Frankie 8,367 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 More valuable analysis from Mike Driggs on our main site: http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/match-analysis/673-penetrating-parked-buses-substitution-impact-v-motherwell You can also find a match report and all the goals from Jamie Currie here: http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/match-analysis/671-rangers-2-1-motherwell-match-report-and-goals Keep visiting the main site for quality original content you will not find elsewhere! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 10,019 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 The subs certainly made a difference. Kranjcar was willing -- and able -- to pass forward, which the others failed to do. Dodoo and MOH's movement and energy was vital towards the end. (I'm still annoyed at MOH shooting when a simple squared ball finishes the game...) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,367 Posted August 22, 2016 Author Share Posted August 22, 2016 I think the subs did help but we have to take into consideration a tiring opposition. What people have to realise is that games last 90mins and when up against parked buses it may take all 90 before we finally break them down. That can be down to a combination of reasons but patience will be required more often than not this season. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg_Mcnoleg 50 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 I think the subs did help but we have to take into consideration a tiring opposition. What people have to realise is that games last 90mins and when up against parked buses it may take all 90 before we finally break them down. That can be down to a combination of reasons but patience will be required more often than not this season. Yeah, but in this instance the subs brought a significant increase in movement and dynamism (well, not Krancjar but moving is not his forte!). I suppose you could give M'well some credit for denying us space but it was like the midfield and wide players had been snorting Horlicks before the game: static off the ball and ponderous and slow with it. I'd excuse Miller to some extent: he was dropping deep and moving wide but nobody ever got beyond him to take advantage of that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,367 Posted August 22, 2016 Author Share Posted August 22, 2016 Yeah, but in this instance the subs brought a significant increase in movement and dynamism (well, not Krancjar but moving is not his forte!). I suppose you could give M'well some credit for denying us space but it was like the midfield and wide players had been snorting Horlicks before the game: static off the ball and ponderous and slow with it. I'd excuse Miller to some extent: he was dropping deep and moving wide but nobody ever got beyond him to take advantage of that. Absolutely agree and I think we were somewhat taken by surprise at how defensive Motherwell were which showed us up in the first half. The positive aspect comes that the manager recognised this and made changes. Perhaps later than some would have liked but, if he'd made them earlier, they may not have been as effective. Swings and roundabouts! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFK-1 1,691 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Since you would imagine Motherwell will view themselves as top 6 it might suggest that we're going to face this tactic almost all the time at Ibrox perhaps even against the sheep who would like to see themselves as a competitor to us. Maybe we can be at least a little happy with the fact that even though it's agreed we didn't play well on Saturday we still created a heap of chances in fact a total of 18 shots at goal which has to be impressive for a team not playing well? How many will we be getting when playing well? Obviously the problem with that is we're converting so relatively few of them and hopefully the introduction of Garner then the return of Waghorn will dramatically increase that conversion rate. If we can start putting them away then we can seriously take on anybody because despite all our complaints about defensive frailties the main competition has similar issues. They have shipped 2 goals in quick succession in each of their last two matches after taking a 3 goal lead in each of those matches and that against teams creating nothing like the number of chances we do. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 The subs certainly made a difference. Kranjcar was willing -- and able -- to pass forward, which the others failed to do. Dodoo and MOH's movement and energy was vital towards the end. (I'm still annoyed at MOH shooting when a simple squared ball finishes the game...) I can understand it though, desperation to make a contribution and score, rather that than someone who might be a bit blas'e. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFK-1 1,691 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Do we expect Garner to play on Friday? If he doesn't he will have gone 4 weeks without a match by the time the match after Friday comes round and we all know where that will be. Also the manager said Waghorn would be fit for that match so does that mean Waghorn will play on Friday even as maybe a sub? And if not then how long will it have been since he last played if he is thrown in against them on 10th September. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waltersgotstyle 297 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 The subs certainly made a difference. Kranjcar was willing -- and able -- to pass forward, which the others failed to do. Dodoo and MOH's movement and energy was vital towards the end. (I'm still annoyed at MOH shooting when a simple squared ball finishes the game...) Strange that no one has mentioned this in the press over the last few days. We could/should have won 3-1 in the end. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooponthewing 1,139 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 It was interesting that McGhee said he felt they had a better chance v us as mhanks has signed great players. Subconsciously that would have been his attitude with his players pre Mhank match in cup when they got gubbed 5-0. In essence opening up at the farmyard and having a go as in his mind it was a "free bet". He wasn't going to lose sleep over losing, especially to his beloved c****c! In contrast his attitude v us couldn't have been more different. Along with the help of McDonald(another former Mhank employee) making sure the he and his team done everything they could to stop us playing and minimise as best they could our attacking options. He will wax lyrical that he goes into every game telling his side to give 100%. Weather it's consciously or subconsciously he dosnt, nobody does, we prioritise and save our energy for when most needed. It's very evident we can see where his favour lies. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.