Rousseau

I'd keep them both. Bell as a decent back-up, and Temps, on his day -- admittedly few and far between -- is a good winger. We're quite short on wingers anyway. I'd keep Temps and hope to see Assulin sign.

Quick question: do the shorter paragraphs make it easier or more difficult to read?

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/current-affairs/460-the-rise-of-vertical-football

"Whoever has the ball is the master of the game" --Xavi

We have seen more 'masterful' performances from our team this season. Intricate passing and incisive movement has resulted in impressive possession stats of over 65%. This is our primary defense: restrict the opposition to as little of the ball as possible and you go a long way to negating their attacking threat. But we've still seen some calamitous defending when our opponents do get the ball.

Unfortunately, our attacking potency has also been somewhat diminished. Teams are starting to restrict our goal tally by defending compactly and deep. We were regularly hitting 4, 5, 6 goals a game at the dawn of the season. Now, we are struggling to get 2 or 3. It's not surprising. Rangers were a surprise package at the seasons start, with teams unsure how to cope. Now, they know what to expect.

On the continent, some of the best tacticians have been dealing with this problem for years. How to penetrate deep, compact defenses when you have lost the element of surprise. Again, I look to Guardiola and Bielsa for inspiration. Barcelona, Athletic Bilbao, Chile, and now Bayern Munich have had to deal with teams sitting deep, restricting space. The solution is Vertical football.

When teams defend compactly, they are subconsciously adopting a form of football that is concerned with the horizontal. It's quite common, and quite easy to spot. Generally, they narrow and retreat into two banks of four. Then they shuttle from side to side, depending on the placement of the ball. It's success comes down to how it forces the attacking team to adopt a horizontal attack, forcing the ball into the wide players where it's easy to defend. The shape that this creates is what Guardiola calls 'the U': where the ball goes wide and forward, before being forced back and across to the other side. And repeat.

We are seeing this at Rangers. We struggle to penetrate, and are often forced wide by the compact opposition. We go wide to Wallace or Tavernier, up to the Wingers, and are forced back when we can't get in behind, only to try the other flank. It creates a horizontal passivity in the attacking side.

Vertical football is a little more direct. It consists of direct, penetrating passes with the aim of breaking the lines of defence. It's not to be confused with route-one: this is not getting the 'keeper or centre-back to 'hoof it' long! And it does not mean longer balls, but more vertical passes. There is a subtle, but significant difference between a long, aimless ball, and a long, targeted pass.

We've already seen hints of a more direct style at Rangers with more long diagonal passes to the wingers, with the aim of bypassing the defensive block of the opposition. Even at the recent Livingston game -- at least early in the second half -- we saw Tavernier go high and wide on the right, with the rest of the team shuttling over to the left, allowing for a long, direct pass to Tavernier, who was invariably in open space because the opposition had narrowed into a horizontal defence.

Guardiola’s teams are now more direct, but in a controlled manner -- again, this does not mean long and high balls from the 'keeper or centre-back into the strikers. Guardiola looks for his teams to create situations where they can penetrate opponents rather than playing the ball from side to side; with the aim of negating the horizontal passivity and ineffective possession which afflicts possession-based sides.

Key to this vertical football is a slight tweak in formation. The 3-3-1-3. Guardiola uses it now and again for certain games, and Bielsa uses it on a regular basis, especially when manager of Chile (they still adopt a similar system under Sampaoli, a disciple of Bielsa). It's not even a new formation. Louis Van Gaal won the Champions League with a youthful Ajax side with this formation in 1995, with such players as Overmars, Kluivert, Litmanen, Davids, Rijkaard, and of course, the De Boer twins. Recently, Guardiola implemented this formation in Bayern's top-of-the-table clash against Borussia Dortmund. It resulted in a 5-1 thrashing. The line-up was:

The formation does not dictate the vertical, or direct, style, but rather just happens to lend itself very well to it. Most of you will be incredulous at me drooling, misty-eyed over a style of play that is nothing new. I am slightly drooling considering it, but I freely admit that it's nothing new. But it is a tweak to another, seemingly incompatible, possession-based game. The direct style has been implemented in many formations over the years. Most recently -- 2 years ago -- Jurgen Klopp's Dortmund were a great possession-based side, but played an incredibly direct style. Inspired by the tactics used by Guardiola against Dortmund, My mind drifted to considering a Rangers side utlising this formation:

A variation on Xavi's quote is for the Chess fans. Kasparov always said if one controls the centre, one controls the board, and therefore the game. The 3-3-1-3 allows for another midfielder in the centre, creating a combination that would be very difficult to negate for the defending side. It could completely overload the middle making any attack difficult, but it also stops the opposition from dominating the centre. The formation also allows for an extra man at the back: a three-man defence, providing extra cover on the counters. Another change I spotted at the Livingston game was a shift -- during play -- to a back-three when in phase one. Tavernier dropped back alongside Ball and Kiernan, with Wallace bombing forward. It allowed another passing option for when Foderingham had the ball, when Livingston often pushed three men up to man-mark -- a sight we'll probably see more of. These changes still allow for proper wingers.

The 3-3-1-3 creates 4 horizontal lines of personnel, which allows for greater options on the vertical plain, and allows for quick transitions. A player can bypass a line without passing too far, and risk loosing control. A player has more options with which to surprise the opposition, and can be more effective in breaking the lines of defence.

Another benefit is allowing overloads. A quick, direct pass to the number 10 can break the lines of defence, and when combined with runners concentrating of one area can allow for an overload. Even if a team is doubling-up on a winger, the number 10, the RCM and the RW, can overload the the flank, creating a 3v2. Again, there were hints of Rangers trying to overload certain areas against Livingston: Oduwa drifted over to McKays flank -- Law drifting wide to cover the departed Oduwa -- and combined with Holt and Wallace on occasion -- albeit unsuccessfully.

There are also defensive benefits. Vertical compactness -- as a result of the 3-3-1-3 -- means that any side trying to attack us will have to force the ball through more lines of defence. Instead of just passing through 2 lines, they would have to pass through 3 or 4, making it very risky, and easier to recover possession.

Or, with the central ground firmly in our control, it would force the opposition wide, into inefficient attacks. It is much more manageable for a defensive set-up to force the opponent wide where we can over-power them. Moreover, harking back to Warburton's statistical sensibilities, it is generally inefficient for an attacking side to score by crossing the ball into the box: that is why Rangers invariably play corners short.

Finally, having a compact formation and overloads in central areas, it allows a team to press in greater numbers, and further up the pitch where ball recovery can be deadly to defenders out of position. Again, Klopp's Dortmund were masters of direct play, but incorporated a form of transition pressing, whereby they would press, in numbers, high up the pitch hoping to recover the ball when opponents were out of position.

This is only a hypothetical musing. It is highly unlikely that Rangers will be incorporating these ideas any time soon. Regardless, there have been hints of some variations in our play: whether overloads on certain flanks; a change to a back-three; or a more vertical, direct style of play. These subtle changes are encouraging. It makes me hopeful that a Rangers side in the future could be a tactically astute proposition for any side.

Actually, I've done a bit more reading on it and while I trust certain users with such a facility, apparently it's seen a security risk so no HTML I'm afraid.

I don't think I could cope with that kind of responsibility anyway!

Can we make it so our trusted Gersnet writers do have access to HMTL as a separate usergroup?

It doesn't matter. It was just a little query, which I submitted before noticing the "HTML switch off" permission. I completely understand why. Security comes first.

One just hopes that W&W don't leave anytime soon, taking all "his men" along ...

It's a good point. One would hope the structure is implemented so as to work independent of any managerial changes. Southampton, for example, have a structure that works independently of the manager; in fact, the structure chooses the manager that best fits the structure.

Can we embed HTML tags? Like...

<iframe width="350" height="500" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://lineupbuilder.com/350x500/?p=11&a=40303&t=&c=2100db&1=GK___388_174&2=DLL_Wallace__293_56&3=DCL_Kiernan__327_138&4=DCR_Wilson__327_211&5=DRR_Tavernier__293_292&6=DMC_Halliday__258_174&7=MCRR_Zelalem__218_226&8=MCAL_Holt__186_138&9=WL_Oduwa__116_64&10=WR_McKay__116_284&11=FCA_Waghorn__80_174&c2=ffffff&c3=ffffff&output=embed"></iframe>

...Apparently not. Can we get a facility for this?

Ah, I see HTML is turned off. Fair enough. Forget it. You can delete the thread.

The facts are that Eustace has only played one full season in the last three. He only played 7 games in 2012-13 with Watford, 39 with Derby in 2013-14 and 14 in 2014-15 till his serious knee cartilage injury. It was the same early in his career: " He missed the rest of the 2004–05 season and all of the 2005–06 season because of the (knee) injury." (Don't know if it's the same knee.)

 

If you look at his stats he has really only played 4 full seasons (3 with Watford) in the past 13 years.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eustace

 

He may well have admirable qualities but this looks like a massive gamble to me. I hope he's on a pay per play deal or at least a deal with a low basic and appearance money.

Ah, so it's his injury record that you have a problem with, rather than his age or ability. I understand that. Isn't it true that he -- despite, as you state, not playing much -- was a key player for his clubs? Like I said, I don't expect him to play much, but he'll play a important part IMO, in the sense that we need a DM/pivot, and his off-field presence which could be very beneficial. I agree a pay-as-you-play could be quite good.

We need a pivot/Defensive Midfielder. Eustace was one of the best in that position for Derby last season, which results will testify. He cannot have dipped that much in ability in 1 year to the extent that he cannot play a part for us. His off-field benefits have been intimated by Warburton and a few of the players. I think he'll be a very good signing all round. Neil Lennon was doing a fairly decent job at C***** at 36, with very little ability, and still played a part for Nottingham Forest a year later. Even our very own Sir David of Weir played until 40. Age is irrelevant if they can play a role: Serie A is littered with players in their late 30's; they are cherished, protected and carefully managed so they can play a part of the team -- sometimes a crucial part -- until a very late age; They are not shafted because they reach an arbitrary age. I think Eustace will play a very important role for us.

Yes, Scottish football is a disaster and we are getting everything wrong. Replacing the manager isn't necessarily going to improve things though, and there's a good chance it will make things worse. I've never particularly rated Strachan but who is the alternative? Ideally I would get a foreign manager in and try to implement continental ideas into the national setup at all levels, but I don't see that happening.

That requires some sort of forethought. Our idiot 'leaders' are only interested in the short-term. We're struggling to find sponsors. Surely that should be sounding huge alarm bells?

This is a laughable league structure. A team can beat Celtic one week then loose to the bottom-dwellers the next. There is no consistency. The old adage 'form is temporary, class is permanent' seems to ring true: our sides have no class, no ability; but they can beat a team once in a while through sheer luck. I despair.

He does not come out well in this.

It seems to me there is a misapprehension about players: they are either good or bad. Is there no in-between? Law's a unique player in our team; not a great passer, but is a genuine goal-threat and a good runner. We need players of different styles and abilities. I think it was our last game where Law was very useful: he was the goal-threat that we needed to win the game. I don't agree with this black and white view. Again, Miller and Shiels have been players that we've needed this season at times, for their individual ability. Every player has a part to play.

The kid seems to be a decent player in the Spanish Second division, playing a good 30+ games a season there over a few years. His appearances for English sides (OK, only Man City and Brighton; of which only at Brighton would he be looking to do well) are poor. I think it shows his style is not suited to typical British football. However, we don't play the typical British football so he could fit in very well here. Promising player that just needs a little guidance and a decent run in a team that suits his style. I think he'd be a great addition -- we need more wingers for when Oduwa goes off the boil!

Yeah, I remember sitting to next to a blind guy up at McDiarmid Park, and he was getting a running commentary from the guy next to him, who at one point says "and Smith is running up the wing and Arthur Numan goes in for a tackle and the ref has blown for a free kick" at which point the blind guy stands up, points and shouts "that was never a foul, ref."

 

Amusing and surreal, as you say,

Was there not a clip of a blind guy at QPR waving his white cane at the linesman going about last season? Brilliant. Surreal, but brilliant.

How will you measure the success?

Attendances, European performance, sponsorship deals etc.?

I think most people recognise that change is required, but I don't think an even split of "prize" money is the way to go (if that's what you're suggesting).

 

There has to be some incentive to move up the rungs of the league table as the season progresses otherwise you end up with a ton of pointless, dead rubber matches at the end of the season. Outside of the European qulification / promotion and relegation spots, there has to be something left to aim for in the last couple of months, and the best way to do this is for the prize money to increase as a club climbs the table. The "mid-table dead zone" would be even more of an issue if (as has been suggested) we moved to an expanded 16 team top tier - there would be no effective difference between finishing 5th and finishing 13th. That's not exciting or competetive.

 

The best work-around for this is probably the Belgian top flight which ends the season with an elaborate split and play-off system to decide Champions League, Europa League and relegation spots - but it is horribly contrived and IMHO pretty unsatisfactory.

 

My own personal preference (an idea which takes a hell of lot of explaining) would be for the smaller nations of Europe to form NFL style conferences. For example, a top flight of six clubs (or eight or whatever number is deemed most workable) from Scotland play each other twice, and play enough additional identical fixtures against teams from a couple of other national conferences (which would differ each season) to make a decent length of season. European qualification and relegation spots make up a high proportion of the 6 places in the conference - there's as good a chance as you can get of there being something to play for right until the end of the season. There would also be greater interest in matches (and therefore more sponsorship opportunity) as the games would draw viewers from more than one nation.

 

If you make the prize money for the second tier champions in each nation enough that they have a fighting chance of staying up, you've got an interesing and exciting competition year on year.

 

I admit that it's mnost probably too radical a suggestion to ever be taken seriously, but I genuinely believe it could be workable.

You know what? You've convinced me. There does have to be an incentive for teams. I had assumed 'winning' would be the incentive, but perhaps cash is the only way to go. I'm not really interested in 'the rest shafted us and so we should just f*** them' argument. The league as a whole must come together to sort this out. Rangers being successful in a 'diddy' league does no one any good, least of all us. The Belgian example has some merits, but, as you say, is a little unsatisfactory. Perhaps just some tweaking though? Allowing more teams to realistically challenge for a European spot would provide incentive, and provide teams with more money through qualification. A European solution -- because there are a few teams throughout Europe who are in a similar situation -- could be very intriguing; it would certainly deal with most of the problems.

I fail to see why so many Rangers fans are happy for us to give cash away to all of these clubs who so recently shafted us.

We can get back at them by simply being successful. The question is whether we want to be part of a competitive league, or a shit league as we are now. We can be successful either way. Our income will still far outstrip any other side, except one.

Not to mention that the NFL has 32 clubs for a nation of 321.5 million whereas the SPFL has 42 clubs for a nation of 5.5 million. I'm fairly sure that's a pretty important difference when it comes to selling out stadia and sponsorship deal values.

That's a very good point, but we're not going to be able to remove clubs. We are stuck with the numbers we have. I'm not sure we can do anything about it with regards to any change.

I actually agree. Overlooking his clear hatred for a moment, the idea that every team should get an equal share is a good one. It would allow everyone to start on an even footing, and would put the good of the game over any individuals. The money is minuscule anyway -- how much are we really giving up? We would still have bigger revenues because of the ST sales, but the increased competition -- that's still a big 'if', no matter what happens -- could give us better TV deals etc.

If things are going to change, the ones that benefit the most have to take a hit for the good of the game. (We've almost been restructured towards lower income streams, so it could benefit us anyway!)

Wonder if Abramovic will act this week and make a change with Klopp coming in. Didn't think they would lose that game. Talk about a team who's come off the rails.

I couldn't see them winning it. They are just poor. Going forward they are not creating much -- the last few goals I've seen have been free-kicks, which are goals, but are not created from open play; weirdly the free-kicks were from the same area and the same player?! -- and they just can't defend. Mourinho can be a tactical genius all he likes, but if the players cannot do the basics, then they are in serious trouble.

I think the team needs a complete refresh. Several players are past it. Mourinho needs to give the talented young players a go now -- the Chelsea youths have been winning everything the last few years.

Barca losing at Sevilla, they aren't clicking too well at the moment.

 

Additional big game to add to the above list - Ajax v PSV today.

Feeling the effects of the ban...

Its a make shift defence which would be torn apart in any other season or league regularly. Darmain, has been decent. Smalling finally looking like a defender. Blind, would get destroyed against a fully fit Aguero, Costa, Sanchez....and at left back Shaw has had 2 good games then is seriously unlucky with that injury and its Ashley Young now at LB. That's is there for the taken.

I forgot about Shaw's injury. So, yes they will be significantly weakened. However, I still think they defend quite well, as Blind is a decent centre-back: his reading of the game is exceptional; he's obviously slow and weak, but his ability makes up for it -- Smalling makes an excellent partner; they complement each other very well I think. Arsenal will be a big test.

I'm not saying we'll be playing with 2 centre-backs and that's it, like now. I think we must have a DM/pivot (preferably 2) in there to cover the full-backs. However, I maintain, it is perfectly manageable to have both full-backs playing high and wide.

Too often, Scottish sides go into these games looking to defend, but why can't we play on the front-foot? Play our attacking game? Sure, we need to be pragmatic, but as long as we manage it correctly we can play our own game.

Big games this weekend before the international break.

 

Chelsea v Southampton is huge for Chelsea. I think they will nick it as Southampton haven't been the same team.

 

Everton v Liverpool massive for Rodgers, cant see Everton losing it.

 

Arsenal v Man Utd very tough to call. Two poor defences despite 2 world class keepers.

 

Aston Villa v Stoke is a big game down at the bottom.

 

A big weekend of games in Europe also.

Sevilla V Barcelona

Atletico Madrid v Real Madrid

PSG v Marseille

Bayern Munich v Borussia Dortmund

Partick Thistle v Dundee Utd

I actually think Man Utd have got a good defense -- their record would certainly suggest so. Tough to call, though. I agree with the rest though. Although, I have no confidence in Chelsea at the moment, so I can't see them getting a result.