match thread (image) Rangers 1 - 2 Hibs

[RANGERRAB 3,677]

On 5 February 2018 at 21:56, pete said:

As I say we all see what we want to see and I will say that for me there is enough doubt to suspect the linesman called it good.

We have to agree to disagree    

[pete 2,499]

34 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

We have to agree to disagree    

I am afraid I can only agree that you don't want to see. You only have to look at Morelos's right foot to see that is over the Grass cut and there is no chance from the Hibs players body position that would be possible. Unless he did the splits in the next millisecond. I will agree to leave it at that though as I am going to try and write a match preview for tomorrow if nobody else is on the list.

[pete 2,499]

Hopefully this is decisive for everyone.

[craig 5,199]

20 hours ago, Rousseau said:

3-5-2 doesn't fit with the players at our disposal, IMO. The wing-back is a specialist position: you can't just put wingers in there. Tavernier and John would need to play there and then we're without our best players, in Candeias, Windass and Murphy.

Fod

Martin - Bates - Cardoso

Tavernier - Docherty - Goss - Holt - John

Cummings - Morelos*

 

(* without injured players)

 

I agree with the need for more in the middle, but I think 4-4-2 (Diamond) fits better. It means overloading the middle, Windass -- one of our best players, no matter what anyone says -- and two up top. However, you lose the wingers (Murphy and Candeias) too -- just like the 3-5-2.

 

Fod

Tavernier - Bates - Martin - John

Goss

Docherty - Holt

Windass

Cummings - Morelos*

 

(* without injured players)

 

I still think 4-2-3-1 is our best basic formation, but we need to use it better. We just need to tweak it in some games to be more compact. Bring on Docherty for WIndass in the bigger games (or Windass up front alongside Morelos), into the No.10 role but play more a 4-3-3 to get the three in the middle. 

 

Fod

Tavernier - Martin - Bates - John

Docherty - Goss - Holt

Candeias - Murphy

Morelos

 

For me -- although it certainly was an issue -- it was more to do with the ineffective screening of Holt and Goss, rather than the fact we had two in there; they were too disjointed, playing miles away from each other. WIndass could've done better too, to mark midfielders instead of defenders --  that switch is down to Murty not Windass. Teams like Athletico, and Leipzig do very well with a 4-4-2 in leagues that predominantly use either 4-3-3 or 3-5-2. 

 

 

I disagree with this, if all players are available

 

Cardoso  Alves  Martin

 

Tavernier/Candeias  McCrorie  Jack  Goss  Murphy

 

Morelos  Cummings

 

You can also put McCrorie back instead of one of the back 3 to solidify and provide pace.

 

You also could bring Docherty into the middle or indeed Holt (who probably doesn't deserve to be dropped IMHO)

 

It still allows you to play your natural wingers and, in Candeias & Murphy, two who understand the defensive side of the game.

 

It then gives you the additional player up top which will keep defences honest.  At home, when teams are playing 4-5-1 there is nowhere for a lone striker to go without being surrounded by opposition - and our midfield in a 4-2-3-1 are over-run, primarily because the 2 are acting as defensive shields - what would the need be, at Ibrox, to have a back 4 and then 2 protecting ?????  A back 6 against a lone striker, are we THAT scared of opposition ?

 

The 3-5-2 would prevent us from being overrun in midfield - Docherty, Goss, Jack & McCrorie would ensure that doesn't happen - the wingers would provide cover when needed defensively - and Morelos would have someone to play off and in up front.

 

If the 4-2-3-1 is still our best option, as you put it, then we are in a painful place - because we shouldn't be losing to Hibs at home.  Not only that but we are losing to lower half teams at home using a variation of that formation too.

 

[craig 5,199]

16 hours ago, the gunslinger said:

17 hours ago, craig said:

I haven't watched the footage and am only going by the still above - but you can't possibly tell that to be the case from this angle.

That works both ways of course

Of course, I thought that much was obvious

[craig 5,199]

14 hours ago, pete said:

As I say we all see what we want to see and I will say that for me there is enough doubt to suspect the linesman called it good.

Whilst I agree that he looked offside.... if the linesman has no more than "doubt" then he is obligated to let play continue.  The benefit of the "doubt" goes to the striker.

[pete 2,499]

5 minutes ago, craig said:

Whilst I agree that he looked offside.... if the linesman has no more than "doubt" then he is obligated to let play continue.  The benefit of the "doubt" goes to the striker.

I hope you need to catch up with the last photo there can be no doubt.

[craig 5,199]

6 minutes ago, pete said:

I hope you need to catch up with the last photo there can be no doubt.

I don't need to catch up with the last photo pete.  As I have said multiple times, I agree that he looks offside.

 

My previous point is that the linesman, if he has any doubt as you posted, has to benefit the striker.  My major point being, I suppose, is that the linesman must have had no doubt at all... and, from the above pictures, I think it proves sufficient visual evidence as to why the linesman would raise his flag.  He is fully a yard offside there.

[Rousseau 10,640]

50 minutes ago, craig said:

I disagree with this, if all players are available

 

Cardoso  Alves  Martin

 

Tavernier/Candeias  McCrorie  Jack  Goss  Murphy

 

Morelos  Cummings

 

You can also put McCrorie back instead of one of the back 3 to solidify and provide pace.

 

You also could bring Docherty into the middle or indeed Holt (who probably doesn't deserve to be dropped IMHO)

 

It still allows you to play your natural wingers and, in Candeias & Murphy, two who understand the defensive side of the game.

 

It then gives you the additional player up top which will keep defences honest.  At home, when teams are playing 4-5-1 there is nowhere for a lone striker to go without being surrounded by opposition - and our midfield in a 4-2-3-1 are over-run, primarily because the 2 are acting as defensive shields - what would the need be, at Ibrox, to have a back 4 and then 2 protecting ?????  A back 6 against a lone striker, are we THAT scared of opposition ?

 

The 3-5-2 would prevent us from being overrun in midfield - Docherty, Goss, Jack & McCrorie would ensure that doesn't happen - the wingers would provide cover when needed defensively - and Morelos would have someone to play off and in up front.

 

If the 4-2-3-1 is still our best option, as you put it, then we are in a painful place - because we shouldn't be losing to Hibs at home.  Not only that but we are losing to lower half teams at home using a variation of that formation too.

 

I had chosen players that weren't injured, so yes, McCrorie would come in; Dorrans and Jack come close too.

 

When we play a back-four at home, it's actually a back-two: Tavernier and John are high and wide. Having three at the back would actually leave more players back. 

 

For me, you can't just put wingers into a wing-back slot. Just because they track-back doesn't mean they are defenders. They're good when they are tracking-back, but they need full-backs to help them. I could see one natural winger playing there, but not two; it would need to be one of Murphy or Candeias, with a full-back (probably Tavernier, because he can't be dropped!). 

 

I'd like to see a front two. However, I think it needs to be John and Tavernier as wing-backs. 

 

The reason the 4-2-3-1 is not working is because we're not playing it quite right. The three should be narrower, both supporting the forward and supporting the defensive screen.

 

We really shouldn't be getting overrun in the middle. The average positions against Hibs had Murphy, Windass, Morelos and Cadeias all in a front four, with Holt and Goss miles behind on their own. That shouldn't happen. The 5 in midfield have to work together in a pentagon, to press and screen. 

 

I'd like to see a back-three trialled, but I don't think we can put natural wingers there; that's my issue. 

 

A 3-4-2-1 or 3-4-1-2 may suit us better. The former would allow natural wingers, but only one striker; the latter would allow two strikers with no wingers. However I think about it, I can't fit in natural wingers and two strikers -- unless we go 4-4-2, or 4-2-4, which doesn't solve any of our issues!  

[JFK-1 1,693]

On 2/4/2018 at 15:47, ian1964 said: