Rousseau

First game results are in: Everyone that entered a prediction gets 1 point for correctly predicting the Correct Result (France Win), but Compo, Whosthedado and Germinal get an extra 3 points for predicting the Correct Score.

I was going to close the thread, but it makes sense to keep it open to discuss the games at least. I've already copied in all the predictions so there is no chance of 'cheating'. I can also post results as they come. Apparently Romania had one of the best defences in Qualifying, which was on show last night. It was a spectacular, and deserved winner, from France, but Romania squandered a couple of absolute sitters. It could have been very different.

I can't disagree with that. Hopefully, if indeed Warburton brings in the 4-2-3-1, the double pivot will help. However, the biggest problem defensively has always been set-piece organisation.

I can get on board with that. Triangles, although available, are not as natural to a 4-4-2. And, if one does play triangles in a 4-4-2, there is not the same level of support. But, yes, I agree that it does depend on the way a manager wants to play and the players execution of that plan.

Yes, absolutely. I tried to convey that message. The philosophy and style of play ("to dominate possession of the ball, continually changing the point of attack, moving the ball quickly and having good movement") remains the same, but the framework (formation) can change. However, I would say that some formations are more conducive to a possession-based game than others. I don't think you can replicate a possession-based game in a 4-4-2 to the same extent -- you can, but I think it'll be less effective without the triangles. A 4-4-2 is quite linear in the build-up, with players working in pairs (RB - RM; RCM - LCM; RF - LF), so one wouldn't be able to replicate the same fluidity that the triangles (RW - RB - RCM; LCM - RCM - DM etc.) in a 4-3-3 allows. You can replicate it, but some formations are more conducive than others.

It's not that I don't trust you...

Yes, you're right: Pivot does have singular connotations. However, in football it's got a very loose definition, meaning starting point, or the one -- or two -- that starts attacks; the starting point from which everything flows. That is why they don't play the same role; you need them to do different things -- ball-winner or ball-player, and everything in between -- although they are both 'pivots' in the sense that everything flows from them.

It's a shame -- you don't like to see one of our own 'shafted' -- but, as has been stated, it isn't a surprise. I don't think he was fluent in Warburton's philosophy. Whenever he made comments after an U20 game, I was always thinking, "would Warburton care about that?" It'll be interesting to see who we bring in, and how this affects the U20's.

Very true. It is easy to forget that a number of players were leftovers that had to be, not 'shoe-horned', but certainly encouraged into the system. Halliday, for example. He's done well in the DM role, but I doubt he was signed for that. As you say, Eustace was earmarked for that role. Even the loans were 'stop-gaps' almost. I agree, now we'll see the proper type of player Warurton desires. The transfers thus far are quite promising IMO.

It's "attack, attack, attack!" "It's the most exciting football we've ever seen at the club. We used to get caught on the break at times, but that's the style of football -- score more goals than the opposition". Such was the testimony of Brentford fans when curious bears asked, "what's he like?" At the time it was exactly what we wanted to hear. After several years of slow, ponderous, route-one football of the McCoist era, it was time for something more progressive, more proactive -- something more fitting, in the world of tiki-taka. But, the honeymoon ended. The 3-1 defeat to St Johnstone was as comprehensive a defeat as we'd seen since Warburton and Davie Weir entered the hallowed halls of Ibrox. There were rumblings among the support that, perhaps, Warburton's "attack, attack, attack" philosophy was too naive for a title-chasing team. After all, the gaffer's continued refrain is 'plan B is to do plan A better'. It's admirable, but does it lack the pragmatism required to win titles? The perception from these rumblings is that Warburton is too stubborn in his approach; too unwilling to change when change is required. This is not strictly true. Sure, his philosophy is proactive, concerned with dominating possession and taking the game to the opposition. But within this framework, within which this philosophy is executed, he has demonstrated an ability to tinker with his formations. In his first season with Brentford in League One, Warburton chose an offensive 4-3-3 formation. This formation featured two adventurous number 8's, two aggressive wingers who always looked to stretch the play, and a roaming centre-forward. It was an aggressive approach that sought to dominate games, and achieve promotion. This equates nicely with our own approach this past season: an aggressive approach that sought to achieve promotion. For all it's defensive flaws, it worked. When it came to Brentford's Championship season, Warburton tinkered; trying 4-1-4-1 and a defensive 4-3-3. Eventually, he settled on a 4-2-3-1. Of course, Warburton is never going to deviate from his favoured style -- attack, attack, attack! -- but by adopting a slightly different shape he added defensive stability. The proof is in the pudding, and a play-off spot in what is an extremely competitive league would suggest it was an unmitigated success. From a Rangers point of view, it may be likely that, as we make the step up to the Premiership, we will see the more defensively stable 4-2-3-1 being adopted as our default formation. It's clear that Warburton's chosen formations are all variations on the same 4-3-3. The 4-1-4-1 just has deeper wingers, and the 4-2-3-1 has two number 6's instead of one. In many ways not a lot changes: He still likes three attackers in the final third, the fullbacks will always push on, and there will always be a three-man midfield. But in other ways, it is quite different. In the middle -- whether that's a 1-2 (as in the 4-3-3) or a 2-1 (as in the 4-2-3-1) -- logically, the roles of the midfield trio are completely different. That is because the triangles are different, the zones in which the midfielders operate are different, and the transitions, from defense to attack, are different. The 4-3-3 transitions, from back to front, into a 2-3-2-3 shape -- we see this at Rangers, with the Fullbacks pushing on to appear in-line with Ball, with Holt and Halliday in front, and then we have the 3 up top -- which eventually transitions into a 3-4-3 shape when the team is ready to attack the final third -- Ball staying back, with the Fullbacks creating a 4 in midfield with Halliday and Holt. The 4-2-3-1 in contrast transitions, from back to front, from a 4-4-1-1 to eventually end up in a 2-4-4 attacking shape. The way in which the general framework moves in transitions has an influence on the midfield triangles. In the 4-3-3, the 2 in the 1-2 midfield shape are playmakers (Halliday and Holt), while the Wingers move in-field and the Fullbacks push on to provide width. The 1, the DM, will stay back to provide a solid defensive unit. In the 4-2-3-1, the double pivot are required to stay back and provide the defensive stability, while the Number 10, Wingers and Fullbacks push forward. Because there are 2 pivots, they will tend to have 2 distinct roles: one will be the ball-winner, holding his position and providing the base for the rest of the team; while another will be the ball-player, responsible for dictating play and pulling the strings from deep. The double pivot that epitomised this distinction was Alonso and Mascherano at Liverpool. While Mascherano would tenaciously hunt and regain the ball, Alonso (still playing deep) would dictate play, pinging balls every which way. Another would be Gattuso and Pirlo in the Milan side of the early 00's. One is the ball-winner, the other the ball-player. Moreover, the advanced playmaker -- the 1 in the 2-1 shape -- will have more license to get into the box. To use the Liverpool example, Gerard epitomised this role. He starts deeper (from between the lines) but he is always looking to either work the channels and free space for the main striker, or burst into the box himself if the striker starts to drift out wide. Not just an advanced playmaker, but almost a second-striker. Rangers signings thus far have hinted at this shift in both shape and roles. Joey Barton has been the 'marquee' signing for Rangers, and his role for Burnley fits seamlessly into the 4-2-3-1. Barton is tenacious, gutsy and an excellent tackler and reader of the game. It is quite easy to see him in the role of the ball-winner at Rangers. The fact that he can also play the ball-player role too is good news for Rangers. The other signing thus far also fit into this shape. Jordan Rossiter is a player that plays deep, again a decent ball-winner, but is also a crisp and accurate passer of the ball. Again, we have another player that can play both roles. Matt Crooks, while not being the ball-player, can easily fit into the ball-winner role. Warburton has shown a preference for fluidity and versatility. Therefore, it makes sense for him to target players that can play in a certain system (4-2-3-1), while also being able to play a variety of roles within it. Again, the signing of Josh Windass fits into this different advanced-playmaker role described above. Despite being defined as a Number 10, he has played as a striker for Accrington Stanley, as well as on the wing. He is a versatile player, but it is easy to imagine Windass in the advanced-playmaker role, bursting from in-between the lines to cause danger in the box. It also helps that we already have a player in Jason Holt that is tailor-made for this role too. Plan B will always be to do plan A better. Warburton will always want to see his teams dominate the football with a possession-based, attacking style. But that doesn't mean he can't, or won't, change. At Brentford, despite continuing with the attacking style, he demonstrated that he can change the framework, or shape, within which this style is executed. By shifting to a 4-2-3-1, he added defensive stability to a attacking style for his first campaign in the English Championship. Rangers' signings thus far (Barton, Rossiter, Crooks and Windass) hint at the possibility of this change happening again. Attacking aggressively when you can dominate, but adding that defensive stability when it is required.

To ensure no one cheats I'll close the thread before the first game kicks-off.

Yes. Yes, it would... New plan -- predict MD 1! Please edit you posts to account for edited fixtures!

Sorry, I know. I just thought it would be easier for everyone to access it.

No bother, just PM me please.

France 3 - 0 Romania Albania 0 - 1 Switzerland Wales 1 - 2 Slovakia Engand 2 - 1 Russia Turkey 0 - 2 Croatia Poland 2 - 0 Northern Ireland Germany 2 - 0 Ukraine Spain 2 - 0 Czech Rep Rep of Ireland 1 - 1 Sweden Belgium 1 - 1 Italy Austria 1 - 0 Hungary Portgual 2 - 0 Iceland

Post your predictions for EURO 2016 Match Day 1 France - Romania Albania - Switzerland Wales - Slovakia Engand - Russia Turkey - Croatia Poland - Northern Ireland Germany - Ukraine Spain - Czech Rep Rep of Ireland - Sweden Belgium - Italy Austria - Hungary Portgual - Iceland (Remember: There is no FGS, so just post who you think will win and the final score.) Please edit you posts to account for edited fixtures -- and my epic fail

I'll post a thread for our predictions. I'll try to get them out 24 hrs before each game.

You jest, but how effective can he be against a team 'parking the bus'? His main strength is pace on the break: how often are we able to 'break' on a team?

See, I agree with your premise(s) -- resources, level of competition etc. -- but I don't therefore think that it means we should expect to be finishing 2nd; football doesn't work like that. I certainly want to be finishing 2nd, or 1st, but don't expect it. Perhaps it's just a confidence thing: you seem to be fairly confident, whereas I am not. I believe Warburton is doing the right things, and believe he is the man for the job, but whether we are quite there yet, I don't know? I'm a little worried at what you're implying: what do you expect to happen if it is "abject failure" (3rd or lower)?

Thanks for this. I'll just keep it in-house -- it's no bother. It's easy for everyone to place a prediction in a post, rather than signing into a BBC account. Point system is very similar (10 points for correct result, and 40 points for correct score).

I agree. There are some commentators that go too far in the hype department, but I try not to let that sour my opinion of the team itself: I actually like most of the players, so I take my opinion from that. I agree the hype is excessive at times. I think it was Hurst that said it was the "most exciting" squad since '66, not the best. It's an opinion, and to be fair, I don't think he's wrong. It's certainly not the best though!

You're not wrong with regards to resources, but I really think this expectation that we'll be competing with Celtic, or finishing 2nd, is misplaced. I'd be extremely disappointed with "top 6"; I don't think that's acceptable. To be saying, or implying, Warburton should be sacked for finishing 3rd is unnecessary. I appreciate the expectation at Rangers, but we can all agree Warburton is doing positive things, laying down a foundation for the future of the club. Just because he maybe 'fails' -- whatever that may be -- doesn't mean we should be ripping up the philosophy/system and starting again. I think that outlook is the same that has caused us to fall so far behind European clubs -- in a purely football sense. I'd be content with competing with Hearts and Aberdeen next season (based on their placement last season). It's a new situation for the squad, and although it's not something we're used to or will accept for too long, it is acceptable next season, IMO.

Testament to how important this site is to many Bears, and to how well you've done.

I think it's a fairly open tournament this year, with no overwhelming favourites. France, England, Germany (despite losing a core of experienced players that won the WC), Spain, Belgium and even Italy could all go far; you can't rule out Portugal also. I like the look of Croatia as an underdog/dark-horse; with Rakitic, Kovacic and Modric, they have an outstanding midfield. I'll be supporting all the home nations, and I especially hope England do well as they have a young, talented squad. I have never really signed-up to the 'anyone but England' tripe. It's a sad indictment of our society that we'd want a team not to win it.

Maybe not one of the best, but I always thought he was a stand-out performer. My dates are wrong, though; probably 10 years ago now, around the time he got an England call-up.