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

[the gunslinger 3,366]

We need overlapping center backs

[DMAA 3,658]

47 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

 

You're both correct, I think.

 

It's not long balls to a target man, though, is it? Cross diagonals are common (we do attempt that from time to time), and balls in behind (in behind for us is the byline!). 

 

I don't like long balls into a target man, but I do think we should be attempting long diagonals, long passes into feet, and perhaps into the channel when applicable.   

Yes, nobody wants aimless high balls rained on top of our forwards. If your forwards are good with their back to goal though they should be able to take the ball in from a long pass and hold it up for supporting midfielders.

[craig 5,199]

1 hour ago, Rousseau said:

 

You're both correct, I think.

 

It's not long balls to a target man, though, is it? Cross diagonals are common (we do attempt that from time to time), and balls in behind (in behind for us is the byline!). 

 

I don't like long balls into a target man, but I do think we should be attempting long diagonals, long passes into feet, and perhaps into the channel when applicable.   

We do, Goldson does it often

[craig 5,199]

4 hours ago, DMAA said:

Yes, nobody wants aimless high balls rained on top of our forwards. If your forwards are good with their back to goal though they should be able to take the ball in from a long pass and hold it up for supporting midfielders.

It isnt that simple though when teams play like Livvy did - they had a bank of 4 and their midfield 5 sat about 5 yards in front of them - there was literally zero space to be able to play balls into feet and hold it up.  

[ranger_syntax 4,329]

6 hours ago, Malangsob said:

Tactics did not change...you know why? Kamara and Jack were still on that field...their ball movement was exactly the same...through the same people...there was no shift in attacking personnel forward...Have you seen a CAM? Have you seen two Attackers?

Ain't nothing changin but the time son. And that time is runnin out me feels.

That's alright...I am gonna let this horse be dead for now.

 

Is this account a creative writing project?

[RANGERRAB 3,677]

1 hour ago, craig said:

It isnt that simple though when teams play like Livvy did - they had a bank of 4 and their midfield 5 sat about 5 yards in front of them - their was literally zero space to be able to play balls into feet and hold it up.  

Hence why we need proper wide players as was too congested in the middle of the park. Get the ball out wide and attack from wide areas to get deliveries into two (not one) strikers.

And did we really need a back four and two sitting midfielders against a team who sat in all game on Sunday ?

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,752]

3 hours ago, Rousseau said:

 

You're both correct, I think.

 

It's not long balls to a target man, though, is it? Cross diagonals are common (we do attempt that from time to time), and balls in behind (in behind for us is the byline!). 

 

I don't like long balls into a target man, but I do think we should be attempting long diagonals, long passes into feet, and perhaps into the channel when applicable.   

This. Long balls into channels get defenders turning. Long balls to target men has low returns for me.

 

I would love for once to see SG totally go against type and go into games like yesterday with a different approach. What would happen if WE sat back and made Livingston come out more? Would it open up the play more for balls over the top and counter attacks? In turn stretching the play more. I understand the onus is on us to dominate and take it to them but what's the point of having 80% possession with nowt to show for it. 

Edited August 17, 2020 by BlackSocksRedTops

[Malangsob 1,264]

1 hour ago, ranger_syntax said:

Is this account a creative writing project?

Yeah bud.  It is a creative writing project. I am a creative writing student, from Arkansas, on a Glasgow Rangers fan site...because that would make perfect sense.

 

Are you writing a book of inane questions? 

 

[Franc Ergs 1,654]

1 hour ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

This. Long balls into channels get defenders turning. Long balls to target men has low returns for me.

 

I would love for once to see SG totally go against type and go into games like yesterday with a different approach. What would happen if WE sat back and made Livingston come out more? Would it open up the play more for balls over the top and counter attacks? In turn stretching the play more. I understand the onus is on us to dominate and take it to them but what's the point of having 80% possession with nowt to show for it. 

I started writing something along these lines earlier, but got sidetracked.

 

Their game plan didn't involve having the ball for much of the game, so yes good chance things could open up this way .

Wave after wave of attacking without too much creativity involved didn't work yesterday.

[MacK1950 2,378]

16 hours ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

if WE sat back and made Livingston come out more?

Simple NO chance.