Rousseau

This whole process was mismanaged, and to be fair, embarrassing; with too many presumptions. However, there's nothing sinister there -- RF genuinely want to help -- but just messed up on this occasion. They'll learn from this, and hopefully implement a better process next time.

Transparency is a tricky issue. In principle one would want all members to know what's going on, and for an organisation to be honest and up-front. But, one doesn't want every Tom, Dick and Harry knowing all the in's and out's. It can lead to the unveiling of every little problem/issue and damage confidence, while giving ammunition to enemies, but can also be the means to correcting these problems. It's a fine line, made even more difficult in a modern, social media society.

Hotly anticipated!

"[it] was an under-19 tournament which featured some of Europe’s best clubs - and Celtic." Magic. It's the little things.

Good read. Not enough!

I think if Halliday "could" play that position it would help the centre backs tremendously, but he cant. He is contributing to the side, but clearly we need a natural holding player there. I would be happy with three centre backs against some opponents, although the one game we tried it, at easter road, it was a disaster but I maintain that was due to individual mistakes by Wilson, not necessarily the system which allows the full backs to become midfielders without one of them having to sit, which is how this system should be working if we were more disciplined.

 

We will have to disagree on Miller, I think his attempts at linking-up usually lead to an opponents attack, and his movement is nowadays akin to an oil tanker doing a u-turn! As a wide forward, he should be in the box when the play is down the other flank, he is never to be found there. He just doesnt know how to play that role at all. When he plays the central striker role he is at least in better positions, but his control is so poor he is responsible for most of our attacks breaking down. And that is before I go on about his scoring conversion rate. We have a better forward in Hardie, we probably have a better forward in Clark, who to this day has not had a sufficient run of starting games to see if he can settle in to the team properly, and if none of the strikers in the development team are better at finishing than Miller, then let them go just now because they aint going to make it!

Absolutely, Halliday is naturally an offensive player -- a winger at former clubs, I believe? -- so we're are asking a lot. He has done an admirable job. I don't think we necessarily need to play a back-three, just utilise a counter-press (winning the ball back as quickly as possible) and/or, as you say, acquire a natural holding midfielder.

Ha! It appears we will have to agree to disagree. I agree about Millers control and conversion-rate, but I still maintain his movement and overall contribution is decent. Like I said above, a better striker would be preferable in my opinion, but until then he does a job. Although, I would like to see Hardie get a run of games.

Enticing draw. Not a so-called 'big team', but a decent test to judge our progress.

Just a couple of points to an otherwise good read.

 

I didnt ever see Halliday making a back 3. I dont think you have got that right with respect. Any comparisons with Gareth Barry are surely only in our dreams!

 

The other point I guess was put in there especially to get my heckles up! "The impressive Miller made way for Hardie" One lovely touch for Wallace's first goal does not an impressive performance make. His failure in front of goal, where he had 3 great chances again and missed the lot, and his all-round play, is simply awful to watch. His decline from what at his peak wasnt too bad but wasnt great either is sad to see, and even sadder to be paying for. No pace, no touch, no vision. If he is impressing you, I find it hard to take your other analysis seriously.

I'll admit Halliday shuttling across to take up a LCB position was very early on and only happened a couple of times, but I thought it worth mentioning. Of course, we've got nothing like Gareth Barry -- and I'm not saying Halliday is anything like him -- just that it was reminiscent of that move in the first phase of play. I think it's quite common from Matinez and other Spanish coaches. My one criticism of Halliday is that I think he plays too far in advance of the centre-backs; I'd much prefer he stays back, making a back three at times and starting attacks.

With respect, I doubt any performance from Miller will be deemed good in your eye. I'll admit he was wasteful in front of goal, and his first touch is poor, but his movement, link-up play was very good. He popped up on the right, up top and in the hole. If we had a better forward, then I'd gladly see Miller dropped, but for now his contribution is good.

IBROX-- A scarcely packed crowd watched Rangers produce an accomplished performance, making sure a Scottish Cup slip-up was avoided. Fluidity from back to middle cut through a deep and tight defensive block. An adventurous front two from Cowdenbeath hinted at a positive approach, but was snuffed out as Rangers settled into their rhythm. A tidy display saw Rangers run-out comfortable winners against the Blue Brazil.

Two changes for Rangers saw Law and Kiernan drop out. Dominic Ball came in to make a back 5 of Foderingham, Wallace, Wilson and Tavernier. Halliday and the sprightly Holt retained their places, with Zelalem stepping in to make the midfield three. A front three of McKay, Waghorn and Miller completed the 4-3-3 line-up.

Cowdenbeath made one change from the team that narrowly lost to runaway League One leaders Dunfermline, with Brett replacing Kane in a solid 4-4-2. The Blue Brazil had to do without the ineligible on-loan Ranger Andy Murdoch, but their team still included individuals who have caused problems for Rangers in the past. Greig Spence was part of the Raith Rovers and Alloa Athletic sides that humbled Rangers in successive Challenge Cup campaigns.

A front two from Cowdenbeath suggested a positive approach, but from the kick-off Rangers settled into their dominant possession game. Second-striker Gordon Smith was forced to drop into midfield, making a solid 4-5-1. Allowing Rangers possession, the Blue Brazil settled into a defensive block.

From the outset there was more fluidity from Rangers from back to middle. Attacking moves started from the two centre-backs. The primary pass was out wide to the full-backs, but this tended to restrict passing options. A variation on the first-phase, with Wilson in possession, allowed Wallace to bomb forward and Halliday shuttled left into a make-shift back-three -- reminiscent of Gareth Barry of Everton. From there 3-4 passing lanes were opened up.

The general game-plan remained the same: to work the ball wide and either take on the full-back or slot balls in behind. Waghorn and Miller interchanged position, with one or the other taking a wide berth and drifting inside to link-up with their partner. McKay hugged the touchline, widening the pitch and creating space for Zelalem and Holt.

Zelalem and Holt in reply zipped around the channels and half-spaces, fluid in their movement. Holt was an anonymous but tireless worker, lacking the plaudits through a lack of a killer-ball or his customary goal; nevertheless, an important figure. Zelalem interchanged position with Wallace and McKay to great effect. When Wallace drifted inside for the one-two, Zelalem would drift out wide, covering and creating a passing triangle. The on-loan Ranger was always looking to play balls forward, creating difficult angles to defend against; it was unfortunate his teammates could never play a similar ball to him when he found space in central areas.

The tireless Wallace rarely over-lapped (with a deep defensive block, Cowdenbeath would deal with any over-lap easily), but would again prefer the under-lap, cutting through the channel, between full-back and centre-back; defenders were unsure how to track him.

The first goal came from just this move. Wallace following up his pass into the striker, before a penetrative under-lap cuts through the defensive block; Miller slots in a delightful through-ball to Wallace, who slid the ball under the 'keepers legs.

The second came from McKay. He picked the ball up inside his own half and ran at the retreating defenders before cutting inside and firing a dipping ball into the far corner.

The counter-press was used to win the ball back quickly; McKay, Zelalem and Halliday won the ball back on numerous occasions. Tavernier played a little deeper and narrower, providing an extra body in a central area in which to cover. Generally the centre-backs dealt with any danger, cutting out the ball rather than following the defender. When they weren't shielded by the midfielders however, they seemed to panic. Ball conceded a sloppy free-kick from such a situation. Foderingham had no change with a pin-point free-kick.

Another three goals were added in the second-half from similar moves (albeit two from penalties): intricate wing-play, fluid movement and incisive running had the Blue Brazil running about daft. Waghorn swiftly dispatched his first, second -- out-muscling his defender and assisted by a deft touch from Zelalem -- and third into the net.

Towards the end several changes were made, leading to a mess in shape. Shiels replaced Halliday in the defensive-midfield role and recycled the ball well, was adept at playing forward passing, cutting through defensive lines. Debutant Forrester replaced Zelalem, and looked lively: always looking to run at his defender but made wrong decisions in his eagerness. The impressive Miller made way for Hardie. Hardie stuck to his role well, taking up the central and wide position when required -- perhaps evidence of the same system played at youth level?

Once Halliday and Zelalem left the field Rangers lost organisation and shape, with several players occupying forward positions and then inter-changing with each other. The game was over at this point, but in their eagerness to add to the tally most players took up central positions adding to an already congested midfield.

The fluidity of movement from Rangers was impressive, building on the dominant possession-based foundation. Zelalem and Halliday controlled the middle of the park and dictated the play. Wallace was always a threat with his incisive under-laps cutting through Cowdenbeath's defensive block. However, Man-of-the-match had to be McKay. He did the graft, tracking back and helping to retain possession, but was the main attacking threat, targeting and running at defenders all game; rounding off the performance with a sublime solo effort. It was a bit of a training-session in the end, but the main thing is progression.

Forgive me if I missed something, but I don't believe RF 'went public' per se; it was the members that tweeted about the email they sent out, was it not? We are all looking for transparency, but could this be a downside? Or, actually they weren't transparent enough: RF should have contacted Rangers, then made a statement to their members, and the general public, that they were going to ask their members if they could use the money to make a loan to Rangers -- all the while making it absolutely clear that Rangers had not requested the loan and that King would not be matching it. This was all caused by many interpretations of a couple of tweets.

I agree with Craig -- a mountain out of a molehill -- and it could have been navigated better. It's not the end of the world. All parties -- I would assume -- have Rangers best interest at heart.

Although, it would seem there is some internal 'strife' at RF. I think they need to sort it out before making decisions of this type. All so unnecessary.

It's ironic that most on here have been a little worried about the 'lean' squad, but when new players are about to sign we are saying those that are here currently are finished. I don't think it means any current player is 'finished' per se, simply that they'll be pushed further down the pecking order -- assuming the new guys are good enough! -- but it most certainly gives us more options. We'd still have a lean squad IMO, but the options are better and the versatility of a few players is very pleasing.

'Mani' (I'm going with that -- I won't even try to spell the second name!) would be a good signing: a DM is exactly what we need. It'll give Halliday an opportunity to play further forward -- and perhaps out wide? I recall him playing there for a previous club -- and gives us more 'solid' options in the middle of the park. I like the option of playing a double pivot for those tricky games.

King has said he'd be willing to put in 30m over the period, which IMO does not mean he'll be handing over a 30m cheque straight away. I never expected him to put that amount in anyway, but did expect him to continually put money in as an ongoing concern, which I believe he's done. This is debate over semantics. The point is he said he'd invest, and he has done; I expect more over the course of the next few years.

This was an own-goal by RF, putting both them and Rangers in an embarrassing situation. It seems they have emailed their members before actually contacting the club. Now Rangers have felt compelled to say they have not asked for the loan and that King would not match the amount. Some twitterers (or is it tweeters?) have jumped the gun regarding King matching the bid based on what he has said before. I took the "I will match x..." statement to mean he'd match the initial 3 Bears investment, not any subsequent fan investment. It's a little presumptuous to think King, just because he has money, would therefore match any subsequent fan investment. It's not right.

Moreover, Rangers haven't said they'd not accept the loan, just that they had not requested it -- for that is serious ammunition for our detractors IMO. King needs to be clearer also with his statements, although it is a sad state of affairs in which any innocuous statement can be twisted to form an agenda. I suspect if RF offered to provide 500k then Rangers would happily receive it. RF should have contacted the club first though, and perhaps made it clear that Rangers had not requested it.

These continuous loans are a necessary evil at the minute. It's not great to be dependent on such means of investment, but we are confident and content as to the source and terms of these loans. We need to raise some capital in the form of a share issue, but I suspect we'll still struggle year-on-year until we're back in the Premiership, Europe and those merchandise arrangements are terminated.

You may just have saved me from a visit to my psychiatrist. Life is indeed full of contradictions. Take your username, Rousseau; I always thought he was certainly anti-conservative but I hope you don't show any of his gloomy later-life symptoms!Just to clarify my own position, I feel there is little point in an independent Scotland in or out of the EU if it is to be presided over by an SNP espousing free market capitalism; might just as well remain in the UK as a federal nation. Sturgeon et al have so far shown little inclination to renationalise for example Scotrail.

Ha! Indeed. I wouldn't say Rousseau was anti-conservatism, more liberal but with conservative leanings; which is not incompatible with conservatism IMO as it emphasises self-reliance and individualism. And, I'm sure if he lived a little longer he would have liked the work of Adam Smith, who published Wealth Of Nations a year or two after Rousseau's death. Rousseau himself was contradictory, changing beliefs several times within his lifetime. I like the basics of his ideas, perhaps not all his conclusions. I am about to embark on reading a biography of Edmund Burke, who is regarded as a liberal conservative -- I must be that way inclined!

I feel there is little point in an independent Scotland full-stop. I like the idea of federalism, and think it's the way forward. I understand your point-of-view, of fostering the unions (UK and EU) as I see it as socialist, even though I'm not that way inclined; It's understandable. I don't understand nationalist's seeking the break-up of one while wishing to be part of another.

If we take your premise that Scotland achieves independence -- which I very much doubt and hope we don't! -- surely it would just be the same as "Keltic" now? The UK would still exist so you'd just have fans waving the flag of another country. Like you say, "those heritages need not and should not be forgotten".

I do take exception, if I read it correctly, that there is no such thing as a British nation. A Nation is defined as "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory." We do have a common history, culture and language. There are 'rivalries' throughout the UK: Lowland vs Highland, North vs South in England, Glasgow vs Edinburgh, Liverpudlians vs Mancs. Just because there are rivalries between two sub-cultures, doesn't mean we don't have a shared culture too; and it certainly doesn't mean we should therefore cut all ties.

When you say your uncle voted Labour and father voted Tory suggests that one can belong to the same sub-culture but hold entirely different values. You are socialist-leaning, I'm conservative-leaning, yet we share a support of Rangers.

I would like to know how one can be a nationalist -- advocating the break-up of a union -- whilst also desiring a membership of another (EU)? Moreover, doesn't socialism advocate an internationalist position, the complete antithesis of nationalism? Life is full of contradictions. It's what makes it interesting. Oh, and wasn't MacDiarmid a communist? Again, somewhat incompatible with Nationalism. I've rambled a bit, but I think I've made a point somewhere? It was a thought-provoking post though. I thank you for it.

Let's get real about this. If you had the choice Ajax or Doncaster Rovers, who would you sign for?

Whether that particular decision is true or not is a moot point -- never mind that we don't know the individual circumstances: it can be difficult to leave friends and family at a young age to play in a foreign league. The point is, if Ajax saw enough in him to give him a trial then surely there is something there? Such are our standards, that a failed Ajax prospect could be a decent fit for us. Warburton has worked with him several times before, and obviously sees something in him. I'm willing to trust that the manager knows what he wants in a player, and obviously Forrester possesses that quality.

Again, a 6-month contract to display what he can do is a decent option. If it doesn't work out, then nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I agree the level he's playing at is underwhelming, but we shouldn't dismiss him at that. Warbs has done good business thus far. Forrester seems to be the type of player that will suit our game, and get the fans excited. I read on Wikipedia (Yes, I know...!) that he had a trial with Ajax a couple of years ago, scoring a hat-trick. Frank De Boer was impressed, but Forrester decided to go to Doncaster. Whether that's true or not that he 'turned down Ajax', it would seem he is an talented player. A 6-month contract to display what he can do is a shrewd move. If it doesn't work out, then nothing ventured, nothing gained.

It was the same old, same old from Rangers; 'Plan A', with a similar lineup. And Hibernian most certainly approached the game with their usual two banks of four, looking to break. But the added pressure and stakes that comes with a top-of-the-table clash brought an added intensity and edge from the men in blue, adding bite to the dominant possession. A thunderous Ibrox saw the return of the fight and desire lacking in recent games.

Rangers line-up in their trusted 4-3-3, with Oduwa and Shiels dropping out for Law and Miller. Miller was deployed up top, with Waghorn taking up the wide-right position; McKay in his usual wide-left position. Law slotted into a three-man midfield alongside Halliday and Holt. A back four of Tavernier, Kiernan, Wilson and Wallace played in front of Foderingham in goal. There was no real difference to the set-up, except that Waghorn and Miller were maybe playing in the opposite position than normal, but they have license to swap during the game; and perhaps the inclusion of Law gives added energy and a goal-threat from deep.

Likewise, Hibernian line-up in their usual 4-4-2, with a diamond in midfield, that compressed into two banks of four when defending. The team consisted of: Oxley, Gray, McGregor, Hanlon, Stevenson, McGeouch, Fyvie, McGinn, Henderson; and Cummings was paired up front with Keatings, instead of Malonga. Hibs generally like to sit with those two banks of four, leaving Cummings and Keatings up top, and look to break with pace and overload the central areas.

Rangers settled into their normal routine: both full-backs pushed up high, central midfielders roaming around the central areas and Halliday acting as pivot, wide-players staying wide; all to provide good passing options and allow the team to dominate possession. Rangers looked to recycle the ball, before working it out wide.

The left side was most targeted area, with Holt, McKay and Wallace always linking-up well in triangles. Space was tight, and little came of the attacks down this flank. Wallace was quite high when recieving the ball, and could never get the run on the defenders. The right flank was different, as Tavernier did not push up as high, covering the drifting Keatings, and therefore was able to receive the ball in space and take on his defenders. Waghorn, Law and Tavernier were not as comfortable on the ball, but were able to provide a more direct threat and subsequently created a few half-chances.

To combat this, Hibs retreated into two banks of four, and doubled up on the flanks to crowd out McKay. They were content to allow Rangers possession. When they won the ball back, their forwards were a good outlet and three of the midfield four generally broke at pace through the central corridor to support as quickly as possible.

Halliday, Wilson and Kiernan dealt with the counter relatively well, but struggled to win back the ball and had to settle for committing fouls early on. The only real outlet for Hibs in the early game were set-pieces: one was beautifully delivered onto the head of Cummings, but his guided effort flashed wide of the post. Wilson struggled in open-play when he was exposed, but was solid enough when covered.

The opening goal came from a Hibs counter. Gray, bombing on down the right into space, received the ball from the central area before delivering a ball into the box. The first ball was cleared but only to Henderson, who turned his man and unleashed a tame effort that deflected into the path of Cummings. Kiernan was far too deep, playing Cummings onside, when the attack could have been stopped dead. Cummings calmly chipped it over the onrushing 'keeper.

From the restart, Hibs seemed to expect an onslaught as Keatings dropped deeper to cover Tavernier, who was allowed to collect the ball easily. It changed the game: Halliday, Wilson and Kiernan from then on only had Cummings to watch out for. The deeper Tavernier was attracted to the first Hibs player to break, and this brought the equiliser. Hibs were sensed blood, only for Tavernier to intercept the ball, and slide through Waghorn, who cut the ball inside for Holt to slot passed the helpless Oxley. 1-1.

The narrowness of the Hibs team was tailor-made for a quick switch of play, which is exactly what Rangers did. McKay was aggressive on the left, and always hugged the touchline. When Hibs were dragged right, and a long switch of play gave McKay the ball in acres of space. During the second-half in particular, Kiernan played a few pin-point diagonals straight to McKay's feet. When opponents are sitting deep, one needs to change the angle of attack as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, Gray was a stubborn opponent and McKay struggled to beat him one-on-one, and was forced to recycle the ball.

McKay was always lively, always looking for a pass but with little on offer. However, on one occasion, Holt managed to find some space for McKay to thread a precise ball into Holt. He turned and a deflected shot bounced into the net. When Gray was forced to go off, McKay started to get some success in one-on-one situations, 'nutmegging' McGregor before setting up Miller, who skied the ball over the bar; the ball just bobbled before reaching him.

It was wing-play again that brought the third goal. Waghorn knocked a ball inside to Holt, but his mistimed dummy saw the ball deflect into the path of the newly introduced Shiels. Shiels dragged the ball wide, before 'dinking' a ball into Clark, who guided a volley into the bottom corner. Clark -- who came on for Miller -- added a spark to the attack, always playing on the shoulder; he had several good chances later on that should have been taken. Miller had been popping up everywhere except where one would want him to be: in the box. Nevertheless, a better ball on occasion would have seen Miller score a couple of goals through his troublesome movement.

Halliday was sent off with 20 minutes to go, which changed the game slightly. He reacted badly to a dangerously late stomp by Fyvie, squaring up to the Hibs man, before throwing his shoulder. Fyvie didn't help the situation by clutching his face, when the movement was nowhere near his face. The Referee was conned. Halliday saw red. The Referee had been contributing to a hostile atmosphere by blowing the whistle for every fifty-fifty. Several late challenges by Hibs players were simply let go without so much as a card.

Ball came on to strengthen up the midfield, but the same old defensive frailties reared their head. A mix-up in defense from a lofted ball in gifted Hibs a second. Foderingham started to come to collect the ball, only to stop and retreat. Kiernan and Wilson did the same. Malongo still managed to make a mess of the header, but it crossed the line anyway.

A nervy ending to the match was curtailed by a powerful run by Waghorn from wide; standing up his defender, before cutting inside with a step-over -- almost sending Fyvie into the barriers -- and slotting the ball under the squirming 'keeper. McKay had seen subbed for Ball, so Waghorn took up the touchline-hugging role, stretching the Hibs back line.

There was nothing new from Rangers. It was the same possession-based game; full-backs pushed up high; the main outlet of attack wing-play with triangles and intricate passing. Although Wilson, and especially Kiernan, did well as the game went on, cutting out attacks before they begun, the defensive frailties remain. The difference was the thunderous atmosphere in which the game was played. The stakes of the game seemed to instill a bite and edge to the players: every tackle was aggressively challenged; every pass was just a little quicker; and the roar of the crowd propelled them forward. In short, it was Plan A with clout.

His comments about the team in general and Tavernier and Zelalem in particular are spot on. Most telling perhaps is that our CB's are just NOT commanding. Think back to our best teams of recent years, we had Cuellar, Amoruso, Gough, Butcher and earlier Woodburn, Young, Meiklejohn, not to mention Ronnie McKinnon and Colin Jackson. They WERE commanding CB's.

 

Now we have Rob Kiernan lately of Accrington Stanley, Burton Albion and Southend and Danny Wilson who doesn't seem anything like the player who left us five years ago.

 

We've got a good goalie, now we need a top quality CB in front of him.

That's an unfair comparison. Those 'commanding' CB's of yesteryear would be equally as bad in the current side. We are exposed at the back because we play offensive football and therefore those guys you've mentioned would be ripped to shreds, or give away foul after foul. We may be better at set pieces but in open-play we'd be just as bad. The older guys I never saw, but Cuellar, Amoruso, Gough, Butcher etc., I don't recall being ball-players; another deficiency that makes them unsuitable for our current style. We need a different type of CB to those you've mentioned and we need to stop comparing them. Kiernan is the right 'type' of player we need, just not at the level.

I think the kid's an exceptional talent. Once again, we keep judging a technical player by the standards of a 'power-player'. He's 18: Who at 18 is a brick shit-house most seem to want in a player? It's unrealistic to judge him by the standards of a more experienced player, and it's out-of-date to suggest he doesn't contribute because he doesn't head the ball or score goals. This is the attitude that brought Scottish football into the lamentable situation it's in.

His movement, touch, passing ability and positional awareness is second-to-none -- things that cannot be taught. He can certainly add goals, and toughen up, but that's what he's here to learn. He'll develop physically over the next few years, adding that toughness and presence to his technical game. The problem is we won't get the benefit of that, however, his contribution at the moment is beneficial, keeping possession, creating angles and assisting (he maybe doesn't assist as much as he should, but I would argue he assists the assist! I watched a recent analysis of David Silva, where the majority of his contribution is assisting the assist. Silva doesn't head the ball, put in a tackle, or score many goals: does that mean he's a poor player by our standards?). Just because he contribution is not as 'obvious', like goals and physical confrontations doesn't mean he isn't contributing.

This attitude is very frustrating. We will never move on if we keep judging players by unrealistic, out-of-date standards.

Soap box over.

Oh to have Macleod in our midfield! I'm delighted he's getting back to full fitness. It'll be interesting to see how he performs and develops in the Championship.

Most of the partnerships remembered thus far are before my time, but I recall them being more about physical presence rather than pace. The most recent success stories of a strike partnership have incorporated not physical presence but blistering pace. And that dictates how one would play: longer balls into the box for the target man, versus more intricate play and through-balls in behind for players with pace. The former is a little out-of-date, albeit still useful at times, whereas the latter is what we should be looking to incorporate as a main tactic.

Thierry Henry was interesting on MNF suggesting Van Gaal and Guardiola are quite similar. Henry suggested that the first two-thirds of the pitch, Van Gaal and Guardiola are the same. But in the final third Guardiola allows complete freedom to run in behind, trusting the midfielders to find their forwards, whereas Van Gaal remains too structured. The example was that Martial, playing wide in a front three, was always too wide when it came to the final third because it was an instruction to do so from Van Gaal, whereas Henry, David Villa and Messi were wide at first but always looked to get more in behind centrally to score goals.

Merry Christmas everyone.

I'd prefer us to be looking at moving to a more modern 4-2-3-1 rather than return to a 4-4-2.

We're pretty close to a 4-2-3-1 at the moment, just lacking another holding midfielder. It would be beneficial, allowing our Full-backs more cover.

I think the issue when Miller plays is that he, Waghorn, Holt and Wallace are all often operating in the same space. Waghorn and Miller both like to come deep (either via a preference or lack of involvement) and that often reduces the threat of Holt more than creating the space for him that he can utilise. Agasinst Morton especially, Miller continually got in the way of midfielders trying ton get forward.

 

I'd actually like to see Aird come in. Yes he has his faults but he likes to play very wide and would help stretch the game.

 

Finally, one negative word from me: Oduwa isn't good enough or - at least - doesn't contribute enough. He was OK in the first half but generally he's a waste of a jersey.

Yes, our 'strikers' have to stretch the play rather than coming deep, which would create space for midfield runners. I seem to remember Waghorn doing that early on? It might return if the confidence returns, as I'm sure he's frustrated at the lack of goals and, as you suggest, feels the need to come deep to get involved. Miller comes deep because he doesn't have the legs. Hardie should get a game or two to show what he can do in that regard.

I thought Oduwa worked hard first-half, recalling a couple of times when he took on his defender successfully and tracking back to win the ball. However, the end product is lacking. I like the idea of using players for their strengths, and Aird -- despite having many faults! -- would provide width and an injection of pace.

That's true - however I think Tavernier is a useful player but just needs to understand better when to bomb forward and when to cover. He's also suffering from a lack of confidence at the moment - as well as constant changes in personnel in front of him.

 

I'd argue that the manager has to select a right sided forward and stick with them - be it Miller, Oduwa or Waghorn.

I think it's a lack of wingers in general. Outside McKay and Oduwa we're short -- until Templeton returns. I actually like the variety Miller brings and going with two strikers, but we certainly need more options on the flanks.

Thanks for changing the title -- and thanks to FS for the suggestion! I suck at titles...

The poor defence is a consequence of us having a dreadful defence. I said to you before that we couldn't dream of ever playing that system in Europe or probably even against Celtic. It turns out that it can't even cope in the second tier in Scotland. Defence is just as important as attack and we are no use at either.

Circular reasoning doesn't help, but I agree we couldn't play so offensively at a higher level. The inter-play and general movement, passing should continue. However, I would like to see a 'big game' mentality at times, where we don't push full-backs so high, and have two sitting midfielders; or a back three! (I know you don't care for that option.)

Think of the great strike partnerships of yesteryear and the mind conjures up images of Yorke and Cole, or Dalglish and Rush -- or, Di Stefano and Puskas, if you're that old! --: playing on the shoulder; one coming deep; one dummying the ball for the other; one-touch passes; runs in behind; and of course, goals.

Yorke and Cole is probably the most well-known and the most potent example, becoming one of the most feared partnerships in Europe. It featured one touch passes and assists that seemed impossible, being described as 'eerily telepathic'. With the footballing brain of the former, and the pace and crisp finishing of the latter, mixed with a unique personal friendship, it was devastating. Yorke and Cole scored 53 goals between them in their first season, with United only losing one of the 36 games in which they started together, and 46 goals the following season. It illustrates the potential of a two-man attack.

Rangers flirted with it -- Miller and Boyd being the most recent successful example -- but it never progressed further than the cliched 'big-man, small-man' dynamic. The two-man strike partnership has faded in its use over the years since its heyday. It looked to be going the way of the sweeper, consigned to football history.

But there has been something of a resurgence of late in the strike partnership. Liverpool's Suarez and Sturridge (or SAS, as it was colloquially known) is probably the most potent strike partnership of recent years, almost propelling them to an unlikely title. Moreover, the plucky underdogs of Leicester and Watford have utilised the dynamic to great effect this season: Watford riding high in 7th, and Leicester incredibly sitting top over Christmas -- a Christmas miracle if there ever was one!

At its most devastating the two-pronged attack incorporates fast, direct play, with forwards constantly playing on the shoulder of the defence and looking to run in-behind, rather than balls into feet with back to goal, which slows the play down. Leicester's Jamie Vardy and Shinji Okazaki (or Leonardo Ulloa), with Riyad Mahrez on the wing, have scored 32 goals between them. The pace and wiry nature of their players give opposition defenders trouble for the full 90 minutes. To a lesser extent Watford's Troy Deeney and Odion Ighalo, scoring 18 goals between them, have also been superb with their dynamic inter-play creating plenty of chances and problems for opponents.

Both Leicester and Watford employ a basic 4-4-2, but the two systems utilise strike partnerships in different ways. Leicester employ the basic counter-attack, looking to launch long passes over the top for the runs of Vardy and Mahrez. Whereas Watford, although they can go long -- Gomes (GK) to Deeney is the most common passing move --, prefer a slower build-up, using the inter-play between Deeney and Ighalo (one coming deep when the other goes in-behind etc.) to create chances.

Rangers fans have been crying out for another striker. A lack of goals over the last few months has been a real bone of contention among the support. We could do a lot worse than follow the example of Leicester and Watford.

Leicester's example would be a little problematic to incorporate. They are inherently reactive, looking to sit deep and hit on the counter-attack. Of course, Rangers do not have that luxury: the onus is always on us to create chances. It is also a fairly 'flat' 4-4-2, which relies heavily on individual performances. Mahrez and Vardy have been outstanding, but without them, it is distinctly less impressive.

Rangers would need to use it proactively, but only top-class players could make it work. Athletico Madrid are the most recognisable team to employ a flat 4-4-2. It's successful because they have quality players to build upon the effective front-two. One man drops deep -- Simeone likes to use a winger in behind, like Griezmann -- while the other plays on the shoulder and looks to get in-behind. Again, not something Rangers can implement unless there is a serious injection of cash.

Watford's 4-4-2 and strike partnership is a little more realistic. It's essentially a 4-4-2, but it is quite flexible. They usually leave the two central midfielders deep, providing a solid foundation and defensive cover. Their Right-Midfielder plays inside like another central midfielder, making it a three-man midfield. Then their Left-Midfielder plays inside, almost at the tip of a diamond. The line is led by Deeney and Ighalo. It's flexible, turning from a 4-4-2 in defense, to a 4-3-3/4-3-1-2 in attack, changing as the need arises. The most important thing is Watford are proactive in possession. They can play on the counter-attack, but can build slowly from the back, looking for inter-play between the lines: a much more viable template for Rangers, building on what Warburton has us doing.

Of course, the system sacrifices width in the form of wingers, preferring wide men that drift inside. The width in this case would come from the full-backs, something that we have a lot of success with. Crucially, it utilises a two-man strike partnership. It's something that could potentially work within Warburton's philosophy.

Rangers' problems over the last few games have been a lack of goals, along with the constant defensive frailties. Fans have been crying out for another striker. The strike partnership looks to be back with a vengeance in the Premier League -- something we could look to -- but it needs to be utilised within an overall framework. The Leicester counter-attack would never work, because it is inherently reactive, something we can't rely on. A Watford approach looks a little more realistic, using a more proactive style. A midfield diamond would allow more numbers in central areas, hopefully providing a solid defensive base and allowing Wallace and Tavernier more freedom to get forward as the main width. More importantly, it would allow us to get more strikers on the pitch, and allow us to play with the resurgent strike partnership.