Rousseau

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'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.

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

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!

Miller wasn't playing as a striker, so he wasn't going to get into the box etc. As a false-9 his role would be to link-up play, and in this he did a great job: it was because he was playing deeper that the wingers and Holt got in-behind so often. We outnumbered them in central areas because Miller came deep, and the Dundee defenders couldn't really mark him because he was all over the place, dragging them about. When he drops deep, it's up to a central midfielder or winger to push on into the space created, which happened with the 2nd goal -- Holt was on the end of it -- but if Miller is not where he is, then the goal doesn't happen. I don't think you're unreasonable in your criticism and you certainly admit when he does well, but you're perhaps blinded a little to his contribution; I suppose its the opposite with me, seeing things that aren't there at times. The truth lies somewhere in between. I'd rather not rely on a 36 year-old, but he's been very good. I'd like a younger player with his movement!

Ah, my mistake: I thought McKay was left-footed. Well, then he is an 'inverted winger' before he switched wing; Forrester the opposite. I felt McKay had more success during the second-half, but it must have been just the full-back he was up against. Forrester was better individually in the first-half when he took on his defender, but didn't have the same success in the second-half; his link-up play was better with Wallace though, IMO. The game was won when the subs came on, so I would've liked to have seen the youngsters get game-time. I think we suffered through a lack of width when the subs came on; Clark and Shiels are not natural wide player -- although Clark did OK. I think they got used to it eventually, but the game reverted into an end-to-end game at that stage, with no real control, so we never really seen what they could do.

Zelalem was certainly not missed, but in defense of his contribution/role, Halliday played that role against Dundee. Halliday played a little deeper -- like Zelalem -- acting as a support to the main attack rather than being the main attack. One thing though, Halliday is a lot more willing and brave enough to attempt risky through-balls. He's grown into that role quite well after a few unsure performances; but it's clear he can play there. It brings a good balance to the midfield with a DM (Ball), a Metronome/deep-playmaker (Halliday), and a No.10 (Holt). I always though we lacked control when Zelalem doesn't play because we are forced into fielding more attacking midfielders, but if Halliday has a decent DM at the back of him -- like Ball, but maybe someone else if he's not going to remain with us next year -- then he's a better fit because he's more offensively minded, and more willing to take a pot at goal. I'll concede that Zelalem is not needed, but I maintain that his 'role' is needed -- luckily Andy Halliday can play it!

I agree with that. Tactically, it played into our hands, but we still had to go out and do it; which we did superbly. I thought Miller was fantastic yesterday. He never played up-top, but was playing in behind, creating space and movement, buzzing all over the place; but it goes to show we don't actually need a 'target-man' if the movement and runners are good from the attacking players -- I think Holt and Miller buzzing about out-witted the Dundee defence, as they didn't know who to mark or close down.

I think Villa and Norwich are a shoe-in, but I think Sunderland have enough -- the Allardyce effect. Newcastle just seem a little toothless, for the battle they are in.

I think you're spot on. The formation (and the way we move the ball) stays the same, but the personnel and tactics change giving us a different approach game-to-game.

Forrester was pretty poor in his first few games, but a few suggested at the time that he didn't look match fit -- I may have been one of those fans...

Maybe a bit quick to post, but I couldn't help myself! Brilliant performance, and a brilliant result. Warburton's-lack-of-plan-B criticism still seems to linger, but it does him a disservice because today we saw interesting tactical changes, with Miller's false-9 role and the central overload. The link-up play was just terrific at times.

IBROX -- Premiership side Dundee were Rangers' opponents in the Scottish Cup sixth-round tie, as both sides went into the game in confident mood. Rangers had opened up a 14-point gap at the top of the Championship, and Dundee had held Celtic to a 0-0 mid-week draw, despite fielding a weakened team. Dundee promised to be a step-up in class for Rangers, but a tactically naive performance ceded space for Rangers in all the right areas; the only thing left was for Rangers to take advantage of it. Dundee lined-up in a 4-2-3-1, with former Ranger Kane Hemmings leading the line. The potent attacking-three of Loy, Stewart and Harkins played in behind, with McGowan and Ross providing a solid midfield base. McGinn, O'Dea, Konrad and Holt made up the back-four, with Bain playing in goal. Ostensibly, Rangers played their usual 4-3-3, but with certain player-roles creating a 4-2-1-3. A back-four of Tavernier, Wilson, Kiernan and Wallace played in front of 'keeper Foderingham. Ball came into the Defensive-Midfield role with Halliday playing alongside; Holt made up the midfield three. McKay, Miller and Forrester led the line. Rangers started aggressively, with a four-man press yielding early rewards. Wide-men Forrester and McKay pressed high, with Holt joining Miller in a central area to force Dundee into a mistake. Sloppy control from the full-back allowed Forrester to steal the ball within 10 seconds, before taking on his defender and unleashing a powerful near-post strike past the helpless 'keeper. What was clear from the off, was that Dundee were more interested in attacking than defending. Loy, Hemmings, Stewart and the central Harkins were fairly aggressive, creating a 4-2-1-3 in attack. Loy was always worried about Tavernier and was forced to sit a little deeper, but Stewart on the right-wing played very high and narrow, looking to link-up with Hemmings. This positive approach from Dundee could have caused problems, but Halliday and Ball created a solid defensive-midfield block, cutting out forward passes; Wilson and Kiernan were quick to sweep-up if any balls did get through. The proactive defensive tactic was very successful, resulting in the ball being won back early. Dundee couldn't get the ball for the first 30 minutes. The aggressive front-three were never quick enough to track back. Both Forrester and McKay held wide positions, stretching the back-four. This created space in the channels for both Tavernier and Wallace; which both exploited with clever, penetrative under-laps. Rangers dominated possession by overloading the midfield. With the Dundee front-three (and Harkins) slow to track back, the defensive duty fell to the two Defensive-Midfielders. However, they were never sure who they were marking. Halliday and Ball played deeper, making the Dundee midfielders come to them. When they didn't, Halliday and Ball had free reign to pass forward, with Halliday in particular playing several perfectly-weighted through balls for McKay. When the Dundee midfield did press, they left space for Miller and Holt. Miller and Holt were always elusive, drifting into any free space. Miller looked to be playing a false-9 role, as he never played up-top as a focal point, but instead drifted about in the hole and both channels. With both playing in the half-spaces, Rangers were able to move the ball smoothly through the midfield. Rangers easily had a 4v2/3 overload in central areas (with Halliday, Ball, Holt and Miller created a makeshift square), but through clever movement were also able to overload both flanks -- wherever the ball was. Especially on the left flank, Miller and Holt drifted wide to team up with Wallace and McKay; Halliday supported, creating a 5v3 at times, which allowed easy possession and plenty of opportunities to penetrate the Dundee back-four. Stewart's clever positioning as an inside-forward caused a few problems. Wallace was alert to Stewart's threat, and covered pre-emptively, almost becoming a Left-Central-Midfielder at times. As much as Stewart's shooting ability was a threat, it was covered easily enough. The real danger was the space left on the left-flank for the right-back Konrad to exploit. A few times Konrad had a free run, delivering a few decent crosses. Dundee eventually managed to play around the Rangers press, which allowed them to come into the game towards the end of the first-half. The wide-men (Forrester and McKay) dropped deeper, which meant Miller and Holt's press was easy to play around -- all four, with Halliday and Ball in behind, needed to press together to make it successful as it was at the start of the game. It was at this stage that Dundee managed to get a foothold in the game, but good defending from Kiernan and Wilson meant they were never able to take advantage. Rangers were imperious during the first 20 minutes of the second-half, adding another 2 goals. Nothing really changed tactically, but the Rangers players were more confident that the space was there. The link-up and interchange between Miller, Holt and McKay was sublime at times. One small change was that both wingers swapped sides, so they become inverted wingers. Instead of taking their full-backs on the outside, both looked to cut inside. This helped McKay in particular as he was constantly thwarted on the outside during the first-half, but was a real threat in the second-half when he could be a little more unpredictable. Forrester was perhaps less effective as an inverted winger on his own, but his positioning allowed space for Wallace on the outside which worked for the team as a whole; their link-up was almost telepathic, with back-heels and flicked through-balls generally finding each other. Three changes were made in quick succession by Warburton, with Shiels, Law and Clark coming on for McKay, Forrester and Holt. The game was won, but the Rangers performance suffered from the changes through a lack of width. The game reverted to a end-to-end game, with player taking on player. The earlier success had come through clever inter-play, rather than one-on-one's. (Despite this, Wallace scored a nice fourth goal by taking on his man.) A good defensive display at this state -- Kiernan in particular made a few blocks -- allowed Rangers to see the game out 4-0. Dundee were supposed to be a real step up in class, but a tactically naive approach ceded the centre of the pitch. Despite having a tactical advantage, Rangers still had to go out and do the job, which they did in sublime form. A tactical overload in central areas, allowed Rangers to dominate possession, and the movement and interplay from the forwards left Dundee chasing shadows. A strong performance from every player on the pitch has done much to erase those lingering doubts as to Rangers' ability to perform against top-flight opposition. If we play like this, there's really not much to fear.

I think both the optimists and pessimists within our support were both surprised/impressed by that performance...

Absolutely superb. I had my doubts about this game: Dundee was a step up on Killie and Hibs, but I needn't have worried! I reckon that's what happens when teams cede the flanks; Dundee were more concerned about attacking than covering.

It's not the BBC per se, it's BBC Scotland. I like the BBC for the variety of programming -- which you get in few other places -- without any ads. I tend to ignore BBC Scotland content; it's just too parochial for me. One can complain, but I suspect we are in the minority here. It's like everything else: if you don't like it, don't consume it.

To be brutally honest, I think top 3-4 would be good next year (based on this seasons premiership form). Celtic may be average relatively speaking, but I still think they have the luck and know-how to win these leagues, and certainly have good enough assets able to get them over the line. We are untested. To be in the mix with Hearts and Aberdeen in itself would be a big step forward IMO.