DMAA

47 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

 

You're both correct, I think.

 

It's not long balls to a target man, though, is it? Cross diagonals are common (we do attempt that from time to time), and balls in behind (in behind for us is the byline!). 

 

I don't like long balls into a target man, but I do think we should be attempting long diagonals, long passes into feet, and perhaps into the channel when applicable.   

Yes, nobody wants aimless high balls rained on top of our forwards. If your forwards are good with their back to goal though they should be able to take the ball in from a long pass and hold it up for supporting midfielders.

50 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

They're just picking up a promising youngster for their Academy, or Bayern Munich II. 

 

Standard practice, is it not?

Yes, I just don’t think he has stood out much against us. 

Just now, ian1964 said:

 

Bizarre

8 minutes ago, craig said:

We had absolutely no issue “getting further up the field” yesterday because Livvy willingly gave up territory.

Of course, they parked the bus, but how often did we have the ball in and around the box? It’s a matter of opinion but I think it would be easier to create chances with two strikers to aim for and to help each other out in and around the box. 

3 minutes ago, craig said:

The problem wasn’t so much the formation as it was the lack of creation

A formation change is also about the change in personnel though and the qualities they bring to the side.

Claims that Murphy is going to Dundee United on Twitter. He doesn't know whether it's a loan or buy.

Just now, ranger_syntax said:

So why not just recommend swapping a number ten for a striker? Leave the defence out of it.

I said my preference would be 4-4-2.

6 minutes ago, T-1000 said:

The manager and his team see the players in training each day and they have obviously come to the conclusion that neither Murphy or Middleton are good enough as they are not even included on the subs bench.  With respect to Middleton he did not hold down a regular place in the Hibs side where he went on loan.  There he was playing in a team that does not play against sides that park the bus the way they do with Rangers.  This should have given him a good opportunity to showcase his skills and pace but he did not take the opportunity.  I rather suspect he has a limited future at Rangers.

His treatment of Murphy is strange though. He went to Burton and in 10 games scored 7 and assisted 2. He showed that he still has it. But Gerrard won't even put him on the bench. As I said, I think he likes a certain type of player and it is disappointing when quality players like Murphy lose out.

30 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

I really don't see how this formation would change anything for us.

Having two strikers to hold the ball up and get us further up the field in games like that is very important IMO. It makes it easier to find a forward pass too because you have more to aim at. 

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/greg-docherty-rangers-deal-agreed-4431280.amp

Docherty to Hull is all but done apparently. A bit disappointing if we have only got 400k and disappointing for him he didn't get a move to the Championship. Hopefully he'll do well though and work his way up.

47 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I'd be happy with that loan switch. 

That would strengthen them against Celtic. However, I think Hibs have had more success taking points off Celtic in recent seasons.

2 minutes ago, Franc Ergs said:

I know fine what it means, it means that you're making up stats to make Ryan Kent look bad, because you've never rated him ,and will go to any lengths to try and prove that .

 

You're utter dislike of him knows no bounds, you're like a stuck record ffs.

I brought facts into my comment. I didn't make anything up, and the facts were anything but shoehorned. They were directly relevant.

2 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I tend to agree. He's not the most creative. He's just a pacy player that likes to take a shot - he does have a good shot on him at times. 

 

He looks to have started this season better, in terms of an end-product (goals), though. Of course, he still has to maintain that. 

He is on form and has started the season confidently. He is actually fulfilling more of a Windass role at the moment, not creating goals directly much but dangerous on the counter attack and starting to score more goals. I still think he would do very well on the right wing though where he could more easily use his pace and get to the byline.

42 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I think we kind of develop into that on the pitch.

 

Kamara swerves out to make a situational back three, with Jack in front; We had Arfield and Hagi just in front of Jack; Barisic and Tavernier wide; and Morelos up top with Kent beside him - even if the latter roamed about, he was the one constantly pressing the 'keeper. That's basically a 3-5-2. 

 

Which plays into my point: it's not the formation, it's the way of playing.  

 

I completely agree we could go more direct. But, for me, it's as simple as taking off Kent, or Hagi, and bringing on Roofe or Itten. 

 

But then what's the plan? Is it crosses from the wing-backs? Long passes from deep (Jack, Goldson) into Itten and Morelos?

We do develop into that formation, but it isn't the same when you don't have two strikers on the pitch who know how to play in the box and have the physicality to hold up the ball and link up.

Well, it isn't solely long balls and crosses but more varied play yes. The ball moves slower on plastic and it makes it very hard to carve them open the way we normally would.

Just now, Franc Ergs said:

The stat itself is shoehorned, in that you made that stat up to fit your own agenda.

 

I dare say if i could be bothered to look into it i could come up with a very positive stat about Kent from yesterday, he was certainly not the worst offender.

Do you know what shoehorned means? It would have to be irrelevant to the argument, or not support my point, to be shoehorned. My prediction was that he wouldn't get enough assists because of x,y,z. That has panned out exactly as I said. There are no stats that I could bring into the debate that would be more relevant.

Kent certainly wasn't the worst offender yesterday, I didn't say he was.

3 minutes ago, Franc Ergs said:

That's just a stat you've shoehorned in to fit your own agenda.

 

 

It is hardly “shoehorning” when it is on the exact topic I have spoken about with regards to Kent. If it was barely related it would be shoehorning. I said in his first season he just lacks end product, he lacks the vision and passing ability required to get the assists we need from our attacking midfielders. He has a tendency to run into crowded areas instead of hitting the byline. I was repeatedly berated and told “the assists will come”, (more in other places than on here). 

5 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

How is adding another central defender a more attacking formation?

I prefer 4-4-2, but 3-5-2 is more attacking on that pitch because you have 2 strikers occupying the centre backs instead of 1, and the midfield are largely the same but with less defensive duties because you have an extra centre back behind. Obviously our two most productive players, Tav and Barisic, are also freed up significantly from defensive duties. I think if you compared heat maps afterwards you would find in a 3-5-2 you’re players were much more active further up the pitch. 
 

Just now, DMAA said:

The fact is that our attacking midfielders have a terrible record of breaking down teams in those circumstances.

On that subject, not including goals he has scored himself, Rangers have scored 47 league goals since Kent's last league assist in February 19 vs Hamilton Accies, 28 games ago. He plays in our front 3 and we spent £7m on him to create goals. I said when we signed him that I would be bemoaning his lack of end product and here we are.
 

2 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I feel like we're not working on offensive movement; it's too off-the-cuff. 

 

I think they set the general positions -- Morelos central, Kent and Hagi roaming around, with Barisic wide left, Tavernier wide right, which is fine -- but then they leave it to them to do something, and the don't know what to do. 

 

We need to be working on attacking movements (if player A has it, then x, y, z move here and there, etc.) and set patterns in passing (Jack into Morelos, with a first time ball into Hagi, who should be aware of this, and then Morelos spins in-behind).  That's an over-simplification, but that's the idea. 

 

I don't think a formation change will help, because the issue is the way we play with the ball. 

I don't think we need a permanent formation change, but I do think we need to consider whether our system is going to work on this pitch against this system. With Aribo out in particular, I was very concerned it wouldn't. I think we need to be more direct on plastic pitches and two strikers in the box would be a big help to making that work. We shouldn't be too proud to be pragmatic. The fact is that our attacking midfielders have a terrible record of breaking down teams in those circumstances.

11 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I don't subscribe to this 'we don't need 2 DMs' argument - it's a bit of a naive argument, IMO

Neither of them are really DMs for a start. 

1 minute ago, PoohBear said:

I think, like most, I'm also scratching my head at Barker still getting opportunities. He must be great in training or something because I just don't see what he brings to our team, unfortunately. 

Gerrard loves fast and fit attacking midfielders. It’s why Murphy and Stewart can’t get a look in despite being better players than those playing ahead of them. 

18 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

Why?

I think we need to play a more attacking formation with two strikers. A version of 4-4-2 would be good too. It is very difficult to pass through teams who park the bus on a terrible pitch. With two strikers , if you put the ball in the box often enough, with support from midfielders, you’ll cause them far more trouble. There is no doubt that the formation failed yesterday, and not for the first time in those games. Celtic put this theory to the test last season and proved it.

Aribo is our most important player and I was immediately worried when I saw he wasn’t playing. We rely on him as a team to break down teams and create goals. It is so unfortunate that we lost him for this game. 
 

I’ve only seen the RTV highlights (10 mins long). A lot of possession and wee half chances but quite worrying that there weren’t really any good chances at all. The best chance was probably the one Kent hit wide from a run. 
 

Hagi & Morelos barely featured, which is a worry. Kent featured quite a bit but nothing came of anything he did, and he seemed to be turning himself into a centre midfielder at times? I don’t want my forward/winger roaming around the middle of the park.
 

In a game in which we have 77% possession the forwards need to be doing better to turn that into chances, I don’t think you can just blame Jack and Kamara. That’s not to say I don’t think the management got tactics wrong though. I think it’s time to try 3-5-2 or something in these games. Celtic used it to great effect in the second half of last season. 
 

1 hour ago, ian1964 said:

Is it wise to risk Helander on that pitch after he has just returned from injury? maybe Edmundson should start?

Depends. Is the particular foot injury he had really more likely to recur on a plastic pitch? The medical team will have to make a call on that. 

3 hours ago, craig said:

Presumably this is for McCrorie ?  Really not sure how you can sell a player and then demand he can't play against you.  And on top of that, intuitively, if you think a player can hurt you so much that you don't want him playing against you then why sell him ?  I do understand that he may not get into our team right now but I would have thought McCrorie could be worked on as one for the future.  That said, I think Hibs would be a good move for the lad - and it also strengthens them - so if we get that clause then it strengthens them against everyone except us - we should have been doing this long before now - Celtic have been doing this for many years.

Yes, McCrorie. He’d be an excellent signing for them, but I never understood the optimism among our fans over his potential. There was pretty much a backlash when he joined Portsmouth on loan. Crazy.