Rousseau

I doubt he'll want to leave the project he's involved with just now. The attraction of European football is a great goal; one that'll not be on his radar in England IMO. This is a good job, with good scope.

It may be a confidence issue with Tavernier, but could it not be that he's simply being marked more? I seem to recall 2 or 3 players on him every time he got the ball. He put in a couple of good crosses -- and a bad one! -- but I don't think it's too much of an issue if he's not scoring; that's not his job, and it was really unusual that he was. If he can defend well, provide width, and put in a couple of good crosses per game, he'll be doing very well IMO.

Excellent post mate and very like the way I saw the game. I couldn't put in so many words so quickly though. I take my hat off to you for that.

 

Halliday was well worth his MOM award. Zelalem also played well but was very unlucky at times just to miss out. sometimes he was also in a great position but the player on the ball failed to see him. I didn't even realise that Wilson was playing until he was mentioned after about 20 minutes. That does not mean he played bad he just did his marking effectively. Even although he is an oldie I much prefer Miller in the team other than Oduwa. There is far more movement and the game is played at a quicker pace. The great thing with this manager is that you can actually see they have been trying things in training as it shows on the park. With Ally it looked the same dross week in week out.

Much appreciated.

Halliday was superb; well deserved his MOTM award. I think he played deeper, so he was able to collect the ball more; his distribution was good too, with direct, vertical passes starting play very well; he's not afraid to put a foot in too!

I thought Miller played well; Like I said though, he seems to get the ball into feet, so he has to stop, then play, rather than getting the ball on the run. Not sure if that's his control, or the pass he receives; bit of both, perhaps? He played in the half-space effectively, and linked up with Waghorn very well. He gives us a different option. He's getting on, but I still think he can contribute.

Much better today still have some doubts over Wilson and thought Shiels had a big impact with three assists and some good play.

Hopefully final will be at a good venue.

Shiels was a little more direct and willing to beat a man, but it was nothing we were't doing before IMO; he just happened to be playing when St Mirren were pushing forward, leaving lots of space. I think we'd been doing the same things throughout. He got us over the line though.

I believe the final is at Hampden.

I think our fans are still getting used to the way we play!,when we are not scoring it becomes frustrating the way we play for the fans,however when we are scoring evry fan raves about the way we play!.

Yes, I think so too. It's a complete shift. We need to be a little more patient, and a little more aware of the things we are trying to do. It's a lot better than what we are used to IMO. It's nice to see things I read about tactically from the 'bigger' sides.

The way McKay Miller and waggy kept switching st mirren defenders didnt know who they were marking...

It was really nice to see the way they kept switching position. I'm not sure if I've seen it before or not from us, but long may it continue.

Rangers dominated the central areas in the Petrofac Training Cup Semi-final, causing St Mirren to play deeper and deeper, with the wide players leaving the touchline to play in the half-spaces. Stellar performances from Halliday, Wilson and Kiernan provided an excellent platform from which to dominate possession, with each reading the game, stopping any St Mirren counter-attack before it had begun.

Rangers lined up in their usual 4-3-3 formation. Oduwa and Ball dropped out to be replaced by Miller and Wilson. Wilson slotted in to the standard back-four of Tavernier, Kiernan, Wilson and Wallace. Halliday sat in the hole, with Holt and Zelalem in front. McKay, Waghorn and Miller made up the front-three. Hardie got a well-deserved spot on the bench, after some excellent goal-scoring performances for the U20s.

St Mirren lined up in their typical 4-4-2. Thompson dropped out, perhaps to allow for more energetic forward players. St Mirren have always provided a test this season, with a high-pressing front-two, and midfield runners, particularly giving Rangers plenty of problems.

What was apparent from the outset was the slight change in the movements of the Rangers wide players. The last few games saw both McKay and Oduwa hug the touchline, which, to a large extent, is their natural game. With Miller coming in, it was obvious he would play more centrally. However, both McKay and Miller played in the half-space, leaving the touchline altogether. This resulted in an overload in the central areas, where Rangers often had 4 versus 2. St Mirren front-two never dropped deep to help, leaving their central-midfield paring to cover a lot of players; their wide players were preoccupied with Wallace and Tavernier.

Zelalem was quite clever. Whenever McKay came inside, Zelalem overlapped, stretching the play. He found himself up against an isolated full-back, which he tried to take on several times early in the game. The movement caused St Mirren problems, but Zelalem failed every time to beat his man, so nothing came from it directly, but it open up space for Wallace and McKay.

Holt, as always, was clever and positive in his movement, always looking to nip in behind -- in fact, the first goal saw this movement come good. It was not during open-play, but the movement was devastating. A long, deep corner taken by Holt -- something that had to be attempted, because St Mirren often had 2 or 3 players over blocking the usual short-corner -- found it's way over to the right. Tavernier attempted to make space for a shot, but eventually had to pass it back to Halliday, who then chipped a delightful ball over the defence, for Holt, who slotted low into near post in acres of space.

From the kick-off, the St Mirren front-two looked to press our centre-backs, but their midfield never supported the press, so it was very easy for Foderingham to bypass our centre-backs -- and the St Mirren forwards -- altogether, targeting Halliday with several long passes, before beginning the build-up again. The rest of the St Mirren team were content to sit deep and allow us to have the ball, which was conducive to a dominant possession game. The Rangers build-up was slow and methodical, and generally came down the left, where Wallace, Zelalem and McKay looked to create triangles, and waited for the final through-ball. Unfortunately, the execution of the through-ball was atrocious, with Holt and Zelalem guilty of over-cooking simple passes.

When St Mirren did manage to win the ball back, they knocked it long to one of their two forwards, but excellent reading of the game from Wilson and Kiernan meant that the ball rarely stuck, and we won the ball back relatively quickly. Kiernan was guilty of a few lapses in concentration, but Wilson put in an assured and composed performance. Halliday was important for this solid defensive base, as he often dropped deep to collect the ball, providing a base for the next attack and an extra man to collect any loose balls; it also helped that our two centre-backs were happy to knock a short ball into Halliday, instead of trying to force a longer ball. Halliday himself was the start of most attacks, pin-pointing direct, vertical balls into any of the forward players in space.

The positional interplay between the front 5 was very interesting: all changed positions easily, with a teammate taking the vacated spot. It made marking tough for St Mirren, and created a lot of space for us. Waghorn and Miller link-up especially well, with one coming deep and the other going long; there was always one in the hole. Despite his clever movement, Miller found it difficult to make things happen because he often got the ball to feet, which made him stop, rather than getting the ball in front so he could take it on the run, and make things happen that way.

Another obvious tactic was the long switch of play. Guardiola often had his Barcelona team recycle the ball on one side of the pitch, drawing the opposition into a tight space on one side, before switching it to the other side, where Daniel Alves would invarably be in a lot of space. Here, Rangers' wide players played in the half-space, and Holt and Zelalem drfited over the the left; Miller was a decoy midfielder, dropping back slightly, but most players were over on the left. Zelalem then lofted a long diagonal over to Tavernier. It happened in the second-half also, but with McKay as the open wide player. Again, poor execution on both occasions let down this tactic.

For a period in the second-half St Mirren came into the game, by pressing more aggressively from midfield. Rangers added to this with a positional disconnect between the front and back 5; the distance between Halliday and rest of the midfield was too great. The substitutions were probably the cause of this, with Rangers not coming to terms with the change. Clark and Shiels came on for Holt and McKay, which meant we had 3 out-and-out strikers up front. All 3 tended to stay on the shoulder of the St Mirren defenders, whereas before Miller and McKay played in the half-space, creating space and pulling the opposition out of shape. Eventually, we got to grips with the changes.

As it turned out, the positioning of the forwards (on the shoulder of the defence) allowed for Shiels to play a reverse, through ball to Waghorn; who calmly squared the ball for a greatful Miller to bundle it home. It was one of the few times the through-ball was executed effectively.

The game was over at 2-0 as St Mirren lost discipline and shape, allowing Waghorn and then Shiels to pick the ball up and drive at the defence, before the ball found it way into the net twice in the remaining 5 minutes. The directness of Shiels and Waghorn was effective late on, but only because the St Mirren players never covered the runs.

A cameo from Hardie in the last 10 minutes was well-deserved. He was bright and confident, always pointing to where he wanted the ball to be placed. A real talent for the future; one that deserves more game-time.

As a support, we are not 'tuned-in' to the patient build-up. We are very quick to get frustrated when things don't work-out and, therefore, often think that we are doing the wrong things. Rangers are doing the right things, but the players are not executing their passes or shots well-enough. Several players were guilty of messing-up their final ball, or shot at goal. It was a good, tactical performance: a patient, methodical build-up, interesting wing-play and a strong defensive base created a game in which Rangers dominated completely. If we play like this, we'll not lose many.

Anything's possible with a striker on fire! They'll fall away when they face the better teams, which is next. Finishing in the top half will be a very good season.

It's their tactics. They know we're not great up front so if they can keep us out they can hit us on the break

Surely if they thought we were poor up front they'd give us all the space in the world?

I like the metronome too - but to dominate possession is pointless if there is no end product.

 

I like Zelalem too, and if his role in the team is simply to retain and recycle possession then he is the right guy for us. If so though then the manager's issue and concern has to be how to create chances. We have the players to do so, but not the players to do so when teams stick 10 men behind the wall and play in two very tight banks of 4 and 5.

 

As for Law, I don't see BH's infatuation with the guy. He passes backwards more often than Zelalem and, from what I have seen, has been playing in a more advanced role than Zelalem so his scoring rate SHOULD be higher anyway. He abdicates responsibility any chance he gets. If his passes aren't sideways then they are backwards - and he looks to get rid of the ball as soon as he can. He also hides in games too - he has no spine. I don't think the same can be said of the 18 yr old.

 

Worse is that we are looking at choosing between Shiels and Law.... makes me want to cry. Shiels I think is the better option of the two as he doesn't hide, looks to keep play ticking over and looks to make possession count and quickly. But if our choices are those two then we need replacements soon.

 

Shiels played up front for Killie did he not ? Why not play him as a central striker with Waghorn and McKay operating beside him ? Or simply give Hardie a game beside the other two and go with a midfield 3 of Halliday, Holt & Zelalem/Shiels.

 

As for calling Zelalem a "terrific wee player" I personally am tired of hearing all these superlatives about players. Terrific ? A kid who has played less than a handful of games for Arsenal and is plying his trade in Scotland's 2nd tier..... and we label him terrific ? Nope, not for me. Terrific was an 18 yr old Leo Messi playing for Barcelona, not Gedion Zelalem playing in Scotland's 2nd tier. Superlatives are used far, far too freely these days.

Yes, I like the possession, which I feel Zelalem brings, but I then think it's wrong to blame him for the next stage, of scoring goals. Yes, he needs to make more assists, but I think he influences the team in other ways.

Yes, in comparison to Messi, "terrific wee player" is superlative, but it's all relative. Perhaps promising? Can we agree on "wee"?

For all his flaws, Law naturally drifts further forward. I agree that he 'should' score more being further forward, but I can also see that he has a goal-scoring knack, which very few in our side possess, and therefore could be beneficial. It's all about using what we have at the minute. Eventually, we will need to acquire better players. Shiels is too slow to play further forward IMO, and is better as a link-up player.

Nowhere have I mentioned that it is all about effort, fitness or work-rate. I think our current side has all of those three in abundance. My issue with Zelalem is that for all his quality at retaining possession, there is no end product. That pivotal role in the side HAS to be a creator of chances. He should also be chipping in with goals. Our inability to score in recent weeks (Alloa aside) I believe I covered in an earlier post, and it is about the pace we move the ball from side to side at, and the angles of triangular passing into areas that cant be defended easily. We are making it to easy for opponents and I would suggest (unscientifically of course!) that Zelalem is quite happy to keep the ball moving without ever looking for the killer pass, or if he has a chance to shoot. If that is all he is going to bring to the side, he should be the link up man to the defence, not the link up man to the attack.

 

He may have a bright future in the game and he is here to learn and I hope he does, but I believe he needs to add a more cutting edge to his game before he can ever think about playing at a decent level regularly.

 

Again, you put words into my mouth when saying I prefer clueless running-about, but slow getting nowhere possession football is not what brings punters through the turnstiles.

 

Barca-Bayern do not play the same football as us, so the comparison is nonsensical. The pace they move the ball at, and in fact move themselves without the ball, is light years away from what we are doing. Would I like us to play like that, absolutely. Would Zelalem get anywhere near either of them, never.

 

I think it was mentioned by another poster, but Zelalem reminds me of the last couple of years of Barry Ferguson's career, where he made 100 passes a game and none of them hurt the opponent. If that is truly what you want to cheer, fair enough.

 

We most certainly do have differing opinions on the game, and that is what these discussion forums are all about. I enjoy reading your interpretations, I just don't agree with them, but I respect that you take the time to give it such detail and thought and share it and defend it on here.

It's nice to see a respectful response, without anyone being offended. Thank you.

I agree Zelalem has to make more of a killer pass, but I don't see every midfielders role is 'to score goals'. He needs to assist more, sure, but I think he contributes a lot, and can continue to without needing to score goals. I like the idea of him playing deeper, as the link-up between the defence -- it's lets me have his control in the team, while freeing up a space for your box-to-box player. Perhaps Halliday would have more of a 'killer' influence in the final third? He's certainly more likely to take a shot at goal.

It's nice to see people thinking again about Law. He has certain qualities that could be beneficial. Like RANGERRAB says, Holt and Law would be an interesting experiment in midfield; or even pushing Halliday further forward and dropping back Zelalem (I think someone else mentioned that?).

I think on reflection, we actually have a decent variety of central-midfield players, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. A bit of tinkering might bring some rewards.

And I think your infatuation with a "metronome" is totally irrelevant in our game. Give me a proper box to box midfielder who can create goal scoring chances as opposed to a 10 yard square pass specialist all day every day and watch the goals scored increase, and to hell with the pass completion rate and the possession stats when very little, if any, of it creates goals.

 

I know which one is better to watch and is more valuable to a winning team.

"Our game", as in the Scottish game? An attitude that explains our diminishing status on the European stage. This obsession with, to quote Germinal -- who has made my point for me --, "Effort! Fitness! Work rate! And if they can pass, that's only a bonus", is out-of-date. An all-round box-to-box player is a great addition to any side, but shouldn't be the main complement. I accept I like the "metronome", but I've not said it's absolutely necessary in our team. The benefits are clear. I prefer to see us dominate possession rather than go back to the 'run harder', 'hit-and-hope' type nonsense we are all used to in Scotland. No wonder Scottish sides fail in Europe.

Zelalem is a terrific wee player; a modern player with a bright future. Any scout, pundit, analyst will say the same. Is he absolutely necessary to our side at the minute? Perhaps not. But he's a big influence IMO on our possession, which is nine-tenths of the modern game. Dominate possession and you go along way to negating the opposition. From that base you then need the box-to-box midfielder, or an attacking-midfielder to go and make things happen. A mix is what is required.

I think you need to ask more people 'in-the-know' before suggesting you know which type of player is more valuable to a winning team. (I'm certainly no expert either.) And as for which one is better to watch? That's a personal opinion. I prefer the slower, possession-based, 'chess' game than the clueless, running-about that is Scottish football; give me Barcelona-Bayern over any open, end-to-end game.

At the end of the day, we have differing opinions on the game. We'll never see eye-to-eye, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

He is also a light-weight, goes missing for large chunks of the game, doesn't tackle anybody when we do not have possession, and dances about (like an Arsenal player) with airy-fairy 10 yard passes that hurt nobody. His last good game was at Airdrie, which was also one of his first games. Since then it has been downward in terms of contribution.

 

I will ask this, for someone so good at passing, how many assists has he had? For someone so good with the ball, he has not scored and has probably had about 3 attempts at goal since he arrived. His only significant contribution is in moving the ball 10 yards in either direction. A complete luxury.

I think your conception of a midfielder is out-of-date, or just doesn't exist.

Important in what sense? I'm not negating your statement - I'm just not fully on board regarding what he offers, given his headline billing when he came.

He's not a goal-scorer, so doesn't grab the headlines. He's a metronome, keeping the ball ticking over. He's an excellent passer, great at creating angles for passing and receiving the pass. I think we miss him when he's not in the side.

Disappointing Eustace isn't signing, but if he isn't fit, then so be it. Zelalem is an important player for us; delighted he'll be staying on for the rest of the season.

I think we have to look at Wallace and Tavernier's early season form as abnormal; for full-backs to score so many goals is really unusual. Now, perhaps is the 'normal' level. Although, I would like to see more from them.

We do need leaders. I think Halliday could grow into that role, as I think he has the desire. Foderingham has gone up against is manager before -- Di Canio no less! -- so I would expect him to have a little fire in his belly; might take a while for that to come through at a new club though. Wilson would become a leader -- if only his ability was better! Most of our players do seem to be 'followers', but I don't think that's too much of a surprise considering the average age of the squad.

Tax avoidance is immoral. Discuss.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it is immoral, but merely unethical. It's not black-and-white when it's legal...

Thats a fairer description of Mcoist.I do get your point,but I think its too much of a generalisation imo.

Terry Butcher-Alex Ferguson?

It is a generalisation, and there are exceptions -- because there are many more variables involved. I was merely responding to the presumption that forwards make more attacking/successful managers: IMO it's the other way around -- for the reasons stated. I did a rough tally of where the 10 most successful managers played during their playing career: 4 were defenders; 4 midfielders; and 2 were strikers. It is a generalisation, and there are exceptions, but I think it holds true.

Saying Ally merely tapped the goals in is grossly unfair.He may not have made a good defender or midfielder but he knew how to play up front.He could work defenders,bring others into play and score all manner of goals.He was first class IMO.

He was an outstanding forward, but even if he could work defenders and bring players into play, my point still stands: defenders and midfielders need greater game awareness -- forwards are very focused on one aspect: scoring goals -- and therefore it is no surprise IMO that they make better managers.

McCoist only tapped the goals in: he had no notion of how the ball should be moved to create the chance in the first place IMO. Defenders, like Guardiola actually, have a need to defend, but also need a greater awareness of the bigger picture, and an understanding of how the ball has to be moved, and how players need to react to it etc. IMO it is no surprise that defensive-type players have a greater understanding, and therefore better managerial performance, than a striker that merely taps the ball into the net at the end of all the hard work.

If you are considering them as a squad of individuals, then sure, the '09 squad is 'better'. But you could also turn it on it's head by asking how many of the '09 squad would fit into Warburton's team, in terms of philosophy? I count 8, out of 20 (I am probably being too critical). Players like Weir and Papac, who were exceptional in that team, would not fit into our current team.

Like Frankie says, we do have a good group of young player that will grow into better players. It is unfair to judge them when they are still so young. The youthfulness is a cause of much of our difficulties. One would hope that with a little more experience, those silly mistakes will diminish.

The style of football is also better. I would much rather watch the current team, than that '09 team...IMO. It's better football, more progressive, modern. It stands us in good stead for the future. That '09 side was 'short-termism' at it's worst, in the sense that I never had any confidence of where the team was heading. Just being difficult to beat, while being adequate domestically, was boring to watch and was not great for our future development. It may have reached a UEFA Cup final, but boy were we lucky to get that far! We weren't even a good counter-attacking side: Athletico Madrid are a good counter-attacking side. We defended for our lives and got a wee bit of luck. In terms of style I'd say this current side is better, albeit not as efficient yet.

IMO, it's not about the group of individuals, but the team as a whole. We can better the current side by incorporating better quality players, but at some stage adding a better quality player is detrimental to the overall team ethic and playing philosophy. Weir was an exceptional defender, but adding him -- even at a younger age -- would be suicide. Boyd was a out-and-out goalscorer in his pomp, something that most fans are saying we need, but wouldn't fit into our style -- he didn't even fit into Walter's team for the big matches!

Take the Mouldy vs. Molde game: were Molde better individually, or simply better as a team?

(I'm not sure what my point was, but I'm sure it's in their somewhere...)

It's unprecedented in Britain, but Juventus are struggling near the relegation zone this year, and Borussia Dortmund were in the relegation zone for the first half of the season last year. It's difficult when your players are not performing, and, apart from Willian, they've all been piss poor. I think Chelsea have been a lot better recently, but haven't been able to capitalise. Mourinho is still Mourinho, so I'm not sure sacking him is the way to go. Dortmund stuck with Klopp, and he got them out of it.

Tidy wee player with an eye for a pass. A good prospect if a deal can be done. I noticed that he's played in the NextGen series that Warburton set up; seems to be a common thread in his signing policy, which focuses on young, talented players with a sell-on value, which is not bad at all.

Don't exactly think that we played with 3 at the back, rather that Ball actually took over the defensive midfield role in a way that Halliday never did. Can't blame the manager for that either*, as the errors that cost the game came from individuals you would expect to handle these situations. From the looks of it, Wilson was sure not at it and got removed. Then again, Hibs weren't exactly tearing us to shreds. Another basic error for their second. Part and parcel of the game. We do it, others do it. We primarily let ourselves down with not taking our opportunities (again), a cardinal sin in this game. Right now, this needs more adjustment than changing tactics that much.

 

* I would expect that they already trained that way, but you would not exactly try it out away at Hibs. Of course, against better opposition in the cups, we simple need to be defensively more sound and somewhere you've got to start it.

 

NB: A bit disappointed that Shiels gets less game time than Clark and Oduwa.

That's what it looked like it would be, but Halliday was playing quite deep and Ball was on the left, so it had to be a 3 at the back? I agree, finishing let us down, and individual mistakes. Wilson is a tad too slow for dealing with counter-attacks; he was also beaten far too easily for the goal.