match thread (image) Rangers 0 - 1 Kilmarnock

[Rousseau 10,823]

For me, it's not really about the formation; It's a good basic structure, fitting the players, but it's how we play it. We are far too linear in our approaches -- it may as well be a 4-4-2! It's always one winger and full-back combination trying to fashion and cross or shot. This is easy to deal with most of the time.

 

We need to get in behind; we need more dynamic play. We need triangles as opposed to simple linear overlaps from the full-back.

 

This is the heart of Murty's deficiencies, for me. A formation switch will not change this.

 

Leicester's game against Chelsea, although they didn't win, showed how to play a more dynamic game; it was just a basic, simple difference -- and that was with a 4-4-2! One of the CM, or one of the forwards would come wide to create little triangles with the Full-back and Winger; sometimes both. All the play was diagonal, not linear, to give Chelsea something to think about. The aim was to get in behind. It wasn't brilliantly executed, but it shows how they way a team approaches their build-up is much more important than formation in trying to create chances. 

 

Even Barca play 4-4-2 nowadays, but you'll never see them play in a linear, static fashion: one wide player comes inside to make a diamond at times with Paulinho --PAULINHO, the Tottenham DM reject! -- playing the No.10; Paulinho is the worst 'creative' No.10 you'll ever see.

 

Anyway, my point -- perhaps poorly made -- is that the formation is not the issue, but the way we play it. Tottenham -- another, final example -- play a 4-2-3-1, but you'd never accuse them of being static, linear or struggling to break a side down.  

[DMAA 3,658]

4 hours ago, Rousseau said:

I don't see 'taking the chances' as the issue, it's the 'creation of chances'

I agree with that

 

12 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

We need to get in behind; we need more dynamic play. We need triangles as opposed to simple linear overlaps from the full-back.

And I agree with this.

 

I think with both Cummings and Morelos making runs and pulling the centre backs places they don't want to go and offering through ball options for our midfielders we'd suddenly see space opening up for everyone.

 

I think there's a false notion that the more creative midfielders that are on the pitch the more clear cut chances a team will create, whereas I think this undermines the role of the striker's runs.

 

I've got nothing against 4-2-3-1, I just think we have two very good strikers after a number of failures (at home) it's time to see if we create more chances with both of them on. I doubt we'd have put 4 past Falkirk with a 4-2-3-1.

[Frankie 8,664]

We played a 4-2-3-1 against Falkirk - it's just that Cummings, Windass and Morelos all switched into the left sided role which helped make us less predictable.

 

Since then, everyone seems to be nailed into one position and even Candeias and Murphy don't switch flanks for whatever reason.  Worse, they often roam inside making the central areas even more congested.  That's fine if Tav and John push into those areas but, on Saturday at least, they didn't (probably because of the threat of Brophy and Jones).

[Rousseau 10,823]

16 minutes ago, DMAA said:

I agree with that

 

And I agree with this.

 

I think with both Cummings and Morelos making runs and pulling the centre backs places they don't want to go and offering through ball options for our midfielders we'd suddenly see space opening up for everyone.

 

I think there's a false notion that the more creative midfielders that are on the pitch the more clear cut chances a team will create, whereas I think this undermines the role of the striker's runs.

 

I've got nothing against 4-2-3-1, I just think we have two very good strikers after a number of failures (at home) it's time to see if we create more chances with both of them on. I doubt we'd have put 4 past Falkirk with a 4-2-3-1.

I agree, I just think we're missing a step. We need a better structure to allow those strikers to make their runs; supporting runs, covering positions, better defensive structure -- not formation --, a clearer idea of what they need to do. I do feel like it's 'off-the-cuff', as if the players are left to their own devices. I hate that; everything I read about modern football has pre-conceived and -drilled player movements and pressing traps, etc.; If you watch Man City, if one player moves position, then another will move to compensate. 

 

Similarly, though, there is a mistaken belief that more strikers equals more goals. That's a complete fallacy to me.

[DMAA 3,658]

4 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I agree, I just think we're missing a step. We need a better structure to allow those strikers to make their runs; supporting runs, covering positions, better defensive structure -- not formation --, a clearer idea of what they need to do. I do feel like it's 'off-the-cuff', as if the players are left to their own devices. I hate that; everything I read about modern football has pre-conceived and -drilled player movements and pressing traps, etc.; If you watch Man City, if one player moves position, then another will move to compensate. 

 

Similarly, though, there is a mistaken belief that more strikers equals more goals. That's a complete fallacy to me.

I agree with all of that.

 

The only reason I mention 4-4-2 is that I think it would be interesting to see both Morelos and Cummings causing havoc by making sideways runs along the back line. Until Dorrans comes in I just don't think we have anyone creative enough for that central attacking midfielder position.

 

The other thing with two strikers is that it's two players up top for Murphy and Candeias to play one-twos with. Murphy's one-two would bring him inside and Candeias's one-two would get him in behind the full back. With one striker coming short for the one-two the second striker could focus on getting in a goalscoring position.

[Franc Ergs 1,702]

Goss is a hugely frustrating player for me, as he goes from looking world class one game, to completely ineffective the next, and i'm starting to see why Ian Holloway punted him our way.

 

A few weeks ago, and regardless of his situation , he was seen by many as a priority signing , unfortunately he's now just a luxury that we can ill afford.

 

.....and don't start me on Alves  , a man capped near 100 times by Portugal, and who's experience and leadership skills disappeared the minute he set foot inside Ibrox ,.. a player who it appears is now happy to just do a shift and no more.

 

 

 

 

[Gaffer 1,665]

33 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I agree, I just think we're missing a step. We need a better structure to allow those strikers to make their runs; supporting runs, covering positions, better defensive structure -- not formation --, a clearer idea of what they need to do. I do feel like it's 'off-the-cuff', as if the players are left to their own devices. I hate that; everything I read about modern football has pre-conceived and -drilled player movements and pressing traps, etc.; If you watch Man City, if one player moves position, then another will move to compensate. 

 

Similarly, though, there is a mistaken belief that more strikers equals more goals. That's a complete fallacy to me.

I agree with much of what you say.  As I've mentioned before, one of the simplest things we could do is move the ball faster.  We have a change of mentality at home.  The players are given more time on the ball so they take it.  It shouldn't matter how much time the opposition is willing to give us, we need to switch the ball faster to open up the spaces.  I don't however think we are as linear as you say.  I do see dynamic runs from the majority of the front 4, but it's still too tight because we've taken too long to move the ball.

 

I know you like your stats and if you look at our speed of play at home (against most teams that sit in) compared with our speed against those who close us down, you'll be surprised at the difference.  I've offered other ways we can deal with the issue we have at home, but simply moving the ball faster is possibly a simple (in some respects) solution to something we are perhaps over complicating.

 

[I just noticed this is my 1,000th post on the forum.  It only seems like yesterday I joined.  Just shows how many opinions I have.  If I post enough of them I'm eventually going to get something right, surely!]

Edited March 19, 2018 by Gaffer

[Rousseau 10,823]

2 hours ago, Gaffer said:

I agree with much of what you say.  As I've mentioned before, one of the simplest things we could do is move the ball faster.  We have a change of mentality at home.  The players are given more time on the ball so they take it.  It shouldn't matter how much time the opposition is willing to give us, we need to switch the ball faster to open up the spaces.  I don't however think we are as linear as you say.  I do see dynamic runs from the majority of the front 4, but it's still too tight because we've taken too long to move the ball.

 

I know you like your stats and if you look at our speed of play at home (against most teams that sit in) compared with our speed against those who close us down, you'll be surprised at the difference.  I've offered other ways we can deal with the issue we have at home, but simply moving the ball faster is possibly a simple (in some respects) solution to something we are perhaps over complicating.

 

[I just noticed this is my 1,000th post on the forum.  It only seems like yesterday I joined.  Just shows how many opinions I have.  If I post enough of them I'm eventually going to get something right, surely!]

I wonder if the offensive structure and positioning isn't there, though; and that's a reason why we take an age to do anything. (And perhaps evidence of the players being left to their own devices?) I can't count the number of times I see very few passing options on the ball for a player; it should be instinctive that the players know what they're doing. Moving it quicker would certainly help.

 

I think you underestimate your track record when it comes to posts...  

 

Congratulations!

[MacK1950 2,399]

As far as I can see the tactics/formation are there but the mental ability of the players to carry them out at home seem non existent.

[Uilleam 5,965]

It would help if the players could pass the ball to another Rangers' player with some degree of consistency.