Jump to content

 

 

[FT] St Mirren 1 - 1 Rangers (Tavernier 84 pen)


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

Confused Politician GIF by Chicken Licken SA

Simple enough. Many on here agree that 4-2-3-1 or the like is modern football and the way ahead. That's how we lined up under SG and mostly under Gio as well. No matter whether the opposition plays open football or brickwall stuff.

 

Today, you might agree on that style, not least since we hadn't enough players to play any differently. Yet, instead of Lundstram attacking the area, it was "I-don't-want-to-shoot" Kamara up there, and we ended up with naught. Arfield should have given us more options, yet, he was out of sorts too. So ... Matondo and/or Ure might have come in to bolster the attack line, who was shooting blanks. And maybe McCann, who might have brought another spark into midfield too. Couldn't have been any more disjointed than it was for the best part of 90 mins.

 

Without VAR, we could have ended this game without a point ... who would have thought that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, der Berliner said:

Many on here agree that 4-2-3-1 or the like is modern football and the way ahead.

I'm not sure about that.  Some do, some don't. 

 

I'm a great believer in altering how you play depending on the opposition.  I'd go all out attack against all the Scottish diddy teams and at home to the scum but be far more defensive against Euro opponents and at the Piggery.  

 

I think GvB changes things far more often than SG or Warburton did but he's just a poor manager and the players aren't buying into his ideas.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, der Berliner said:

Simple enough. Many on here agree that 4-2-3-1 or the like is modern football and the way ahead. That's how we lined up under SG and mostly under Gio as well. No matter whether the opposition plays open football or brickwall stuff.

 

Today, you might agree on that style, not least since we hadn't enough players to play any differently. Yet, instead of Lundstram attacking the area, it was "I-don't-want-to-shoot" Kamara up there, and we ended up with naught. Arfield should have given us more options, yet, he was out of sorts too. So ... Matondo and/or Ure might have come in to bolster the attack line, who was shooting blanks. And maybe McCann, who might have brought another spark into midfield too. Couldn't have been any more disjointed than it was for the best part of 90 mins.

 

Without VAR, we could have ended this game without a point ... who would have thought that?

I don't like the 4-2-3-1. Well - It's alright. It depends how you use it. Nagelsmann uses it very offensively; someone like Benitez has everyone behind the ball and bores you to death. 

 

We didn't line up in a 4-2-3-1 under SG, it was a 4-3-2-1, with two #10s and no wingers. 

 

Formations are largely irrelevant in the modern game. 

 

I agree with your second point. If you have two players to play midfield, one for the holding role, one to play a little more offensive, I don't understand why GvB would pick Lundstram for the holding role and Kamara for the attacking role?

 

I would have thought that, to be honest. Our xG barely limps past 1 per game. We just don't create chances, never mind take them. St Mirren had a higher xG than us, and that's with a penalty!

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MacK1950 said:

Matondo WHAT?????

Our players out on the park produced little in terms of clear-cut chances. The attacking options on the bench were: Arfield, Matondo, and Ure. Not much more to chose from, right? And if anything, Matondo is another player most Scottish teams know little of in terms of ability and how he likes to play, as opposed to Kent, who was quickly doubled up on. So yes, Matondo would have been another attacking option.

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.