Jump to content

 

 

[FT] Rangers 2 (Roofe 50, Kent 77) - 0 Kilmarnock


Recommended Posts

We've started the season with a 4-2-3-1, and I don't see that changing. 

 

Roofe will come into the wider position or in behind, with Itten up top,

 

They're not wingers anyway, they play narrow. The width comes from our FBs, Barisic and Tavernear. 

 

I much prefer Kamara and Jack. Davis has been a wonderful player, but his body is not responding, IMO. He's certainly more capable of playing a forward pass than Kamara.

 

However, it's been Jack that has been tasked with playing the forward pass, but he's not done it, despite being capable, like Davis. 

 

For me, the issue was the forwards being unavailable for the pass, not so much Kamara and Jack. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Looks like Stevie finally hit the 'Testicle Extend' button...starting Barker today...no Fredo...No Hagi...seems a definite tactical change. Is it attacking? 4-4-2?

Me hopes.

Either way it smells like something new. Damn the torpedoes! Win or lose...Take it to these pricks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Frankie said:

Walter. ?

Interesting to hear him stay he was sacked in 97 and asked to stay on til end of season.

 

Maybe my age catching up on me, but can't remember that being mentioned previously?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, CammyF said:

Interesting to hear him stay he was sacked in 97 and asked to stay on til end of season.

 

Maybe my age catching up on me, but can't remember that being mentioned previously?

Nope, I think he definitely told a different story today...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Frankie changed the title to Rangers 0 - 0 Kilmarnock
Just now, CammyF said:

After SGs interview don't think there is any doubt why Alfredo is not in team / squad today. 

Aye, no doubt in my mind he was hinting at Morelos attitude when saying Itten & Roofe want to be here and part of the future

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

We play 4-3-2-1, and you incorrectly maintain we're playing 4-2-3-1. 

 

We play 4-2-3-1, and you (incorrectly) suggest we're playing 4-4-2. 

 

Brilliant. 

 

A) we play with JacKamara and thus, 4 (defenders) - 2 (JacKamara) - 3 (inside left & right plus one through the middle) and 1 striker.  Whether the players take up other positions like our fullbacks, does not matter. If you maintain they do, then our line up would be 2-7-1 or whatever.

 

B) as Roofe and Itten are strikers, it is only natural to say it looks like a 4-4-2 with kent and Barker playing on the wings.

 

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.