Rousseau

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.

Going forward? Meh. I suppose the 3-5-2 would constitute a Plan B. Unfortunately the execution was poor. Like others have said, we could do with a target man to change it, but we require a proper 'target man', not Waghorn, Clark or Miller, as neither have the ability. I was pleased to see Warburton change it. We were under the impression that he'd be quite dogmatic in his 4-3-3. I'm pleased because it means he can change when he feels he needs to. It will require a bit of practice from the players IMO.

I wasn't going to bother with this because of the result, but I thought it was interesting the way we set up, and the way the Manager changed it mid-game.

A top-of-the-table clash, with both sides going into the game in good (-ish) form. Hibs get the three points, cutting the deficit at the top to 5 points, but Rangers were the more tactically astute, but were let down by poor finishing. Mark Warburton said going into the game that there would be no major changes. It turned out there were a few. Firstly, the personnel changed from the previous game, seeing Clark come in for Miller, who dropped out of the squad completely, and Ball retain his place despite the return of Wilson; Zelalem dropped to the bench for the defender. Seeing Ball, Wilson and Kiernan was a surprise. Initially, it looked like Ball would simply take the place of Halliday in the defensive midfield, allowing Halliday to push forward; with Clark playing as lead striker, with Waghorn out wide. However, after a few minutes it was clear there was a significant formation change, with Rangers lining up in a 3-5-2. Halliday, alongside McKay and Holt, retained his defensive midfield role in front of a back three of Ball, Wilson and Kiernan; Tavernier and Wallace played wing-back; Waghorn and Clark led the line. Hibs were unchanged. Generally, we have seen them play a 3-5-2 against us -- possibly the reason for Warburton's change in formation? -- but they changed to a basic 4-4-2, with a very narrow midfield, almost playing as a diamond when going forward. The midfield quartet of McGinn, Henderson, McGeouch and Fyvie being there most creative assets, Allan Stubbs likes to get as many on the pitch as possible. Malonga and Cummings, two of the best forwards in the league, played up top; Cummings especially, has a very good record against us. Outwith Rangers being denied a stonewall penalty after 2 minutes, Hibs started the better, pressing aggressively, and winning most of the second balls. Rangers, it seemed, were a little unsure in their changed formation. There was a disconnect in central midfield, with McKay naturally drifting wide, or into the channel, meaning the space between him and Halliday and Holt was too large, giving Hibs a clear numerical advantage in midfield; 4v3 initially, but 4v2 when McKay drifted giving no chance of controlling the centre. Holt got on the ball a few times, and managed to get Wallace in behind, but the final ball was woeful and invariably cleared. With Hibs playing very narrow, there was space on the flanks tailor-made for Tavernier and Wallace, but our numerical disadvantage meant that the central midfielders were rarely able to play the required pass. The goal was a superb finish, but Wilson was caught for pace, allowing Cummings to cut inside to fire a powerful shot into the far left corner past the diving Foderingham. Undeniably a good finish, but Cummings should never have been allowed to get his shot away. After Hibs scored they sat back and played on the counter. Rangers were quite comfortable at this stage with lots of the ball in our own third, but whether that was because we had the extra man at the back or because Hibs never pressed as aggressively, is difficult to say. Perhaps a bit of both? The three-man defence helped our control of the game, but our midfield was unable to build on it. Up front was not much better, with Waghorn and Clark seemingly getting in each others way. When we got in behind, both wanted to drop deep to receive the cut-back. There needed to be more variability in their movement: one should have pushed to get in front, the other dropping deep, thereby causing difficulty for the Hibs defenders. Rangers started the second-half very well, playing a more direct style. The 3 centre-backs and Halliday were fizzing quicker balls directly into the feet of McKay, Holt and Waghorn. It seemed to push Hibs back, allowing more space. Generally, the link-up between the forwards and the wing-backs was poor, but on the one ocassion it worked, we scored. Wallace drilling a cut-back into a defender, before the ball nestled in the bottom corner. Nothing more than we deserved; gained with a little bit of luck. 5-10 minutes after the equiliser, Warburton decided to change the formation again, reverting to the usual 4-3-3. Wilson and Clark were replaced by Oduwa and Zelalem. McKay was able to move back to LW, alongside Waghorn and Oduwa; Zelalem slotted in beside Halliday and Holt. Instantly, there was more control in the central areas, with Zelalem keeping the ball moving and creating good angles for team-mates, and Holt darting into pockets. We were still outnumbered in the middle 4v3, but with Tavernier and Wallace always pushing forward there was always an out-ball. The main advantage to reverting to a 4-3-3 was that we had better wing-play. Hibs playing narrow meant there was a lot of space on the flanks, but with only wingbacks during the first 55 minutes, we rarely were able to take advantage. The Full-backs and the Wingers linked up with the central midfielders creating little triangles, and allowing Rangers to overload and target the Hibs full-backs. It seemed to work. We were getting a lot of time on the ball in that left side especially. Alas! we could never take advantage. Despite hitting the wood-work a few times, in general, the finishing lacked quality. A rare corner for Hibs, followed by poor man-marking and a wandering 'keeper, gifted Hibs a soft winner. Tactically, it was quite an intriguing game. Warburton changed to a back-three to cope with a talented Hibs quartet, which seemed to aid control after an initial Hibs onslaught. Then when we got the equiliser, the Manager changed it again, to a 4-3-3. Again, it worked, allowing us greater control of the ball and creating overloads on the flanks with some intricate play. Unfortunately, a tactically astute performance was let down by poor finishing. It was not the best performance, but it was certainly no the worst. Like the gaffer said: "We'll play a lot worse this season [...] and come away with points."

I liked big kirk. Never the most talented of players but gave his all for the jersey.

Charlie Addams Family. *gets coat...*

Lafferty: shat myself every time he got the ball!

I'm not convinced we need Nolan at all. He's an attacking midfielder, whereas, like Rab said, we need a defensive midfielder. I understood and welcomed the Eustace deal; I do not care for the Nolan link. He may be 3 years younger, and played at a higher level, but he doesn't play well in a defensive role, and he's not used to our attacking, free-flowing style. He's a 'big Sam' type of player, not 'oor Warbs'.

I suggested as much, with regards to the finishing. Miller was unlucky not to score as the goal that was chopped-off was onside IMO. Nevertheless, surely the fact that Miller is missing chances suggests he's doing something right, or perhaps, that the strategy of playing a striker on one wing is working? It was just the execution of the final ball, and/or the finish, that was severely lacking. I was suggesting that the aggressive pressing from St. Mirren hampered our normal possession game. However, as you say, we did still create a few chances. Perhaps Clark or Hardie should get a run in the main striker role, with Waghorn playing wide? I think we might go with 2 out-and-out wingers against Hibs though.

I don't think we necessarily need to respond to this kind of bile. It belittles the accusations by not responding IMO. Nevertheless it is an intelligent rebuttal that doesn't descend into the kind of childishness it is rebutting. (I'm certainly punching the air!)

It was one of the worst performances of the season. But I refuse to believe it was as bad as it appeared. Our possession was down on our average, but our chance-creation was still quite good. It was our execution that let us down. It must also be said that St Mirren executed a good tactical plan. After a poor performance, there naturally follows a cry for a plan B, for a change in our style to mix it up. And there is certainly a case that a Target Man, and a more direct style, would have benefited us against St Mirren. There were those that thought we were "off the pace", and "our passing wasn't as good as past games", "ball retention" was suspect, and players were "missing in midfield." All true. Most of these problems stemmed from the tactics that Ian Murray employed. It worked a treat. It has often been the case recently that opponents sit deep. Not with St Mirren. They lined-up in a 4-4-2, but with a wide diamond in midfield. The result was that they had 2 strikers to press our centre-backs, 2 wide players to press our Full-backs, and finally, an extra presser in midfield making life difficult for Halliday. It was one of the most aggressive strategies we have faced. Add big Goodwin in a defensive midfield, destroyer role, and it makes for a difficult prospect; no matter how well we play. The aggressive press meant that our centre-back's had very little time on the ball in which to play passes into midfield. At times Halliday dropped into defence to make a temporary back-three, and was able to pick up the ball and start an attack. But with St Mirren's Stevie Mallan (or was it Howieson?) snapping at his heels, it was all too rare. Rangers line-up with the standard 4-3-3. Both Full-backs were aggressive, but there tended to be only one that would attack at any one time, with the other sitting deeper. Halliday and Zelalem were quite static, never roaming too much. This meant Holt was the main attacking threat from midfield, taking up positions in the pockets, and making intelligent, late runs in behind. It was a lop-sided attack, because, whereas McKay kept to the touchline on the left, Miller would often drift inside -- not surprising, considering he is a striker by nature. With Miller in the side, we lacked width on the right, but his incessant inside, diagonal runs were a good route in behind. The interplay with Waghorn was quite interesting. Waghorn often dropped deeper to pick up the ball, dragging defenders out of position, allowing Miller to exploit the space. Miller got in behind on a few occasions -- without the ball! -- but his finishing was suspect when he did receive it. The only goal of the game came from the movement of Waghorn, Miller and Holt. Waghorn dropped deep to pick up the ball, dragging defenders out. Miller takes the central Stiker role, again causing problems for the St Mirren defenders. Meanwhile Holt makes darting diagonal run, where Waghorn is able to thread a ball through, before blasting it from a very tight angle. The 'keeper really shouldn't be getting beat from the acute angle. With St Mirren pressing aggressively in the middle of the park, direct, 'vertical' balls were few and far between. Our possession naturally suffered. What was more, however, was that Holt often drifted wide to find space to receive the ball. This had the effect of 'flattening' our midfield trio -- 'flat' in the sense that they were literally flat, not 'flat' in the sense of lacking energy. Obviously, this meant that the interplay between them was poor: if one's only passing option in square from you, then the only pass is square. It must be said that Zelalem was particularly poor in his distribution, often trying to force passes when a simple ball would suffice, and consequently gave the ball away on numerous occasions. Moreover, Holt drifting wide meant we had fewer numbers in the middle, and when we lost the ball St. Mirren had lots of time and space in which to run at our defence. Halliday often drifted wide also to cover the attacking Fullback. This contributed to most of St Mirren's chances in the game: long range strikes. It was one of the few games this season in which we have had to rely on Foderingham. He pulled off some fine saves. We became more stable late in the second half when Shiel's was introduced. Shiel's does not have the pace, and so tends to stay in a central area. This 'base' of Shiels and Halliday allowed us to see more of the ball, and brought about a few chances late on. It was a disappointing game overall, simply because we never had the possession we normally expect. A lot of the problems stemmed from St. Mirren's aggressive press. There was certainly a lot of space in midfield when we were able to overcome the press, contributing to quite an end-to-end game. We were in need of more direct balls into midfield, to exploit the space. Law could have been a better option in place of the poor Zelalem, whereby a midfield 'runner' would have had the space to exploit, rather than a midfield metronome that lacked the ability to pass effectively in this particular game. Law is also always a goal threat. Despite the problems, if we had taken our chances we would have ran-out comfortable winners. But we also must give credit to Ian Murray and St. Mirren, for a very effective tactical set-up.

Just testing something...

I think he's an important player in our side. It'd be great to get him for the remainder of the season. He's so important to the side, I worry about replacing him for next season! Maybe he'd come back to play in the Premiership?

Mourinho is an arrogant man. Those that like him relish that because he was always right, always winning. Those that dislike him are now entitled to relish his failures. Trying to be impartial, I do feel he gets pulled-up a lot by the FA. Others get away with it. To be fair, I don't think there should be any fines or punishments altogether for criticising the referees: they get it wrong on so many occasions, surely they should get blamed; and, likewise, praised for doing a good job?

Partly, but he did round the 'keeper only to hit the side netting, and 'sky' a shot from outside the box. It's not too much of an issue IMO, because he can only improve. His composure is excellent for a young man -- even when the final finish was lacking; my two examples above were preceded by wonderful touches and composure on the ball to fashion the shooting chance -- and that is much more difficult to 'learn'. An excellent prospect.

Hardie's accuracy was woeful the first half, but his composure for his first was awesome. He's got a turn of speed too. I'd like to see him get a game or two for the first team.

There were a few first-team players in that Hibs side! Well done the lads.

Rather! Faria's forearm smash would certainly have been a foul in the Rugby game. I'm all for aggressive football, but it just seemed excessive. Frankie beat me to it, but, to be fair, there were a couple of media guys questioning the approach. Great read.

I think there are 2 layers to any team's 'system'. The first layer is their style, the way in which the players interchange, move and pass. Then the second layer is the tactical layer, a formation or a way of playing which looks to target the weaknesses of an opponent. I think a team needs both: the first will stay no matter what, but the second will change depending on the opposition. I also think, looking at the comments so far, there are 2 broad views on football style. There's the Mourinho view, which is inherently negative, looking to be stable and difficult to beat. And then there's the Guardiola view, which is essentially positive, looking to attack. Mourinho will tweak tactics to stop a team, whereas Guardiola will tweak his tactics to overcome a opponent. I'm not saying one is better than the other, because both are successful, but I'd prefer to see the Guardiola outlook practiced at Rangers.

On reflection, if the league is won, which I don't think it is, why can't we use this time to experiment with a few things? Isn't this the best time?

The 3-3-1-3 was not a serious consideration really, merely used to show the way in which Guardiola has tried to overcome those compact defences. The 4-3-3 (the 4-2-3-1 is simply a variation of the former) is the most flexible. I agree it should be our base. However, I don't see why we can't change depending on the opposition. Likewise, I don't see why a back-three can't work (I'd prefer Wallace at LWB/LM), and in fact, having a pivot that drops deep would provide this during play in a 4-3-3. We need to be flexible IMO. There are many sides that go up against better opposition playing in a different way, looking to tactically overcome them: Chile, a smaller side, were phenomenal at the WC playing 3-4-1-2; dominating teams and being aggressive. Again, overlooking that fact that we lack the right type of players, I don't see why we cannot do that? In regards to developing a team for SC and further, you seem to be assuming that we're going to be the underdogs -- and I suppose we are to a certain extent initially --, but I'd like to see us take the initiative. I don't want to see us go back to Walter's tactics, of sitting deep and waiting to counter. I want to see us attacking, keeping the ball and being creative. I think we differ on the premise: you assume we'll be defending against better sides; I would like to see us be the attacking side. From your premise, I understand why you'd want a simple, stable formation and system. Nevertheless, a 4-2-3-1 can be very flexible and creative: just look at Athletic Bilbao!

'Interplay' (is that a word?) is the key IMO. Having individual players that can beat a defender is great, but IMO it's better if we have 2 or 3 players making off-the-ball runs and passing options, to unlock defenses.

I'd keep them both. Bell as a decent back-up, and Temps, on his day -- admittedly few and far between -- is a good winger. We're quite short on wingers anyway. I'd keep Temps and hope to see Assulin sign.

Quick question: do the shorter paragraphs make it easier or more difficult to read?