Rangers 0 - 1 PSV - Player Ratings and MoM Poll

[MoodyBlue 0]

He jumped so well for it (as he usually does for headers) so I was astounded he didn't hit the back of the net...!

 

Bougherra's miss shortly after that was not quite so bad but also very poor.

 

he does jump well mate - and I agree, I was absolutely stunned when he didn't hit the net with it. a shocking miss in reality. but it sums us up. on the odd occassions when we do attack, we have absolutely no composure or clynical finishing. Edu's was another that we 'messed up'

[pete 2,499]

Edu for me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am hoping a few scouts are reading this.

 

Naismith he changed the whole game.

[calscot 0]

Wasteful Rangers pay the price for missing chances amidst overly-defensive display at home to Dutch league leaders.

 

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=383:rangers-0-1-psv-player-ratings-and-mom-poll&catid=35:analysis&Itemid=67

 

:gw:

 

Young winger did fall out of the game a bit easily at times but when he did get on the ball he looked dangerous while putting in some fine crosses. Must be considered for a more regular place in the team.

 

I'll probably be pilloried here for trying to provide some balance to a forum that needs it more than a see saw with Ten Ton Tessie on one side. However, I must say that either you fell asleep after what was to be fair a boring first 35 minutes, you've started writing for the biased BBC or you're starting to believe the ceaseless repetition of negativity on a site where Tims would be free to come on and slag off our club and forum members - and be thanked for it.

 

In what skewed interpretation could our performance last night be interpreted as "over defensive"? In the first 35 minutes I'll grant you but isn't a game still a full 90 minutes? For 55 minutes or about 62% of the game, we took it to PSV and the stats show we had 57% of possession which sounds about right. In the absence of a stat on territory I think the 11-3 to Rangers for corners reasonably reflects this - especially when you consider that for about 15 minutes all PSV did with a period of possession was pass it around their half - albeit aided by our players stupidly not pressing the ball. Anti-football indeed.

 

For most of the match it was PSV who were rewarded for being "overly-defensive" and indeed were so desperate they had to cheat to win the game. I find it strange that you should feel that missing a few chances (although one was not missed) and being defensive were the key contributors to the result and fail to mention the massive importance of the hand ball and a later stonewall penalty claim.

 

People can be as upset and angry at the manager as they like, but when people like yourself start airbrushing over a game that happened only last night to paint the team in a more derogatory picture than it actually was, you have to worry.

 

BTW I apologise to those sensitive to someone speaking with some empathy for Rangers FC.

[Frankie 8,570]

Perhaps the overall display wasn't overly-defensive but the initial formation was - as was our reaction to the opening goal where it took us until half-time to decide maybe it was time to try and get two goals.

 

Essentially the original overly-defensive set-up made quite a large difference to the game.

 

BTW, unfair forum criticism notwithstanding, sometimes if you're the only one on a side of the argument then that says more about your opinion that theirs. I'd consider myself one of the more positive posters on here but I'm also prepared to criticise where necessary. Last night's team selection and tactics were not required. The 2nd half performance is the evidence for that reasonable point of view.

[bmck 117]

In what skewed interpretation could our performance last night be interpreted as "over defensive"? In the first 35 minutes I'll grant you but isn't a game still a full 90 minutes? For 55 minutes or about 62% of the game, we took it to PSV and the stats show we had 57% of possession which sounds about right. In the absence of a stat on territory I think the 11-3 to Rangers for corners reasonably reflects this - especially when you consider that for about 15 minutes all PSV did with a period of possession was pass it around their half - albeit aided by our players stupidly not pressing the ball. Anti-football indeed.

 

In the sense that it was over defensive.

 

For most of the match it was PSV who were rewarded for being "overly-defensive" and indeed were so desperate they had to cheat to win the game. I find it strange that you should feel that missing a few chances (although one was not missed) and being defensive were the key contributors to the result and fail to mention the massive importance of the hand ball and a later stonewall penalty claim.

 

You can have decisions go against you and still be overly defensive.

 

People can be as upset and angry at the manager as they like, but when people like yourself start airbrushing over a game that happened only last night to paint the team in a more derogatory picture than it actually was, you have to worry.

 

You were already airbrushing at half time yourself.

 

BTW I apologise to those sensitive to someone speaking with some empathy for Rangers FC.

 

What snide nonsense. Your 'empathy' is hyper-rational rhetoric. If someone had any degree of empathy for Rangers they'd have felt the first half performance yesterday like a boot in the stones and not used it as an opportunity to moralise to those despairing. That you need the second half to justify your argument essentially proves that we were overly defensive.

Edited March 18, 2011 by bmck

[calscot 0]

Popularity of an argument does not make it definitive - have you ever heard the phrase, "hens at a pecking party?" from One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest? Just because McMurphy didn't join in or conform to the rest in the asylum, doesn't mean they were right.

 

And one thing I've got to say, I definitely argue my case better than most.

 

When criticism obscures what actually happened, is it necessary? Criticism more often than not clouds the issue - we should be observing and dealing with what happens on the pitch, not just becoming angry and apportioning blame or flushing out a scapegoat. I would prefer more objective analysis to a mere blame culture.

 

I have my opinions and they may be like marmite or even bad tasting medicine - you don't have to like them but people should at least respect the fact they presented in a rational and thought out fashion.

 

I think you are wrong, and you're not going to like that and so you're unlikely to listen to me with an objective ear.

 

The formation and tactics did not contribute to the result bar the 20 minutes we wasted after the goal - 15 of which we were under absolutely no danger of losing another - unless it was a shot from their own half. You are also wrong in my opinion as I think that we started to change the way we played around 10 minutes before half time. The goal did not come from the tactics unless Walter was telling the players to ignore the opposition when they run past them. The goal actually came from NOT following the tactics. The tactics are to track the runners and that didn't happen. It wasn't the tactics it was the poor implementation.

 

As for the second half performance it was more enjoyable and seemed more effective - but there is no guarantee it would have worked, your premise is flawed. At least three times we were caught on the break and they could have scored - your evidence is only based on the fact they didn't. It was not a "safe" way to play and was influenced by the fact PSV were doing what Walter is maligned for - defending a 1-0 lead, although to be fair it was more like a 1.5-0 lead.

 

There is evidence in other games that playing that way can just as easily result in a heavy loss - as happened last season. There is far more evidence to suggest that a defensive formation can be more successful in Europe for a team of lower resources than average - I'll call your half game and raise you a UEFA final. In fact it could be two if you include Martin O'Neil's final.

 

To me in the scheme of things, against a team like PSV, however rotten they are seeing as they must be poor if we could hold our own against them, losing a goal in the first half could easily happen with any formation you care to choose - even with players 10 times the price, ask Man City. To me that makes the first half tactics inconclusive about making a "huge difference" to the game. It's a gross exaggeration and mere conjecture.

 

What is not conjecture is the "huge difference" that the hand ball made to the game. It's a fact. We may still have lost but that was a goal and it would have made the game a lot easier for us.

 

I think in terms of opinion of most football fans around the world who are denied a blatant goal or penalty and sending off in this way which highly affects the results, I think you'll find your opinion is probably in the minority and maybe needs scrutinised.

 

Criticism is fair enough but shouldn't there also be praise where it is due? In the end it should be balanced - just like last night's game was.

Edited March 18, 2011 by calscot

[bmck 117]

The formation and tactics did not contribute to the result bar the 20 minutes we wasted after the goal - 15 of which we were under absolutely no danger of losing another - unless it was a shot from their own half.

 

We offered nothing, and more importantly than that played in a manner that demoralised the team and the support. It wasn't negative or counter attacking, it was all out surrender. The commentators could see it, the fans could see it, the opposing away fans could see it as they 'ole'd. The only point when things got better is when we abandoned that, but by that time a large and significant part of the game was over.

 

You are also wrong in my opinion as I think that we started to change the way we played around 10 minutes before half time. The goal did not come from the tactics unless Walter was telling the players to ignore the opposition when they run past them. The goal actually came from NOT following the tactics. The tactics are to track the runners and that didn't happen. It wasn't the tactics it was the poor implementation.

 

Obsfucation. It's like saying "If we'd won we would have won".

 

As for the second half performance it was more enjoyable and seemed more effective - but there is no guarantee it would have worked, your premise is flawed. At least three times we were caught on the break and they could have scored - your evidence is only based on the fact they didn't. It was not a "safe" way to play and was influenced by the fact PSV were doing what Walter is maligned for - defending a 1-0 lead, although to be fair it was more like a 1.5-0 lead.

 

We played better in the second half. The first half didn't work and was overly defensive. End of story.

 

<snip repetition>

Edited March 18, 2011 by bmck

[calscot 0]

In the sense that it was over defensive.

 

Restating the point as an arguement - is that not a falacy? I expected better.

 

You can have decisions go against you and still be overly defensive.

 

True, but not valid in last nights game. 57% possession and 11-3 goals which I think is qualitatively reflected in the game I watches suggests otherwise.

 

You were already airbrushing at half time yourself.

 

In what way?

 

What snide nonsense. Your 'empathy' is hyper-rational rhetoric. If someone had any degree of empathy for Rangers they'd have felt the first half performance yesterday like a boot in the stones and not used it as an opportunity to moralise to those despairing. That you need the second half to justify your argument essentially proves that we were overly defensive.

 

Maybe it was snide, but I didn't see you being upset by homo-erotic fantasies being said about me... That's a laughable response considering. Mine was just a pre-emptive response to those that somehow get incredibly upset by someone who doesn't subscribe to my less sardonic point of view, which considering is on a Rangers site is baffling.

 

I don't think we were overly defensive, I think we were overly crap in the first 35 minutes in what happened to be a defensive system, we were incredibly UNDER-defensive at the goal. After the goal that system became redundant and the biggest crime apart from being crap was that it took 20 minutes of Ol�© football in PSV's defence for our team to click.

 

There is more than one possibility for reasons behind things - and you of all people should know that well. Sometimes people can see things from a different angle, just because you are convinced with yours does not necessarily make me wrong. For example the ref didn't see a penalty from his angle, that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been one.

 

It was also still a game of 90 minutes and "overall" I can't subscribe to us being overly defensive. To me it's just taking part of the game out of context. The second half happened, I don't know why it has to be eliminated from the argument. Oh yeah, and my opinion at half time on the second half was bang on compared to others on here - I said the tactics would change to be more attacking, others said they wouldn't. I'm obviously right some of the time.

[calscot 0]

Obsfucation. It's like saying "If we'd won we would have won".

 

100% wrong and you know it. There is a difference between a plan and it's implementation - especially in football. I think you're the one obfuscating the point. The plan has worked before, quite a few times.

 

If a a golf instructor teaching you a swing that has worked for loads of people and you can't get it to work. It doesn't mean the swing is wrong. I really shouldn't have to explain this kind of stuff - that's why it gets repetitive...

[bmck 117]

Restating the point as an arguement - is that not a falacy? I expected better.

 

Depends who you ask. There's an argument that all arguments are circular (because they're all circular).

 

True, but not valid in last nights game. 57% possession and 11-3 goals which I think is qualitatively reflected in the game I watches suggests otherwise.

 

You are perfectly entitled to think what you like. Overly defensive is a judgement - you throw out your statistics, and I'll counter with commentator and home/away fan responses and we'll both end back where we started - proving what we already felt. Although one of us distinctly more 'already' than the other.

 

 

Maybe it was snide, but I didn't see you being upset by homo-erotic fantasies being said about me...

 

I've no idea what you are talking about. You were replying to Frankie, who I'm fairly certain has no interest in you.

 

That's a laughable response considering. Mine was just a pre-emptive response to those that somehow get incredibly upset by someone who doesn't subscribe to my less sardonic point of view, which considering is on a Rangers site is baffling.

 

That's because people are hurting just now. People who are emotionally engaged get that way.

 

I don't think we were overly defensive, I think we were overly crap in the first 35 minutes in what happened to be a defensive system, we were incredibly UNDER-defensive at the goal.

 

That's just wordplay. You can't have it every which way. When we're good it's all todo with the system, when we're bad, well - we're just bad. Your desire to feel superior to overly negative people (who you'd hardly count Frankie or I among) has resulted in you twisting words in this childish way to justify what is essentially unjustifiable. You may be happy with the first half system; I wasn't. I was glad when we changed it, and was unsurprised that we improved. PSV just didn't justify that level of defensiveness at home. Walter has employed such systems to great effect against the cream of Europe, but it inspires an inferiority complex when its deployed against teams we're good enough to give a game - eg Celtic and PSV. There's nothing that happened in the game that contradicts that viewpoint, and to suggest otherwise is just to argue for the sake of it.

 

After the goal that system became redundant and the biggest crime apart from being crap was that it took 20 minutes of Ol�© football in PSV's defence for our team to click.

 

It took a change of system and approach that ought to have been there from the beginning.

 

There is more than one possibility for reasons behind things - and you of all people should know that well. Sometimes people can see things from a different angle, just because you are convinced with yours does not necessarily make me wrong.

 

Don't presume to tell me what I ought to know. The only person here not allowing for more than one possibility is you. But, nonetheless, my being convinced of my opinion does make yours wrong when we're discussing matters of opinion.

 

It was also still a game of 90 minutes and "overall" I can't subscribe to us being overly defensive.

 

That's only because we thankfully decided to stop being defensive and changed the formation and approach.

 

This is going round in circles. You're entitled to your opinion. You remind me a bit of Socrates, moaning that Athens was giving him a hard time while he was, all the while, telling them their lives weren't worth living because they didn't subscribe to his absurd sense of rationality.