Rousseau

1 minute ago, buster. said:

Surprisingly long deal considering !

 

I've nearly as much chance of becoming a Liverpool regular first team starter as Ovie has.

A degree of talent isn't enough at a big club.

 

 

It shows they thought he has talent and potential. 

 

Somehow, I doubt that...  

 

I thought the reason he returns to Liverpool was because he's unsettled, missing his family and home? He'll be more comfortable at Liverpool. He's a youngster so I'd expect that -- 21 year-old's nowadays are not as mature / experienced as those from a few decades ago. 

 

However, seeing him play for us, I'm not sure he fits into Klopp's philosophy.

1 hour ago, compo said:

At 21 he should have been ready to fight for a place at Anfield but they let him go up to Glasgow in the hope of offloading him for a nice fee 

He had just signed a 5 year deal at Liverpool before arriving with us, so I don't think that's it. 

Steven Gerrard has called on Rangers to return to winning ways when they host Hamilton in a "very important" game on Sunday.

 

Having been top of the Scottish Premiership earlier this month, Rangers have since lost to Aberdeen, drawn with struggling Dundee and been knocked out of the Europa League after a 1-0 defeat to Rapid Vienna.

 

"We have had a tough week in terms of results, so we need to get back to winning ways," said Gerrard.

 

Steven Gerrard says his side will need to be at their best to beat Hamilton in the Scottish Premiership as they aim to return to winning ways

 

"The Hamilton fixture becomes very important to us and it is important the players understand that.

 

"Emotions are always running high in the dressing room, the media and the terraces after a couple of bad results so it is important we get back to winning."

 

Rangers won 4-1 when the two sides met in October.

 

Team news

 

Rangers' Alfredo Morelos is suspended but Daniel Candeias returns from a European ban.

 

Ovie Ejaria's involvement is uncertain after manager Steven Gerrard admitted he would be holding talks with the "unsettled" on-loan Liverpool midfielder.

 

Ryan Kent (hamstring) is still out along with long-term absentees Graham Dorrans and Jamie Murphy (both knee).

 

Match stats

Rangers have won 14 of their 16 Scottish Premiership games against Hamilton (D1 L1), including each of the last two by an aggregate scoreline of 9-4.

 

Hamilton's only victory against Rangers in the Scottish Premiership came in their last visit to Ibrox in November 2017 (2-0), having failed to win any of their previous six away matches against them in the competition (D1 L5).

 

Rangers were beaten 1-0 by Aberdeen in their last Scottish Premiership game at Ibrox, ending a run of 10 home league matches without defeat (W9 D1) - they last lost consecutive home fixtures in the top-flight back in March.

 

Hamilton have lost four of their last five Scottish Premiership games (W1), failing to score in each of those defeats.

 

James Tavernier has been directly involved in eight goals in his last eight appearances for Rangers in the Scottish Premiership (3 goals, 5 assists).

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/rangers-vs-hamilton/preview/391243

I think I'd recall Docherty, especially with Ejaria leaving. 

 

Unless we've got someone else lined up.

19 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

 

4-3-3 ... has three "attackers" (not necessarily strikers) in the final third. 4-4-2 has four "attackers" in the final third, two strikers and two nominal wingers. 4-4-2 does not stop the full-backs join the attack either. We usually have the fullbacks further forward than usual, so have 2 CHs covering. In the days of MW and PC it proved fatal, as the CHs weren't of a standard high enough, nor did we have a DM able to cover. Now it is somewhat different, player-wise, but we still usually have only the CHs back and a DM covering for Tav and/or whoever is left-back. There is hardly ever any reason to "just" have three attackers in an area swamped by the opposition, with usually 2 of the 3 midfielders being more defensively than attack-minded.

 

Re Sir Alex - I actually pointed in that direction with my remark about Bayern (or the like). If you play in a league that wants to play football too, that system is all fine and well. Against the brick-wall stuff of the SPFL, it is not working as those three attackers can more easily taken care off than four or five. As we have seen time and again.

 

If we have some quality attacking MF to go with it, like a couple of Arfields, fair enough. But we don't.

 

Yes, that's why I had 'strikers' in inverted commas.

 

4-3-3 can have seven attackers.

 

Sir Alex and Man Utd were playing in a league that didn't want to play football; the 4-4-2 was ubiquitous. He was able to smash them with a 4-3-3.

 

I agree we certainly need more creative midfielders -- But, I don't think that precludes us from using it now; it's generally worked quite well. 

I'd still use Pena. 

 

He's a unique player, with a valuable skill-set. 

 

He's not a complete midfielder, and he does have issues, but I'd use him until his contract runs out -- if we can't get rid of him for a fee, which looks unlikely. 

 

4-3-3 is the best formation in the game; it allows more attackers in the final third, and a three-man midfield providing more control. 

 

Isolated strikers is a problem, but only through a failure of execution. It's not a failure of the system. There should be three 'strikers' in the 4-3-3. 

 

There's a reason why Sir Alex Ferguson changed from a dominant 4-4-2 to a 4-3-3 at the turn of the millennium. 

 

4-3-3 should be our standard formation, which then gets tweaked depending on the opposition. 

 

I know he got two goals, but how did Hardie play? Did he look like he could play a part for us?

44 minutes ago, DMAA said:

That's the crux of the matter. I'm fine with this formation against decent teams who come out a bit, but not against teams who pose little to no threat because I'm not convinced we have the creative attacking midfielder necessary to break teams down consistently, and I think the evidence this season backs me up on that.

Against last night's opposition with their poor goal-scoring record and us needing the win I'd have gone 4-4-2 and taken the game to them. If that simply isn't happening then 4-2-3-1 with one of the defensive mids swapped out for Grezda.

I would've liked to have seen Grezda for Coulibaly earlier, or from the start -- or McCrorie with Coulibaly playing deeper.

 

I think you're putting too much emphasis on formation. A team can play the same formation defensively or gung-ho. Compare a wonderfully attacking Ajax side just now, to a Man Utd; both are playing a 4-2-3-1, with wildly different outlooks. Arguably, Man Utd play with more 'attacking' midfielders.   

 

Ultimately, too, I think if Candeias, Ejaria and Kent were available, they'd have played. It puts a different complexion on the team, but the tactics would've been the same, IMO.

3 minutes ago, DMAA said:

We'll agree to disagree as you say. It wasn't forced for me because Grezda should have started ahead of one of the 3 anchor men and ideally Lafferty too. Their record showed they had little to no goal threat but were - ironically - the toughest team to break down in the group. 

Grezda could/should have started, but he doesn't really finish games; you'd prefer to have him towards the end of the game, I think. 

 

I don't think we've found a place for Lafferty yet, in general.

 

I don't think we're getting Lafferty, Middleton, Grezda and Morelos in the same side. Unless we're going gung-ho.

 

What line-up / formation would you have played? I don't think we were ever going to deviate from the 4-3-3 / 4-2-3-1.

14 hours ago, DMAA said:

 

We’re playing a bottom half Austrian team who have scored less goals than anybody else in the league (but have a decent defensive record) and we set up with three defensive midfielders and only one natural winger and one striker. It’s shocking. Of course we weren’t going to score. Especially after the last couple of games when it was very similar with attacking players thrown on when our opponents can afford to just sit in, are we learning nothing?

We'll need to agree to disagree. 

 

I don't think the tactics were bad, and certainly not "shocking" -- a lot of the "three defensive midfielders and only one natural winger" complaint was forced; Ejaria, Kent, Candeias all out etc. -- but, like @Frankie says, a change earlier would've been better. 

 

I also wouldn't say they're pure defensive midfielders, either; Not if their roles are to do otherwise. McCrorie can be high-energy, but he is a defender; Jack and Coulibaly have played as 8's for us, being asked to drive forward. You could ask if they actually did that job, and they didn't on the night. Everyone was poor -- except Barasic.   

 

My main complaint was for the players; they just couldn't string two passes together. That's not tactics.  

 

 

2 minutes ago, DMAA said:

The tactics tonight have been horrendous. We needed a win, they only needed a point. Yet we set up with three destroyers in centre midfield as if we’re visiting the Neu Camp. Then when, shock horror, it is still 0-0 late in the second half we start chucking men forward and get caught. So disappointed in Gerrard tonight. We’re going out to a side who are 8th in the Austrian league and have played like it tonight. 

I don't think the tactics were that bad. 

 

It was more the execution of it that disappointed me. We couldn't string two passes together.

These games were just a bonus for me. I would have bit your hand off for us to be competitive.

 

However, we've managed to get ourselves in a really good position, then threw it away. 

 

I have the sense of deja vu.  

Just started to put pressure on them...

 

What is Tavernier doing? What is McGregor doing?

B*llocks.

There is some lovely combination play on the right, between Jack, Tavernier, Arfield and Morelos.

I don't think there's too much Gerrard can do about players not being able to pass -- other than replace every one of them! 

We're sloppy, but it's also so slow.

 

It takes Goldson half and hour to pass it to McAuley.  

And the Oscar goes to...

From the initial line-up, I thought we were playing a 4-4-2 Diamond, with Middleton beside Morelos, but we're not playing that at all. Arfield is just playing wide in the normal formation.

 

It's working well: there's a solidity to it. 

 

We're really sloppy in possession, though.

Just now, ranger_syntax said:

Not sure about Lafferty but I would like to swap Coulibaly for Grezda.

Yes, with Arfield dropping into Coulibaly's position; Grezda out wide. 

His performances may have dipped recently, but I don't think, at least on the pitch, it warrants an early termination of his loan. 

 

Maybe he's struggling to cope with the demands? Strange considering he's a Liverpool player.

We might be able to get Davis on the cheap: I doubt he was ever in Hasenhuttl’s plans, going by the high-energy, high-pressing game he employed at Leipsig.

 

Another Centre-half? I don't think it's needed, but then again, we'll need options next season -- McAuley at almost 40, Worral away, and Katic down the pecking order.

6 minutes ago, DMAA said:

Yes Dowell. Looks to me like the style of player people are wanting, and from a few clips on YouTube certainly looks like he has it in his locker. He seems to specialise in the defence splitting pass. 

 

I wouldn’t say Davis is that style of player. He’s apparently been playing holding midfield lately for Southampton too. If we sign Davis, even on loan, I hope someone will be leaving because we have too many centre mids. 

I've not seen anything of Dowell.

 

I've been saying as much about Davis since he's been linked. I can still see him playing as a 10 for us, with more defensive players behind as the legs.