Rousseau

Yes, I think so too. It's a complete shift. We need to be a little more patient, and a little more aware of the things we are trying to do. It's a lot better than what we are used to IMO. It's nice to see things I read about tactically from the 'bigger' sides.

It was really nice to see the way they kept switching position. I'm not sure if I've seen it before or not from us, but long may it continue.

Rangers dominated the central areas in the Petrofac Training Cup Semi-final, causing St Mirren to play deeper and deeper, with the wide players leaving the touchline to play in the half-spaces. Stellar performances from Halliday, Wilson and Kiernan provided an excellent platform from which to dominate possession, with each reading the game, stopping any St Mirren counter-attack before it had begun. Rangers lined up in their usual 4-3-3 formation. Oduwa and Ball dropped out to be replaced by Miller and Wilson. Wilson slotted in to the standard back-four of Tavernier, Kiernan, Wilson and Wallace. Halliday sat in the hole, with Holt and Zelalem in front. McKay, Waghorn and Miller made up the front-three. Hardie got a well-deserved spot on the bench, after some excellent goal-scoring performances for the U20s. St Mirren lined up in their typical 4-4-2. Thompson dropped out, perhaps to allow for more energetic forward players. St Mirren have always provided a test this season, with a high-pressing front-two, and midfield runners, particularly giving Rangers plenty of problems. What was apparent from the outset was the slight change in the movements of the Rangers wide players. The last few games saw both McKay and Oduwa hug the touchline, which, to a large extent, is their natural game. With Miller coming in, it was obvious he would play more centrally. However, both McKay and Miller played in the half-space, leaving the touchline altogether. This resulted in an overload in the central areas, where Rangers often had 4 versus 2. St Mirren front-two never dropped deep to help, leaving their central-midfield paring to cover a lot of players; their wide players were preoccupied with Wallace and Tavernier. Zelalem was quite clever. Whenever McKay came inside, Zelalem overlapped, stretching the play. He found himself up against an isolated full-back, which he tried to take on several times early in the game. The movement caused St Mirren problems, but Zelalem failed every time to beat his man, so nothing came from it directly, but it open up space for Wallace and McKay. Holt, as always, was clever and positive in his movement, always looking to nip in behind -- in fact, the first goal saw this movement come good. It was not during open-play, but the movement was devastating. A long, deep corner taken by Holt -- something that had to be attempted, because St Mirren often had 2 or 3 players over blocking the usual short-corner -- found it's way over to the right. Tavernier attempted to make space for a shot, but eventually had to pass it back to Halliday, who then chipped a delightful ball over the defence, for Holt, who slotted low into near post in acres of space. From the kick-off, the St Mirren front-two looked to press our centre-backs, but their midfield never supported the press, so it was very easy for Foderingham to bypass our centre-backs -- and the St Mirren forwards -- altogether, targeting Halliday with several long passes, before beginning the build-up again. The rest of the St Mirren team were content to sit deep and allow us to have the ball, which was conducive to a dominant possession game. The Rangers build-up was slow and methodical, and generally came down the left, where Wallace, Zelalem and McKay looked to create triangles, and waited for the final through-ball. Unfortunately, the execution of the through-ball was atrocious, with Holt and Zelalem guilty of over-cooking simple passes. When St Mirren did manage to win the ball back, they knocked it long to one of their two forwards, but excellent reading of the game from Wilson and Kiernan meant that the ball rarely stuck, and we won the ball back relatively quickly. Kiernan was guilty of a few lapses in concentration, but Wilson put in an assured and composed performance. Halliday was important for this solid defensive base, as he often dropped deep to collect the ball, providing a base for the next attack and an extra man to collect any loose balls; it also helped that our two centre-backs were happy to knock a short ball into Halliday, instead of trying to force a longer ball. Halliday himself was the start of most attacks, pin-pointing direct, vertical balls into any of the forward players in space. The positional interplay between the front 5 was very interesting: all changed positions easily, with a teammate taking the vacated spot. It made marking tough for St Mirren, and created a lot of space for us. Waghorn and Miller link-up especially well, with one coming deep and the other going long; there was always one in the hole. Despite his clever movement, Miller found it difficult to make things happen because he often got the ball to feet, which made him stop, rather than getting the ball in front so he could take it on the run, and make things happen that way. Another obvious tactic was the long switch of play. Guardiola often had his Barcelona team recycle the ball on one side of the pitch, drawing the opposition into a tight space on one side, before switching it to the other side, where Daniel Alves would invarably be in a lot of space. Here, Rangers' wide players played in the half-space, and Holt and Zelalem drfited over the the left; Miller was a decoy midfielder, dropping back slightly, but most players were over on the left. Zelalem then lofted a long diagonal over to Tavernier. It happened in the second-half also, but with McKay as the open wide player. Again, poor execution on both occasions let down this tactic. For a period in the second-half St Mirren came into the game, by pressing more aggressively from midfield. Rangers added to this with a positional disconnect between the front and back 5; the distance between Halliday and rest of the midfield was too great. The substitutions were probably the cause of this, with Rangers not coming to terms with the change. Clark and Shiels came on for Holt and McKay, which meant we had 3 out-and-out strikers up front. All 3 tended to stay on the shoulder of the St Mirren defenders, whereas before Miller and McKay played in the half-space, creating space and pulling the opposition out of shape. Eventually, we got to grips with the changes. As it turned out, the positioning of the forwards (on the shoulder of the defence) allowed for Shiels to play a reverse, through ball to Waghorn; who calmly squared the ball for a greatful Miller to bundle it home. It was one of the few times the through-ball was executed effectively. The game was over at 2-0 as St Mirren lost discipline and shape, allowing Waghorn and then Shiels to pick the ball up and drive at the defence, before the ball found it way into the net twice in the remaining 5 minutes. The directness of Shiels and Waghorn was effective late on, but only because the St Mirren players never covered the runs. A cameo from Hardie in the last 10 minutes was well-deserved. He was bright and confident, always pointing to where he wanted the ball to be placed. A real talent for the future; one that deserves more game-time. As a support, we are not 'tuned-in' to the patient build-up. We are very quick to get frustrated when things don't work-out and, therefore, often think that we are doing the wrong things. Rangers are doing the right things, but the players are not executing their passes or shots well-enough. Several players were guilty of messing-up their final ball, or shot at goal. It was a good, tactical performance: a patient, methodical build-up, interesting wing-play and a strong defensive base created a game in which Rangers dominated completely. If we play like this, we'll not lose many.

Anything's possible with a striker on fire! They'll fall away when they face the better teams, which is next. Finishing in the top half will be a very good season.

Surely if they thought we were poor up front they'd give us all the space in the world?

Yes, I like the possession, which I feel Zelalem brings, but I then think it's wrong to blame him for the next stage, of scoring goals. Yes, he needs to make more assists, but I think he influences the team in other ways. Yes, in comparison to Messi, "terrific wee player" is superlative, but it's all relative. Perhaps promising? Can we agree on "wee"? For all his flaws, Law naturally drifts further forward. I agree that he 'should' score more being further forward, but I can also see that he has a goal-scoring knack, which very few in our side possess, and therefore could be beneficial. It's all about using what we have at the minute. Eventually, we will need to acquire better players. Shiels is too slow to play further forward IMO, and is better as a link-up player.

It's nice to see a respectful response, without anyone being offended. Thank you. I agree Zelalem has to make more of a killer pass, but I don't see every midfielders role is 'to score goals'. He needs to assist more, sure, but I think he contributes a lot, and can continue to without needing to score goals. I like the idea of him playing deeper, as the link-up between the defence -- it's lets me have his control in the team, while freeing up a space for your box-to-box player. Perhaps Halliday would have more of a 'killer' influence in the final third? He's certainly more likely to take a shot at goal.

It's nice to see people thinking again about Law. He has certain qualities that could be beneficial. Like RANGERRAB says, Holt and Law would be an interesting experiment in midfield; or even pushing Halliday further forward and dropping back Zelalem (I think someone else mentioned that?). I think on reflection, we actually have a decent variety of central-midfield players, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. A bit of tinkering might bring some rewards.

"Our game", as in the Scottish game? An attitude that explains our diminishing status on the European stage. This obsession with, to quote Germinal -- who has made my point for me --, "Effort! Fitness! Work rate! And if they can pass, that's only a bonus", is out-of-date. An all-round box-to-box player is a great addition to any side, but shouldn't be the main complement. I accept I like the "metronome", but I've not said it's absolutely necessary in our team. The benefits are clear. I prefer to see us dominate possession rather than go back to the 'run harder', 'hit-and-hope' type nonsense we are all used to in Scotland. No wonder Scottish sides fail in Europe. Zelalem is a terrific wee player; a modern player with a bright future. Any scout, pundit, analyst will say the same. Is he absolutely necessary to our side at the minute? Perhaps not. But he's a big influence IMO on our possession, which is nine-tenths of the modern game. Dominate possession and you go along way to negating the opposition. From that base you then need the box-to-box midfielder, or an attacking-midfielder to go and make things happen. A mix is what is required. I think you need to ask more people 'in-the-know' before suggesting you know which type of player is more valuable to a winning team. (I'm certainly no expert either.) And as for which one is better to watch? That's a personal opinion. I prefer the slower, possession-based, 'chess' game than the clueless, running-about that is Scottish football; give me Barcelona-Bayern over any open, end-to-end game. At the end of the day, we have differing opinions on the game. We'll never see eye-to-eye, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think your conception of a midfielder is out-of-date, or just doesn't exist.

He's not a goal-scorer, so doesn't grab the headlines. He's a metronome, keeping the ball ticking over. He's an excellent passer, great at creating angles for passing and receiving the pass. I think we miss him when he's not in the side.

Disappointing Eustace isn't signing, but if he isn't fit, then so be it. Zelalem is an important player for us; delighted he'll be staying on for the rest of the season.

I think we have to look at Wallace and Tavernier's early season form as abnormal; for full-backs to score so many goals is really unusual. Now, perhaps is the 'normal' level. Although, I would like to see more from them. We do need leaders. I think Halliday could grow into that role, as I think he has the desire. Foderingham has gone up against is manager before -- Di Canio no less! -- so I would expect him to have a little fire in his belly; might take a while for that to come through at a new club though. Wilson would become a leader -- if only his ability was better! Most of our players do seem to be 'followers', but I don't think that's too much of a surprise considering the average age of the squad.

Tax avoidance is immoral. Discuss. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is immoral, but merely unethical. It's not black-and-white when it's legal...

It is a generalisation, and there are exceptions -- because there are many more variables involved. I was merely responding to the presumption that forwards make more attacking/successful managers: IMO it's the other way around -- for the reasons stated. I did a rough tally of where the 10 most successful managers played during their playing career: 4 were defenders; 4 midfielders; and 2 were strikers. It is a generalisation, and there are exceptions, but I think it holds true.

He was an outstanding forward, but even if he could work defenders and bring players into play, my point still stands: defenders and midfielders need greater game awareness -- forwards are very focused on one aspect: scoring goals -- and therefore it is no surprise IMO that they make better managers.

McCoist only tapped the goals in: he had no notion of how the ball should be moved to create the chance in the first place IMO. Defenders, like Guardiola actually, have a need to defend, but also need a greater awareness of the bigger picture, and an understanding of how the ball has to be moved, and how players need to react to it etc. IMO it is no surprise that defensive-type players have a greater understanding, and therefore better managerial performance, than a striker that merely taps the ball into the net at the end of all the hard work.

If you are considering them as a squad of individuals, then sure, the '09 squad is 'better'. But you could also turn it on it's head by asking how many of the '09 squad would fit into Warburton's team, in terms of philosophy? I count 8, out of 20 (I am probably being too critical). Players like Weir and Papac, who were exceptional in that team, would not fit into our current team. Like Frankie says, we do have a good group of young player that will grow into better players. It is unfair to judge them when they are still so young. The youthfulness is a cause of much of our difficulties. One would hope that with a little more experience, those silly mistakes will diminish. The style of football is also better. I would much rather watch the current team, than that '09 team...IMO. It's better football, more progressive, modern. It stands us in good stead for the future. That '09 side was 'short-termism' at it's worst, in the sense that I never had any confidence of where the team was heading. Just being difficult to beat, while being adequate domestically, was boring to watch and was not great for our future development. It may have reached a UEFA Cup final, but boy were we lucky to get that far! We weren't even a good counter-attacking side: Athletico Madrid are a good counter-attacking side. We defended for our lives and got a wee bit of luck. In terms of style I'd say this current side is better, albeit not as efficient yet. IMO, it's not about the group of individuals, but the team as a whole. We can better the current side by incorporating better quality players, but at some stage adding a better quality player is detrimental to the overall team ethic and playing philosophy. Weir was an exceptional defender, but adding him -- even at a younger age -- would be suicide. Boyd was a out-and-out goalscorer in his pomp, something that most fans are saying we need, but wouldn't fit into our style -- he didn't even fit into Walter's team for the big matches! Take the Mouldy vs. Molde game: were Molde better individually, or simply better as a team? (I'm not sure what my point was, but I'm sure it's in their somewhere...)

It's unprecedented in Britain, but Juventus are struggling near the relegation zone this year, and Borussia Dortmund were in the relegation zone for the first half of the season last year. It's difficult when your players are not performing, and, apart from Willian, they've all been piss poor. I think Chelsea have been a lot better recently, but haven't been able to capitalise. Mourinho is still Mourinho, so I'm not sure sacking him is the way to go. Dortmund stuck with Klopp, and he got them out of it.

Tidy wee player with an eye for a pass. A good prospect if a deal can be done. I noticed that he's played in the NextGen series that Warburton set up; seems to be a common thread in his signing policy, which focuses on young, talented players with a sell-on value, which is not bad at all.

That's what it looked like it would be, but Halliday was playing quite deep and Ball was on the left, so it had to be a 3 at the back? I agree, finishing let us down, and individual mistakes. Wilson is a tad too slow for dealing with counter-attacks; he was also beaten far too easily for the goal.

It's not an unusual thing. Most of the best wingers in the world just now are playing on the wrong side. Ronaldo -- when he actually played wide! -- played on the opposite flank so he could cut inside.

I agree with most of that. I mentioned that McKay was often too far in advance of his midfield teammates, so it did look like a 3-4-3, and for all intents and purposes it was. A more orthodox 3-4-3 might have worked better, with link-up men for the wing-backs, like you said. Overall, it was something it seemed we needed more practice with. I'm pleased Warburton tried it though: it shows he can change; also makes it more interesting for us!

I'd agree with that. At number 10 he'd have more options, but he'd still need the forwards to make runs wherever he plays; he'll find the pass if the forwards make runs. Mata does a decent job playing RW at Man Utd, cutting inside. I don't think one needs to be a natural 'winger', in the somewhat old-fashioned sense, to be successful; in fact, most successful wingers these days play on the opposite side because they cut inside.

Holt did OK; McKay wasn't involved enough because we couldn't find him when he played centrally -- not surprising as Hibs had 4 playing centrally -- but was a little better when he went back to playing LW.