possession and out of possession, for example.

One of JJ's frequent sayings is that formations are largely meaningless.

Because it's interesting to identify the basic shape, in and out of possession. When it's so fluid, though, it's difficult.

I'm not surprised. Formations are largely meaningless nowadays.

I think you are getting too caught up in the position. You would be scouting the player for his skill-set. I think Matondo could play as a Salah-type inside forward, with his pace - not sure about his finishing, though... 👀

I didn't see that at all. When we were lined up in a mid-block, we had Colak and Matondo as the most advanced players, with Kent a little deeper in the middle. (The players changed in the second half, but the structure was the same.) I agree that the 'striker', be it Colak or Morelos, was playing wider, not in the middle. It was a liverpool-esque line-up. Indeed very fluid.

Why's that? Matondo played as a forward against Leverkusen. It's all about the role you want a player to fulfil.

To be honest, I'm not sure yet. On paper it looked like a 4-2-3-1, but when we kicked-off it looked like a 4-4-2 diamond, with Kent as a #10. Then at other times it was a flat 4-3-3. The common theme was a narrow front three. We don't need wingers per se if we're going to use inside forwards.

If MB prefers a narrower formation, then a RW is not needed. It's a #10 that we'd be looking for; however, one that can run, like Lowry.

Does it say who the others are? I don't know why I'm intrigued: their wages will be too much for us.

I don't understand why we feel the need to highlight the importance of a certain group of games. We have to win every game.

Howat's been on 5 minutes and hit the bar with a screamer and now has just drilled one into the bottom corner of the net. 2-0.