Rousseau

Exception that proves the rule?

Thanks for your post: fantastic point. Surely there is an inherent 'hierarchy' of tactics? Offensive football is inherently better than defensive tactics. So, I'd say our tactics to Manchester were 'effective', but there's no doubt that our opponents were tactically 'superior'.

I don't think you have to be 'world-class' to play this way. Swansea are (were?) a perfect example of a team playing good, technical football and being successful with it. You don't need top-class players to be a decent brand of football -- although we do need better players than we have. I know we're bred on winning football, but for me, the stuff under Walter, for example, was intolerable at times; I was always looking for something more. I'd watch my team at the weekend, get caught up in the thrill etc., but then look forward to a proper game of football later on. I'm not saying we're playing 'proper football' at the moment, but I am positive about where we are going. Yes, I would like to see us win, but I'd also like to see us trying new things, trying to play the game the right way. And, yes, we were beaten by tactics. But, not because our's we wrong, but because we never executed them properly. (And, never defended properly.) Again, I maintain that our tactics were better than Falkirk's -- because intricate wing-play and trying to thread through-balls is better than an aimless punt -- albeit not as effective. My point is this basic 'tactic' -- I don't see how one can call it a tactic; it's more a work-ethic -- from Falkirk is not enough at the European level. We don't have the players to make it stick at the minute, but there's no doubt in my mind that we're doing the right things. However, I do sympathise with you point that we could be a little more 'basic' to get out of this league and up to a higher level. But at some stage this 'basic', work-based football endemic in Scotland needs to be overcome if we are to progress.

What were Falkirk's tactics? Sit back, defend and use a long pass. The first half I would suggest they used a long pass, but it was rare and apart from the non-penalty we managed to deal with it. Second-half it wasn't even a long pass, but a long aimless punt. Again, omitting that 10-15 minutes period when we were absolutely abysmal, with any and every ball causing trouble, we did OK with it. That aberration was down to a lack of confidence and the fact that we were trying to force ourselves back into the game; a psychological issue that needs to be rectified. And, defensively we need to improve. We're still going to be open, because that's how we play, but we need to deal with it better. If you're saying that the long aimless ball means they were tactically superior, then I don't get that at all. I'd admit they were more effective, but looking back, we got in behind much more than them, but didn't have the quality on the final ball: how many times was a through-ball over-hit, when a better weight would've seen us create a goal-scoring chance?

Actually, could a Mod change the thread title to above?

I agree with everything, apart from the excerpt in bold. I don't think opponents are "quashing" our tactics, rather we're not executing them effectively. For example, today we got in behind several times and had opportunities to thread balls through, but we either couldn't hit our own man or over-hit the pass. That suggests to me that we are doing the right things, but are not executing it effectively enough. Our defensive performance continues to frustrate, with individuals failing to improve. Our opponents do the same things, yet we fail to react to it. It's one gripe I have, but I do think we have to bear in mind that the way we play dictates our openness at the back. IMO our problems are down to a lack of quality in the individual, not the tactics. We can still up the tempo and be more direct though, as we were at the beginning of the season. And I am frustrated at Warburton's lack of plan B -- have been from the start.

I agree. However, I thought Wallace's runs were different today: it was an 'under-lap' rather than an overlap. The through-ball never found him though. We got in behind quite a few times, but, as you say, there are no third-man runs and Waghorn is crowded out. Better movement, from better players, would overcome that IMO. I think our line-up was designed to attack the wings. We did OK, but again, the final ball is abysmal at the minute. Possession should be a base to build on, not the main tactic; we still have to create chances. I agree we could have been more aggressive against the 17-year-old -- it's been a problem all season. However, aggression would just lead to fouls. IMO we need someone that can cover the run, or snuff out the ball. We still should have dominated the kid though!

The wing-play, the 'under-lap' from Wallace, the long diagonals were the things I noticed. think the issues you mention are down to the individual. I think the tactics are OK, were trying to play the right way, do the right things IMO. I certainly thought we tried different things. The execution let us down. The poor defence is a consequence of our attacking play, although a better centre-half pairing would deal with it better! A David Weir would struggle. We need more a David Luiz or Thiago Silva type player rather than a tough, old-fashioned centre-back.

Can a Mod change the title to 'Tactical' rather than 'Technical'?

Generally yes, but we did have a few shots at goal that were over or saved, and more annoyingly, we over-hit several passes which would have allowed us in behind. I maintain we're doing the right, things tactically, but continue to execute the final ball poorly.

Not that it'll change your view, but I meant 'tactical ability', not technical ability. (How do I change the title?) Actually, we're not a million miles away in opinion. I did suggest that we don't have the necessary quality to make the system work, as you say -- a team with a good work-ethic can beat us. I maintain that our philosophy is better, although not quite 'clicking' at the minute. Our defense doesn't bother me, because I see it as a consequence of our attacking philosophy. I'm more annoyed at the lack of quality up front, the final ball etc. I think that most Scottish sides have a good work-ethic; it's their main asset. I'm suggesting the next stage, the tactical ability, is missing. It's evident in the Scotland National side IMO. I think we (Rangers) have the beginnings of a good tactical base, that should be able to deal with those teams that simply have a good work-ethic, but we've not got the quality at the minute. I know we usually disagree on the game, but I've never had such a strong reaction from yourself! Thanks for your reply nevertheless.

The problem with Scottish football is that all too often a hard-working team can beat a team trying to play football. Nowhere else in the world would a hard-working side be able to beat a side of a much higher tactical ability. The reason for this is a lack of quality in the execution. Rangers were comfortable and dominant for large spells of the game against Falkirk, but were again let down by a severe lack of quality in playing the final ball, or taking a shot. Rangers lined-up in their usual 4-3-3. Three changes from the disappointing 2-2 draw with Morton saw Miller, Zelalem and Ball drop out for Oduwa, Shiels and Wilson. Ball and Kiernan took the majority of the blame for the draw, with the space between the pair far too inviting for breaking players; Wilson, despite not being quick, reads the game well and is calm on the ball. Zelalem missed out through injury, so a chance for Shiels who had made a decent impact coming on late in games. Presumably, Oduwa was brought in to provide width. Falkirk were lined-up in their usual 4-4-1-1. The team has been unchanged for several weeks, apart from 17-year-old O'Hara swapping from match-to-match with McHugh; O'Hara got the nod against Rangers. Falkirk are a direct team, possessing creativity out wide in the form of Sibbald and Alston. They create numerous chances without ever having more than 55% possession. Their 'keeper has often had to make several saves per game. Falkirk go into the game in buoyant mood, having been unfortunate to concede a late equiliser against Hibs last weekend. The pattern of the match was pretty much set within the first 5 minutes: Rangers dominating possession; Falkirk sitting deep and breaking at pace. In the third minute, Halliday is caught in possession high up the pitch, and Falkirk break with several players getting in behind the Rangers midfield. Vaulks, making a run from central to left, dragged Wilson out-of-position, forcing a wild lunge from the returning centre-back. The referee pointed to the spot, despite the initial challenge being several yards outside the box. 1-0. Rangers burst into life after going behind, forcing Falkirk back, and spraying passes about; Wallace, McKay, Shiels and Holt were effective in creating triangles in recycling possession. The majority of the forward passes were central, into the feet of Shiels, Holt and Waghorn, before being forced back; Waghorn in particular was outnumbered any time he received the ball, always with back to goal. Falkirk were content to sit deep and hit the long pass. Their second-striker, O'Hara, spun wide on several occasions into the vacated full-back spaces to receive the ball, before running into the space and forcing our full-backs to cover. O'Hara and Baird's pace was a danger-sign. This move almost reaped rewards later, but a goal was chopped-off for offside. The triangles continued, but the objective seemed to shift from a central focus to a flanking focus. When the ball came to McKay, he started to take on his full-back on the outside; Oduwa also took on his defender, with both wingers stretching the play by hugging the touchline. This aggressive wing-play was where the equiliser came from. Halliday taking a chance from distance, before the ball gets deflected wide to Oduwa in space. Oduwa then centres the ball, before it falls to McKay at the back post via a deflection or two. McKay slotted it into the far corner first-time. 1-1. The game went through a heated few minutes, with jeers from the crowd after every tackle and decision. Commentators suggested that Referee "Willie Collum [was] part of the narrative." Should a referee be part of the narrative of the game, or simply a silent director? Collum made several wrong decisions -- most tellingly the decision to award a penalty which was several yards outside the box. Not too encouraging considering this is the man chosen to referee at the European Championships... Falkirk seemed to retreat into themselves a little, becoming unsure in their attacking play. Conceding the congested central ground, Rangers continued to target the flanks. One tactic that looked promising was the Wallace 'under-lap'. Everton's Baines was unplayable when knocking the ball to his winger and making a run inside the full-back; the full-back and covering midfielder were unsure what to do. Wallace made several of these runs, allowing Rangers to get in behind. More quality on the through-ball would have caused a lot of problems for Falkirk. Oduwa had a good first-half: linking well with his inside midfielder and taking on his defender. Unfortunately, Tavernier never supported him enough. It seemed Tavernier was told to sit back, perhaps to cover the dangerous Sibbald? Wallace in contrast bombed forward all game. The second-half saw a much more direct approach from Rangers, by trying to play over the congested midfield. Wilson and Kiernan played several exquisite long diagonal balls to the wingers; and on a couple of occasions, Waghorn. Space seemed to open up, but again the final-ball was a let down. Then came the wind. Falkirk took the lead, doing what Rangers couldn't: drill a corner into the box, and not allowing the wind to catch higher balls. Unable to deal with the first-ball, a lay-off was drilled into the far corner. 2-1. Rangers went through a really shaky 15 minutes, where confidence evaporated. Falkirk didn't even bother to play long passes, but simply lumped aimless balls forward; the wind catching the ball from going through to the safety of Foderingham's arms. Again, their second-striker spun into the space. A bit of quality on the final pass could have seen them score more. Even so, they hit the post and Foderingham made a couple of sublime saves. Kiernan looked lost, unable to deal with the movement of Baird and O'Hara, with much of the trouble self-inflicted by trying to force forward passes and conceding possession. Law and Miller came on to replace Shiels and Oduwa, and seemed to show promise. Law in particular changed the game by running with the ball, playing it wide quickly and hitting the bar with a controlled shot. The changes galvanised the team. The tempo increased, balls were played wide more quickly. Individual skill and incisive passing saw Rangers get in behind several times. The final-ball was a let-down, or the Falkirk pulled off a good save. A few long shots looked to be nestling in the net, until the hands of Rodgers deflects the ball to safety. A final change saw Clark come on for Wilson, as Rangers continued to bang at the door. At this stage, any structure or formation goes out the window, with Rangers playing what seemed like a 3-3-4 at times. A penalty was awarded late on -- retribution for the one wrongly given in the first 5 minutes -- but Waghorn, frustrated all game, saw his strike saved, as the last hope was snuffed out. Overlooking the 10 minutes where confidence disappeared and where any aimless ball was a serious danger, Rangers were the dominant side: tactical superior, recycling possession with relative ease and creating a barrow-load of chances. Again, a severe lack of quality on the final-ball see's Rangers leave with nothing; again, the hard-working team has got the points. Nowhere else in the world is a hard-working side able to beat a side of a much higher tactical ability. It's Scottish football in microcosm: work-ethic over tactical ability. A good work-ethic is a great asset, but it shouldn't be the main tactic. Until Scottish football changes in this regard, it'll continue to be a laughing-stock on the world-stage. From Rangers' point-of-view, better quality is needed. The current level is not always enough to beat a hard-working side, despite the tactical superiority. Winning the Championship title was almost guaranteed during the euphoria and excitement of our early season form. Now, it's not quite so certain. The only positive is it's still early in Warburton's reign, with another few windows before we really see the team he's looking to develop.

Relatively speaking, that would be quite a coup. I've not seen much of him, but I am aware that he's highly regarded.

Gutted for Mourinho. I'm a big fan. I truly believe the players have just not performed for him this year, and going by the response from the Chelsea fans, they don't disagree with me. How much can his application to tactics, strategy etc really change? IMO Mourinho rarely changes his approach. To me the players is the only differing variable. Everyone knows he's quite an arrogant figure -- not a bad thing -- but it's also true that most former players love him; It must be a fine line between love and hate. Pep Guardiola is apparently leaving Bayern at the end of the year, with Man City favourites with Man Utd. Out of those, I don't see why he'd choose City over Utd? Maybe a 'blank cheque' at City, but Man Utd is so much more than that surely? Likewise, Chelsea, I don't think have the 'history' -- for want of a better word -- to attract Pep; He didn't choose Bayern for the money -- although it was a benefit! I think Chelsea will get a stop-gap until the end of the season, then we'll see. I think (hope?) Guardiola will choose Utd over anyone else, because it fits IMO. What's also interesting is Swansea going for Bielsa! The man that Guardiola says is the best in the world! Interesting to see 'the professor' ply his trade in the UK. It'll be interesting to see how the style of play works in British football.

You're assuming our focus has changed, which I would disagree with; I think the opposition are more aware and organised against our way of playing. We could certainly be a little more direct and more intense, but I think we're doing the right things -- we created 22 shots at goal yesterday, of which only 6 were on target: that is an issue. I am quite pleased our focus is to retain possession -- I hate end-to-end games, as invariably it means someone has lost control -- but, of course, we need that intensity and change of pace in the final third to get that goal: possession for the sake of it is pointless.

Just looked at the Coefficient: the Swedish, Norwegian and Danish are higher than the Scottish league in the coefficient, and all play in the summer months. It must have some benefit. More points mean more CL places, which means it's a lot easier for us to get into the Group Stage!

The Swedish Allsvenkan runs from March to early November. Teams are going to be more 'match sharp' for European qualifiers, but of course their 'level' means that they don't go far. Not sure if we (Scotland) are much 'better' than the Scandinavian countries. Wouldn't attendances be better in the summer months, with the weather allowing more people to go along to a game, than attendances in the winter months?

The Swedish Allsvenskan seems to be the best model, where "seasons run from late March or early April to beginning of November, with the 16 clubs all meeting each other twice, resulting in a 30-match season". It also says, "Allsvenkan is ranked 20th in the UEFA coefficients of leagues based on performances in European competitions over the last five years. As it stands now, Allsvenskan is ranked highest of the leagues in Scandinavia". Not sure how it helps the sides in Europe because it shows that a few reach the Europa League group stages, but don't go any further. Malmo have obviously been quite conspicuous in there 'success' because they've beaten them, and have done OK in Europe; nothing spectacular though, or maybe it is quite good in regards to their level? Summer football sounds good, giving us more chance of uninterrupted football, fewer cancellations and a head start in Europe -- at least initially. (Even the 30-match season whereby 16 teams play each other twice sounds a lot better than what we currently have. I doubt we'll see those kind of changes though!)

Swansea's philosophy is very specific, developed by Martinez and Rodgers et al. Monk was schooled by these managers, so it was an appointment that made sense in that regard, even if his experience was non-existent. Moyes hasn't got a clue when it comes to this type of football, which is why he failed at Real Sociedad. He doesn't fit IMO. Bad move.

Christ, I had trouble with Kanchelskis until I managed to sound it out phonetically! This is worse! I'll just call him Vlad...

These "journalists" are a joke. FFS. How many times does he have to say otherwise? It's done. Move on. But, of course they won't...

I was/am not worried about these links to Fulham, but now they've stated they don't want him, I've got to say I'm a little miffed: 'What, he's not good enough for you?' He's going nowhere though, so I'm quite content.

Acquisitions thus far have been very good, with a good age range and potential for future development, but I can't help feel a little underwhelmed by the clubs these players are coming from. Accrington Stanley finished 17th in League Two last season. But, I'm more than willing to give these guys a chance. W&W have not let us down yet.

It's a strange move, but not really. He is inexperienced, but he has links to the owner -- Lim? -- who also owns 50% of Salford City, the club that Nevile co-owns with the rest of the '92 players. There are links there, but you're right: very inexperienced for such a job; the only saving grace is that it's an interim period of 5 months only. Gutted for MNF: now we only have Carra; who's going to translate?!

I doubt he'll want to leave the project he's involved with just now. The attraction of European football is a great goal; one that'll not be on his radar in England IMO. This is a good job, with good scope.