Jump to content

 

 

The end of the beginning: Rangers v Celtic


Recommended Posts

You know that that's essentially rubbish, but not unlike you to throw that in.

 

If you align our players of Saturday in a 3-4-3 line-up, which I assumed we were playing, you'd end up with ...

 

Foderingham

 

Kiernan - Hill - Wilson

 

Tavernier - Holt - Halliday- Windass

 

Miller - Garner - McKay

 

... Windass was leftish midfield. And that - for me - is the wingback position in this line-up. Whether the player listed there is actually a leftback, left defender, wingback, winger or not - or even does not play an actual wingback during the game. It is not quantum mechanics to figure that line of thought out.

 

Maybye people saw it differently, but I was not under the impression that WIlson was really playing left-back, so no real 4-3-3 as per usual. So 3-4-3 with the "positions" as above.

 

I can't make that any clearer and if that's not enough, so be it.

 

mckay was definitely wide left.

Link to post
Share on other sites

McKay was wide left but rarely tracked back so it was a definite 3-5-2 we played for much of the match.

 

Following my logics, it would have been him and Tav playing the wingback roles then. Theoretically.

 

Anyway, Sinclair and Izagueri (sp?) were having far too much fun all afternoon on our right hand side, by comparison our left was "quiet" despite not having a "real fullback".

Link to post
Share on other sites

McKay was wide left but rarely tracked back so it was a definite 3-5-2 we played for much of the match.

 

Either way we didn't play with a wingback on the left hand side. Not by the definition of a wingback.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We effectively didn't play one on the right hand side and that cost us dearly...

 

It seems to me that to play three at the back you really need wing backs or some other way of guarding the wide spaces at the back which we didn't have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that that's essentially rubbish, but not unlike you to throw that in.

 

If you align our players of Saturday in a 3-4-3 line-up, which I assumed we were playing, you'd end up with ...

 

Foderingham

 

Kiernan - Hill - Wilson

 

Tavernier - Holt - Halliday- Windass

 

Miller - Garner - McKay

 

... Windass was leftish midfield. And that - for me - is the wingback position in this line-up. Whether the player listed there is actually a leftback, left defender, wingback, winger or not - or even does not play an actual wingback during the game. It is not quantum mechanics to figure that line of thought out.

 

Maybye people saw it differently, but I was not under the impression that WIlson was really playing left-back, so no real 4-3-3 as per usual. So 3-4-3 with the "positions" as above.

 

I can't make that any clearer and if that's not enough, so be it.

 

It was a 3-5-2, not a 3-4-3

 

McKay was playing slightly ahead of the midfield but not so far forward as to be playing like a true winger

 

Either way, we can agree to disagree :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad we are all agreed that Windass was not playing wingback.

 

All I was trying to say was that Tavernier needs replaced and that Hodson wasn't good enough to do it.

 

No idea why anyone thought we had to talk about all that other stuff. :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.