Rousseau

New table:

Sorry, Pete and Gunslinger. I actually have your predictions, but failed to add you to the table! I'll get that done.

It was a decent start to the tournament. I think if Romania had taken that chance after five minutes it would have been very interesting to see the French reaction. I've got the Swiss in my work sweep so I might watch that although on paper it doesn't look the most attractive game

The sitter in the first 5 minutes was unbelievable: harder to miss! It would've changed the game completely. The French were a wee bit nervy, I thought and their Centre-Back pairing left a lot to be desired -- It's difficult when you're missing Varane and Laporte. Payet was outstanding; It'll be interesting to see if West Ham can keep him.

The Albania game might surprise us, as there is a bit of tension. Both have got good players, but we have the Xhaka brothers (one of which, Granit Xhaka, has just signed for arsenal) playing against each other, and Xherdan Shaqiri (Stoke) was born in Albania but plays for Switzerland. Albania's record is not great against Switzerland, but it should be an interesting game.

First game results are in: Everyone that entered a prediction gets 1 point for correctly predicting the Correct Result (France Win), but Compo, Whosthedado and Germinal get an extra 3 points for predicting the Correct Score.

I was going to close the thread, but it makes sense to keep it open to discuss the games at least. I've already copied in all the predictions so there is no chance of 'cheating'. I can also post results as they come.

Apparently Romania had one of the best defences in Qualifying, which was on show last night. It was a spectacular, and deserved winner, from France, but Romania squandered a couple of absolute sitters. It could have been very different.

We're pretty abysmal defensively which is a massive concern given he's had a whole season to get it right. It's a good job we're not in Europe next season. Celtic will be a much better side under Rodgers too.

I can't disagree with that. Hopefully, if indeed Warburton brings in the 4-2-3-1, the double pivot will help. However, the biggest problem defensively has always been set-piece organisation.

I disagree on the 4-4-2 - triangles are always available even in a 4-4-2 - you have a triangle between RB-RM and RCM and likewise the same on the left. You also have a triangle between RM-RCM and RST and likewise the same on the left. In my own opinion the thing which allows the proper use of triangles isn't so much the formation but is more about the movement of the players. And that is what is so engaging about MW's team - the movement is usually excellent. You can play a 4-3-3 all day long but if you have the triangle of RB-RM-RCM but the RCM never offers an angle but rather stays very linear then he immediately cuts off one leg of the triangle. I would contend the movement makes the triangle more than the formation.

 

Though I would agree that SOME formations are more conducive to others - for example..... playing a 5-4-1 and trying to use triangles would be a train wreck because all of your triangles are defensive. No thanks....

I can get on board with that. Triangles, although available, are not as natural to a 4-4-2. And, if one does play triangles in a 4-4-2, there is not the same level of support. But, yes, I agree that it does depend on the way a manager wants to play and the players execution of that plan.

Rousseau, regarding the final paragraph....

 

I think that we make a little too much of the "Plan B is to do Plan A better". I think that far too many of us (not you) take it in its literal sense to mean we will always deploy a 4-3-3 and nothing will change from that and this is both Plan A and Plan B. However, I see it differently. I believe that when MW says "Plan B is to do Plan A better" he actually is not talking about the formation but rather is talking about the style of play, both of which are very different. I think what he actually means is that Plan A AND Plan B are to dominate possession of the ball, continually changing the point of attack, moving the ball quickly and having good movement. This can be accomplished with ANY formation you like so long as you have footballers who are comfortable with the ball at their feet. Dominating possession can be done in a 4-4-2, a 4-2-3-1, a 4-3-3-, a 4-5-1 or any other combination of a team. That's what I think Warburton means with his "Plan B is doing Plan A better" - we saw that he was pragmatic when he brought Ball in for the bigger games to sit in front of the defence to offer proper cover.

Yes, absolutely. I tried to convey that message. The philosophy and style of play ("to dominate possession of the ball, continually changing the point of attack, moving the ball quickly and having good movement") remains the same, but the framework (formation) can change.

However, I would say that some formations are more conducive to a possession-based game than others. I don't think you can replicate a possession-based game in a 4-4-2 to the same extent -- you can, but I think it'll be less effective without the triangles. A 4-4-2 is quite linear in the build-up, with players working in pairs (RB - RM; RCM - LCM; RF - LF), so one wouldn't be able to replicate the same fluidity that the triangles (RW - RB - RCM; LCM - RCM - DM etc.) in a 4-3-3 allows. You can replicate it, but some formations are more conducive than others.

Don't worry mate we can tell from post if it's been edited and what time.

Any posts edited after first kick off will be noted

It's not that I don't trust you...

That is well written and an eye opener for readers like me whose knowledge of tacticsl set-ups is pretty shallow.

 

One thing. How can you have two pivots? Is that not a one man job no matter what unit of the team he is playing in?

 

Of course the elderly see the word "pivot" and immediately think of Big Ben, Geordie Young and last of the line, Willie T.

Yes, you're right: Pivot does have singular connotations. However, in football it's got a very loose definition, meaning starting point, or the one -- or two -- that starts attacks; the starting point from which everything flows. That is why they don't play the same role; you need them to do different things -- ball-winner or ball-player, and everything in between -- although they are both 'pivots' in the sense that everything flows from them.

It's a shame -- you don't like to see one of our own 'shafted' -- but, as has been stated, it isn't a surprise. I don't think he was fluent in Warburton's philosophy. Whenever he made comments after an U20 game, I was always thinking, "would Warburton care about that?"

It'll be interesting to see who we bring in, and how this affects the U20's.

Now that he has the ability to bring in more players to fit his system I feel we will get a much better balanced team this coming season. I always felt that the criticism of MW was a bit OTT given the squad he inherited and time he had available last preseason , plus losing a player he had earmarked for the DM role in John Eustace , something that has been all too quickly forgotten

Very true. It is easy to forget that a number of players were leftovers that had to be, not 'shoe-horned', but certainly encouraged into the system. Halliday, for example. He's done well in the DM role, but I doubt he was signed for that. As you say, Eustace was earmarked for that role. Even the loans were 'stop-gaps' almost.

I agree, now we'll see the proper type of player Warurton desires. The transfers thus far are quite promising IMO.

It's "attack, attack, attack!" "It's the most exciting football we've ever seen at the club. We used to get caught on the break at times, but that's the style of football -- score more goals than the opposition".

Such was the testimony of Brentford fans when curious bears asked, "what's he like?" At the time it was exactly what we wanted to hear. After several years of slow, ponderous, route-one football of the McCoist era, it was time for something more progressive, more proactive -- something more fitting, in the world of tiki-taka.

But, the honeymoon ended. The 3-1 defeat to St Johnstone was as comprehensive a defeat as we'd seen since Warburton and Davie Weir entered the hallowed halls of Ibrox. There were rumblings among the support that, perhaps, Warburton's "attack, attack, attack" philosophy was too naive for a title-chasing team. After all, the gaffer's continued refrain is 'plan B is to do plan A better'. It's admirable, but does it lack the pragmatism required to win titles?

The perception from these rumblings is that Warburton is too stubborn in his approach; too unwilling to change when change is required. This is not strictly true. Sure, his philosophy is proactive, concerned with dominating possession and taking the game to the opposition. But within this framework, within which this philosophy is executed, he has demonstrated an ability to tinker with his formations.

In his first season with Brentford in League One, Warburton chose an offensive 4-3-3 formation. This formation featured two adventurous number 8's, two aggressive wingers who always looked to stretch the play, and a roaming centre-forward. It was an aggressive approach that sought to dominate games, and achieve promotion. This equates nicely with our own approach this past season: an aggressive approach that sought to achieve promotion. For all it's defensive flaws, it worked.

When it came to Brentford's Championship season, Warburton tinkered; trying 4-1-4-1 and a defensive 4-3-3. Eventually, he settled on a 4-2-3-1. Of course, Warburton is never going to deviate from his favoured style -- attack, attack, attack! -- but by adopting a slightly different shape he added defensive stability. The proof is in the pudding, and a play-off spot in what is an extremely competitive league would suggest it was an unmitigated success. From a Rangers point of view, it may be likely that, as we make the step up to the Premiership, we will see the more defensively stable 4-2-3-1 being adopted as our default formation.

It's clear that Warburton's chosen formations are all variations on the same 4-3-3. The 4-1-4-1 just has deeper wingers, and the 4-2-3-1 has two number 6's instead of one. In many ways not a lot changes: He still likes three attackers in the final third, the fullbacks will always push on, and there will always be a three-man midfield. But in other ways, it is quite different.

In the middle -- whether that's a 1-2 (as in the 4-3-3) or a 2-1 (as in the 4-2-3-1) -- logically, the roles of the midfield trio are completely different. That is because the triangles are different, the zones in which the midfielders operate are different, and the transitions, from defense to attack, are different.

The 4-3-3 transitions, from back to front, into a 2-3-2-3 shape -- we see this at Rangers, with the Fullbacks pushing on to appear in-line with Ball, with Holt and Halliday in front, and then we have the 3 up top -- which eventually transitions into a 3-4-3 shape when the team is ready to attack the final third -- Ball staying back, with the Fullbacks creating a 4 in midfield with Halliday and Holt. The 4-2-3-1 in contrast transitions, from back to front, from a 4-4-1-1 to eventually end up in a 2-4-4 attacking shape.

The way in which the general framework moves in transitions has an influence on the midfield triangles. In the 4-3-3, the 2 in the 1-2 midfield shape are playmakers (Halliday and Holt), while the Wingers move in-field and the Fullbacks push on to provide width. The 1, the DM, will stay back to provide a solid defensive unit. In the 4-2-3-1, the double pivot are required to stay back and provide the defensive stability, while the Number 10, Wingers and Fullbacks push forward.

Because there are 2 pivots, they will tend to have 2 distinct roles: one will be the ball-winner, holding his position and providing the base for the rest of the team; while another will be the ball-player, responsible for dictating play and pulling the strings from deep. The double pivot that epitomised this distinction was Alonso and Mascherano at Liverpool. While Mascherano would tenaciously hunt and regain the ball, Alonso (still playing deep) would dictate play, pinging balls every which way. Another would be Gattuso and Pirlo in the Milan side of the early 00's. One is the ball-winner, the other the ball-player.

Moreover, the advanced playmaker -- the 1 in the 2-1 shape -- will have more license to get into the box. To use the Liverpool example, Gerard epitomised this role. He starts deeper (from between the lines) but he is always looking to either work the channels and free space for the main striker, or burst into the box himself if the striker starts to drift out wide. Not just an advanced playmaker, but almost a second-striker.

Rangers signings thus far have hinted at this shift in both shape and roles. Joey Barton has been the 'marquee' signing for Rangers, and his role for Burnley fits seamlessly into the 4-2-3-1. Barton is tenacious, gutsy and an excellent tackler and reader of the game. It is quite easy to see him in the role of the ball-winner at Rangers. The fact that he can also play the ball-player role too is good news for Rangers.

The other signing thus far also fit into this shape. Jordan Rossiter is a player that plays deep, again a decent ball-winner, but is also a crisp and accurate passer of the ball. Again, we have another player that can play both roles. Matt Crooks, while not being the ball-player, can easily fit into the ball-winner role. Warburton has shown a preference for fluidity and versatility. Therefore, it makes sense for him to target players that can play in a certain system (4-2-3-1), while also being able to play a variety of roles within it.

Again, the signing of Josh Windass fits into this different advanced-playmaker role described above. Despite being defined as a Number 10, he has played as a striker for Accrington Stanley, as well as on the wing. He is a versatile player, but it is easy to imagine Windass in the advanced-playmaker role, bursting from in-between the lines to cause danger in the box. It also helps that we already have a player in Jason Holt that is tailor-made for this role too.

Plan B will always be to do plan A better. Warburton will always want to see his teams dominate the football with a possession-based, attacking style. But that doesn't mean he can't, or won't, change. At Brentford, despite continuing with the attacking style, he demonstrated that he can change the framework, or shape, within which this style is executed. By shifting to a 4-2-3-1, he added defensive stability to a attacking style for his first campaign in the English Championship. Rangers' signings thus far (Barton, Rossiter, Crooks and Windass) hint at the possibility of this change happening again. Attacking aggressively when you can dominate, but adding that defensive stability when it is required.

To ensure no one cheats I'll close the thread before the first game kicks-off.

Wouldn't it be simpler to "predict" the whole first set of matches?

 

France - Romania

 

Albania - Switzerland

Wales - Slovakia

Engand - Russia

 

Turkey - Croatia

Poland - Northern Ireland

Germany - Ukraine

 

Spain - Czech Rep

Rep of Ireland - Spain

Belgium - Italy

 

Austria - Hungary

Portgual - Iceland

Yes. Yes, it would...

New plan -- predict MD 1!

Please edit you posts to account for edited fixtures!

Should this not be in the footie chat?,it's hardly Rangers chat!

Sorry, I know. I just thought it would be easier for everyone to access it.

Rousseau, I won't have access to the internet between Friday am and tea-time Sunday. There are 5, maybe 6 games during this period. Should I put all my predictions for those games in the France/Romania thread or pm them to you?

 

Sorry for any inconvenience.

No bother, just PM me please.

France 3 - 0 Romania

Albania 0 - 1 Switzerland

Wales 1 - 2 Slovakia

Engand 2 - 1 Russia

Turkey 0 - 2 Croatia

Poland 2 - 0 Northern Ireland

Germany 2 - 0 Ukraine

Spain 2 - 0 Czech Rep

Rep of Ireland 1 - 1 Sweden

Belgium 1 - 1 Italy

Austria 1 - 0 Hungary

Portgual 2 - 0 Iceland

Post your predictions for EURO 2016 Match Day 1

France - Romania

Albania - Switzerland

Wales - Slovakia

Engand - Russia

Turkey - Croatia

Poland - Northern Ireland

Germany - Ukraine

Spain - Czech Rep

Rep of Ireland - Sweden

Belgium - Italy

Austria - Hungary

Portgual - Iceland

(Remember: There is no FGS, so just post who you think will win and the final score.)

Please edit you posts to account for edited fixtures -- and my epic fail

Starts tomorrow !

 

Where and when do we do our predicting ?

I'll post a thread for our predictions. I'll try to get them out 24 hrs before each game.

So we shouldn't sign him either

You jest, but how effective can he be against a team 'parking the bus'? His main strength is pace on the break: how often are we able to 'break' on a team?

So the only reason for not coming at least second is that it is a new situation for the squad. I'm not buying that at all. They are all professionals, most of whom have now had a year in Scotland to get used to it all. Over half the teams in the top tier are not much (if any) better than Hibs, Falkirk, Raith, QotS etc. They will also all play the same way (bus parking!) as our 15-16 opponents. If Warburton is half the manager we think he is, he should be some distance ahead of a poor Aberdeen side that were miles behind the worst celtic team ever.

 

I dont think we have any right to win the league now that celtic have brought in a proper manager and will no doubt make good purchases as well, but if we are not second with our resources it is abject failure. There is no other way to dress it up.

See, I agree with your premise(s) -- resources, level of competition etc. -- but I don't therefore think that it means we should expect to be finishing 2nd; football doesn't work like that. I certainly want to be finishing 2nd, or 1st, but don't expect it. Perhaps it's just a confidence thing: you seem to be fairly confident, whereas I am not. I believe Warburton is doing the right things, and believe he is the man for the job, but whether we are quite there yet, I don't know?

I'm a little worried at what you're implying: what do you expect to happen if it is "abject failure" (3rd or lower)?

Just seen the BBC have a predictor league running where you can set up a league with your mates. That may be the simplest option for us as the BBC are doing all the work!

 

Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/predictor

Thanks for this. I'll just keep it in-house -- it's no bother. It's easy for everyone to place a prediction in a post, rather than signing into a BBC account.

Point system is very similar (10 points for correct result, and 40 points for correct score).

I would love to see England and the other home nations do well but for me it's the usual over the top media that do my head in (for England anyway). This is seemingly the best squad since 1966 from what I've been reading, I mean come on they've had much better squads than this one. I do sincerely hope they do well but I just can't see them going all the way and other teams have a better all round squad with better players IMO.

I agree. There are some commentators that go too far in the hype department, but I try not to let that sour my opinion of the team itself: I actually like most of the players, so I take my opinion from that. I agree the hype is excessive at times.

I think it was Hurst that said it was the "most exciting" squad since '66, not the best. It's an opinion, and to be fair, I don't think he's wrong. It's certainly not the best though!

Dont be daft, its a two horse race as always. If we sort out our defence and bring in a quality striker, it should be ours to lose. The squad across the road needs huge change with so many players not good enough and taking up big wages, that will take them more than a year to sort out.

 

Our problems to improve are much easier to solve than theirs. I wont be calling for Warbs head if we come second, but third with our budget and players is not an option.

 

Our wage budget will probably exceed the other 10 clubs put together. We have the best manager in the league who has had a year to bed in and see what it takes. We have the best training facility, sports science and medical staff in the country. We have been planning for this season for a whole year. In what universe should we expect to come behind Aberdeen or Hearts when you look at their players, managers, facilities, budget?

You're not wrong with regards to resources, but I really think this expectation that we'll be competing with Celtic, or finishing 2nd, is misplaced. I'd be extremely disappointed with "top 6"; I don't think that's acceptable. To be saying, or implying, Warburton should be sacked for finishing 3rd is unnecessary. I appreciate the expectation at Rangers, but we can all agree Warburton is doing positive things, laying down a foundation for the future of the club. Just because he maybe 'fails' -- whatever that may be -- doesn't mean we should be ripping up the philosophy/system and starting again. I think that outlook is the same that has caused us to fall so far behind European clubs -- in a purely football sense.

I'd be content with competing with Hearts and Aberdeen next season (based on their placement last season). It's a new situation for the squad, and although it's not something we're used to or will accept for too long, it is acceptable next season, IMO.