Rousseau

You're far too eloquent Cal. I agree the £15 billion is meaningless out of context, but I think the point is that it's an unsustainable % of GDP (just like it is for the UKs deficit). Whereas the UK have been trying to reduce it, the SNP haven't done much, and it's actually increased. (I think they'd rather spend as much as they can, blaming Westminster for any problems, and taking the credit for any successes; but that's just a groundless personal opinion.) Of course Oil has a lot to do with it, but we can't base an entire economy on one source of revenue. (And we can't argue 'what-ifs': the Norway model would have been great if we (UK) had the sense to do it.) NS admitted she'd do the same as the UK (austerity) when they (SNP) clearly like to spin the anti-austerity line. Perhaps 'proves' is too strong a word, but it surely suggests Scotland would be in difficulty in the event of a Yes vote? Spending would need to be cut, or taxes increased. Simple. I'm not suggesting we're a basket-case, but they (SNP) can't keep lying that we'd be better off. We wouldn't. (And you can move the goal-posts all you want, but I believe they did say we'd be around £500 better off immediately -- I'm not entirely sure on the number, but it was something like that.) I think it's a 'lie' in the sense that the figures don't really prove the alternative. I think it's idealistic bluster.

That was the best and worst of games. The first 20-30 minutes were sublime: the running off the ball, the through balls were just terrific. We should have been 3-0 up if the linesman had his contacts in. And then the second-half was poor. We just seemed to stop running. Then a fluky wonder-goal brings them back into it. Our confidence then just fled. Overall, we did it to ourselves. I'm not sure if that's better, because it's something we can work on or not.

However, to say it was all us is doing Falkirk a disservice. I'm too annoyed to look at what they did second-half, but I recall Hippolyte coming on to play wide to make a 4-5-1, shutting off the midfield a little more. I also think they dropped deeper also; the first-half they played quite a high line. We did give it away, but Falkirk did the basic things well. Houston is a very good manager -- would he like a job alongside MW and DW?!

We're all annoyed, but quite frankly we should have won that game -- how many times have we said that? -- which somewhat negates the bad feeling because it's something we've done to ourselves, rather than being out-played by an opponent. It's a bad result but it won't/shouldn't affect the winning of the league. Acknowledge the mistakes, correct them, and move on.

I think the lie is that they can peddle the anti-austerity line, but then admit that they'd reduce our deficit by "doing the same as Westminster". NS was reluctant to concede that they would have to cut spending or increase tax. It seems they are more interested in peddling a party line rather than dealing with the issues. Perhaps it's not a lie per se, but it's certainly hypocrisy.

Nobody is "gleefully extolling the £15b deficit". It merely proves that an independent Scotland would be in serious trouble if there was a Yes vote. I believe the SNP party line was that Scotland would be better off, so was that a lie? Or maybe just a misinterpretation of the facts? Either way, it doesn't lend much credibility to their party line.

They were also suggesting that the referendum was a 'once in a lifetime' thing, but we now have NS announcing that they are working towards another -- I can't remember the exact announcement details -- was that then a lie?

The SNP's record is not encouraging: high unemployment, failures in NHS and Education, and, of course, the deficit figures. They keep suggesting they're doing what's best for Scotland -- which is a silly statement because what are the others doing? -- but the figures would suggest they're not. They keep painting this rosy picture of an independent Scotland, but the facts do not align with that picture -- point it out and you're "talking Scotland down". Again, is that a lie, or a misinterpretation?

It is very frustrating that they seem to be beyond criticism.

If you're still asking that question, then you've already made up your mind IMO. Surely it's for the SNP to make the case for independence rather than the other way around?

Does Rab get the $1million or are you donating it to the site?

According to the all-knowing Transfermarkt he is a Defensive-Midfielder. I suspect if he's being called a 'winger', then it must be because he's been playing at Full-back. I suppose if one isn't watching their games regularly, Full-back can be easily misinterpreted as winger. He'll be a Defensive-Midfielder for us, and perhaps as a stop-gap for any position along the back line if and when required.

No I was talking about Barcelona and Messi is not really a striker at all. Suarez is their main striker and I would class Messi as a midfield player

I agree defining Messi as a striker is wrong, but I don't think he's a midfielder; He's more of a winger/wide-forward/Second-Striker. They play with a front-three of Messi, Suarez and Neymar. Suarez is usually the main striker, but Neymar and Messi are on either side, drifting about. I wouldn't class either as midfielders; they are forwards.

Enjoyed that insightful piece mate.

 

Now online:

 

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/match-analysis/596-a-fluid-front-three-or-an-amalgamation-of-roles

 

 

Interesting, in the first half at least on Friday, I though the attack was more fluid than usual with McKay and MOH both interchanging with Miller and Holt. In fact, I thought it was too fluid as we started very well then seemed to struggle in the final third as we often ended up with MOH and Miller both playing centrally with no-one on the right hand side. I felt a bit sorry for MOH as we didn't really get him involved enough and perhaps should be looking to play the ball a bit earlier from the back - even if that means being more direct than the manager would like at times.

Thanks.

I missed the game on Friday, and I'm now sorry I did if that was the case. I suppose it indicates the progress Warburton is trying to impress on the team. It's not just a static way of playing, but something more progressive. Very interesting; I need to find the highlights.

it doesnt cause extra difficulty as i said earlier because most opposition have already set both sides to counter the winger fullback attack so doesn't change anything tactically for them to counter since our wingers basically are copies of each other.

That's where inverted wingers and false-nines come into it; the same position, but individuals playing it differently give the opposition something else to think about. Our basic model/system of playing will remain the same, as will the opposition's zonal defense, but by allowing players to play different roles, we mix it up, giving them something else to think about.

Again, you do want a settled front-three that can do it week-in, week-out, but, while it's possible, it gives the opposition more opportunities to find a solution for it. I do want a strong, pacey striker with two good wingers, but I also think that having a wide-forward in there and a false-nine in there doesn't do any harm. Again, it's good to have different options.

We know how teams are going to play against us -- sit back and hit on the counter -- it's boring and predictable. It's up to us to find a solution. I don't think there is just one solution (the string, pacey striker), but several ways we can go about it.

The technical deficiency in the few Premiership games I've seen is astonishing. It's Sunday League but with 'better' players. We can do the same, but with even better quality players that we should be able to attract, or go down the more technical route, carving a better path for Scottish football. I want to see us do something different, rather than the standard Scottish formula.

Will it work against better opposition though?

It may well do but I think we'll need a better calibre of striker than we've currently got.

I think it will, but I also don't think we're challenging Celtic with the squad we have at the moment. We do need extra quality added throughout the side IMO; not wholesale changes, but good additions in certain areas.

I would argue that Suarez is an out and out striker.

I agree, but I've not mentioned Suarez. Are you mixing him up with Sanchez?

Whatever you call this system, or whatever the system is, it's working, long may it continue.

I can't argue with that!

The false nine can be successful just in my opinion not as successful as playing a strong finisher further forward. In the case of barca the front three are all proficient goalscorers capable of splitting the goals more evenly between them, i think we need to make adjustments for the fact ours are not and our central figure carries more of the burden. With the false nine I think you need consistent goal scorers throughout the attack. That being said it has worked well with kenny and he has put in his best performances in a long time in the role

I can't argue with you there. I agree, the majority of our goals will come from a central striker, and I certainly think that's what he wants. I'd also quite like the variety of a false-nine though, as a back-up.

When we rotate i don't really see it as tactical as in we put x player in x position because he has an attribute that will be of benefit against a weakness we have deemed in the opposition . For me our rotation between the personnel in the front three is more about trying to shake up the opposition and keep the defence off balance.

I agree -- he's not that bothered about the opposition for that! -- but is that not a tactical decision too? Bringing in a certain mix of players to keep the opposition guessing?

Jackson Irvine. He just won man of the match.

He played for C*****. One game though. Decent Defensive-Midfielder/Centre-back. I think we have other options there though.

Watford are a good side, managed by a good manager. It's not really too much of a shock. Wenger is supposedly on his way out after every defeat. I don't see him getting sacked; it'll be his choice to leave.

I think MW in an ideal situation will forgo the false nine for a more traditional striker and the wingers will rotate less frequently once we have the personnel available that can breakdown two banks of four without it.

 

The switching of sides in my opinion only really works if the opposition is playing a man marking strategy to reduce the impact of a specific individual. In our case I think most of the opposition are more concerned with shutting off the space for any of our wingers and fullbacks to operate in tandem within. So doesn't really matter if it is wallace and mckay or wallace and templeton or wallace and forrester so long as 3 players cover the flank and close the space off, same goes for the other side of the park.

I'm not so sure. I agree the ideal situation would be a strong, pacey striker with two pacey wingers/wide-forwards. However, that's also easier to deal with, with regards to predictability: a centre-half will always be relatively comfortable playing against that striker. A false-nine brings something different. I'd prefer to see both really, to mix it up.

I agree the majority of defences will be zonal, but rotating would still be effective; picking the right mix of players to best break down the defence. There may be a standard front-three that will be successful against the majority -- and I think that'll be the aim -- but it won't be successful against every side. Having the variety would be beneficial.

Why can't the false-nine be the ideal? (Forgetting for a minute we'd need to go out a acquire another as we can't rely on Kenny!)

The 'fluidity' Rangers' front-three has brought great excitement, as well as great frustration. Fans are quick to eulogise when it works, but quick to criticise -- quite rightly -- when it does not. To see Waghorn, Miller and McKay attacking with pace is a wondrous sight. But I wonder whether it truly is a fluid front-three? Could it not, perhaps, be an amalgamation of different roles? I wonder if the Rangers front-three is playing several distinct roles, because the Manager has allowed them the freedom to play to their own individual game.

Ironically, a 'fluid' front-three is a fairly specific thing, whereby players interchange with each other: one moment they are on the left or right wing, the next moment they are in front of goal, then on the other wing. While our front-three do rotate to a degree, McKay will most often be on the left-wing, and Waghorn and Miller generally interchange on the right-wing and up top. By this definition, Rangers' front-three is not really 'fluid'.

The Rangers U-20's are more fluid up front. According to the Rangers website, we currently have no Forwards (Ryan Hardie being a first-team player) in the Academy squad; only Goalkeepers, Defenders and Midfielders. In the 4-1 against Falkirk, Roberts, Burt and Leacock-McLeod played in the front-three. All three seemed to take their place in one of the front-three positions at one time or another. Leacock-McLeod scored his goal playing centrally, while Roberts grabbed 3 goals playing up-top or wide-left. This illustrates a more fluid front-three.

The three players that invariably play in these three positions in the first-team are McKay, Miller and Waghorn -- with a smattering of others to replace them. Each have their own playing style, which in turn influences how they play the three positions. It's the different ways in which these three players play these positions that brings a 'fluidity' to the front-three, rather than being a fluid front-three in itself.

(Bare with me, because this is where I start comparing Rangers players with the greats of the game. Not because they are anywhere near the same quality, but because they illustrate the roles.)

Whenever he plays up-top, Miller has played a false-nine role, a la Messi (No laughing at the back!). In earlier days Miller was a runner; always looking to play on the shoulder, looking to get in behind. Today, he can't do that. Instead, he has to find space in between the lines and in the hole, looking to link-up the play rather than get on the end of it himself.

I only name-drop Messi as he is the best known example of a false-nine, but he was not the first. There is evidence of a false-nine as early as 1934. Recently, Fabregas, Neymar, Rooney, Sanchez have all played the role -- even Kevin Nolan! The earliest example in modern football of the false-nine is Francesco Totti.

Totti's role developed by accident, as Roma were crippled by injuries. Instead of playing in Attacking-Midfield, Totti ostensibly played 'up-top', but continued to play deeper, looking for space in between the lines to pick up the ball; basically playing his normal Trequartista role. At this time Roma played with two natural wingers, so deploying Totti in the false-nine role caused havoc for opposition defenders. They had no idea how to mark him: push up and there was space in behind for the wingers and midfield runners; stand off him and he'd continue to orchestrate the attacks. Undoubtedly one of the best sides of the last decade, Roma would utilise Totti to great affect domestically, finishing in the top 2 in Serie A 8 times in 10 years, and winning the Coppa Italia twice (finishing runners-up another 4 times in the same period).

The false-nine can cause havoc, leaving the centre-backs caught in two minds of whether to man-mark or stand off and while also creating a lot of space for Midfield runners and wingers to exploit. Conversely, it has its problems: most obvious of which is that you don't have a natural striker or focal point for your attacks; while also being dependent on midfield runners.

It would be easy to think that the false-nine has to possess an unreal array of skills and abilities, but this is not true. Totti is almost the polar opposite of Messi, yet has played the same role successfully. In his own way, Miller has done the same for Rangers this season -- more out of necessity than anything else, as the legs have deserted him -- bringing a fluidity to the Rangers attack.

The second role is the wide-forward. As you would have guessed, a wide-forward is simply a forward, deployed wide (a variation on the old inside-forward). Wide-forwards are positioned wide, with the objective of providing penetration and goals. Not to play wide all the time, but to target the channels and to get into the box.

Thierry Henry was the best, with fellow-Frenchman Anthony Martial continuing this role (albeit to a lesser degree); both like to play wide, but both are natural strikers. The most recent exponent is Alexis Sanchez with Chile, Barcelona and Arsenal. Chile national coach Jorge Sampaoli often deployed two forwards (Sanchez and Vargas) in the 2014 World Cup, but not in the same way British sides deploy a front-two (like Andy Cole and Dwight Yorke). Instead, Sampaoli tasked them with sticking to the channels and providing penetrating runs in behind (from wide to centre). This set-up saw them beat World Champions Spain.

Wide-forwards provide a goal-scoring threat from wide, with pace and energy very difficult to deal with for defenders. However, wide-forwards need space in which to work. At Arsenal, Alexis Sanchez was involved in two games against Bayern Munich, winning 0-2 and losing 5-1. In the defeat, Giroud, Ozil and Sanchez were the front-three, but they struggled because they kept getting in each other's way: with Giroud as the target-man there is no space in behind for Sanchez to exploit. In the victory, Arsenal lined-up with Sanchez, Ozil and Walcott; where Sanchez was able to drift centrally and Walcott stayed wide. When he was at Barcelona, Sanchez had Messi in the false-nine role which provided a lot of space in behind.

Rangers have had Waghorn and Miller play the wide-forward role, to varying degrees of success. Both tend to play in the same team, with one up-top and the other playing wide-forward. Miller does a job wide, but it is not as rewarding for the team, because Waghorn would be occupying the space centrally, limiting the space in which to exploit in behind. Conversely, Waghorn does well wide because when Miller plays centrally he plays deeper, as a false-nine, vacating the space for Waghorn. With Waghorn injured, O'Halloran has come into the wide-forward role -- playing well without being spectacular -- which works because Miller creates the space; Forrester has come into the team also.

Finally, the Winger is the traditional touchline-hugging wide-man, looking to take on and beat the opposition full-back to get a cross into the box. But the traditional winger has gone the way of the sweeper, seen as a luxury. Nowadays, most wingers are inverted; still looking to take on full-backs, but with the aim of getting a shot away. The great Herbert Chapman (way back in the 1920's) said that inverted wingers were more rewarding for the team than the "senseless policy of running along the lines and centring [the ball] just in front of the [goal], where the odds are nine to one on the defenders" (although this has shortened somewhat).

The best wingers of recent times have been inverted. Arjen Robben is left-footed, but plays right; Franck Ribery is right-footed, plays on the left; Messi is left-footed, but, when he's not a false-nine, plays on the right; and Ronaldo plays either because he's unbelievably two-footed, but always cuts inside. A major part of Leicester's race to the top of the Premier League is Riyad Mahrez; he plays right-wing, but is left-footed.

Again, there are many pro's and con's to a winger's game. Hugging the touchline can be isolating, but can also provide an easy out-ball. The inverted winger can also, ironically, provide less width because they are always looking to come inside. Even if the winger reverts to the traditional tactic of crossing the ball, logically the inverted winger is more dangerous: If a ball is crossed from the outside, it can only swerve away from goal; whereas an inverted winger's cross will always swerve towards goal. Recently, we've seen many of these in-swinging crosses sneak in at the back post.

Barrie McKay has been Rangers' winger of choice. Naturally right-footed, he has played left-wing to great success. His natural tendency to hug the touchline stretches the opposition back-line, and allows an easy out-ball -- which Tavernier has looked to play time and time again. However, as an inverted-winger, McKay provides an unpredictability and 'fluidity' to the Rangers front-line. By going outside to cross or inside to shoot, the opposition defense has struggled to deal with him. Forrester and King are the other two natural winger Rangers have, but tend to play as traditional wingers; both are very direct, and very successful at getting crosses into the box.

The fluidity of Rangers' front-three has been a misnomer. By definition, a 'fluid' front-three will interchange with each other, which I don't think Rangers employ. It's more of an amalgamation of roles. The variety of styles from the Forwards has seen Rangers line-up with Wingers (inverted or not), wide-forwards and False-nine's. Once again, it is an example of the tactical flexibility of Mark Warburton, and his knack of getting the best out of the players at his disposal. Instead of shoehorning our players into playing a certain role, Warburton has allowed the players the freedom to play to their own strengths, within the confines of his preferred 4-3-3. Instead of Miller being forced to play as a traditional striker where he would undoubtedly be less effective, he's allowed to drop off, playing a unique false-nine role. By utilising an amalgamation of different roles, Warburton has brought a variety and unpredictability to the Rangers front-three.

He made his choice. No thanks.

I don't think anyone is suggesting he's going to be the 'star signing' we all want/need, but he's a decent player that could bring something to the team. Weren't Arsenal looking at him at one point?

I believe the board would propose a project, then the members will vote on it. It's a decent idea, but like many, I think the shareholding should be the priority just now. To be fair, they have said that the "project'' fund could be directed towards shareholding if the members desire it so.

It's not perfect, but that's why we are debating it; it's up to us to identify any changes needed/desired. It's a decent proposal IMO.

Respectful, but logically destroys the 'argument'. Excellent.

I was initially disappointed with the proposal: it seems like a bit of a con, with a lot more complexity and no real change except for an extra company to act as an umbrella. On reflection, it does tick all the boxes, but with more clarity and tweaks needed.

I think we all agree with the core principles... in principle.

Independence is a must, but how independent is a body that elects a member of the club board and a club ambassador? I'd prefer to see members with any link to the club removed from any election to the new C1872 board.

The shareholding is the priority IMO, but, as has been said above, why not 50+1? That model is in place and working well in Germany at the moment, so I'd like to see that as the "ultimate" aim.

Financial contribution is a bit of a distraction at the moment -- increasing the shareholding should be the priority -- but I see that they include a caveat whereby the funds can be directed to shareholding. Certainly good for the future though, to assist the club and acquire assets (hopefully, that can produce revenue in themselves).

The C1873 experiences seem like they are trying to move the whole scheme into a proper membership scheme, like Bayern Munich et al. It seems a little contrived though, and not really necessary at the moment; we have a more pragmatic need for this proposal.

I was a little concerned when it says that RF and RST would remain; this just reduces C1872 to an umbrella entity, while maintaining the egos of the previous groups. However, it looks like the membership scheme will be transferred to C1872, with RF and RST receiving funds for their respective purposes (Shareholding and Projects). As has been mentioned, does this not reduce the total members paying into the group? I'm not sure how this can be improved/corrected.

There are a few tweaks needed. Disabled representation obviously, but I am sure they have not excluded that willfully. Maybe more clarity on a few things also. However, it seems like the basic outline is beneficial. Having one group would certainly be beneficial, gathering the collective resources and focusing it in a better way. I think it's very positive; hopefully a decent debate will allow the proposal to be fine-tuned.

I've not seen him play, but he's allegedly one the best young Scottish prospects around. I believe he's an attacking midfielder, so I think he'd fit with our philosophy quite well. Any promising young player is a good move IMO.

We're underdogs, but we've been playing well and they haven't. I was dreading this draw as I just can't see us getting past them; although we may play better together, they've got better quality players. They're beatable, but it's a big ask.

I was under the impression that we could get a Euro spot by simply reaching the final (against them), which would make this draw bad for us; but if it's only Cup-winners that qualify, bring it on!

At the very least it'll be a good test of our level.

It was on Rangers web site on Friday night and my point was that if three Academy players are preferred to him (I trust that choice of word is acceptable) then surely that tells its own story.

 

I don't "hate" Zelalem at all; I just don't think we need him and Rousseau's whose tactical opinions are well respected around here "concede(s) that Zelalem is not needed,".

Yes, not needed, but the role most certainly is -- IMO, of course. I'm pleasantly surprised at Halliday's performance in that role.

I'm wondering if you thought the 20 year old kid on loan that I was referring to was Zelalem (whom I like incidentally)? I was in fact referring to Dom himself who in spite of how he looks is just a 20 year old kid on loan,

 

I do agree with you on the position being needed despite who plays it. I'm fairly sure Matt Crooks is being brought in to fill the role for next season albeit whether as a squad player or as automatic first team pick.

It wasn't a reply to you, but a general post to the discussion above. It is easy to forget that Ball is similarly aged!