Rousseau

9 minutes ago, DMAA said:

It is hardly “shoehorning” when it is on the exact topic I have spoken about with regards to Kent. If it was barely related it would be shoehorning. I said in his first season he just lacks end product, he lacks the vision and passing ability required to get the assists we need from our attacking midfielders. He has a tendency to run into crowded areas instead of hitting the byline. I was repeatedly berated and told “the assists will come”, (more in other places than on here). 

I tend to agree. He's not the most creative. He's just a pacy player that likes to take a shot - he does have a good shot on him at times. 

He looks to have started this season better, in terms of an end-product (goals), though. Of course, he still has to maintain that. 

9 minutes ago, DMAA said:

I prefer 4-4-2, but 3-5-2 is more attacking on that pitch because you have 2 strikers occupying the centre backs instead of 1, and the midfield are largely the same but with less defensive duties because you have an extra centre back behind. Obviously our two most productive players, Tav and Barisic, are also freed up significantly from defensive duties. I think if you compared heat maps afterwards you would find in a 3-5-2 you’re players were much more active further up the pitch. 
 

 

I think we kind of develop into that on the pitch.

Kamara swerves out to make a situational back three, with Jack in front; We had Arfield and Hagi just in front of Jack; Barisic and Tavernier wide; and Morelos up top with Kent beside him - even if the latter roamed about, he was the one constantly pressing the 'keeper. That's basically a 3-5-2. 

Which plays into my point: it's not the formation, it's the way of playing.  

I completely agree we could go more direct. But, for me, it's as simple as taking off Kent, or Hagi, and bringing on Roofe or Itten. 

But then what's the plan? Is it crosses from the wing-backs? Long passes from deep (Jack, Goldson) into Itten and Morelos?

1 minute ago, PoohBear said:

Hmm, I'm not sure there is an answer there. Neither was effective. 
 

My point about Barker is that he's looked a mile off what's required any time he's been used, but he's still getting decent opportunities.

I wasn't suggesting Barker was effective - he wasn't in the end. I think the point is he tries to do the right thing. He's not good enough, yes, but neither were Hagi and Kent in the end. 

He had a very good pre-season, by all accounts, I think. He is obviously showing flashes of ability. As @DMAA says, SG likes that type of player. He seems to have the raw attributes that SG likes and he tries to do the right thing. 

Is he ultimately of the required quality? No. But, why wouldn't you use him? He's trying to do the right things. 

I wouldn't say he has had "decent opportunities" - he only gets a few minutes towards the end - which, arguably, is when his pace can do most damage. 

17 minutes ago, PoohBear said:

You're not wrong, but I feel that's more of a damning indictment of Hagi and Arfield's game rather than any positive indication that Barker is a suitable player for us.

 

What do they call that, damning with faint praise?

What would you prefer: a top class player that's not doing what you want them to do, or a below average player that is doing what you want them to do?

You can only use what you've got. 

Just now, DMAA said:

I don't think we need a permanent formation change, but I do think we need to consider whether our system is going to work on this pitch against this system. With Aribo out in particular, I was very concerned it wouldn't. I think we need to be more direct on plastic pitches and two strikers in the box would be a big help to making that work. We shouldn't be too proud to be pragmatic. The fact is that our attacking midfielders have a terrible record of breaking down teams in those circumstances.

I agree, but that's not a formation change - or at least it's not needed. We can do that with this formation, and we kind of did towards the end with Itten and Roofe on the pitch.

Like I said, the offensive movements are non-existent - that includes being direct.  

I don't like teams that rely on the individual creativity of a player, where they rely on a piece of magic. It's not dependable, consistent or repeatable. 

I think a group of average players, well drilled in attacking movements (tell them exactly how they should be moving) is more dependable and repeatable and consistent than relying on a top-class player to change the game. 

Case in point is Leeds Utd. Squad of average players, languishing in the lower half of the table, and now champions because they have a manager that is very controlling in that regard.  

I feel like we're not working on offensive movement; it's too off-the-cuff. 

I think they set the general positions -- Morelos central, Kent and Hagi roaming around, with Barisic wide left, Tavernier wide right, which is fine -- but then they leave it to them to do something, and they don't know what to do. 

We need to be working on attacking movements (if player A has it, then x, y, z move here and there, etc.) and set patterns in passing (Jack into Morelos, with a first time ball into Hagi, who should be aware of this, and then Morelos spins in-behind).  That's an over-simplification, but that's the idea. 

I don't think a formation change will help, because the issue is the way we play with the ball. 

10 hours ago, T-1000 said:

Its interesting that in his post-match interview Gerrard seemed to place most of the blame on the forwards not having enough creativity and considered that the defence was fine and that Jack and Kamara controlled the game.  This would seem to suggest he believes Hagi, Kent, Arfield? and Morelos did not do enough.  

I thought Hagi had a quiet game and wonder if he is suited to the type of physical and aggressive game played by Livingston.  Kent was a bit better but, given the fee we paid for him, I would like to see more end product coming from him. 

I've not seen the interview, but this was my feeling.

Our defensive control was superb. Kamara was superb, I thought, because he reads the game, covers, creates angles for ball recycling etc - Jack less so, for me, in this particular game. I love the diamond we create, where Kamara creates a situational back three, with jack just in front. We were able to pass out from the back quite easily.

Kamara and Jack were guilty of hanging on to the ball, but only because no one was showing for it. I lost count of the number of times we played out, giving it to Jack in space, only for him to dawdle because there's no one to pass to!

(I don't subscribe to this 'we don't need 2 DMs' argument - it's a bit of a naive argument, IMO. )

And, I still criticised their inability to commit men, as you state above.

The forwards are not doing enough. Hagi and Kent especially were receiving the ball back to goal, and then only went back. Is it so difficult to receive side on, so they can swerve out of that first pressure? McCann made that point in the last game. The pass into Kent went backwards, whereas when Morelos received it, he's side on and turns his man to make something happen -- I think he then wins a foul which Barisic scores?  

I even thought Barker was better in the few minutes he got! He's not great at all, but he was able to turn and try to take on a man. 

I'd feel better if we'd created chances, but didn't take them.  

The players were poor. 

But, I must say, I have to blame the manager and coaches too: what were we trying to do today? We created nothing, and didn't look like creating anything. 

It's the same issue. Come on?

One positive, which doesn't count for much, was I thought we defended very well. 

No points; none.

I was crying out for that one chance. 

That was probably it. 

Oh, Kent...

Mate. 

Just hit the target. 

Yeah, same old crap. 

Surely after 3 years you can find a way around this p*sh?

I feel there's a bit more impetus now, but it's still lacking direction, and quality. 

You can'y do that Fillip; it doesn't matter if his head is on the ground, it'll be a foul. 

Wonderful free-kick, but unfortunately, wonderful save. 

We look a bit clueless as to what we're trying to do. 

I have no idea what we're trying to do?

They're so terrified of doing anything. 

We get in behind, then Kent keeps hold of it for another half and hour, letting them get set, then loses it by trying to beat everyone. 

I'd say get Kent off, but I've got him as fgs. 

The Cricket has been more exciting, and that's been rained off for the last three days. 

There we go: Helander broke forward taking two men out of the picture, opening up space.

Shame Arfield then gave it away...

I'd like to see us commit men a bit more.

We're letting them stay in their position, in a deep block.

Kent, Jack and even Goldson should be drawing players out before passing.

Oh-- it's Crocker and Walker... Mute!

25 minutes ago, WorthingBear91 said:

Livingston 0 - 5 Rangers

FGS Aribo

Someone's started early...   

2 minutes ago, Ted McMinnime said:

What do people think of this "knock out" format? I know it was a compromise born out of Covid, but I have enjoyed all 4 ties immensely. Just wonder if it destroys some of the negativity of the two leg approach??

I was thinking that last night. 

I don't know if it's because of the teams left, the disruption, and different stages of preparedness of the teams - or the One-leg knockout. 

I have really enjoyed it. 

I wonder if they could make it more permanent? Expand the competition to include all champions, and have a one-leg tie. Anything could happen!