match thread (image) [FT] Rangers 1 - 0 Livingston (Arfield 59)

[craig 5,199]

1 hour ago, der Berliner said:

As I said before, time and again, at home against teams that pose no threat, go 3 at the back and 1 DM, the rest should be there to attack and hurt the opposition in their half. Also something I would actually utilize Polster (yes Bluedell, i know ? ), as he can play right-back as well as DM, so can cover that side of a back three in full ... or step into midfield, while Tav would usually and solely be found somewhere in a right attacking slot.

 

Hence e.g. ... with Stewart and Jones tracking back and Davis being the anchor in midfield. Jack and Polster may step into a more attacking area too, if opportunity arises. 

 

McGregor

 

Polster - Goldson - Katic/Edmundson

 

Jack

 

Stewart - Davis - Kent - Jones

 

Morelos - Kamberi

Polster in that team doesn't work IMO.  I don't thinkhe is positionally sound enough to play in a back 3.  Against Hearts he got caught very, very narrow a number of times.  If playing a back 3 then, for me, it would be Goldson, Katic and Edmundson.  But I wouldn't go a back 3 anyway because, strange though it sounds, we would be less attack-minded with a back 3.  Our current formation is more attacking because, in possession, we effectively play with 2 at the back (Goldson and Katic) whilst the full backs off width on the overlap.  With a back 3 the wide midfielders are going to have to do the tracking back which, as Rousseau says, negates their attacking threat. 

[der Berliner 3,951]

36 minutes ago, stewarty said:

Not sure about that team.  Feels too narrow and would require the Stewart and Jones to work back more often which would negate their attacking threat.   

Thing is, Livingston and some other sides do not pose an attacking threat. Likewise, Jones and Stewart do work back when they have to, and not too bad either.

[der Berliner 3,951]

30 minutes ago, craig said:

Polster in that team doesn't work IMO.  I don't thinkhe is positionally sound enough to play in a back 3.  Against Hearts he got caught very, very narrow a number of times.  If playing a back 3 then, for me, it would be Goldson, Katic and Edmundson.  But I wouldn't go a back 3 anyway because, strange though it sounds, we would be less attack-minded with a back 3.  Our current formation is more attacking because, in possession, we effectively play with 2 at the back (Goldson and Katic) whilst the full backs off width on the overlap.  With a back 3 the wide midfielders are going to have to do the tracking back which, as Rousseau says, negates their attacking threat. 

See above. Polster and Jack, as I said (?) would have the license to go forward too, if the situation arises.

[craig 5,199]

1 hour ago, der Berliner said:

See above. Polster and Jack, as I said (?) would have the license to go forward too, if the situation arises.

But giving Polster license to get forward whilst in a back 3 makes the defensive line very unbalanced.  You effectively have the right sided CB getting forward leaving the central CB and left sided CB having to shuffle over to cover - that could create no end of problems with players not knowing what is expected of them when out of possession.

 

We get more attack-minded formation, shape and balance from having 4 at the back and allowing the full backs to offer support in higher areas of the pitch.

[RANGERRAB 3,932]

Will this game be on today? Weather is unbelievable. Even the dog won’t go out ! ? 

[der Berliner 3,951]

18 hours ago, craig said:

But giving Polster license to get forward whilst in a back 3 makes the defensive line very unbalanced.  You effectively have the right sided CB getting forward leaving the central CB and left sided CB having to shuffle over to cover - that could create no end of problems with players not knowing what is expected of them when out of possession.

 

We get more attack-minded formation, shape and balance from having 4 at the back and allowing the full backs to offer support in higher areas of the pitch.

What is too difficult to understand in: "if the situation arises"? Polster can likewise play DM, so if Jack "bombs" forward, Polster may cover that role. As for 4-at-the-back with regard to more attack minded: 3-5-2 would have us with 2 strikers, two full wingers and a DM that might step forward a little, not least when the opposition digs in around its penalty area. ANd we would have essentially only three defensive players looking for any counter attacks. If that is not more attack minded, I wouldn't know what is.

 

Anyway, as others have said, SG will most likely trial his 4-2-3-1 for the best part of the season, like he did last. As long as those on the park are producing, fine. We have seen though that once the players are not up for it, we toil hard for any goal and result. That would be the time to try a different option, earlier than the 80s minute as well. We shall see ...

[compo 7,542]

Let's get behind the team and the manager and get the result 

[Franc Ergs 1,757]

Pitch inspection at 12.30.

[RANGERRAB 3,932]

Game on or off ? Anyone know?

Edited February 15, 2020 by RANGERRAB

[Rousseau 11,184]