Rousseau

We were dogged, but ultimately were poor going forward.

We missed that control from the back with Foderingham -- however, Gilks was immense as a shot-stopper: strangely, despite not having confidence in his passing, I was more confident that he would save that free-kick just outside the box than I would be with Foderingham.

The goal was offside, but Wallace makes a meal of it, then Kiernan (?) doesn't get in front of his marker; Gilks has no chance, really.

I didn't hold out much hope to be honest, but I'm content: we were dogged, good defensively for the most part. We really struggled to impose ourselves, and failed to create chances -- Holt should've scored, although I can't fault his work-rate.

Kiernan is frustrating: his positioning basically lets Celtic through us every time when defending a break, but he is very good with the ball at his feet. Gilks on the other hand is awful with his feet. Foderingham would stand us in better stead. The commentators keep saying it's the pass to Gilks that is wrong, but I think the passes were fine (albeit not as accurate as one would like), but it's Gilks' control that is putting us under pressure.

I think Tavernier is playing RW to cover Tierney. Celtic play with a situational back 3, where Lustig plays as the make-shift RCB and Tierney a LWB. That's why we are being outnumbered up front - they are passing round our "forwards". Tav has dealt with Tierney admirably.

I'm a little pissed off that Brown is out-muscling our players. (I wish Barton was playing... )

I think Tavernier is playing RW to cover Tierney. Celtic play with a situational back 3, where Lustig plays as the make-shift RCB and Tierney a LWB. That's why we are being outnumbered up front - they are passing round our "forwards". Tav has dealt with Tierney admirably.

I'm a little pissed off that Brown is out-muscling our players. (I wish Barton was playing... )

Tavernier is indeed playing in the right-wing position. It could utilise his attacking threat while also having that defensive stability on the right flank with Hodson behind.

Gilks retains his place. There are arguably 4 strikers on the bench!

RANGERS: Gilks, Hodson, Kiernan, Hill, Wallace, Halliday, Holt, Windass, Tavernier, Miller, McKay.

Substitutes: Foderingham, Senderos, Crooks, Dodoo, Waghorn, Garner, O’Halloran

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/semi-final-team-news/

I thought it was brilliant! Fascinating tactical battle. Mourinho nullifies Liverpool's press effectively for the first time I've seen from anyone this season. The compact 4-4-2 was brilliantly executed to stop Liverpool playing out. Some of the passing combinations from Man Utd were awesome and the tackles were fantasitic. Liverpool couldn't counter-press because Man Utd didn't recycle the ball in the middle of the park, basically removing their most potent threat. Liverpool started to dominate once Man Utd started to sit deeper. Man Utd were poor on the counter though -- it's one thing they'll need to improve on if they want to finish in the top 4.

I'm always frustrated at the number of people that slate a game that is not an end-to-end goal-fest. IMO, if it is an end-to-end goal-fest then the teams are doing something wrong. Some on twitter were admitting that they are not really football fans per se, but [insert team] fans instead.

Aye, OK, the title sucks -- clearly there are bad 'keepers! Ha!

When someone responds to the title with a picture of Rab Douglas, you know the title is shite.

In the summer of 2001 Juventus broke the world transfer record for a goalkeeper, acquiring the services of Parma's Gianluigi Buffon for a cool €53 million. The 23-year-old Buffon had just won the Serie A Goalkeeper-of-the-Year the previous year and would be replacing Edwin van der Sar in the Bianconeri goals. The record fee still stands to this day. The fact that this fee hasn't been bettered suggests teams tend to overlook the position: as long as Goalkeepers made a few saves in a game then knocked the ball as far from their goals as possible, then that was enough. However, over the last few months there has been renewed interest in this position as England Number One Joe Hart is unceremoniously dropped by his club, for what many pundits see as an inferior 'keeper with an overly risky style -- the British pride themselves on producing quality shot-stoppers, if not much else. At Rangers we've had this debate before.

Rangers have had a string of top-class goalkeepers between the sticks. Chris Woods arrived at the dawn of the Souness revolution with an impressive pedigree. The Englishman had won trophies (including the European Cup) during spells at Nottingham Forrest and Norwich, and had recently managed to edge out Peter Shilton as England Number One for whom he had been the perennial understudy. Woods was brave and agile, and at Rangers would set a British record by playing 1196 consecutive minutes of competitive football without conceding a goal from November 1986 to January 1987.

Concerned at the new UEFA ruling to limit foreign players, Walter Smith felt the need to replace Woods with another Goalkeeper, Andy Goram. Goram received early criticism for conceding "soft goals" but would go on to establish himself in the team, earning the moniker "The Goalie". The squat Englishman (by birth) was continually blighted by fitness issues, but no one cared as long as he kept the ball out of our net; which he did consistently and sometimes inexplicably, blocking balls with any part of his body that he had no right to block -- Perhaps his love of Cricket helped him to track the trajectory of balls coming towards him at pace more effectively?

Woods and Goram were perhaps the most impressive, but were not the only ones. Stefan Klos arrived in the late '90s having won the Champions League with Borussia Dortmund. In homage to Goram, the German received the nickname "Der Goalie" and would be a mainstay in the side over the next few years. Another brave and agile 'keeper, Klos would grow into a formidable shot-stopper, single-handedly keeping Rangers in games -- particularly at Tynecastle in 2000, after Rangers had Reyna and Numan sent off; Klos would keep the clean-sheet and ensure the 0-1 win. Most recently Allan McGregor could be considered one of our better 'keepers.

They would all become fan-favourites but tended to be an unseen presence, making saves when needed but quickly forgotten about for the majority of the match. And they were all "shot-stoppers"; they were not known for anything else other than keeping the ball out of the net. For most, that's all a 'keeper should be doing. But times are A-Changin'. Manuel Nauer and Hugo Lloris have made goalkeepers fashionable again with their so-called "sweeper-keeper" style, rushing off their goal-lines into no-man's land to clear dangerous through-balls.

However, "sweeper-keepers" are still seen as the last line of defense. There is a new-ish idea that 'keepers should be the first line of attack. Joe Hart is perhaps the first major British casualty of this new concept. Hart is undeniably a very good shot-stopper -- if perhaps a little overrated -- but lacks the ability to pass the ball accurately and tactically. Goalkeepers now have to fit into the tactical make-up of a side. This change has seen Real Madrid prefer Navas over Casillas; Barcelona play Valdes, Bravo and now Ter Stegen; and Bayern fork out €22 million for Neuer (still less than half of Buffon's transfer fee). Hart doesn't fit into Guardiola's philosophy and therefore has been replaced by Barcelona's Claudio Bravo.

This new concept sees the build-up as the most important thing, where the modern 'keeper needs to be able to pass out from the back into the first phase of the game and to get the ball to the attacking players -- not as quickly as possible, but in the best position and situation as possible. They have to be a possession-keeper. (Long balls are 50/50, and are quick to go forward but just as quick to come back.) A reflex shot-stopper is no longer enough; a wider set of skills is required in a 'keeper, and a greater versatility.

The 'old guard' -- from a time when 'keepers saved first and foremost -- are quick to criticise this new style. Bravo was slated on his debut, but Guardiola said he had "an amazing game": he attacked the ball, took high-balls and played risky, attacking passes. Guardiola accepts that this style is risky. Yes, Bravo made one mistake, but he was also the starting point for 2 goals -- and City should have scored several more in the Manchester Derby. He made one mistake, but made numerous good decisions that seem to be overlooked. Many see spectacular saves as the only good think a 'keeper can do, but the Goalkeeping paradox is: if a 'keeper needs to make a great save -- admittedly great to see as fans -- then something has already gone wrong.

As was said above, Rangers fans had this debate last season. Wes Foderingham -- admittedly not at the quality of those discussed above -- is in the mold of this new style of 'keeper: can pass out from the back, good with his feet and is the first line of attack in a modern possession-based game. Rangers fans were divided at first as to whether Foderingham was a "good goalkeeper". There has since been an acceptance that he is good at what he does: he just happens not to be a good shot-stopper in the way our Goalkeeping heroes of yesteryear were; he's a possession-based 'keeper.

The irony is Foderingham has actually had a good season. For all our defensive problems the blame hasn't really been leveled at his door. He has improved a lot: he seems to take balls in the air more aggressively and effectively, his risky passing hasn't resulted in any major mistakes and he has made some decent saves at times. Foderingham has gone under the radar thus far this season, and has grown into an effective and inconspicuous presence in the side.

Goalkeeping is still one of the most misunderstood positions in football. There have been new styles of Goalkeeping introduced over the years that deviate from that old defensive, shot-stopper type. From being the last line of defense, the modern 'keeper now has to be the first line of attack. Ultimately, there is no 'best' type of goalkeeper: a 'keeper merely needs to be what's best for the team. Leicester need a defensive, shot-stopper? Schmeichel is best. Tottenham need a sweeper-keeper to help defend against counter-attacks and provide an added press? Lloris is best. Manchester City need a possession-based 'keeper? Bravo is best. The question should not be 'is he a good 'keeper?', but instead 'does he fit the make-up of the team?'

Yes, one game at a time. I'm not keen on defining a game as 'must-win', anyway.

I've pretty much ruled us out of getting wins against Hearts, Aberdeen (even though we dominated them) and Them - at least away. If we can beat the rest, then I'd be happy; it would pretty much guarantee us 2nd or 3rd, which would be an adequate first season back IMO.

I think it'll be really tight with Man Utd nicking it, or Liverpool blow them away.

People can say these teams are "pub teams" but I doubt we'll (Old Firm) be beating them on any kind of regular basis. The sides mentioned are big (and historic) teams from small leagues, like ourselves; this is our level with the money involved.

I've always been excited about this idea, but it appears every few years so I'm not pinning my hopes on anything happening soon.

What's wrong with twitter?

I actually posted this in another thread, but it fits better here:

I'm not sure what Scotland's style is? Someone on twitter rightly said it looks like a ragtag bunch of individuals. As ineffective as Rangers are at the moment, at least there's a recognisable style. The only reason they got the draw was because they resorted to lumping it into the box at every opportunity, even allowing CB's to go forward when there was a free-kick in their own half. In open play they didn't have a scooby!

Of course the talent pool is poor, but surely there's a group of players there that someone -- obviously not Strachan -- can fashion a decent team and playing style out of? I always think that a national side should be based on a club side, in terms of style and core of players. Clearly Rangers, and begrudgingly Celtic, are trying to play the game a certain way; why not fashion a team from that? Get Wilson (yes, not the best but he can fit into the style) and McKay in, Tierney, Griffiths, Forrest etc. Bannan can pass the ball well, McArthur is a good worker, Burke has a good future and will learn a hell of a lot more in Germany than in the UK. Surely there is a half-decent team there that can play a better style of football?

Apparently a 14-year-old made his first-team debut for Galatasaray over the last few days!

I'm not sure what Scotland's style is? Someone on twitter rightly said it looks like a ragtag bunch of individuals. As ineffective as Rangers are at the moment, at least there's a recognisable style. The only reason they got the draw was because they resorted to lumping it into the box at every opportunity, even allowing CB's to go forward when there was a free-kick in their own half. In open play they didn't have a scooby!

Of course the talent pool is poor, but surely there's a group of players there that someone -- obviously not Strachan -- can fashion a decent team and playing style out of? I always think that a national side should be based on a club side, in terms of style and core of players. Clearly Rangers, and begrudgingly Celtic, are trying to play the game a certain way; why not fashion a team from that? Get Wilson (yes, not the best but he can fit into the style) and McKay in, Tierney, Griffiths, Forrest etc. Bannan can pass the ball well, McArthur is a good worker, Burke has a good future and will learn a hell of a lot more in Germany than in the UK. Surely there is a half-decent team there that can play a better style of football?

I didn't think it was much of an issue as it was nothing new -- we had Freddy Adu playing in the MLS 'professional' leagues at the age of 14 -- but Craig has highlighted that Dembele doesn't actually look physically developed enough for that level. It could be quite dangerous.

It's quite impressive for the lad to be playing at such a level, but he's too young for that to mean anything. Freddy Adu is case in point: because he's playing at such a high level at such a young age you think he'll become a superstar, but it doesn't work like that; Adu's now a distinctly average player, playing in a 'mid-table' (I think?) MLS side.

To be honest, this puts a slight smile on my face: finally we have a defender that is willing to get stuck in and battle with an opponent -- whether he's good enough or not is another question!

I have liked Garner's attitude too, despite it being too combative at times, but I was impressed by his tracking back; he made two quality tackles from what I remember. I like the tenacity.

Holy S***! Arsenal have just nicked it in the 93rd minute. Not sure about the goal, though: hint of offside and/or handball?

Only two teams have really pressed City, and both got a result -- although one was more fortunate than the other!

We are too predictable, everybody and their granny knows what we do. Plan A is fine but not to have a plan B, C or D is just stuborn nonsense.

Why not tell your keeper to play a long ball occasionally and have 2/3 players up the park, just mix it up to keep opponents guessing.

IMO "plan A" is not working properly, which is not to say we shouldn't be playing it. I would much rather see us get it working properly than see us lump it long. I'm not opposed to seeing Wes lump it long, but only as a way of initiating a quick counter attack. I really don't want to see us hitting it long to a target man. Is that not predictable? Is that not just "stubborn nonsense" wanting it to be hit long as we've done in the past? Predictability has nothing to do with it IMO: If we execute is as it should be executed, teams will have problems.

We agree for the most part, that the system is not working; we just disagree on what that means. I think you would like to see it changed altogether? Whereas I would prefer to see us get it right, for I believe it is the right/best way to play.

No penetration because it takes 9 or 10 passes to get to their penalty box, by that time they are set up defensively. Most of the time we pass it backwards to where it was when we started.

I agree with you more direct attacks will be beneficial, but we can still penetrate when an opponent is set up defensively.

http://willievass.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/011016-Rangers-v-Partick-Thistle/G0000sHGTc8sZMMQ/I0000lIJvsmbFaBs/C000073HvEmiL_x0

 

It should work now.

 

At Kanjcars goal there is not one forward in sight. I would think we should be able to see at least 2.

Got it, thanks!

Yes, Miller drifts in the build-up but you would expect him to get into the box; Waghorn is nowhere to be seen!! We'll need to carry Kranjcar defensively, but if you give him options he'll find them.

http://willievass.photoshelter.com/g...00073HvEmiL_x0

 

Look at photo No.1 & 2 We can see more than a half of the penalty area and not 1 forward in sight. Holt comes in but still no sign of a forward.

Can't see the photo's (Page not found). Which part are you challenging?

Everyone who entered got a point for the CR.

Cooponthewing, Ian1964, Frankie, 26th of Foot, compo, pj_1872, Gribz, stirlingbear and Rousseau (I'll go with third-person!) get another point for correctly predicting the Correct Number of Rangers Goals.

Rousseau gets another 2 points for predicting Kranjcar as FGS.

And finally, Cooponthewing, Frankie, compo, Gribz and Rousseau get an extra 3 points for predicting the Correct Score!!

Latest Standings:

A week-by-week tally of scores can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-uQa9LP4du35rep3iUemqtj2NihPxHUuAGJFhz2WW0I