Rousseau

I actually agree. Overlooking his clear hatred for a moment, the idea that every team should get an equal share is a good one. It would allow everyone to start on an even footing, and would put the good of the game over any individuals. The money is minuscule anyway -- how much are we really giving up? We would still have bigger revenues because of the ST sales, but the increased competition -- that's still a big 'if', no matter what happens -- could give us better TV deals etc. If things are going to change, the ones that benefit the most have to take a hit for the good of the game. (We've almost been restructured towards lower income streams, so it could benefit us anyway!)

I couldn't see them winning it. They are just poor. Going forward they are not creating much -- the last few goals I've seen have been free-kicks, which are goals, but are not created from open play; weirdly the free-kicks were from the same area and the same player?! -- and they just can't defend. Mourinho can be a tactical genius all he likes, but if the players cannot do the basics, then they are in serious trouble. I think the team needs a complete refresh. Several players are past it. Mourinho needs to give the talented young players a go now -- the Chelsea youths have been winning everything the last few years.

Feeling the effects of the ban...

I forgot about Shaw's injury. So, yes they will be significantly weakened. However, I still think they defend quite well, as Blind is a decent centre-back: his reading of the game is exceptional; he's obviously slow and weak, but his ability makes up for it -- Smalling makes an excellent partner; they complement each other very well I think. Arsenal will be a big test.

I'm not saying we'll be playing with 2 centre-backs and that's it, like now. I think we must have a DM/pivot (preferably 2) in there to cover the full-backs. However, I maintain, it is perfectly manageable to have both full-backs playing high and wide. Too often, Scottish sides go into these games looking to defend, but why can't we play on the front-foot? Play our attacking game? Sure, we need to be pragmatic, but as long as we manage it correctly we can play our own game.

I actually think Man Utd have got a good defense -- their record would certainly suggest so. Tough to call, though. I agree with the rest though. Although, I have no confidence in Chelsea at the moment, so I can't see them getting a result.

De Boer is an interesting option, but I'm not sure whether winning the Eredivisie is necessarily suggestive of ability. I think he needs to move to another club and league first before we can really judge him. Again, Klopp would be an excellent signing for Liverpool.

They hadn't won the CL in 15 years... I agree Ancelotti is not the best move for Liverpool, but I'm not getting drawn into a debate about his merits as a manager. He is a class act. simple.

Ancelotti is still a class act. He did win the Champions League and Cup with Madrid...

Klopp would be an unbelievable appointment by Liverpool! (Ancelotti a little too defensive for Liverpool IMO.)

So simple. It's amazing how many would overlook something so simple, just because it's what usually happens.

That seems unbalanced to me! (It's a back 3 when in possession!) To be fair, when Milan attacked it was 3-4-1-2. British sides play a bog-standard back 4, so by your argument they have the perfect balance (in the sense that they don't roam too much)? but then you also say they are miles behind the continental sides? I think British sides are poor in comparison to continental sides because they are one-dimensional in attack. Aggressive full-backs, providing width and options, would improve that -- if managed correctly.

I suggested similar in the previous article: switching to a back 3, to utilise the spare-man philosophy, whereby we would set-up to with a back 3 or back 2 (centre-backs), depending on what the opposition has up front. I suggested 3-4-3, because it is easier to transition to from the 4-3-3 we play. Playing with a back 3 could provide us with the cover we need at the back to compensate for our attacking full-backs.

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.