Rousseau

Sounds good. He knows what he needs more than fans.

It doesn't most of the time and it's not just in Scotland. Chelsea won a European cup doing it.

Exception that proves the rule?

I would be rather hesitant with such claims, as you see exactly the opposite quite often. It's not like Real, Barca, Bayern et al never get beaten. Or, indeed Chelsea and ManU. They all usually deploy better tactics and technical ability than their opponents.

 

That said, what actually is "tactical superiority"? We play an attacking 4-3-3 tactic, the opposition usually a 1-1-4-4 or the like, mainly to play up to their own strengths and the ability of their players. Whether our strengths and abilities are best suited with 4-3-3 is up for debate too, at the end of the day it is a game of tactics where the best one on the day wins. I wouldn't go as far as saying 4-3-3 is superior to other Scottish teams tactics "just because" we play it or some world-class, star-studded team can afford it. We reached Manchester being tactical aware of our opponents and our strengths and weaknesses. By logic, we employed a tactically "superior" system against our opponents, whatever system they played.

 

By the looks of it, just to keep this in mind as well, our supposedly "superior system" is rather weak in certain aspects, as it leaves us open to quick counter attacks. And it matters not a jot who actually plays as centre-half, for e.g. the Irish beat the Germans to bury Scotland's dreams of a international summer with the exact hit-and-hope stuff that we endure week in and week out. It is hard to play against brick walls at one end and cope with these counter attacks at the other - week in and week out. You would hope that people adapt, but people are still human beings and football players of a certain ability.

 

What does cost us is our inability to score more goals from the chances that we create. And that, IMHO, is no real marker whether our system is tactically "superior" either. It would be testimony that our current players are good enough to play our system to its best effect.

Thanks for your post: fantastic point. Surely there is an inherent 'hierarchy' of tactics? Offensive football is inherently better than defensive tactics. So, I'd say our tactics to Manchester were 'effective', but there's no doubt that our opponents were tactically 'superior'.

You see, that is the whole problem I have. Warburton is imposing a philosophy and has brought in several new players to play this way. Unfortunately the players are nowhere near good enough to play this system, very few teams worldwide are, and that is my problem with it. After an initial few weeks when it was new and everyone was fresh and energetic and we really did hit the ground running, reality has set in for a couple of months now, and the cold hard facts are that we cannot combine this system of play, with these players, and achieve winning football. Therefore it has failed and something needs to change.

 

Given we are not going to bring in 6-8 quality players in Jan, we need to change the system to one that wins football matches. Warburton is not going to be given 3-4 years to build this slowly, not at Rangers. We have by far the biggest budget in our division, we have the best players and the best manager, so it must be the tactics/ formation that is wrong. By all means go back to 4-3-3 in this style next year when we are up a level and have given W&W another 2 windows to get the players to play his system, but until then he has to find a new system to win 2nd tier football matches against really poor opponents, Hibs apart.

 

Not one Falkirk player would get in our starting 11, so why were we beaten so comfortably and unsurprisingly? Tactics. Simples.

I don't think you have to be 'world-class' to play this way. Swansea are (were?) a perfect example of a team playing good, technical football and being successful with it. You don't need top-class players to be a decent brand of football -- although we do need better players than we have. I know we're bred on winning football, but for me, the stuff under Walter, for example, was intolerable at times; I was always looking for something more. I'd watch my team at the weekend, get caught up in the thrill etc., but then look forward to a proper game of football later on.

I'm not saying we're playing 'proper football' at the moment, but I am positive about where we are going. Yes, I would like to see us win, but I'd also like to see us trying new things, trying to play the game the right way.

And, yes, we were beaten by tactics. But, not because our's we wrong, but because we never executed them properly. (And, never defended properly.) Again, I maintain that our tactics were better than Falkirk's -- because intricate wing-play and trying to thread through-balls is better than an aimless punt -- albeit not as effective. My point is this basic 'tactic' -- I don't see how one can call it a tactic; it's more a work-ethic -- from Falkirk is not enough at the European level. We don't have the players to make it stick at the minute, but there's no doubt in my mind that we're doing the right things.

However, I do sympathise with you point that we could be a little more 'basic' to get out of this league and up to a higher level. But at some stage this 'basic', work-based football endemic in Scotland needs to be overcome if we are to progress.

We are not tactically superior to Falkirk.

What were Falkirk's tactics? Sit back, defend and use a long pass. The first half I would suggest they used a long pass, but it was rare and apart from the non-penalty we managed to deal with it. Second-half it wasn't even a long pass, but a long aimless punt. Again, omitting that 10-15 minutes period when we were absolutely abysmal, with any and every ball causing trouble, we did OK with it. That aberration was down to a lack of confidence and the fact that we were trying to force ourselves back into the game; a psychological issue that needs to be rectified. And, defensively we need to improve. We're still going to be open, because that's how we play, but we need to deal with it better.

If you're saying that the long aimless ball means they were tactically superior, then I don't get that at all. I'd admit they were more effective, but looking back, we got in behind much more than them, but didn't have the quality on the final ball: how many times was a through-ball over-hit, when a better weight would've seen us create a goal-scoring chance?

Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.

Actually, could a Mod change the thread title to above?

It is your defence of a tactical system that is so obviously flawed that grates, Rousseau. If our team defended the ball as well as you defend this system, we would still have our 100% record intact, not 2 wins from our last 6 league games.

 

Our philosophy is not better than our recent opponents, because our tactics are easy to quash, while we continue to allow our opponents tactics to bear fruit. That proves the opposite is true.

 

I have some major gripes about our side and management. While I initially enjoyed the fast paced passing and triangular movement, cutting defences open, getting in behind, counter-attacking at pace, those tactics have not been seen at a Rangers match since well before the clocks changed. Instead we have tippy-tappy, one-dimensional, slow paced, trying to thread passes through non-existent spaces, refusal to shoot, boring football. And all the while the early defensive bomb scares have not been corrected. I said after the first couple of games that you have to give a new defence time to gel, but the more time they get the worse they look.

 

After initial bursts of form that made us all lick our lips, Tav, Waggy, Oduwa, Zalalem all look miles out of their depth at our very demanding, high-pressure club. Stories linking us to similar level players has me very worried indeed. If Warbs insists he only needs one or two additions in January, then he will be seriously questioned as it is clear we need a lot of changes to this side now that our opponents have worked us out, and are getting success.

 

Warbs either needs to change his formation, tactics and philosophy, or he needs to bring in 8 players to play how he wants to. He must learn that substitutes are for changing the game, not for squad rotation, and that this is no ordinary club that will accept mediocrity.

I agree with everything, apart from the excerpt in bold. I don't think opponents are "quashing" our tactics, rather we're not executing them effectively. For example, today we got in behind several times and had opportunities to thread balls through, but we either couldn't hit our own man or over-hit the pass. That suggests to me that we are doing the right things, but are not executing it effectively enough.

Our defensive performance continues to frustrate, with individuals failing to improve. Our opponents do the same things, yet we fail to react to it. It's one gripe I have, but I do think we have to bear in mind that the way we play dictates our openness at the back. IMO our problems are down to a lack of quality in the individual, not the tactics.

We can still up the tempo and be more direct though, as we were at the beginning of the season. And I am frustrated at Warburton's lack of plan B -- have been from the start.

agree we tried to hit a better array of passes today but the runs are the same. No third player runs, nothing. just Wallace trying to overlap on the left, but its pointless. Even when he does overlap there is no ball to be played. Waghorn is crowded out nobody is attacking the front or back post and maybe holt at the most is the only midfielder trying to get into the box on the end of anything.

 

That starting line up was never going to beat Falkirk, it does not exhibit one clear strength. What are our strengths? seems to me the only thing we are good at is keeping the ball in the middle of the park and moving side to side.

 

Our centre backs for me need courage more than anything. Ours seem scared to square up and be aggressive against our opposition they don't pressureise any forward. They were playing against a 17 year old today and not once did I notice him being shrugged off the ball or over powered.

I agree. However, I thought Wallace's runs were different today: it was an 'under-lap' rather than an overlap. The through-ball never found him though. We got in behind quite a few times, but, as you say, there are no third-man runs and Waghorn is crowded out. Better movement, from better players, would overcome that IMO.

I think our line-up was designed to attack the wings. We did OK, but again, the final ball is abysmal at the minute. Possession should be a base to build on, not the main tactic; we still have to create chances.

I agree we could have been more aggressive against the 17-year-old -- it's been a problem all season. However, aggression would just lead to fouls. IMO we need someone that can cover the run, or snuff out the ball. We still should have dominated the kid though!

I just don't see the tactics you allude to. The team was set up today without any sense of balance or plan. The best you could say was we intended to attack the full backs, but the plan falls short there. We have no pace, no strength and no pressure from the midfield going forward. We have very few goal threats that score with any sort of regularity. We have no midfield or wingers who can shoot from distance, also no cover for a right back who is clearly needing dropped before his confidence completely combusts. The defence is woeful, why any manager would bring in Wilson today I have absolutely no idea.

 

The rotation of the squad for no reason is detrimental especially when added to the fact players whos performance calls for them to be dropped play regardless. I thought the whole rotation idea was to ensure all players felt like there was a path to the first team, doubt aird or Thompson would agree.

The wing-play, the 'under-lap' from Wallace, the long diagonals were the things I noticed. think the issues you mention are down to the individual. I think the tactics are OK, were trying to play the right way, do the right things IMO. I certainly thought we tried different things. The execution let us down.

The poor defence is a consequence of our attacking play, although a better centre-half pairing would deal with it better! A David Weir would struggle. We need more a David Luiz or Thiago Silva type player rather than a tough, old-fashioned centre-back.

Can a Mod change the title to 'Tactical' rather than 'Technical'?

we were unable to pass to a player who had time and space to shoot at goal.

That's tactics against a tight defence at fault not necessarily the quality of the player looking to strike.

Generally yes, but we did have a few shots at goal that were over or saved, and more annoyingly, we over-hit several passes which would have allowed us in behind. I maintain we're doing the right, things tactically, but continue to execute the final ball poorly.

Ive rarely read such utter drivel on this site. Your continued blinkered defence of a system that DOESNT WORK is becoming ridiculous Rousseau, with due respect to your entitled opinion. Highly superior technical what? Playing square passes. Ignoring runners, on the rare occasion there may actually be a runner to find.

 

Substitutions that are set in stop for the 60 minute mark no matter the score or state of play.

 

This manager has only a plan A, which might work with quality players, but not with bargain basement lower league journeymen. That we have been amateurish in defence since July and not done a damn thing about it is either arrogance or lack of coaching skills.

 

By all means you can argue we had more possession, more attempts etc but never in a million years can you get away with saying we would have won if our opponent didn't work as hard as they did, and bemoan it as a problem in our game. Yes, let's all slow the game down to a snails pace and make 500 ineffective passes per game, look how pretty it looks on a tactics board. Utter drivel man.

Not that it'll change your view, but I meant 'tactical ability', not technical ability. (How do I change the title?)

Actually, we're not a million miles away in opinion. I did suggest that we don't have the necessary quality to make the system work, as you say -- a team with a good work-ethic can beat us. I maintain that our philosophy is better, although not quite 'clicking' at the minute.

Our defense doesn't bother me, because I see it as a consequence of our attacking philosophy. I'm more annoyed at the lack of quality up front, the final ball etc.

I think that most Scottish sides have a good work-ethic; it's their main asset. I'm suggesting the next stage, the tactical ability, is missing. It's evident in the Scotland National side IMO. I think we (Rangers) have the beginnings of a good tactical base, that should be able to deal with those teams that simply have a good work-ethic, but we've not got the quality at the minute.

I know we usually disagree on the game, but I've never had such a strong reaction from yourself! Thanks for your reply nevertheless.

The problem with Scottish football is that all too often a hard-working team can beat a team trying to play football. Nowhere else in the world would a hard-working side be able to beat a side of a much higher tactical ability. The reason for this is a lack of quality in the execution. Rangers were comfortable and dominant for large spells of the game against Falkirk, but were again let down by a severe lack of quality in playing the final ball, or taking a shot.

Rangers lined-up in their usual 4-3-3. Three changes from the disappointing 2-2 draw with Morton saw Miller, Zelalem and Ball drop out for Oduwa, Shiels and Wilson. Ball and Kiernan took the majority of the blame for the draw, with the space between the pair far too inviting for breaking players; Wilson, despite not being quick, reads the game well and is calm on the ball. Zelalem missed out through injury, so a chance for Shiels who had made a decent impact coming on late in games. Presumably, Oduwa was brought in to provide width.

Falkirk were lined-up in their usual 4-4-1-1. The team has been unchanged for several weeks, apart from 17-year-old O'Hara swapping from match-to-match with McHugh; O'Hara got the nod against Rangers. Falkirk are a direct team, possessing creativity out wide in the form of Sibbald and Alston. They create numerous chances without ever having more than 55% possession. Their 'keeper has often had to make several saves per game. Falkirk go into the game in buoyant mood, having been unfortunate to concede a late equiliser against Hibs last weekend.

The pattern of the match was pretty much set within the first 5 minutes: Rangers dominating possession; Falkirk sitting deep and breaking at pace. In the third minute, Halliday is caught in possession high up the pitch, and Falkirk break with several players getting in behind the Rangers midfield. Vaulks, making a run from central to left, dragged Wilson out-of-position, forcing a wild lunge from the returning centre-back. The referee pointed to the spot, despite the initial challenge being several yards outside the box. 1-0.

Rangers burst into life after going behind, forcing Falkirk back, and spraying passes about; Wallace, McKay, Shiels and Holt were effective in creating triangles in recycling possession. The majority of the forward passes were central, into the feet of Shiels, Holt and Waghorn, before being forced back; Waghorn in particular was outnumbered any time he received the ball, always with back to goal.

Falkirk were content to sit deep and hit the long pass. Their second-striker, O'Hara, spun wide on several occasions into the vacated full-back spaces to receive the ball, before running into the space and forcing our full-backs to cover. O'Hara and Baird's pace was a danger-sign. This move almost reaped rewards later, but a goal was chopped-off for offside.

The triangles continued, but the objective seemed to shift from a central focus to a flanking focus. When the ball came to McKay, he started to take on his full-back on the outside; Oduwa also took on his defender, with both wingers stretching the play by hugging the touchline. This aggressive wing-play was where the equiliser came from. Halliday taking a chance from distance, before the ball gets deflected wide to Oduwa in space. Oduwa then centres the ball, before it falls to McKay at the back post via a deflection or two. McKay slotted it into the far corner first-time. 1-1.

The game went through a heated few minutes, with jeers from the crowd after every tackle and decision. Commentators suggested that Referee "Willie Collum [was] part of the narrative." Should a referee be part of the narrative of the game, or simply a silent director? Collum made several wrong decisions -- most tellingly the decision to award a penalty which was several yards outside the box. Not too encouraging considering this is the man chosen to referee at the European Championships...

Falkirk seemed to retreat into themselves a little, becoming unsure in their attacking play. Conceding the congested central ground, Rangers continued to target the flanks. One tactic that looked promising was the Wallace 'under-lap'. Everton's Baines was unplayable when knocking the ball to his winger and making a run inside the full-back; the full-back and covering midfielder were unsure what to do. Wallace made several of these runs, allowing Rangers to get in behind. More quality on the through-ball would have caused a lot of problems for Falkirk.

Oduwa had a good first-half: linking well with his inside midfielder and taking on his defender. Unfortunately, Tavernier never supported him enough. It seemed Tavernier was told to sit back, perhaps to cover the dangerous Sibbald? Wallace in contrast bombed forward all game.

The second-half saw a much more direct approach from Rangers, by trying to play over the congested midfield. Wilson and Kiernan played several exquisite long diagonal balls to the wingers; and on a couple of occasions, Waghorn. Space seemed to open up, but again the final-ball was a let down. Then came the wind.

Falkirk took the lead, doing what Rangers couldn't: drill a corner into the box, and not allowing the wind to catch higher balls. Unable to deal with the first-ball, a lay-off was drilled into the far corner. 2-1.

Rangers went through a really shaky 15 minutes, where confidence evaporated. Falkirk didn't even bother to play long passes, but simply lumped aimless balls forward; the wind catching the ball from going through to the safety of Foderingham's arms. Again, their second-striker spun into the space. A bit of quality on the final pass could have seen them score more. Even so, they hit the post and Foderingham made a couple of sublime saves. Kiernan looked lost, unable to deal with the movement of Baird and O'Hara, with much of the trouble self-inflicted by trying to force forward passes and conceding possession.

Law and Miller came on to replace Shiels and Oduwa, and seemed to show promise. Law in particular changed the game by running with the ball, playing it wide quickly and hitting the bar with a controlled shot.

The changes galvanised the team. The tempo increased, balls were played wide more quickly. Individual skill and incisive passing saw Rangers get in behind several times. The final-ball was a let-down, or the Falkirk pulled off a good save. A few long shots looked to be nestling in the net, until the hands of Rodgers deflects the ball to safety.

A final change saw Clark come on for Wilson, as Rangers continued to bang at the door. At this stage, any structure or formation goes out the window, with Rangers playing what seemed like a 3-3-4 at times. A penalty was awarded late on -- retribution for the one wrongly given in the first 5 minutes -- but Waghorn, frustrated all game, saw his strike saved, as the last hope was snuffed out.

Overlooking the 10 minutes where confidence disappeared and where any aimless ball was a serious danger, Rangers were the dominant side: tactical superior, recycling possession with relative ease and creating a barrow-load of chances. Again, a severe lack of quality on the final-ball see's Rangers leave with nothing; again, the hard-working team has got the points. Nowhere else in the world is a hard-working side able to beat a side of a much higher tactical ability. It's Scottish football in microcosm: work-ethic over tactical ability. A good work-ethic is a great asset, but it shouldn't be the main tactic. Until Scottish football changes in this regard, it'll continue to be a laughing-stock on the world-stage.

From Rangers' point-of-view, better quality is needed. The current level is not always enough to beat a hard-working side, despite the tactical superiority. Winning the Championship title was almost guaranteed during the euphoria and excitement of our early season form. Now, it's not quite so certain. The only positive is it's still early in Warburton's reign, with another few windows before we really see the team he's looking to develop.

A little rumour (!) on FF whispers (!) that we have made tentative inquiries about Ali Crawford of Hamilton Accies.

 

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/ali-crawford/profil/spieler/79620

Relatively speaking, that would be quite a coup. I've not seen much of him, but I am aware that he's highly regarded.

Gutted for Mourinho. I'm a big fan. I truly believe the players have just not performed for him this year, and going by the response from the Chelsea fans, they don't disagree with me. How much can his application to tactics, strategy etc really change? IMO Mourinho rarely changes his approach. To me the players is the only differing variable. Everyone knows he's quite an arrogant figure -- not a bad thing -- but it's also true that most former players love him; It must be a fine line between love and hate.

Pep Guardiola is apparently leaving Bayern at the end of the year, with Man City favourites with Man Utd. Out of those, I don't see why he'd choose City over Utd? Maybe a 'blank cheque' at City, but Man Utd is so much more than that surely? Likewise, Chelsea, I don't think have the 'history' -- for want of a better word -- to attract Pep; He didn't choose Bayern for the money -- although it was a benefit!

I think Chelsea will get a stop-gap until the end of the season, then we'll see. I think (hope?) Guardiola will choose Utd over anyone else, because it fits IMO.

What's also interesting is Swansea going for Bielsa! The man that Guardiola says is the best in the world! Interesting to see 'the professor' ply his trade in the UK. It'll be interesting to see how the style of play works in British football.

got to say disagree with him. The effort is not there the whole game neither is the determination. We play for spells of ten, twenty minutes at most each game usually once our opponents have tired. Time we focused on winning games by more than just better fitness levels. Each week we do the same things and expect different results. At the start of the season you could see all our efforts were put into scoring with wave after wave of attack going forward at all costs, now it seems to be possession is our main goal .

 

None of our weaknesses seem to be worked on in any great way. Forwards continue to fail at retaining possession and moving us forward. every time its passed back to where it came from, wingers rarely take on players, we run at full backs then turn back unless there is an overlap which is only usually done down the left. Got to go past defenders and force them to make challenges. Tavernier has to work on crossing, the midfield need to take the pass forward then get beyond the forward not pass to his feet then take it back without gaining any ground. We need to be braver in attack and stop worrying about losing possession so much. Time clark ,shiels and miller were replaced with players with pace. Poor performers are not dropped, time to make changes and work on our weaknesses

 

Our passing seems to have one goal and that's to retain possession, it should be to score. Go forward and push defences when advancing not retreating every time we meet an opponent. Basically go back to the priorities and focus we had at the start of the season

You're assuming our focus has changed, which I would disagree with; I think the opposition are more aware and organised against our way of playing. We could certainly be a little more direct and more intense, but I think we're doing the right things -- we created 22 shots at goal yesterday, of which only 6 were on target: that is an issue.

I am quite pleased our focus is to retain possession -- I hate end-to-end games, as invariably it means someone has lost control -- but, of course, we need that intensity and change of pace in the final third to get that goal: possession for the sake of it is pointless.

Just looked at the Coefficient: the Swedish, Norwegian and Danish are higher than the Scottish league in the coefficient, and all play in the summer months. It must have some benefit. More points mean more CL places, which means it's a lot easier for us to get into the Group Stage!

I don't get the summer football thing. Is that starting the league 2 weeks earlier to allow a two week break in January? Are people going to go on holiday in march to Spain when the temperature is 17 degrees? Scotland has a weather system that can have 12 degrees in January but also 12 degrees in July. Sorry I just don't get it.

Never entirely sure myself but I think summer football means we'd start the season february/march and finish october/november like they do in the scandanavian countries.

Can see a lot of merits but I'd have thought attendances would be hit june/july when a lot of people take their summer holidays.

The Swedish Allsvenkan runs from March to early November. Teams are going to be more 'match sharp' for European qualifiers, but of course their 'level' means that they don't go far. Not sure if we (Scotland) are much 'better' than the Scandinavian countries.

Wouldn't attendances be better in the summer months, with the weather allowing more people to go along to a game, than attendances in the winter months?

The Swedish Allsvenskan seems to be the best model, where "seasons run from late March or early April to beginning of November, with the 16 clubs all meeting each other twice, resulting in a 30-match season". It also says, "Allsvenkan is ranked 20th in the UEFA coefficients of leagues based on performances in European competitions over the last five years. As it stands now, Allsvenskan is ranked highest of the leagues in Scandinavia".

Not sure how it helps the sides in Europe because it shows that a few reach the Europa League group stages, but don't go any further. Malmo have obviously been quite conspicuous in there 'success' because they've beaten them, and have done OK in Europe; nothing spectacular though, or maybe it is quite good in regards to their level? Summer football sounds good, giving us more chance of uninterrupted football, fewer cancellations and a head start in Europe -- at least initially. (Even the 30-match season whereby 16 teams play each other twice sounds a lot better than what we currently have. I doubt we'll see those kind of changes though!)

Swansea's philosophy is very specific, developed by Martinez and Rodgers et al. Monk was schooled by these managers, so it was an appointment that made sense in that regard, even if his experience was non-existent. Moyes hasn't got a clue when it comes to this type of football, which is why he failed at Real Sociedad. He doesn't fit IMO. Bad move.

Latvia under 21 forward Vladislavs Gutkovskis trained with the club today.

 

Not sure if his contract status with Skonto Riga.

Christ, I had trouble with Kanchelskis until I managed to sound it out phonetically! This is worse! I'll just call him Vlad...

These "journalists" are a joke. FFS. How many times does he have to say otherwise? It's done. Move on. But, of course they won't...

I was/am not worried about these links to Fulham, but now they've stated they don't want him, I've got to say I'm a little miffed: 'What, he's not good enough for you?'

He's going nowhere though, so I'm quite content.

Acquisitions thus far have been very good, with a good age range and potential for future development, but I can't help feel a little underwhelmed by the clubs these players are coming from. Accrington Stanley finished 17th in League Two last season. But, I'm more than willing to give these guys a chance. W&W have not let us down yet.

Aye but Cathro was assistant manager - it is a very different expectation when you are the head coach, which is what Neville's appointment is. All of the glare is on you, not the assistant - Cathro, to a large degree, would have been under the radar.

 

I'm surprised that Valencia, given their reputation, have gone with an effectively untried manager.

It's a strange move, but not really. He is inexperienced, but he has links to the owner -- Lim? -- who also owns 50% of Salford City, the club that Nevile co-owns with the rest of the '92 players. There are links there, but you're right: very inexperienced for such a job; the only saving grace is that it's an interim period of 5 months only.

Gutted for MNF: now we only have Carra; who's going to translate?!