Rousseau

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.

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!

Someone's started early...

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!

Can they, though? Norwich beat them at the start of the season when they had Silva, Aguero and the other Silva (Bernardo). They did have Stones and Otamendi at the back! Again, my point was, it's not as simple as 'this side is better on paper, so should win'. Tactics play a huge part.

I agree on the whole, but it's not so simple. Man City started to create pressure when they went back to their 4-2-3-1 type formation and bringing on Mahrez. They scored, but, they also conceded more goals. Gurardiola went with a back three to cover the two Lyon forwards. It was a logical move, and it worked because they only conceded one, which was unlucky situation (wonderful finish). Imagine how much joy Lyon could have had if Man City started with only 2 CBs? The issue for them was that they couldn't find any solutions in the final third to score. Their midfield couldn't find the space, partly because it was a change in formation, partly because Lyon smothered them. My point is, it's not as simple as 'on paper Man City are better so should win'. The game is much more complex.

That was a great few nights of football, for me. I can't stand Atleti, Barcelona, nor Man City. All got pumped. (I was rooting for Atalanta too, but you can't have everything.) The arrogance of the pundits and commentators last night was annoying, as if City just had to turn up - they were even saying that Man City will have a field day against Bayern because of the high line the Germans were playing against Barca. It's all so naive; as if teams just play one way. Bayern would not have played with a high line against Man City. Matches are not played on paper. You have two teams, two managers looking to out-do the other; different tactics, different approaches, difference ways of playing. We had a Lyon side who got their tactics spot-on: playing quite a deep block, but aggressive to close down; and then pinged ball over the top for their quick forwards. I think Steve McManaman was saying it's not arrogance, they just now what City can do. Yes, at their best they are superb. But can they do it when they are stopped from doing it? It's not even an English thing: the same thing happened in the Atleti-Leipsig match. Historically there's only one winner; on paper you'd say Atleti have the better calibre of player. But again, the game is not played on paper. Atleti are very stubborn in their approach; there's no real attacking impetus; they defend deep and counter. In contrast, Leipsig are managed by a tactically astute coach, Nagelsmann, and they play some of the most wonderful attacking football you'll ever see; the pace and movement is superb. Another good thing: We pumped Lyon a few weeks ago, so we're basically the 4th best team in Europe!

Livingston 0 - 2 Rangers FGS Kent