Rousseau

I thought he was our best midfielder first-half. Lively, ran at defenders, found space, played a few good through-balls (one terrible one!) and actually won the ball back a few times with tackles.

''Dross'' is a bit harsh. Waghorn was pretty poor today, but there's not a lot of criticism for him.

Perhaps we are all seeing what we want to see (me included)?

IBROX -- The Scottish Cup match against Kilmarnock was the perfect opportunity to banish those lingering doubts around Rangers' credentials against top-flight opposition. Mark Warburton had clearly learned his lessons from the loss against St Johnstone in the League Cup, setting his side out with a solid defensive shape, which restricted Killie to very few chances. Rangers dominated possession, but a lack of quality in the final third let Rangers down, as the two sides played out a 0-0 draw.

Lee McCulloch stamped his ideas on Kilmarnock, with five changes to his starting line-up; including debutants Gary Dicker and Lee Hodson. Kilmarnock lined-up with an orthodox 4-2-3-1, with three attack-minded midfielders playing in front of two sitting midfielders. The powerful Josh Magennis led the line.

Rangers lined-up in their usual 4-3-3. Despite the return of Jason Holt, Rangers remained unchanged. Dominic Ball retained his place in Defensive-Midfield, with Halliday and Zelalem playing in front. The inclusion of both Ball and Halliday gave the central midfield a more steely look. Miller, Waghorn and McKay made up the front three.

Kilmarnock broke from kick-off aggressively, pinning Rangers back and winning a corner in the first minute. From the outset it was clear McCulloch wanted to isolate Tavernier. The tall Obadeyi pushed up high on the left, and Magennis spun into the left-hand channel to outnumber the Rangers right-back.

However, Rangers' passing game gradually pushed Killie onto the back foot. Despite this, Killie still employed an orthodox 4-2-3-1, with the wide players playing in front of the Defensive-Midfielders (usually teams revert to a more defensive 4-4-1-1/4-5-1 shape). They clearly looked to counter whenever they could: Obadeyi and Magennis pressed on the left, pushing the Rangers defenders back, and Kiltie looked to spin wide from his No.10 position.

Rangers looked to probe the wide areas, but Kilmarnock doubled up on both McKay and Waghorn, cutting off the attack and forcing Rangers back. Miller was very clever in his movement, spinning into the hole. It was from such a move that brought the first chances. McKay received the ball on the touchline and stood up his defender pushing him back, as Miller over-lapped and Wallace under-lapped providing two runners from deep. Miller dragged the full-back wide, as McKay slipped the ball through for Wallace to blast a shot at goal -- the 'keeper saved strongly.

The Wallace under-lap has been a common tactic, but often comes into trouble as he runs into congested central areas. Miller's clever runs added another variable to the mix, creating space for McKay and Wallace.

As Rangers dominated possession, Zelalem came into the game, finding space deep in the left channel. From there he had full view of the attacking-third; a few forward runs were cut-off with little movement, but a nice through-ball played in Miller when a forward finally did run in behind. Surprisingly, Zelalem also won the ball back a few times, by finally putting in a few tackles.

Rangers were good at dragging the play over to one side of the pitch, with the aim of switching play. Zelalem drifted out wide, and Halliday tucked in also, dragging the Killie players over to the left flank. A switch of play looked to be the tactic here, but Waghorn wasn't disciplined enough wide-right, and Tavernier was too concerned with Obadeyi. The switch-of-play to McKay worked a little better, as McKay hugged the touchline.

Kilmarnock's counter was firmly in the minds of the Rangers players. Tavernier and Wallace were deployed a little deeper, and Halliday was disciplined in central midfield and never roamed forward too often. There was a distinct lack of risk in the final third, as many were content to recycle possession. On a rare occasion when Tavernier did get forward, he unleashed an instinctive strike against the post.

The counter-attack did inevitably come, but the long balls were the only method; Kiernan and Wilson were dominant in the air. Ball snapped up any loose ball in the central areas, and sprinted wide to cover wide runners. The only real instances of danger was when Tavernier and Halliday were caught high up the pitch; Ball had to close down the wide man, leaving two Killie players free in the middle of the park.

Kiernan and Wilson were impressive, and seem to be developing an understanding. However, another move saw Kille get in behind Tavernier, and Kiernan gifted a chance by sliding in too eagerly. Foderingham stood tall, and his head came to the rescue.

Rangers continued with their patient build-up, but a lack of quality in the final-third let them down -- although midfielders were reluctant to take any risks, contributing to the lack of penetration. Halliday seemed to have enough of this at times: a few runs from deep, good inter-play with Zelalem, posed problems for Kilmarnock and ended with a goal-bound strike being tipped round the post.

On the hour mark, Zelalem made way for Holt (presumably Warburton wanted to retain the steel of ball and Halliday in the midfield, despite Zelalem having a good game) and Forrester came on for Miller (the old-man was tiring, but had a very good game). Ostensibly a straight swap, but Forrester's more direct style added an another option out wide.

Strangely, McKay and Forrester seemed to tuck in a little, rather than stretching the play; it did outnumber the two sitting midfielders, causing a little indecisiveness. But, when both got the ball they were good at running at the Killie full-backs. A couple of half-chances resulted from aggressive wide-play. Unfortunately, there was a lack of a focal-point up front to take better advantage of this: Miller tended to spin into the hole, and Waghorn was too eager to come deep with his back to goal.

Kiernan was forced off late on, with Law coming on. Ball dropped into Centre-Back and Law went into midfield. Law and Holt looked lively, but Kilmarnock were playing very deep at this point, playing for the replay, so there was very little space. Some good deliveries from corners -- from Forrester -- provided the only tangible threats, with Wilson hitting the bar.

Rangers were dominant in possession, but a solid defensive approach to the defense and midfield combined with a reluctance to take risks, resulted in few chances created. It was no surprise that Warburton looked to prevent any St Johnstone-style game, but a more aggressive approach may have seen Rangers move into the next round. As it happens, Rangers must prepare for a replay. It may prove useful -- as another test against top-flight opposition in preparation for next year. Those lingering doubts about Rangers and top-flight opposition may still remain, but the way the game went, the replay should hold no fear.

Although Waghorn has played much of the season in the middle.

He may have started through the middle, but he interchanged a lot; and he has played on the right for the last few weeks.

The graph by GersReport is quite interesting -- especially the interactive one: http://b2resource.com/rangers/whosassistingwho.html

If we omit the unassisted, free-kicks and Penalties, I think GZ is the 4th best 'assister' in the team, behind Tavernier, McKay and Waghorn. However, he only assists two players (Waghorn and Tavernier); I wonder what that suggests? I'm not entirely certain, but I think GZ likes to drift -- with the ball -- to one side of the pitch (left), dragging the opposition left, and then is very good at changing the angle of attack towards the right (this is the type of influence I see GZ as having, in this Metronome role). Waghorn and Tavernier are the right-sided players.

Rousseau .... one question?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you the Magic hat?

Je Suis Magic Hat.

Nous Sommes Magic Hat.

Thanks for the very detailed reply R. My main gripe with the metronome role is that it may be of tactical and positional importance to some sides like you mention, but none of those sides play against 10 man defences in over 80% of games. That is why I think it unnecessary for Rangers, and I believe we would have greater succes with more creative midfield players. Just my opinion. I would argue McKay is already a better all round player than GZ, Barry Ferguson was a fantastic rounded player at 19, so I don't give GZ an easy out by saying he is young as a cover for where his game is at. At 19 with the schooling he must have had to get the attention he had for Arsenal to invest so heavily in him, he should not have as many parts of his fairly simple game needing huge amounts of work. I was a huge fan of Makelele and he is a great example of how that position should be played, and it is nothing like what we are seeing from GZ at this level.

 

I don't watch a lot of Barca, (Real Madrid for me!) so I don't hold Busquets in such high regard, so I am happy to take your word for it. Of course I was being obtuse in my last para, but when in your defence you say he shouldn't be judged on the list I gave, it didn't leave much to judge him on other than the very simple pass/move!

 

I watched him very carefully last night, and as I said in the first half he was pretty much always open to receive the ball, looked to move it forward more than ever before, looked to get forward to support, and yes, kept it simple, very often simply passing the ball back to whoever had passed to him. But after HT, he was not available to receive the ball as often, didn't go forward, mishit passes, got into trouble on the ball. Assuming you agree with this assessment (not sure if you watched it from the ground or on tv - makes a huge difference to what you see a player do) what do you put this down to? Is he too easily put off his game by tight marking, doesn't have the legs for 90 mins, youthful inconsistency or something else?

It's a good point, but I actually think the games where our opponents play 10-behind-the-ball is when we need this role the most; to keep shape, stay patient, to tire the opposition out rather than being a little more 'direct', because that is easier to deal with for these sides and allows them more opportunities to counter. I accept we need to mix it up. The role is not necessary all the time, or at all; I just feel it's beneficial, which is only my opinion.

Of course. I admitted it's difficult to measure. Almost every other position we can judge their success on some metric, but it's not absolute. Wingers were traditionally judged on the number of crosses, but if we consider our wingers, they generally don't cross at all; are they bad wingers? Like I said, there is not much data available to us, so it'll come down to gut-feeling or general impression from fans I suppose, for now. I've tried to make my case.

No, I didn't see the game at all (I mentioned it above). It could a bit of everything. Going by the reaction here and the match reports, every player struggled in the second-half, which suggests Raith's tactical change hampered the whole team game-plan, rather than some individuals not 'kicking-on'. I'll bow to your first-hand judgement on that, though.

never heard of do the bouncy forum

Oh well, that's pleasing!

I'm quietly content at the response of the piece -- it's certainly made the rounds! I knew it was going to be somewhat divisive, but I hope I've not offended anyone by implying I know more about these things than you; I was annoyed at that accusation. Incidentally, how do people regard 'Do The Bouncy' forum? I'm not a member but they seem to have gotten hold of the piece, and have come to the conclusion that "I'm a pseudo-intellectual hipster demeaning the intelligence of normal fans"? I think it's insulting to suggest that the normal fan doesn't have an understanding of these issues -- even if they get frustrated at the new terminology that comes out every couple of weeks, which can be a little 'hipstery', I admit.

Apologies if I have offended anyone; believe me, it was unconsciously done.

some of the blame for his performance of late needs to go on the managers shoulders. He's playing him too far forward especially on tuesday, zelalem is better with the game in front of him

 

personally would use him as a deep playmaker rather than the point of the three

He's a good outlet further forward, making space and nicking balls into good angles, but I agree he could be decent further back.

I really think he needs better players around him as well; that would see us get the best out of him.

The whole (very well written - thanks R) argument for Zelalem in this role falls down on its very principal. This metronome (hate these coaching manual phrases) position is supposedly to tictate tempo. The biggest fault in our game when we dont play well is our tempo. If GZ is in charge of tempo, then he has failed, spectacularly on some occasions.

 

Not "in charge of tempo" per se, but certainly needs to influence it, like many players. I agree it's not something that's been good consistently enough.

 

I said in the match thread I thought the first 45 minutes last night was his best yet in a Rangers shirt. His "tempo" was much quicker, his movement and availability was much further up the park. I nodded with appreciation when he even got caught offside on one occasion as it shows he is trying to learn that he needs to bring more to the party. Unfortunately the half time whistle was his undoing last night. The Raith manager (should I know who he is?) sussed him out and moved his midfield further up the pitch and completely negated GZ's influence on the game in one easy motion. His passing fell to pieces, his confidence disappeared in an instant, and he went back to hiding and was not available for the short pass anymore, forcing us to hit the long diagonal more often in the second half, leading to the hook after an hour. After such a promising first half it was all over 15 minutes later with the slightest of tactical tweaks from the opponents.

 

It's normal for a team to adapt and target/negate our tactics, so it can't be a huge failing GZ. I'd certainly like to see him overcome these tweaks to the opponents set-up, but that'll come with age and experience.

 

His role may be an important one for some sides. His individual ability to perform this role is so raw and prone to error that he is going to have to work so so hard on his game to have any chance of succeeding. Perhaps with the salary mentioned on here earlier in the week of around £1Mpa he already thinks he has made it. If so it will be his downfall, and I do hope this is not the case. He needs to add a bit of muscle as he is wiped off the ball and seems to go in the huff if he is tackled hard. Dont they know who he is? He needs to improve his passing accuracy. It is nowhere near where it should be for the simplicity of his passing. The stats may indicate a successful pass if it goes to the player, but when the pass should have been in front of the player, to the side of the player or just simply hit harder or softer, the stats dont tell the whole truth. The eye of the supporter tells you his passing isnt good enough. His shooting when he finds himself in forward positions isnt good enough. Even if he wont find himself too far forward when playing at a higher level, he will always have to make his way into the box at times with us given the defensive shape of our opponents, and this needs a lot of work.

 

I dislike the impression that these roles are not for us. They seem to be adopted by most of the best sides in the world, but they're not good enough for us? Do we really prefer the out-of-date, box-to-box players of the past, the ones that may give their all but lack any semblence of technical ability? To me, that is the reason Scotland and Scottish sides fail when we come up against better sides.

 

He's young, he makes mistakes, but I actually think he's quite accomplished for such a young man. He's got a good head on his shoulders, good game awareness and a deft touch.

 

I have seen some progression in his game at times, but like a lot of kids, is very inconsistent. Arteta was on a different planet from GZ. Absolutely night and day although he was older, more experienced and had a much better team around him. So not a fair comparison I dont think.

 

I think that's true. However, I believe Arteta played a slightly different role for us, whereas I was comparing his current role for Arsenal -- When he is fit! And, yes, was a better all-round player with better players around him.

 

If GZ ever plays 30 games in one season for Arsenal I will be utterly amazed. He has too many flaws in his game that would all need massive improvement to get to that level. Can he become a good pro, perhaps making the USA team, sure. But he wont ever be a regular first team pick for a rich, top club side IMO.

 

Again, he's 19. He's got flaws, but so has every player at that age. I understand some are more critical of them because he's not our player, and that's fair. But, I also think he has a positive influence on our team at his current level. I never suggested he'd walk into the Arsenal side today, but I think he could in the future; say, 3-5 years (and he'd only be 23). He needs to 'beef-up' substantially, but has the tools to get there. I think it's a bit short-sighted to suggest he "won't ever be a regular first team pick for a [...] top side".

 

BTW the "metronome" must be the easiest position in football to play going on Rousseau's excellent analysis. It's not fair to be judged by the tackles you make, the headers you win, the assists or goals you score, the goals you prevent, the opposition breaks you stop. You simply need to make 5 yard sideways passes all day long and always be available to recycle the ball, at the right tempo. Piece of piss!!

 

I did touch upon the fact that it's very difficult to quantify a Metronomes influence. How do we gauge Sergio Busquets' undoubted influence we he only make sideways passes and doesn't tackle? (I am somewhat restricted by a lack of proper data at our level -- even the Scottish Premiership lacks proper data.) I'd certainly suggest he needs to add all those things you've mentioned to his game, but IMO, his role doesn't demand it. And, it's more than just a need to "make 5 yard sideways passes all day long and always be available to recycle the ball, at the right tempo", but I suspect you're deliberately being obtuse.

Cracking read. Specifically on the benefits of a 'metronome' (while I admit to disliking these types of terms as it is 'food and drink' for people pretending to know what they are talking about, thinking they sound like they do, by using the terms. Although, not in the case of the author).

What I would say is that while I am sold on the benefits of the role itself I'm not all that sold on Zelalem being able to do it all that well. I feel that he gives the ball away far more than people are saying on here. I also think his passing isn't nearly incisive enough (a few 'hospital' balls which stop the flow). Last night for example I actually thought he made a number of errors. He isn't very 'street-wise' to tackles coming his way. He can learn obviously but in his case there is a lot to learn.

He's maybe a victim of the young superstar 'hype' that came with him. I have seen nothing at all to justify that. The 'litmus test' for me is always 'if he was playing in a Falkirk jersey, for example, would I notice him as a player?' The answer in Gideon's case for me is unfortunately - No.

And before anyone says 'but he's a metronome so you wouldn't notice him' - Mikel Arteta passed my 'litmus test' with flying colours when he arrived. Similar age (Mikel just turned 20 the month he arrive) but Arteta had far more in his locker than Zelalem has. He played with a shoulders back\head up authority than Zelalem doesn't really have. He was also very 'cute' at riding tackles and making cluggers look stupid. He also knew how to strike a ball when required (this should be a fundamental requirement for a player. Although in saying that I remember Derek Ferguson had to work really hard on that element of his game as it let him down often)

I wish the lad well and I will continue to cheer him on, but I don't see that potential that others see unfortunately. Its just one mans opinion and I would love to be proved wrong.

Thanks for that. I agree with Frankie: a point well made. GZ indeed makes a lot of mistakes -- I have never argued otherwise -- and isn't "street-wise", as you suggest, but he is only 19. We do have to put up with these mistakes at that age. I do, however, think that his overall contribution has been good and beneficial, even with those mistakes. I think he will go on to be a very good player -- unfortunately not with us. In an ideal world I'd like a player that can play a similar role, but with more experience.

Messi scored a header v us and I've never once seen him shite out of contesting a header.

 

The magic hats view on the metronome seems to be in can't trust him in a big game. Or certainly that he should be benched for them all so far. That may change this weekend I suppose.

I know I'm not going to convince you. He's played in every game, when fit, apart from that one Hibs game. It's hardly a trend, so I don't accept that argument that Warburton doesn't trust him. He played him in the St. Johnstone game which is arguably bigger than the Hibs game.

I suspect Zelalem will come to be viewed as another Gattuso.

 

In five years time, he will be the lynch pin in Arsenal's/club of equal standing's midfield, and we will be admiring him on Champions League evenings. We can say we played a part in his development and be wistful as to what might have been?

 

We had a lot of possession in last night's first half and Gideon looked good, aesthetically pleasing. The second half, Raith stepped up 15/20 yards and competed; and the game passed by Zelalem. Blood and snorters will never be Gideon's game. Other, better resourced clubs will find a way of protecting him and allow him to effectively operate in a bubble. Extrapolating five years, it will be interesting to hear Gideon's thoughts on Starks Park, Recreation Park, and Cappielow. Reno insists he grew up in Scotland, formed the player who went on to Italian league and international glory.

 

At this moment for us, I think his priority is to work on his weight of pass.

I agree -- there's certainly a lot for young Zelalem to work on; even over the course of the season to benefit us.

Please correct me if I'm wrong -- I can't remember Gattuso playing for us -- but I suspect he was a box-to-box player in our squad. It's interesting to think that AC Milan (via another side -- I can't recall) took him and 'specialised' him into a quite narrow role; actually asking him to cut down on what he did. I think we ask too much of our players -- they have to be a bit of everything -- which I think is the wrong attitude. I think it's better to allow a player to play to his own personal style and strength. Which I think is the difference between an average player and an exceptional player.

Great article.

 

I guess the issue that many bears have is whether we should have a Metronome in the team. My perhaps rather simplistic view is that we do play a lot more smoothly with Zelalem in the team but it's horses for courses. It's good when we are trying to wear a team down but perhaps too much of a luxury when it's a roll the sleeves up games against the likes of Hibs.

That's a good point. I would agree that different roles are needed in different games. I'm not sure there is a dichotomy between big games and small (?) games. I think it comes down to the playing style of the opposition. I would consider the Falkirk games 'big', but they sit back, so we perhaps need a Metronome. Hibs, I agree a Metronome may by a luxury; perhaps we need more Destroyer, Runner -type players to break up their ability on the ball and pound their back-line with a bit more force.

Sorry - No tactical review, as I didn't get to see the game, but a bit of a rant (or, Polemic!) about an issue that always crops up now and again. It's a bit of a long one, but I hope you stick with it.

There has been a frustrating recurrence of the entrenched idea that a player is either an attacker or a defender; and, going further, that a midfielder either has to tackle robustly or play defense-splitting passes and/or score every few minutes. This belief is predicated on the superiority of the "position", when in fact to speak of a "holding midfielder" merely describes a player's position on the pitch, and not the interpretation of that role. From this, players providing a more under-the-radar role rather than the final flourish can often be overlooked. Overlooked, but nevertheless crucial to the team.

The game has changed. We've seen a shift from the 3-band formations (4-4-2) to the 4-band (4-2-3-1), leading to a split in the role of the central midfielder. The box-to-box players of yesteryear have been left to one side, in favour of midfielders with narrower roles, generally defined as holders and creators. But, then there are more splits, as players wrestle within the confines of these broad roles.

We all know that, in football, there are 11 players in a team, with each assigned to a particular position of the pitch: a goalkeeper and 10 outfield players. The 10 outfield players fill various defensive, midfield and attacking positions, depending on the formation employed. These positions are fairly fixed and don't reveal much, other than the player's area of operation of the pitch and a general role. Within these positions, it's fairly fluid.

As 4-band formations have come to the fore, the term 'midfielder' has become ever more vague, and so players have thrown off the shackles of their 'position'. So, while they all occupy the same third of the pitch, their roles come in many different shapes, sizes and styles; and each role can operate in any potential position.

Four roles are fairly obvious to the eye: Regista (Italian for 'director') is used to describe the deep-lying playmaker (Andrea Pirlo being the supreme example, with Luca Modric and Steven Gerard occupying these roles over the last few years); the Destroyer, or Makelele role, tasked with stopping attacks, breaking-up play and generally 'destroying' the opposition's rhythm (Claude Makelele made this role his own, but Javier Macherano and Nigel De Jong have come to play this role recently -- Rino Gattuso being another to make this role his own); the Runner, tasked with providing the energy and carrying the ball (whether that's the powerhouses like Patrick Viera and Yaya Toure, or more slight and nimble players like Jordan Henderson and Vidal); and the Trequartista, the more advanced playmaker (generally referred to as the No.10, or 'enganche') tasked with linking the midfield and attack, and usually playing in the hole (Juan Roman Riquelme epitomised this role, but Mesut Ozil and David Silva are modern practitioners).

These roles can be employed in many different positions. Previously, the holding midfielder was expected to resemble Claude Makelele. At Real Madrid and Chelsea, it was Makelele’s ability to snuff out attacks, win the ball back that allowed the forward players the freedom to play. Makelele never veered from this remit: when he won the ball back, he simply passed it square or back to a team-mate as quickly as possible.

Now, the defensive midfielder has evolved to employ a different role, the "Guardiola" role -- another term for Regista. Whereas tackling was Makelele's main responsibility (Destroyer), the holding midfielder now sees his main job as to recycle possession and build attacks. The new breed is Sergio Busquets: physically slight and almost never tackles, the Spaniard nevertheless plays an extremely important role for Barcelona with his positional sense and technical ability.

We've even seen old-style holding midfielders such as Javier Mascherano increasingly being used as center-backs, where they are tasked with keeping the passing simple, without losing that tough-tackling nature. Javi Martinez at Athletic Bilbao under Marcelo Bielsa and at Bayern under Guardiola has often been deployed in the back-four despite being ostensibly a Destroyer.

Positions are fairly fixed, but roles within are fluid. Some midfielders combine a variety of 'roles'. Xabi Alonso can be categorised as a Regista, but also a runner (in his younger days); Bastian Schweinsteiger fits into the same category; Sami Khedira is a destroyer with running ability; Luka Modric a runner with Regista tendencies.

The latest role to be 'identified' is the Metronome. Named after the musical device that indicates tempo, the Metronome has to have the ability to recycle possession quickly and effectively whilst remaining constantly in control of the ball, moving and picking passes into space and using the pitch to the greatest advantage. The Metronome appears where the man in possession needs him to be when under pressure, whether in front of the back four or in between the lines, always offering an outlet. It's an unglamourous role -- there's no goal at the end of it, and there are no defense-splitting passes -- but vital to the team functioning smoothly.

It's a position that's still underused in the British game, but, there are three players in particular that have performed this role: Mikel Arteta, Joe Allen and Paul Scholes. Arguably the finest English midfielder since Paul Gascoigne, Scholes was described by Xavi as 'the best midfield player of the last 15-20 years'. Starting as a runner and Trequartista, he most recently occupied the Metronome role for Manchester United: the creative hub upon which the whole team operates. He is pivotal in ensuring Man Utd effectively recycle possession providing the platform upon which all offensive play is built. (He also played the Regista role, but we'll concentrate on the Metronome role.) Allen and Arteta, occupying a level below the great Scholes, similarly perform this role, dictating play, recycling possession and influencing the whole team. Unnoticed, but crucial to the team.

Then there is Leon Britton -- perhaps a little more at Rangers' level (maybe...?). The 5ft 5in Metronome at Swansea was crucial to the teams of Roberto Martinez, Brendan Rogers and Michael Laudrup. He has played over 500 games for Swansea, rarely scoring and rarely assisting. Their meteoric rise through the divisions would not have been possible without this little maestro; crucial to the possession-based, attacking football developed by Martinez.

Rangers don't have a bad situation when it comes to player roles. We have Registas (Halliday, Shiels), Runners (Law, Holt), Destroyers (Ball, Halliday -- Perhaps I'm pushing it here...), and Trequartistas (Shiels, Holt) -- albeit lacking the quality that we'd ideally like! McKay can play Trequartista and Runner too. Generally, we're well equipped, which is not the case in Britain as a whole.

In Britain, there is generally an over-enthusiasm and a lack of diversity in midfield roles: we either have a Regista, Runner or a Trequartista. One sits deep and the other plays quite advanced; the runner is the link-up man, but is often bombing forward. Players tend to want to attack the opponent's goal at every opportunity. This enthusiasm and directness can be a good quality but it can often negatively affect the team's rhythm because players want to immediately dribble or run forward in search of a goal -- less patient fans often desire this... -- creating a disconnect between the deeper players and the forward players. There must be patience and a planned method of working the ball forward. It is often better to remain patient in possession and wait for the correct space and time to attack: by passing the ball from side to side, the team will keep its opponent on the run, resulting in tiredness or an attacking opportunity.

This two-dimensional set-up (where deeper players and forward players are too far apart) is generally predictable and easy enough to try and negate, with opponents happy to press or sit off a Regista (Halliday) and man-mark a Trequartista (Holt). It then comes down to the individual quality of these players, which results in success or failure: Can Holt find that yard of space? Can Halliday ping a pass accurately enough?

When these roles come into difficulty, the team needs a link-up man, or a Metronome. The player that can drift into space, shield the ball, recycle it to keep it moving and the opposition guessing, before passing it off onto someone to make that final play. It's an unassuming role, but important for the rest of the team. Rangers only have one player that incorporates this metronome role: Gedion Zelalem.

Inevitably following a bad team performance, young Gedion Zelalem is first in line for criticism. This criticism invariably consists of the following: "he never makes a telling pass", "too weak", "never wins a header", "can't shoot to save his life", "only passes backwards" etc. Blah, blah blah...ad nauseam.

He is an easy target, simply because his role doesn't consist of the eye-catching moments: scoring a wonder goal, playing a defense-splitting pass, or even getting 'stuck in' with a hard tackle. Whereas the other roles are fairly visible -- we can see the runner bursting a gut, we can see the Regista spreading long passes, and we can see the destroyer making hard tackles -- the Metronome goes under-the-radar. But that doesn't mean they are not influential or an important part of the team. As such, Zelalem has no immediate need to display these qualities to have a positive influence on the team.

It's difficult to quantify 'influence'. A defensive midfielder's influence could be measured by the number of tackles they make, the number of passes, accuracy of those passes etc. But, then if they don't make many tackles, does that mean they are not contributing? Well, no. Sergio Busquets averages a meagre 3 tackles per game -- and this ignores whether he wins them or not! -- but this doesn't mean he's a bad player: he's demonstrably not a bad player!

A striker generally gets judged on goals, but then if he doesn't score is he not contributing? Tory Deeney has only scored 7 from 25 games, a poor record by anyone's standard, but his contribution is undeniable to Watford. Bojan fairs even worse, with 5 goals from 22 games. Again, a big player for Stoke.

Midfielders -- in the broadest possible sense of the word -- are judged on assists and goals. Looking at the stats of the Metronome players mentioned above, it doesn't make for great reading: Allen, Arteta and Busquets average 2-4 assists per season (when playing over 30 games). The great Scholes averages the same. And goals-scored only reach 1 or 2 in a season. Are they then not contributing to the team? Certainly not: they are vital to their respective teams.

What unites these players is the number of games played. All play over 30 games in a league season, regularly. The measure of a player's importance, or influence, can maybe be quantified by the number of games played. If a manager -- a greater judge of a player's contribution than any fan -- continues to play the player, then surely he must deem him influential?

What does this say about Zelalem? Well, yes, he may indeed not "play a telling pass", or score goals, or win aerial duels and tackles, but that's not his role. He is a Metronome; his influence is more subtle and, in my view, important than that; to recyce possession, create space, dictate the tempo. (I'd like to judge him on number of passes, accuracy of those passes, but these stats are not available in the Scottish Championship -- and simply counting from the stands is not going to do it for me!) Even if we to judge him on assists, he doesn't do that badly, contributing 4 assists in 15 games (and 8 in all competitions). But, perhaps the best judge of his influence is the fact that Mark Warburton has played him in 85% of games this season.

The Metronome is a unique role, often overlooked because they don't get the glory, or their contribution is not as visible. Nevertheless, the most successful sides of the last decade have utilised this role to great effect, overlooking a lack of goals and assists, preferring control of possession and tempo. Some of the best players in the world have adapted to this role, sacrificing individual glory for the needs of the team. It's time to recognise the positive influence Zelalem makes to Rangers, instead of criticising him for not conforming to out-dated, preconceived ideas of what a midfielder is 'supposed to do'. Times have changed: the box-to-box player is obsolete. Players are defeined not by their position, but by what they can do. Let's catch up with the rest of the world.

I appreciate the stop-start worry, which would be an issue. What about a cricket-style system whereby the teams have 3 challenges (or is it 2?) -- a bit like Tennis to be honest. The goal-line technology is very quick: a quick nod down at the watch tells the referee in an instant. For red card, in/out penalty decisions could we not just have a certain number of challenges? Challenge successfully, get the decision reversed (or upheld), but if you challenge unsuccessfully, you lose a challenge. It would stop the misuse of technology.

In regards to the ''opinion not fact'' argument, could we not have 2 video referee's, where they give their opinion or interpretation of the law. If they disagree with the Referee on the pitch then the decision gets overturned? If there is a split decision, then the power rests with the on-pitch Referee.

I really think there is a place for technology. We just need to make sure it fits with the sporting event, and doesn't disrupt the things that make Football special.

These lists are very subjective anyway, but it says something for an Italian paper to notice, or highlight, a British-based player (and playing in Scotland at that...in the second division!).

As you know, that would require a huge change in media working practice, from owner through editor down to journalist. Ironically, the journalist is probably the one who would most like to see such a change - far more satisfying to work on a long, involved piece than grind out 500 words of attention grabbing cobblers - but since what they write won't see the light of day unless they package it in the way an employer wants, they do as they are bid. They all have mouths to feed, after all.

 

With the current business model so heavily reliant on clicks, you can see why papers only want what we might call 'pish' to lure punters in. But it's unsustainable in the long run, because I believe the majority of customers don't want the Barnum & Bailey approach. Sensationalist claims of impending doom tend to lose their effectiveness at the eighth or ninth time around - Frankie's #Rangersbad, echoing the media desperation which has seen even merited criticism of the Scottish Government dismissed as part of an #SNPbad campaign of crying wolf, will drive football customers away just as politically minded customers have abandoned newspapers for their analyses.

 

The appetite for pot-stirring rubbish grows ever smaller, outside the fantasist-obsessive world of bloggers or, on here, the Cult Of Rabness, gathered around the pyramid with the all seeing eye atop it, intoning arcane chants about how poor our signings are, asking where King's money is, ignoring the lessons of The Fall, etc.

 

There's only a small window left for some outfit to reject the click bait route and focus on high quality, before traditional media is rejected completely and irrevocably. Interviewing widely, and recognising that the people spoken to are people, with all the foibles that come with humans, and not some de-personalised representative of a knuckle dragging monolith, could find an audience - but this is an exceptionally conservative country, where anyone business vision usually takes it elsewhere. Many years ago I thought Graham Spiers was the man to do this - he had wit, elegance of tone, an interest beyond Glasgow's boundaries. No doubt we all have our opinions on how that worked out.

 

Again, there's an irony - serious, forensic, well written examination of just about every football club (and certainly Rangers - I doubt anyone takes a board member's 'word for it' anymore) could produce interesting and potentially sensational copy - the industry has been horribly mismanaged for decades if not longer. Instead of which we get acres of print about flares, songs and Kris Boyd's psychic insights. The meat is there, but is usually ignored in favour of a thin diet of gruel and bullshit.

 

#Rangersbad can't be a media crutch for ever. The club has been for nearly half a decade the go-to guy for easy sensationalism. It's certainly worked for the industry to a point, but it can't be used forever - at some point we either croak completely or stabilise. I think most of us here feel we're stabilising. If that turns out to be true, the media will have to either catch up or be left behind.

My response is not up to the standard you've set, but I will say: We can only hope.

I'm quite content with signing King. I'm not too pleased about a loan signing that we can't sign permanently, but that might change. However, I think he'll fit in very well: exactly the type we need. And, if nothing else, it's great for the LOLZ!

I seen Harrison Reed a couple of times playing in the Europa League the year before last under Pochettino, and he's a tidy DM, playing short-passes, keeping the ball moving. To be honest, he reminds me of Murdoch in his stature and his style. Reed's stronger and more composed, though (how is it Scottish youngsters just don't look as physical as their English counterparts?). He'd be a decent acquisition, but again, I'd prefer a permanent deal -- although I'm not sure how likely that is, as he is highly regarded.

This is ridiculous: An baseless opinion from Boyd -- not the sharpest tool in the shed -- has been taken up by so-called "journalists" and has now become a story?! WTF?!

Frankie's outlined the situation perfectly. I'm not sure how a half-decent "Journalist" cannot do the same. To take the individual cases: Diarougara we missed out on because we're not going to pay £1.5 million on a 28-year-old; and presumably, we're still in negotiations with O'Halloran, to find the right value. The latter is certainly taking it's time, but that's not unusual for a transfer. In regards to his future, that's just mischief-making: Warburton knows the situation, and I gather he's not unhappy.

I think it's the way of the future. It has to happen. We'll miss those controversies, but the games are of such import that we must see correct decisions. Well done to the Dutch FA for taking the lead on this.

Apologies if this is in the wrong thread, but it sort of applies. I like the sentiment from Massie.

Like an old friend you do not actually like very much, the Scottish government’s Offensive Behaviour at Football Act will not go away. It is five years since this offensive piece of legislation was passed and time has done nothing to lessen either its absurdity or its offensiveness.

To recap for readers who, for doubtless honourable reasons, have not kept up with one of the more extraordinary speech-curbing measures passed by any UK legislature in recent years, the bill’s premise is that creating new kinds of thought and speech crime can eliminate thoughts and speech deemed offensive. (Some past reflections on this execrable bill can be found here, here and here.)

And so it came to pass that the Scottish police, with the full backing of the Crown Office and the Scottish government, began their programme of harassing football supporters whose only crime was to behave as football supporters. The singing of songs – speech, that is – would henceforth be deemed a criminal offence if the police could be satisfied that said songs were in some dubious sense ‘offensive’.

It cannot be stressed too often that the law, as interpreted by the judicial system, rigs the game against any defendant. It allows – and I am not kidding here or making this up – for imaginary persons to be conjured into existence who might have been offended had they, you know, actually existed and been present and thus in a position to be offended or incited to public disorder by the singing of a football song. In Scotland, these days, you can offend people who do not exist. It takes the definition of a victimless ‘crime’ to hitherto unknown heights.

In a better, more sensible, society this would be reckoned laughable. That is not the society we inhabit, however. This, after all, is the Age of Hurt Feelings and if you hurt my feelings it is only proper that you pay a price for that.

To take but one of any number of examples that demonstrate the idiocy of this bill, consider the fact that a song sung by football supporters could be considered offensive but were the same song sung by rugby supporters at Murrayfield it would not be reckoned offensive. Remember too, that ministers were initially not sure if singing the national anthem might be grounds for arrest and prosecution.

So, the law is arbitrary and capricious and such a mess that conviction rates are lower than for almost all other offences save cases of rape and sexual assault. Because, jings, what’s offensive to some tender-brained folk is not at all offensive to sensible people.

Earlier this month the Scottish parliament’s public petitions committee considered an appeal for the bill to be reviewed. This petition submitted by the Fans Against Criminalisation pressure group (an organisation chiefly consisting of Celtic supporters but one that should be supported by all football supporters and, indeed, by people with no interest in football), led to scenes of low farce and high idiocy. This was entirely predictable. Kenny MacAskill, justice secretary at the time the bill was passed, was present.

Subscribe from £1 per week

Let’s go to the official transcript. For reasons known only to himself and a higher power, Mr MacAskill demanded to know if the petitioners considered the targetting and murder of catholic police officers in the Royal Ulster Constabularly (and then the PSNI) a sectarian matter. What this had to do with the singing of anthems at football matches was not clear.

Undaunted, Mr MacAskill trudged on, suggesting it was ‘perfectly reasonable’ to in some way link actual murders in Northern Ireland with the singing of traditional Republican songs in Scotland. Awkwardly, he could not – or would not – actually name any of the songs about which he seemed so concerned. A minor detail, I suppose.

But then we should not expect Mr MacAskill to understand the issue. Because the root of the matter is not the content of the songs – no, not even those, as he put it, ‘that venerate the killers of British soldiers’ – but, rather, the right of individuals to exercise their right to speech. The actual words don’t matter.

The committee’s convenor, Labour’s Michael McMahon, then asked a good question: ‘What would you think of a motion in the Scottish Parliament urging the commemoration of the Easter Rising when it would lead to your arrest if you were to say the same thing at a football match?’

Well, quite. According to Mr MacAskill that would be different (perhaps, Father Kenny, even an ecumenical matter?) It is a ‘question of context’ since ‘making a political statement at a political gathering is one thing. Shouting something offensive at a crowd, where people could be distressed, is another.’ Alas, how it is another matter entirely was never explained.

As FAC’s Jeanette Findlay observed, Mr MacAskill supports the erection of a statue of James Connolly the better to commemorate his role in the Irish uprising even as he also supports the criminalisation of football supporters who sing songs that could be understood as commemorating, even saluting, Connolly’s service in the Easter Rising and eventual martyrdom. Liberty for Mr MacAskill but not for the lumpen republican proletariate, I suppose.

Celtic supporters have born the brunt of this shamefully illiberal bill. As the Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, noted in 2013, political chanting falls within the remit of the bill (an unusually honest admission of its speech-curbing nature but one that, characteristically, he failed to recognise as a problem). Asked if holding and expressing an Irish Republican identity was now potentially criminal, he replied ‘Potentially criminal under this Act, yes.’ So, of course, is its opposite. If it can be criminal to express Republican views it is equally criminal to express Loyalist views.

I’ll grant Mr MacAskill this, however: the context in which these views are expressed really might matter. That is, the singing of ‘sectarian’ songs at football matches should not necessarily be understood as a declaration that, say, Rangers fans really wish to be ‘up to their knees in ****** blood’ or that Celtic supporters necessarily really support the provisional IRA. Rather these are simply anthems of identity and declarations that we are different from them. In this fashion, singing is little more than the expression of affiliation. Again, the actual words don’t matter very much.

Indeed, they might matter less inside a football ground than outside it. I certainly cannot see why a football supporter’s fondness for James Connolly or the IRA is more offensive than a politician’s support for the same.

But even if it were generally reckoned offensive, so what? A civilised and free society can cope with the expression of views it considers retrograde and even offensive. That’s one of the ways in which you can tell it is a civilised and free society. By that standard, Scotland is neither free nor civilised.

In a better country, politicians would be ashamed of criminalising political speech, footballing anthems and, even, in other circumstances, jokes. It is typical of Kenny MacAskill and everyone else who supported this bill that they remain proud of it.

It’s not about football and it’s not about sectarianism. It’s about speech. Which is why everyone should be concerned by it. And also, I would suggest, why supporters of every football club in Scotland should sing a medley comprising the Roll of Honour, The Sash, The Boys of the Old Brigade and Derry’s Walls. Make them arrest everyone.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/scotlands-free-speech-opponents-remain-as-hypocritical-as-they-are-illiberal/

Adam is a better player than Ferguson. Ferguson was a better player for Rangers, but that's not Adam's fault: he was played in the wrong position and wasn't nurtured. Adam was forced into a 4-4-2 where he can't play, as he doesn't have the energy to play CM or LM. He needs to play in a 4-3-3, where he is supported and can dictate play, pinging passes here and everywhere (usually pin-point). As soon as Le Guen came in -- a continental manager with an eye for the technical -- he was given more game-time. (Although, he was still utilised LM, which was still not appropriate for him.) Ian Holloway almost created a new role for him to use his talent: ostensibly playing No.10, but he would often just drop deep behind the two holding players, dictating play and starting attacks from deep.

I think it's the same with most young players in Scotland: they're shoehorned into a certain position, often an out-of-date role, which doesn't suit them. Add that to the technical deficiency, then it's no wonder we (Scotland) struggle.