Zelalem And The Interpretation Of A Role

[pete 2,499]

PS: I thought Zelalem played very well again on Saturday and it's a shame he didn't have a Holt to help in a creative sense.

 

I agree and I would have taken Halliday off as he had very little influence on the game except a shot that hit the post.

[limeburner 0]

I agree and I would have taken Halliday off as he had very little influence on the game except a shot that hit the post.

That will be one more shot that hit a post than Zelalem has had in his Gers career.(theres still time-----i suppose)

[limeburner 0]

There has been a hell of alot written about this player------this is my last.

1Zelalem has polarised the Rangers support.

2Zelalem will not be polarising the Rangers support for much longer.

[MacK1950 2,399]

Nearly agree but we don't have infinite time.

[limeburner 0]

Nearly agree but we don't have infinite time.

Nearly is near enough cheers.

[ranger_syntax 4,422]

There has been a hell of alot written about this player------this is my last.

1Zelalem has polarised the Rangers support.

2Zelalem will not be polarising the Rangers support for much longer.

 

Outwith the first few matches that he has played I've only noticed praise for him in this forum. I'm not sure the support is really divided on this issue.

[craig 5,199]

That will be one more shot that hit a post than Zelalem has had in his Gers career.(theres still time-----i suppose)

 

So hitting the post once whilst being completely anonymous for the rest of the game is enough for someone (Halliday) to be kept on the field of play ? Whilst the other player (Zelalem) was probing all during the 1st half, looking to get through balls and balls through the channel gets hooked.

 

I like Halliday as a player - but on Saturday it was he that should have been subbed rather than Zelalem.

[craig 5,199]

That will be one more shot that hit a post than Zelalem has had in his Gers career.(theres still time-----i suppose)

 

So hitting the post once whilst being completely anonymous for the rest of the game is enough for someone (Halliday) to be kept on the field of play ? Whilst the other player (Zelalem) was probing all during the 1st half, looking to get through balls and balls through the channel gets hooked.

 

I like Halliday as a player - but on Saturday it was he that should have been subbed rather than Zelalem.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I don't think substitutions are devised beforehand.

 

Surely, most sides are predictable with their subs anyway? We know our side best so it'll be second nature to guess what's to come sub-wise. Watching the Hibs-Hearts game today I could tell you what potential subs would be made.

 

Moreover, there are only 2 or 3 adaptations you can make to a side in a game situation: go more defensive, go more attacking, or more of the same (refresh). We have never had the need -- generally -- to go more defensive and so tend to do the latter two. Combine this with the fact we have a very lean squad, it's no wonder the subs are predictable. And, there are only three changes to be made, out of 6 players (excluding the 'keeper).

 

As to whether this is a disadvantage, not necessarily. Every side will do their analysis and preparation before a game to devise a way to win, so IMO teams will know, more or less, what an opponent will do; it comes down to how well those strategies are executed.

 

I think the 'Plan A' comments have been misinterpreted a little. Warburton indeed wants his teams to play a certain way and will not deviate from that, but that doesn't mean changes can't be made to the personnel, which will have an effect of the team. For example, we lined-up with both Ball and Halliday in the side against Killie; both have a defensive side to their game. We were still playing plan A, but the personnel chosen provided a different slant on that game-plan -- more steel in there! The line-up clearly shows Warburton tweaking his line-ups to deal with 'better' sides. I suspect we'll see more of that in the future.

 

I'm not a 100% sure of this and don't have time to check but is it not the case that MW has made two substitutions on are about the 60th minute in virtually every recent match, save one when they were about 5-10 minutes later?

 

Would you not agree that there are occasions when only one or no substitutions are required and that making substitutions just for the sake of giving some players "game time" or "squad rotation" might disrupt the Plan and/or upset the rhythm of the team and thus be counter-productive?

Edited February 9, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

So hitting the post once whilst being completely anonymous for the rest of the game is enough for someone (Halliday) to be kept on the field of play ? Whilst the other player (Zelalem) was probing all during the 1st half, looking to get through balls and balls through the channel gets hooked.

 

I like Halliday as a player - but on Saturday it was he that should have been subbed rather than Zelalem.

 

As I remarked earlier, Halliday did not look near as comfortable or effective further forward as has done in his hitherto deep lying role.