Rousseau

Cheers! You just beat me to it! It's all about balance.

I don't think Pena has played for a while, because of the unusual Mexican season. I'm not sure though. I did expect to see him get more game time.

We keep saying we need width: If we can just get another left-sided winger to complete our 4-4-2 then we'd be doing well. But to say we must have width from midfield is not absolutely necessary. History has shown us that asymmetric formations can and do work. Moreover, we don't even need to rigidly stick to one formation. What we need is balance. Formations are a crude, albeit useful, tool for visualising a teams general shape. We all know how a team will generally play in any given formation, whether it's a 4-4-2, 4-2-3-1, 3-5-2 or 4-3-3. But to insist that certain formations must have certain types of players is wrong: a 4-4-2 doesn't necessarily need to have a winger on each side. While we've been debating the benefits of any given formation and what formation would work best for our side, we've perhaps been caught up in these narrow designations, which has perhaps made us overlook exciting solutions that Pedro Caixinha has introduced: asymmetry and fluidity in formations. History can show us some interesting examples. The great AC Milan side of the early 2000's shows us that you don't need midfield width at all. Milan lined-up in a 4-4-2 (diamond) or 4-3-1-2. There is no natural width from midfield, and they didn't even have rampaging full-backs on both sides; at right-back they did, in Cafu, but at left-back they had Maldini - not known for his attacking play. But there was balance as they had Seedorf playing LCM, who was able to drift wide, and then Kaka playing off a striker, again making space. Of course it's easy to play through the middle when you have Seedorf, Pirlo, Gattuso, Kaka and Rui Costa to set up Shevshenko and Inzaghi, but the principle remains. Even though Caixinha has tinkered with a diamond before, it didn't quite work. It may be that we didn't have the players to make it work, but that it may be tried again in the future. We now have more dynamic central midfield players to build upon those rampaging full-backs; and most importantly, we have a more disciplined midfield to cover them. A more applicable example of asymmetry in formations from history must use a variant of the 4-4-2 if it is to link to Caixinha's current experiments in pre-season. So far the 4-4-2 has been popular, both in terms of use from the manager and acceptance from the fans. Fabio Capello's England side, although not generally thought of as 'successful', did highlight some interesting asymmetry in their formation. England lined up in a 4-2-3-1, but like us, lacked any natural left-winger. Capello's solution was to play Gerrard in Left-Midfield. Gerard is no Left-midfielder, but it allowed for some interesting combinations. Rooney would play off the striker (No.10) but had a natural tendency to drift left, opening up space for Gerrard to cut inside onto his lethal right-foot. The width came from Cole at LWB. Add to that Lampard from LCM and there are some interesting, and potent, combinations on the left side; all without a natural left-winger. The Balance comes from Cole and Rooney drifting wide, to allow Gerrard to arrive late into the middle of the park. But of course, it doesn't just need to be standard formations utilising unorthodox players. Argentina's journey to the final of the last World Cup in 2014 provides a fascinating example of a team switching formations in-match to better help defend or attack. Argentina's run was built upon a pragmatic 4-4-2 in defense, but would transition into a 4-3-3 in attack. Their defensive set-up featured two players in unorthodox positions: Perez, a central-midfielder, playing RM; and Lavezzi, a forward, playing LM. On the attacking transition, Lavezzi would push forward to make a three-man forward line with Higuain and Messi, and Perez would tuck in to make a three-man midfield. Thus far in pre-season, Caixinha has experimented with asymmetry and fluidity in his formations. We've seen a standard 4-4-2, but with unorthodox flavours. We've employed a standard right-winger in Candeias, who hugs the touchline, but then on the left, Kranjcar has been used. Kranjcar is not a natural left-midfielder, but he's not being used as such: his role is to tuck inside to make a three-man midfield, to create overloads in the centre of the pitch. The balance comes from Miller's leftward movement and Wallace's width. Although we don't have a natural left-winger as such, we've still been able to create some interesting combinations. In theory, the combinations and inter-play between Kranjcar, Miller and Wallace will create problems for any defense; add to that Dorrans playing deeper in LCM, and we've got good attacking options without needing a natural left-winger. There are two main benefits to implementing an asymmetric flavour to a standard formation: (a) asymmetry presents sides with unfamiliar and unpredictable problems. Who marks who? If a RM is marking Kranjcar at LM, he then drags him out of position for Dorrans, Wallace and Miller to exploit. And (b) it allows teams to pack in as many of their best players as possible. AC Milan seems to be the most extreme example, discarding width altogether to allow all those creative players to fit into the middle of the team. In Rangers' case, it allows us to play Kranjcar, Dorrans, Miller and perhaps even Pena, when a standard 4-4-2 would demand that we drop 1 or 2. Asymmetry also takes into account a player's individual characteristics. Where does Ronaldo or Ronaldinho play? On the wing? No.10? Striker? It's none of the above. In a standard formation they'd be wingers, but neither stayed there for long. It works firstly because of their natural ability, but also because their teams found the right balance -- mainly by playing three in midfield and deploying rampaging full-backs to compensate and exploit the space created. We've now got workmanlike midfielders and strong defenders in Jack, Dorrans and Alves, so we can get away with players playing in unorthodox positions; we have the balance. In our most recent friendly against Sheffield Wednesday, Windass stood out in a LM spot. Again, Windass is not a natural wide player, but his running ability and inside position will create some unique problems for defenders this season; if he has Miller and Wallace's movement to support him. The key is balance. Whether it works or not for us this season, we can only wait and see. However, Caixinha seems to have found a formation that the players feel comfortable with, while also bringing in some interesting asymmetrical adaptations. Kranjcar's (or Windass) unorthodox role should allow for some exciting combinations on the left side of midfield. At the very least it gets our best players into the same team. The key is balance.

What level is that on the league ladder?

23 is not young?! I agree he's struggled, but I still think there's a player in there... somewhere.

I still think there's a good player there in Windass; he's got good running ability, close control and can hit a shot; but he's also a tad lightweight and switches off easily. He's still quite young, though.

Windass did very well too earlier in the move. We were under a bit of pressure.

As Andy Little said there, I thought Herrera made that by being strong and out-muscling the defenders. Cracking finish.

Ah... we're shite. We'll be lucky to get into Europe.

We're gonna win the league!

Jack, Cardoso and Alves look really composed. Their passes out have been crisp, and they've taken no unnecessary chances.

We've been lively for the most part. We do look like we know what we're doing: the pressing looks more organised, and the passing out looks efficient and practiced. Windass has been good, as has Candeias. Herrera has led the line well. We're just missing a bit of quality on the final ball or cross. As has been said above, we look quite solid defensively -- and that's with Hodson! Miller has been good too, but lacks that something to make it click. I can't help think about how much better it would be if Naismith was there in place of Miller...

Of course there were some good goals -- the free-kick in particular was pin-point -- but I just look at the majority of them and think, when does that situation arise with us? He's definitely got pace and aggression, which may be what we need. He'd be a good option, but I'm wary of all the superlatives being thrown around. I think he's better, but were we not saying the same about MOH at the time?

From these clips I'm not really sure if Walker will be that great. His goals are tap-ins or penalties. Only good thing is his crossing, but there were usually 3-4 Hearts players in the box to aim at -- who gets into the box for us? [tweet]890598389557186560[/tweet]

Superb player in his day. Yes, I always seen him as a Second-Striker, someone to play off the main striker or wide; to be fair, that's what Miller is trying to do now, but failing. Might be a good signing if we can get a year or two out of him?

I'd take McGinn for Miller - good deal all-round...

I see Garner has been banging them in for Ipswich; 5 goals in 3 games...

I suspect we'd be left in Gribz and Scott7's shadows...

Yes, I'd be up for it too. Is it free?

I thought OM were lacking intensity and sharpness, so I assumed they were very early in their pre-season. It was their last game before the season starts?! We did well.

Perhaps not a Chelsea type striker per se -- not sure what that is tbh -- but Morata is a Conte striker. Conte bought him at Juventus, and he scored for fun until Madrid wanted to poach him back (buy-back clause) when they had no intention of allowing him many starts. He's pacy, strong; he'll hold up the ball and run like a dog. Just the type Conte likes. Is Morata a better striker than Lukaku? Possibly not. But Conte has a history of utilising players that are not top-class; he likes players that can do a job and that can be relied upon. That's why he likes Asamoah, Giaccherini, Isla, Darmian, Llorente (signed for Juventus) and now Moses and Alonso; they're not world-class players -- some failed in the English Championship -- but he can rely on them to work like dogs and do a job.

I thought Jack was quiet but effective, and Dorrans was excellent - despite being hampered with that early booking.

I'm pleased with that performance. Marseille probably not at the races, but they are a quality side - Lyon put 4 past Celtic last week - and we didn't look out of place. I'd like to see more clear-cut chances, though; hopefully that will come.

I was disappointed with Pena, as other than the wee nutmeg he's been anonymous; but to be fair to the lad, we've been on the defensive since he came on so there wasn't much opportunity for him.

Beauty. What a way to leave the pitch.