Rousseau

Sorry, I thought I did. Yes, I do think we'll be playing that way. It's crucial to the Warburton Philosophy. The implications could be quite destructive -- losing a few goals, as you suggested --, but if managed correctly, it can work. I saw Astana play Galatasaray with 2 aggressive full-backs, leaving 2 at the back, with a deep DM (or Pivot). It happens quite often; it's about how one manages it IMO.

I'm not so sure we need to zonal mark our opponents. We push them up the pitch, so they are playing fairly deep. Only 1 or 2 attackers are high enough to trouble our defence. I think those defenders should automatically press a man each, cutting off potential passing lines, as soon as we loose the ball. To revert to a zonal defence more quickly, we need to sacrifice some of our attacking play: full-backs and midfielders maybe don't go as far forward. I tried to argue that we should forget about the zonal defence and man-mark (in-play, not set-pieces) so as to press the opposition to win the ball back -- our possession is one of our strengths --, or at the very least press them back so we do have time to set up our zonal defence.

Sorry guys -- perhaps 3 pieces on defence in just over a week is too much...

Apologies! Thanks for pointing it out. I hate it too.

This will be the third in a series of somewhat accidental musings on the defensive issues at Rangers. When we attack to the best of our ability, we are all delighted. But we have been quick to criticise when we do not defend properly. We are used to a good defense. Our history is littered with great sides, built upon a solid, compact defense. The last major success was the run to the UEFA Cup Final in 2008, built, all will agree, on a solid defense. The quality of our defensive play has decreased since then, along with our attacking play -- at least until the dawn of the current season. We have been quick to take to the new attacking concepts displayed by the side, with its wing-play, intricate passing, possession and ultra-attacking full-backs. However, we have been slower to react to and accept the changing demands of our defense. On the 14th May, 2008, Walter Smith handed over his team-sheet to the officials at the City of Manchester Stadium. The team would be based on the one principle that had already achieved the impossible in seeing Rangers in reach the UEFA Cup Final: Defense. This strategy had already seen Rangers overcome opposition that they had no right to overcome: Panathinaikos, Werder Bremen, Sporting Lisbon and Fiorentina were dispatched in one way or another. The team to face Zenit St Petersburg that night consisted of: GK Neil Alexander RB Kirk Broadfoot CB David Weir CB Carlos Cuéllar LB Saša Papac DM Brahim Hemdani RM Steven Whittaker CM Barry Ferguson © CM Kevin Thomson LM Steven Davis CF Jean-Claude Darcheville Even the wide midfielders were conservative in nature, with Whittaker normally deployed at full-back. The team sat deep, and were compact. Two banks of four shuffled from side to side, marshaled by David Weir, dealing with the Zenit attacks as and when they came; Hemdani sat in between the lines for extra cover. Darcheville was an isolated figure, barely getting a sniff of the ball. The set-up was a clear zonal defense. The Zonal defense is the most common defensive strategy in the game -- which is no surprise, considering it's one of the most effective. In a Zonal defense, each team will tend to set-up well-within their own half -- generally a specific point will be dictated by the coach. Each player is assigned an area or zone to mark relative to their team mates. Whenever the ball enters their zone, the player will press the ball-runner, trying to win the ball back, before retreating back into position if they fail. Zonal defending is the most common defensive strategy because it doesn’t require fast players or great stamina like man-to-man defending; any side can create a zonal defense relatively simply. It is also fairly effective in breaking down opposition attacks. However, there are certain deficiencies in the Zonal defense. It is inherently passive. The team will sit deep, organised into zones, waiting for the opposition to take the initiative; the team cedes control of the ball to the opposition. It also takes time to set-up; a team will have to work hard to revert back into their defensive shape. This opens up the most problematic aspect of the zonal defense. All sides are weakest in the transition from attack to defense -- so much so that an entire attacking tactic is conceived to target this weakness: the counter-attack. A team in attack will often be pushed high up the pitch, wingers wide on the touchline, full-backs bunching up behind giving support, forwards tussling with opposition centre-backs, and central midfielders scurrying about in between the lines. When the team loses the ball, it is inherently the most inconvenient and problematic shape in which to defend. Unless it is made a strength. Pep Guardiola publicly stated that he did not trust, or rate, his Barcelona team without the ball. A deep, zonal defense was not going to be of any use because they just did not have the players to make it effective. To negate this weakness, Guardiola implemented the only strategy he could think of: the 6-second rule; demanding the team regain the ball within 6 seconds of losing it. It also played to Barcelona's main strength, which was possession, based around short fast passes and interchanges. The 6 second rule is based around defending in transition. When the team loses possession, they will attempt to smother the ball and act aggressively to crowd out spaces and passing options. The nearest 2 or 3 players are key to its success, pressing aggressively with no fear, towards the player with the ball. These players press with an intensity and a predictability which enables other players to take up supporting positions, pressing players a little further away, to proactively press potential recipients of the ball. With 2 or 3 players pressing the ball the remaining 7 or 8 provide a secondary layer of pressing, cutting off potential passing lines. It will often see many players bunched up into a small area of the pitch. Often, harassing this aggressively will force the opposition into making mistakes, by forcing passes, making hurried decisions, miss-placing passes. These mistakes will often see the return of possession. The 6 second rule is extreme. It requires exceptionally well-drilled and high-energy players to make it work. Very few sides will be able to replicate it: only Barcelona and teams coached by Marcelo Bielsa and Guardiola manage to execute this rule effectively. However, the concept of defending in transition, or proactive defending, is one which can be replicated easily enough, at least to a diminished degree. The current Rangers attacking approach includes ultra-attacking full-backs, wide wingers and dynamic, interchanging central-midfielders. We are often pushed very high up the pitch, trying to break down stubborn opposition. This means we are very weak in transition. Opponents have counter-attacked fairly effectively against us this season. The zonal defense is effective, but takes time to get into the correct position -- in our case, often too late to inhibit an attack. It is my contention that we need to leave zonal defending to one side, and focus on defending in transition. It means the nearest players to the ball pressing the ball-player, then a secondary, and perhaps tertiary, layer pressing players further away, stopping passing lines, and lanes of attack. At the very least it can force the opposition back, giving us time to set up our zonal defense. It takes a significant conceptual shift to see defending as a proactive activity, rather than a passive, zonal activity. We need to forget about the Butchers, Goughs, Amorusos and Weirs of the past: they can't play in a proactive defense; they need to play deep and zonal. We need mobile and intelligent defenders. Our strength is now attacking; our weakness is defending. We need to encourage the former, and negate the later as much as possible. We need to get away from this idea that we need men behind the ball all the time, and we need to be open to the idea of defending in transition.

It wouldn't be one system for Europe and one for the League. It'd be a one of either depending on the opposition. If we come up against a European side that plays one striker, we'll need a proper DM; if a European side plays with 2 strikers, perhaps we should play a back 3. Teams regularly play differently depending on the game. Mourinho often had a different formation/game-plan for away and home games with Inter.

David Weir was a marvelous defender, and he'd still read the game well, but would be caught out if playing in our current team. I think it's the John Terry-David Luiz dilemma. Terry is a better defender and better at reading the game, but Luiz would better suit our style, because he's more mobile and good with the ball at his feet. I do think we need to change our outlook, with regards to the type of defender we need.

I believe they had a two-window transfer ban. They made a number of signings before that, but they were all bog-standard players -- decent enough, but perhaps not complete players that Barcelona are used to (i.e. Ter Stegan, Rakitic, Bravo, Mathieu, Vermaelen). They were also forced to sell a number of youth players later on to adhere to the ban. I actually thought we'd see them struggle last year a tad, but they did not. I think we are seeing the effects of the ban somewhat now though. Their results have not been at their normal level: a lot more goals conceded; they've not scored as many; and they've lost 3 games already. I think the results show they're struggling a wee bit. This is Barcelona we are talking about, so they are not going to be in the relegation zone. Alex Vidal is a converted Right-back; it's where he played for Sevilla, and where Barcelona intend to play him. He is thought to be the replacement for the aging Alves. They bought a few defenders, as I mentioned, before the ban because they knew they'd struggle. But now they have been hampered with injuries to midfield, so Macherano has had to play midfield rather than his usual defensive role of late. They've been forced to play a number of youth players: Gumbau, Semper, Roberto, Rafinha (Injured now as you said, adding to their short numbers), Sandro, Munir and Bartra. They are talented, but not finished players. They've also struggled to add top-class players, although I suppose Arda Turan is a top-class player, but in general they've struggled to attract that top name because most players cannot afford to sit out for 6-months, especially in a Euro Championship year. I'm not suggesting they are struggling completely, I said they were struggling somewhat. They will drop a lot more points IMO before January, which will derail their targets. I think they'll struggle in some games without Messi, without that bit of magic in those tough games, but I think they'll be OK up front with Neymar and Suarez (Well, mostly Suarez -- I don't really care for Neymar). Interesting point about the defensive shape: the front 3 don't defend much, but do they really need to with the possession they usually have? Bare with me, but it reminds me of the Rangers situation. We need to change our defensive mindset, to get away from this preoccupation with the passive approach to defending with the deep back four, and get used to defending proactively. Our possession game needs a different way of defending, like Barcelona.

You're right. The league form has been good, but they have not had a difficult run; only Athletico Madrid seemed difficult. They narrowly won the European Super cup 5-4, and then were thrashed in the Spanish Super Cup 5-1 (on aggregate). They have conceded 7 goals in 6 games, which is very unlike them; or 16 in 8! And then the games they have won have been by one goal, except one against Levante. They're not doing too badly, but I think their transfer ban is hampering them a little. They results are not typical for Barca. It'll be interesting to see how they do without Messi.

Many are suggesting we need a tough, old-fashioned centre-back like we used to have, but is that really going to work? Historically, our best centre-backs have been good because the team sat deep and they had cover -- they were not playing in a team that plays such expansive football. I doubt whether those old-types would be suitable. As much as I dislike him as a player, I think we need someone like David Luiz (obviously one that we would not have to spend £50 million on!); a new kind of centre-back, fast and mobile.

The premise of the argument is that we need those full-backs high and wide to play the style we want, so we can't just expect the full-backs to drop deep into a conventional back 4. We then have to tweak the defensive shape to negate the main weakness, i.e. the 2 centre-backs getting exposed. Barcelona, Bayern Munich, and Bielsa, tend to favour the spare-man philosophy, whereby we would change to a back 3 for certain opposition.

Yes, a pivot/DM in Eustace would work well IMO; or another centre-back in a 3-4-3 can work also. All about more cover for those counter-attacks.

Actually, there would not be a DM, just 2 high-energy CM's in a 3-4-3. It would be the 3rd centre-back that covers. Eustace would be a good pivot (DM), with 2 centre-backs; more like the way we play now. I agree Halliday is not a DM; he tries but hasn't got that nack for that role.

It's perhaps necessary to change when we play against 2 strikers or good counter-attacking teams? I did say that it was mistakes rather than doing the wrong things, because I actually think we have been doing the right things, just not well.

They are not getting him back!

'They broke at pace.' The phrase seems to be the precursor to any poor piece of play this season, usually ending in a goal or two conceded. Our team regularly dominates possession these days, so we have little need to defend deep. Of course, when any team pushes high, the inevitable weakness is the space in behind. As pleased as we have been thus far with our style-of-play, we are quick to criticise our defensive deficiencies. Previously we saw counter-attacks often, with hints of trouble, but none seemed to take advantage. St Johnstone changed everything. Last Tuesday night Rangers suffered their first defeat of the season. 11 wins, with regular scorelines of 3, 4, or 5-0, have done little to temper the pain of that first defeat. The inflated confidence we felt was well and truly burst. Michael O'Halloran was a very quick and direct runner, always peeling into the wide open spaces behind our two attacking full-backs, or wing-backs. The space in behind our full-backs is the obvious weakness, but we did the right things to defend the attacks, but made poor mistakes. Wilson drifted wide to challenge the wide runner, but didn't block the cross; then Wallace, backing up Wilson by slotting into the centre-back position, failed to block the cross also. It's never just one mistake when a goal is conceded, but a series of mistakes. We made those mistakes, but that general weakness in our play remains. At the weekend we saw a slightly different take on exposing that same weakness. The 4-4-2 is the standard formation we face, but it reverts quickly to a 4-4-1-1 when we have the ball. When teams attack, that one striker drifts wide to exploit the space in behind the full-backs, with the deeper striker quickly charging up the centre from deep. However, on Sunday we saw a different approach: Morton, lining up with 2 strikers, often had them running away from each other, to expose both our flanks, stretching our centre-backs. As has mostly been the case this season, the opposition have not had the quality to take advantage. The counter-attacking tactic is becoming more and more prominent in its use against us, and some, like Morton, are trying new things on the same variation. The common attitude from the Manager, Mark Warburton, is: "We respect the opposition, but it's all about how we play." Is it perhaps time to change our set-up somewhat? The Spare-man Philosophy Marcelo Bielsa, one of the most tactically inventive and unusual managers around, comes from an old-school era of coaches who want absolute control mixed with meticulous preparation for every possible outcome. His 'Mad Professor' tag is somewhat appropriate, as he often sits down before each game and plans for every eventuality, every potential substitution and even every injury. Bielsa has brought an expansive, exciting brand of football to several club-sides in Argentina, the Chilean National Team, Athletic Bilbao, and more recently Marseille, as well as being a main inspiration for Pep Guardiola. Bielsa is an advocate of the spare-man philosophy in defence, meaning he always wants one centre-half free to sweep up any loose balls, and not be hindered by man-marking. He often switches between two and three central defenders on the pitch depending on how many strikers the opponent utilises, going from 4-2-1-3 when playing against 1 striker, to a 3-4-3 when facing 2 strikers. On their run to the 2012 UEFA Europa League Final, Athletic Bilbao overcame PSG, Sporting Lisbon, Schalke, and famously, Manchester United, before eventually losing to Athletico Madrid. In the UEFA Europa League Semi-final, Sporting lined up with a 4-3-3, with 1 striker, and so Athletic Club lined up with 2 central defenders in a 4-3-3. However, Sporting threw on an extra attacker whilst chasing the game late on, moving to a 4-4-2. Within three minutes of the change, Bielsa had Borja Ekiza stripped and ready to come on as the third central defender, switching to a 3-4-3 in order to retain that spare man at the back. Of course, comparing Rangers and Athletic Club is like comparing a Volkswagen and a Porsche. But is it perhaps an option for Rangers? We often dominate possession and press high, and are therefore always open to a counter-attack. Could we sacrifice a midfielder for another centre-back, so we can cover those counter-attacks more effectively? It would allow our wing-backs to play as out-and-out wingers, and our wingers to play as a more central front-three, whilst also providing cover at the back. The default defensive set-up for Scottish Clubs, and fans alike, has been the back four sitting deep. But to play an expansive style, we need the full-backs high and wide, leaving 2 the centre-backs exposed. Would it not be prudent to have an extra centre-back, shaking off this preoccupation with a back 4? Theoretically, we already have the personnel to play a 3-4-3. We have 2 exceptional Wing-backs in Wallace and Tavernier. We would require 2 high-energy Centre-Midfielders, which Halliday and Law could provide; question Law's attitude all you like, he has the stamina and ability to play that role. And we have a few decent enough centre-backs. Moreover, there is precedence of the 3-5-2 in Scotland, with that other side across Glasgow winning a few things with it in the early 00's. Is it really that much of a switch to play 3-4-3? We actually have the style-of-play to make it work. We have already had many complaints that we are too exposed at the back with 2 centre-backs. We need the full-backs playing high and wide to stretch the pitch, giving our attacking 3 more space and more options. Perhaps our preoccupation with the back 4 is a little out-of-date, or just unsuitable, with the style we want to play? The Spare-man philosophy does not negate the need for communication and organisation in defence: whether we play with 2 or 3 centre-backs, those playing still need to defend well. Perhaps switching to a back-three when playing against 2 attackers, or more pertinently in our case, against good counter-attacking sides, may give us the cover at the back needed to keep those all-important clean-sheets, while allowing us to continue with our expansive style.

Apathy is a downward spiral. Scottish football is dead if it's as you suggest. If there is a choice between death and change, surely they'll vote for change?

A 16-team top league sounds great. I actually like the split because it gives the league more 'big' games. However, there needs to be an incentive for the lower half teams: a European spot perhaps? In Belgium the league splits, and the points are halved (and rounder up or down), so teams essentially start again, but with a little advantage depending on their pre-split form. It means that there is competition for places. If a select group of clubs are inhibiting change, can the rest not separate, creating a new league?

A more competitive league, and perhaps more influence, rather than the cabal at the moment? It seems to be a select few that are inhibiting change. Could the rest force change by creating a separate league?

Could a separate league be created? If the 'bigger' clubs don't want change, could a league be created of the championship and league 1 (and any Premiership clubs that want to join), with European spots?

Man City rested a few players (Silva, Hart; Kompany was injured, and Yaya had to go off, I believe). They have relied on an exceptional spine for the last few years, and it always seems to show when they lose several from it. They've still not been able to replace that spine. They've spent huge sums on quality players, but they are more supplementary players. I still see them winning the league, because they are the most consistent. Suicide from Leicester, playing with a high line with Walcott up front. Good result though, and Sanchez is getting better. Again, West Ham can't play on the front foot. They get good results when they counter. Sturridge is awesome; a proper number 9 that wants to run in behind, rather than a striker posing as a number 10, drifting about. Liverpool play better in the 3-5-2: with Can at the back because he does seem to do better than in midfield; they don't have world-class centre-backs, but several decent ones, so having a back 3 where they can all cover each other suits them better; good high energy players in Henderson (when he returns) and Milner; free role for Coutinho; and Ings and Sturridge running in behind; and then they've got Benteke to mix it up. Rodgers' is a very good coach IMO, but his acquisitions have not suited the team. He also seems to persist with a 4-3-3 when they don't have any natural wingers; they're all number 10's! 3-5-2 suits them IMO; and Ings and Sturridge, with Coutinho in the hole is quite dangerous for opposing defenders. Chelsea are poor. They need a complete re-fresh. Too many are not performing. I don't have any confidence in them at the moment. Man Utd are a strange case: they are not quite playing well -- they can for periods, but not really -- and struggle, or did struggle, to score goals. However, their defence is quite impressive, and they're grinding out results; it is a sign of a good team. But, like you say, it doesn't look right seeing them at the top. I like Blind; he's small, slow and weak, but his reading of the game, his organisation, and passing ability is exceptional.

They are struggling somewhat already with the transfer ban: Enrique is forced to use youngsters, which has shown in the results a little. Messi will be a big loss, but they do still have Suarez and Neymar; not bad.

It really shouldn't matter, but it does! I'm always sneaking a look at our 'rivals' results -- and it's always nice to see Hibs drop points.

There are a few: Arsenal, Real Madrid, Juventus, Bayern Munich...etc. It's a good point, though. Do you propose leaving three defenders back (RCB, LCB and LB) and a DM? Or just the three defenders? If it's the former, then the opposition have an easier time defending, and we have less player to attack with; if the latter, then a pivot would become the third defender, while also allowing width on both sides. I would also suggest that full backs push the opponents winger back, making them less of a threat. It wasn't really St Johnstone's wingers that caused the damage, but their forward. We had enough to cover the 1st goal, but too many players failed to block/take out the player; their 2nd was just poor defending, not exposure on the flanks; and their 3rd was a long ball down the middle, again no exposure on the flanks. Others have already mentioned that the our centre-backs were too zonal, letting the player run, rather than cutting off passing lines and the attack -- I felt we did that better the second half, with our centre-backs stepping out to intercept, rather than getting run in behind. Someone very colourfully suggested one centre-back should drop deep, acting as sweeper, the other should mark Anally. Our centre-backs are also quite narrow: they need to spread out more IMO. If we have a pivot, then one of the centre-backs takes on the responsibility of covering the flank, and we get an extra man to act as an interceptor, allowing one or two of the centre-backs to act as sweeper.

I think there are a few more players, of higher calibre, that we need. However, I also think that our problems are not so huge that they can't be rectified now: we need to be aware of how a team will counter, so our defenders need to cut the passing lines instead of trying to out-run or defend the space; we also need a proper DM/pivot.