Did Walter do wrong?

[craig 5,199]

Good to see WS stating that we have lacked creativity this season. He obviously knows that the lack of creativity is the problem - hopefully he can get the right creative player in during the close season.

[Guest Ibroxian]

Rangers played better in the second half but I'm annoyed by a couple of things that are a typical trait of many managers (though NOT Jose).

 

When they scored he should have put all his sub strikers/midfielders on and pummelled Zen relentlessly for 15 minutes in an all-or-nothing finale, not wait until 86 minutes before Boyd appeared looking rather unmotivated. Ally and Walter were out of their depth in that situation I'm afraid. Damp squib stuff, very dissapointing.

[Guest Ibroxian]

..... and another thing, that second goal, why do defenders slow up allowing the attacker space, raise their arm, look away from the attacking player and ball, look over towards the linesman gesturing offside, be ignored then avert their attention back to the game? All in the six yard box by whioch time the goal is scored.

 

Utterly unforgiveable and basic. There were two substitutions during added time, referees usually give 15-30 seconds further additional time per substitution. This would have added 45 seconds to the game. Had that defender wised up, tracked his player, got the ball and hoofed it upfield there may have been a chance of an equailiser.

[craig 5,199]

Eh ?

 

Zenit scored after 72 minutes. WS and AM discussed tactics for a few mins and then brought Novo on after 77 mins, taking Papac off - attack-minded player for a defender.

 

They then put McCulloch on after 80 mins for Hemdani, an obvious attempt to bombard Zenit with McCulloch's aerial prowess.

 

Boyd coming on after 86 was their final substitution and possibly could have been made earlier.

 

But to suggest that they waited till 86 mins to make an attack-minded substitution is, quite frankly, nonsense.

 

Perhaps Boyd could have been the first sub but I would contend that Novo was a wiser choice as he has been playing well recently. McCulloch could easily be defended as a better choice too as we would obviously start reverting to long balls forward.

 

I think you are being harsh on WS to be honest.

 

EDIT : Whilst hypothetical I doubt that the additional 45 seconds would have resulted in us scoring. 1-0 on the night was enough for them and a couple of minutes more would likely have still been enough.

[Guest Ibroxian]

I don't mean to offend but there were 18 minutes remaining and although Rangers were the better team in the second half and Zenit despite their possesion were toothless in attack, three subs on 72 minutes is what he should have done. Discussing it and looking at notes during vital minutes is amatuer. They literally had days to prepare for Rangers biggest game for many years and that should have included what they could do depending on varying scenarios, in particular going a goal behind late on. They were not prepared and paid the price. Three substituions meant three lengthy discussions about it meant less time concentrating on the way the game was going.

[Guest Ibroxian]

EDIT : Whilst hypothetical I doubt that the additional 45 seconds would have resulted in us scoring. 1-0 on the night was enough for them and a couple of minutes more would likely have still been enough.

 

Eh? ( )

 

1999....

 

91 minutes......

 

Bayern Munich 1 - Man Utd 0

 

93 minutes......

 

Bayern Munich 1 - Man Utd 2

[craig 5,199]

I don't mean to offend but there were 18 minutes remaining and although Rangers were the better team in the second half and Zenit despite their possesion were toothless in attack, three subs on 72 minutes is what he should have done. Discussing it and looking at notes during vital minutes is amatuer. They literally had days to prepare for Rangers biggest game for many years and that should have included what they could do depending on varying scenarios, in particular going a goal behind late on. They were not prepared and paid the price. Three substituions meant three lengthy discussions about it meant less time concentrating on the way the game was going.

 

You aren't offending at all Ibroxian.

 

I still disagree though. What about injuries ? Sendings off ? Players not playing well ? fatigue, etc ? Should they have planned for them too ? Every permutation that could possibly have happened should have been planned for ? It is impossible.

 

On 72 minutes they were not expecting to suffer losing a goal and, when they did, they had to discuss which players should come off and who would go on. I don't think that 5 minutes is particularly long to consider that.

 

Further, you say "even though Rangers were the better team in the second half" - do you not think they should also have taken this into consideration ? Surely as the better team they had to consider remaining with the players they had on the pitch with some expectation they would create chances (as they had been doing).

 

Far too many permutations for them to make a snap decision.

 

Also, what if they made all 3 substitutions, scored a goal to equalise and then suffered an injury where they would have to finish the game with 10 men ?

 

I still think you are being unjustly harsh.

[craig 5,199]

Eh? ( )

 

1999....

 

91 minutes......

 

Bayern Munich 1 - Man Utd 0

 

93 minutes......

 

Bayern Munich 1 - Man Utd 2

 

I think you miss my point !

 

Just because it happened that night in 99 doesnt mean it looked like happening last night.

 

Are you saying that we looked as good in attack last night as Man U did in 99 ? I dont think we did.

 

Once in how many finals has that happened ?

[Guest Ibroxian]

You aren't offending at all Ibroxian.

 

I still disagree though. What about injuries ? Sendings off ? Players not playing well ? fatigue, etc ? (Throw caution to the wind, fortune favours the brave)Should they have planned for them too ? Every permutation that could possibly have happened should have been planned for ? It is impossible. (The most obvious permutation required that has a rock solid, immediate response required decision is falling a goal bahind).

On 72 minutes they were not expecting to suffer losing a goal and, when they did, they had to discuss which players should come off and who would go on. I don't think that 5 minutes is particularly long to consider that.

 

Further, you say "even though Rangers were the better team in the second half" - do you not think they should also have taken this into consideration ? Surely as the better team they had to consider remaining with the players they had on the pitch with some expectation they would create chances (as they had been doing). (Rangers were the better of two quite tepid teams, they were better but making no more goal scoring chances that their opponents).Far too many permutations for them to make a snap decision.

 

Also, what if they made all 3 substitutions, scored a goal to equalise and then suffered an injury where they would have to finish the game with 10 men ? (Tough, get on with it!)

I still think you are being unjustly harsh.

 

Craig, my red bold mate....

[Guest Ibroxian]

I think you miss my point !

 

Just because it happened that night in 99 doesnt mean it looked like happening last night.

 

Are you saying that we looked as good in attack last night as Man U did in 99 ? I dont think we did.

 

Once in how many finals has that happened ?

 

Very defeatist Craig! Teams score goals in the dying seconds of games week in week out. Ranger didn't need 2 goals, just one to force extra time. And that has got to be worth fighting for.