Fluidity Slices Through Defensive Block

[boabie 230]

A bit unfair as that Ajax team had Johan Neeskins Arie Haan Gerrie Mühren with Johan Cruijff. Sjaak Swart and Piet Keizer in front of them. Not to forget Ruud Krol and Wim Suurbier as full backs That is a world team and not many teams could do what they did. I would love to have seen them against a modern day Barcelona.

 

Imo Barcelona would have taken them apart Pete.

[Big Jaws 570]

A bit unfair as that Ajax team had Johan Neeskins Arie Haan Gerrie Mühren with Johan Cruijff. Sjaak Swart and Piet Keizer in front of them. Not to forget Ruud Krol and Wim Suurbier as full backs That is a world team and not many teams could do what they did. I would love to have seen them against a modern day Barcelona.

 

I do take your point and to a certain extent I agree with it. However I wasn't really comparing like for like in terms of those phenomenal players. I was making a slightly different point. Here's an extract from a piece I had written regarding what the Scottish game has become in comparison to where it once was but never posted.

 

 

So we're really talking about a Rangers class and style more as an attitude, a philosophy, a way of playing, which is qualitative rather than any specific type quantitative data's (match stats are quantifiable and important in the modern game but you get the drift). The formation used at that time, apart from Whites two year spell 67-69', was more or less 2-3-5 or pyramid. Translated that's two covering full backs, three half backs and five forwards consisting of centre forward inside left, inside right, outside left and outside right. By the time it came to Waddells tenure he could adapt it frequently and by using two larger (modern built) centre half type players in the covering positions previously occupied by full backs would allow the now more athletic full backs to support with more width. At other times it was adapted to 4-2-4 or else otherwise akin to Chapman of Arsenals 'WM' and the Hungarian Bukovis 'WW' formations the latter of which was perfected by the Hungarians and the Brazilians of the 50's. In short it was a very fluid style and caught out many an unsuspecting opposition. However it isn't really the formations that we remember with fondness, it was more the players and their style/class.

 

 

 

That in its self is rather antithetical because without an expansive philosophy of play in 'the Rangers Style' then how could a player possibly be of 'Rangers Class'? More to the point without the expansive philosophy of play the players themselves would have been restricted both in growth of talent and what we now call tactical awareness therefore could not have gained the knowledge through experience to become the players that they became. This 4-3-3 of Mark Warburton is an adaptation of 4-2-4 which as I mentioned above is an adaptation of the 2-3-5 that I began with. Our game here and not just Rangers I might add has centred around the coaching of kids in the 4-4-2 method in variations of the Italian variety 'Catenaccio' ('door-bolt' or in other words defensive man marking with counter attacking) which eventually added a touch of the 'Zona Mista' ('mixed zones' or zonal marking). Throw in the uncultured hatcheting meted out by some teams for good measure and there you have what is now more or less the modern Scottish game. Its been like this in our leagues for the last 30+ years (I'd say going that way from about 5+ years before the Roxburgh era) and as far as I'm concerned has ruined our game almost completely... apart from the occasional brief moment of sunlight such as 'The Little General' there has been absolutely no attempt at any other philosophy and woe betide mentioning something as radical as total football or anything like it to counter this homogeneous brute force 4-4-2 system and philosophy.

 

 

Although always being hopeful it was absolutely no surprise to me that 'The little Generals' adapted 4-3-3 team took Wattys defensive 4-4-2 apart in our last Euro final. I'm sure I don't need to make the comparison to what teams are doing now against us being similar to the way we tried to play against Zenith. If most bears are honest with themselves we never really looked anything like scoring. It's all a far cry from being able to take our foot off the gas at 3-0 up 5 minutes into the second half of a Euro Cup final. That's more or less exactly what Mickels phenomenal Ajax side of the 70's playing adaptations of 4-3-3 did to Herrera's Inter Milan beating them 2-0 and further to that went on and thrashed Maldini's A.C. Milan 6–0 in the European Super Cup. A match in which the defensive Milan system was completely destroyed by Ajax.

 

 

Do not get me wrong I am not for one minute suggesting that the current Rangers squad is of the same calibre or quality as Ajax with Cruyff, Inter, Milan or even the current Bayern or Barcelona squads with the likes of Messi etc... not at all and far from it, besides the game has moved on a long way since then athletically speaking almost unrecognisably so. It is however essentially the same game and there is a limit to the distance and length of time athletes can go flat out for. So if we want to compete with the likes of those at today's elite or any other level we do need to begin somewhere. What I'm absolutely sure about is that if we stick with this same philosophy of the zonal/man marking, defensive 4-4-2, with its hyper defensive all about not losing, get rid of the ball, hoof it out the park, hawf him mentality then our young players are already having all their fitba coached out of them.

 

 

What Mark Warburton has done is introduce this expansive philosophy back again into all Rangers squads from kids to seniors. He's put in place a system where we coach them to be comfortable on the ball, in all positions during a game, even while under pressure defensively. Then through a combination of natural ability and the experience of previous mistakes, on the continent learned at a young age, we will most definitely see the rewards as the years progress. When this is what we consider normal again, as is on the continent, then these kids-to-men will be able to play in any system, in any league, should they chose to.

[boabie 230]

While agreeing with most of your summary BJ even if it is a good bit too technical for my ken may I make one small point mate,

 

" Although always being hopeful it was absolutely no surprise to me that 'The little Generals' adapted 4-3-3 team took Wattys defensive 4-4-2 apart in our last Euro final. I'm sure I don't need to make the comparison to what teams are doing now against us being similar to the way we tried to play against Zenith. If most bears are honest with themselves we never really looked anything like scoring."

 

Walter might well have broken a habit of our play during that competition and set his stall out differently for the final had he had the chance to give his players a couple of days rest. We should never forget how the rest of Scotland lent their "assistance" to us in the weeks preceding that final. I for one would prefer to think Walter would have thought, "Well it's the final, let's have a go" if his squad hadn't been so dog tired.

[Big Jaws 570]

Without a doubt there were very few signs of 'sporting integrity' in those decisions Boabie and who can say what a couple more days rest could have achieved. In terms of performance levels I personally don't think it made much of a difference to our lads to be honest with you I felt they played at an intensity that I expected for that level of a tournament with or without the rest days. I have no complaints about the effort our lads put in.

[pete 2,499]

Imo Barcelona would have taken them apart Pete.

 

We will never know, but I doubt that they would take a team where the nucleus should have won 2 world cups, apart.

[boabie 230]

We will never know, but I doubt that they would take a team where the nucleus should have won 2 world cups, apart.

 

Agreed . We will never know unless someone does one of those computer jobs we had years ago with Ali v Marciano.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I won't copy BJ's very interesting piece but suffice to say that Rangers first played 4-2-4 with Ian McMillan as the deep lying inside right and Jim Baxter as the attacking left half back in the early 60's.

 

"In those days managers didn't tell you what to do; the players just did their own thing," says McMillan. "The manager picked the team but that was all. We basically played a 4-2-4 at Rangers. Jim Baxter and I were in the middle of the park. We didn't plan it; it was just the way it worked out. The job of Baxter and was to get the ball to our strikers."

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/13147094.Spiers_on_Saturday__meeting_Ian_McMillan__the_Wee_Prime_Minister_of_Ibrox/

 

"Scot Symon was a very successful Rangers manager, but he just left everything to the players. It was totally up to us to do what we did on the park. You heard nothing, no instruction, coming from the dugout. In those days the manager wasn't even there, Mr Symon was up in the directors' box. The players were left to their own devices."

 

I would also mention a snow cleared pitch on the night of 3 March 1965 when I stood shivering on the terracing watching Rangers come within a George McLean missed header of knocking the legendary Helenio Herrara's catenaccio style Inter Milan out of the quarter final of their back to back winning European Cup. Inter were the effective world champions at that time, having beaten Independiente in the Intercontinental Cup. They also proved that with the right players even a defensive style could overcome famous attacking sides like Real Madrid (3-1), albeit incredibly Puskas and Di Stefano were 37 and 38 respectively in the 1964 Final; and Eusebio's Benfica 1-0 in 1965.

 

Albertz notwithstanding, I'm not sure that I could agree with the description of Advocaat's Rangers as adopting a homogeneous brute force 4-4-2 system when we bossted the likes of such talented players as Ferguson, van Bronkhorst, Mols, Kanchelskis, and Reyna.

 

Unfortunately when it came to 2008, we didn't have an Inter Milan type Luis Suarez generalling our team (perhaps Ferguson and Hemdani combined might have made such a player) and were well beaten by Zenit. If I might offer a correction, we certainly didn't play 4-4-2 in the Final, we only had one striker, Jean-Claude Darcheville and lined up 4-1-4-1:

 

Alexander;

Broadfoot,Weir,Cuéllar,Papac;

Hemdani;

Whittaker,Ferguson,Davis,Thomson

Darcheville

 

Whether Warburton ever aspires to the level of the great Rangers managers like Struth, Symon or Smith never mind Advocaat remains to be seen. Plan A appears to work pretty well at our current level but we will need better personnel and a Plan B as we move up, not to mention a European Plan as well.

Edited January 12, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[Big Jaws 570]

I won't copy BJ's very interesting piece but suffice to say that Rangers first played 4-2-4 with Ian McMillan as the deep lying inside right and Jim Baxter as the attacking left half back in the early 60's.

 

.

..

 

 

I would agree that at that time most Scottish teams and players played in a very attack minded expansive style meaning it would be natural for them to play that way with very little coaching. However in as much as I would like to believe the notion that managers in those times let the players decide how the game would be played, and in spite of the quoted reference, I simply cant.

 

 

Take the 72' game against Munich for example apart from Juventus in 78' it is for me the stand out victory in any competition that we've ever had because of who we were playing against Sepp Maier in goal, Schwarzenbeck, Beckenbauer, Breitner, Roth, Hoeness and Gerd Muller. When we went to Munich to play them they expected Rangers to play in a defensive 4-2-4 but as I'm sure you're well aware that's not how we played at all the result ending up 1-1. By all accounts the romantic version of the story is that Wallace returned from his spying/fact finding mission with the only information being that they were better than the previous team who beat us in the Fairs Cup the year before. I don't believe that for one second nor that Waddle just let the players decide how to play in that game. Incidentally my old man wouldn't let me travel abroad with him during that run of games though I was in my usual place on the Broomloan Rd terrace for the return leg and the atmosphere was something I'll never forget.

 

 

I should have been clearer Advocaat didn't play that defensive 4-4-2 style of football his was essentially 4-3-3 with various adaptations remember he was called 'the little general' because 'the general' title was already taken by his mentor Mickels. I was describing his style from my perspective as a 'moment of sunlight' in an otherwise dank, dull environment. It can seem crazy to talk about total football in a situation such as this but if you talk about Advocaat then you simply cant avoid it because he was Mickels protege.

 

 

You are absolutely correct that the formation Smith used was 4-1-4-1 with an interchangeable one of the mid 4 playing as a false #10. No matter how you slice it though it was a very defensive setup that has to rely on a powerful fast paced player such as Darcheville. Although on paper its the same formation it was nothing like the Spanish side of 2008 who used it very successfully. Credit where its due though it held out until 18 minutes till the end. However if you look at the match stats for the first and second half we were out played in every possible way in both.

 

 

I will concede that the '4-4-2' I suggested in my previous post was clumsy but was intended as a 'catch all' phrase to describe the negative play style that Scottish football had adapted since the 80's rather than go into detail, as I am about to, because its sort of boring to discuss if you're just wanting to see good football. With that said of course there are any number of permutations and combinations of numbers/formations that can be derived from it. Although strictly speaking its not 'Catenaccio' as that has a sweeper who sits just in front of the keeper such as 1–3–3–3, 1–4–3–2, 1–4–4–1 the latter of which as you can see is more or less Smiths 4-1-4-1 (the exception being your namesake in promoted position) where as the above Spanish 4-1-4-1 was more akin to 4-2-3-1 and although somewhat defensive it is also fluid giving 6 attackers when needed as opposed to the Smith variation giving only 5.

 

 

 

I think that'll do for now before we bore everyone to death with a page full of unromantic number systems.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Big Jaws