The Dundee United Hoodoo - Follow up article

[Super_Ally 0]

So despite the warnings on this forum, no doubt in the gutter press and I am sure within the confines of Murray Park and the away dressing room at Tannadice, for the eighth time in 9 games Rangers return from Dundee without the 3 points.

 

How we manage to sustain such an embarrassing run is mystifying. Whilst Dundee United have a reasonable home record, before today�s game they had the best home defensive record, and had won 5 out of 8 games, they are hardly invincible. Indeed one of the SPL�s less glamorous clubs, Kilmarnock, have travelled to Tayside and returned victorious.

 

There is no doubting we have a superior squad to choose from. The league table does not lie and a ten point gap tells it own story. Over the course of the season Dundee United are frankly not even close to us. So why do we struggle in so many one off games against the Arabs?

 

The previous article on this topic pinpointed the key factors for our lack of success in this fixture. Levein�s tactical nous and ability to set up his team to frustrate and even dominate Rangers, particularly in midfield, allied to his team�s ability to carry out his orders and undoubted quality within the ranks. As the team�s trudged off at half time however you would be forgiven for believing that Smith, Ferguson and co. had learnt from past mistakes and figured out this Dundee United enigma.

 

Surprisingly Levein did not field his usual 5-man midfield that we often struggle against. The extra man in midfield has previously allowed United to dominate the engine room and hence possession and the pattern of the game. Many suggested we should play a five-man midfield to combat Levein�s favoured tactic whenever the fixture list pairs the two sides. However I was not in favour of altering our team to counteract what should be inferior opposition. It would also have meant disrupting the deadliest strike force in the league. In any case Levein continued with a 4-4-2 formation and this likely contributed to an upturn in fortunes during the opening 45 minutes.

 

Perhaps, also, as a result of a fine early Kris Boyd turn and strike thumping Rangers into the lead, but the customary pattern of United�s midfield dominance and Rangers long ball football did not ensue. Rather Ferguson and Mendes, supported by McCulloch and Davis, enjoyed not playing at a numerical disadvantage in the centre of the park. With Boyd forcing us into an early lead before any real pattern of the game had formed, United resorted to long ball football up to Daly and Feeney. This played into the hands of Weir and Broadfoot who were comfortably repelling all the straight, long balls.

 

With United unable to take control in the centre of the park, they could not dominate possession and territory, nor pin back our midfield and defence. Boyd and Miller were receiving decent supply and the only worry was that we had not taken a greater lead in at half time. With a more competent display from the linesmen in particular we may have done.

 

The only positive for the Arabs in the first half was Conway, when they could get the ball to him. Time and again he linked well with Dixon on the United left to get forward and swing balls in. Whittaker and Davis could not get near them and allowed too many balls into the box. The signs were there in the first half and you would expect Smith to have spotted this from his vantage point high up in the stands.

 

Maybe the players were a bit too comfortable in the first half and did not go for the kill. Though I am not convinced that is the case and is merely an example of picking holes using hindsight. At half time Levein must have put a real rocket up his team. They came out second half and attacked us from the off, though there was no change in personnel and little change in tactics.

 

The commitment and effort of the Dundee united players, allied to the ability to feed their left hand side with more of the ball destroyed Rangers in the opening ten minutes of the second half. They came out with their manager�s words in their ears, the Rangers player were simply not prepared.

 

We learnt nothing of United�s few successes in the first half, allowing Conway and Dixon the time and the space to fire balls across our box. Wilkie playing an unusually advanced role for a centre back converted the first at the back post, Feeney despatching the second just four minutes later.

 

There was nothing clever or inspiring about United�s play, a competent right back, a confident goalkeeper or a dominating centre back could have prevented these foals. For me most the blame lies with the right back, who had a wretched afternoon and was afforded little protection from his midfield partner.

 

Fortunately there was time left to snatch at least a point or even a victory if we could hit back soon. However all the composure and cohesion had left our play. The player�s were shell shocked and needed to get back into this game fast.

 

With Lafferty replacing McCulloch and Novo later replacing Miller we were able to salvage a draw. Novo a man who is never beaten, never accepts defeat, came on and immediately got in United�s faces. Not long after his introduction he produced a fine run and pass to set up Lafferty. He opened his body and showed excellent composure to beat Zaluska, a man who has a habit of foiling Rangers strikers.

 

As much as we pushed late on we struggled to fashion any more quality opportunities and were left snatching a draw from the jaws of defeat. Smith, the players and fans alike will be left wondering how we ended up having to sneak a draw from a game in which were so dominant first half. We could have left Tannadice with no points having been second best only for the opening period of the second half.

 

We showed first half we have the beating of United. Tactically we were superior, we were committed and our quality players stifled and dominated their Tannadice counterparts. As suggested in the previous article it is difficult to precisely identify why one team becomes another�s bogey side. Why do United hold somewhat of an Indian sign over us? This weekend Levein did not demonstrate the tactical nous that has often outwitted Smith. It would also be churlish to put it down to luck.

 

Perhaps, the psychological issues previously proffered as the reason are key. How else can a dominant team coasting to half time fall behind with two quick goals right after the break. A lack of belief, a lack of confidence in holding a lead against a bogey side and most worrying a lack of character and winning mentality within the Ibrox ranks.

 

If we are to finally start going to the hard to win venues and emerge victorious and somehow ensure it is Celtic and not ourselves who go into these ties feeling the pressure of remaining in the title race then it is up to the management and the leading players to find this winning mentality and install belief in the rest of the squad.

[nokiss 0]

Interesting point you make about 'our' players not being prepared for the second half. I thought their body language was poor. It looked to me that their attitude was 'job done' and decided that the three points were in the bag, given their domination in the first half.

 

Given the amount of experience in that dressing room(players and management) you would have thought they would have made absolutely sure they were up for it and warned them of getting caught cold.

 

Gee, it's fun watching Rangers at the moment.

[Super_Ally 0]

Interesting point you make about 'our' players not being prepared for the second half. I thought their body language was poor. It looked to me that their attitude was 'job done' and decided that the three points were in the bag, given their domination in the first half.

 

Given the amount of experience in that dressing room(players and management) you would have thought they would have made absolutely sure they were up for it and warned them of getting caught cold.

 

Gee, it's fun watching Rangers at the moment.

 

Yep a very experienced dressing room, with a lot of experience of struggling against the Arabs. I can't believe they appeared to have such an attitude at the start of the second half with just a single goal lead.

[Frankie 8,552]

Excellent follow up mate...

 

I watched the game in a friend's house at the weekend and actually thought we played reasonably well. Unfortunately, we had an unacceptable few minutes just after half-time and that cost us again. Terrible defending from Davis, Whittaker and McCulloch while McGregor could also have done more to cut out the crosses IMO.

 

Other than that we played well at times and certainly should have done enough to win the game.

 

One continually asks the question about motivation and character of this team. Attitude is awful on occasion and only the manager can explain why.

[chilledbear 16]

Everybody knew DU would flood the midfield after half-time. We were all talking about it, the ones in the studio mentioned it, even Scott Booth in the first half couldn't understand why CL had changed his tactics.

 

I know it's easy in hindsight, but switching Miller to the right and Davis joining the 2 in the middle, even just for 10/15 minutes, could have given us 3 points.

[calscot 0]

Rewatching the goals on the highlights, makes me think that while Whittaker didn't have a great game, I think it's harsh to blame him for both goals. I thought there were more culpable players.

 

On the first goal Whittaker matched the winger for pace but couldn't quite stop him whipping in what turned out to be a wicked cross. He did his job but you can't stop every cross or games with good fullbacks just wouldn't have any.

 

However, Papac was poor at the back post and the attacker's header went pretty much exactly the best direction to score.

 

For me, it was one of those goals where everything just went right for the attacking team and given the same circumstances, 9 times out of ten they wouldn't have scored.

 

The second goal, Whittaker was marking the winger and prevented a cross; however, the winger then passed to an unmarked man behind him who crossed. He should have been marked by Davis who was caught ball watching.

 

Then the defence was a shambles: Weir lost his man and McCulloch didn't think to get goal-side of the attacker. Papac was conspicuous by his complete absence. MacGregor could have possibly claimed the ball but not surprisingly after last week, chose to stay on the line. On another day he would possibly have saved the header.

 

So I think Whittaker was well down the order for culpability at at that goal.

 

To be honest I think Papac was far more to blame for both goals, while Weir was definitely sleeping at the second and Davis needs to learn to quickly defend closely against the opposing left back when he comes up to support the winger.

 

In the end though, bad refereeing and bad luck struck again, and surely both will start to even themselves out...

 

Looking at the Novo penalty claim, the slowmo looked to me like it was a tackle from behind and definite penalty.

 

We had two very dodgy offside calls which would have resulted in a one on one and a two on one on the keeper.

 

Then there were quite a few goal mouth incidents and shots that on another day would have gone in.

 

I thought we played excellent in the first half and quite well for the last quarter. The 3rd quarter really let us down and not for the first time.

 

Celtic do seem to be riding their luck and still getting the decisions, in total contrast to us. If that swings our way, we'll be walking away with the league.

[Super_Ally 0]

Cal, if I'd waited a few days to write that instead of that afternoon you would have probably seen a more reasoned review. I was livid at dropping more points in a game I felt we should have run.

 

Whilst I agree we are due a turn in fortunes in terms of luck and decisions from the officials, we cannot assume that this will just happen.

 

I would have to re-watch the highlights to see if I agree with you re: the goals. But at the time I remember thinking Whittaker had a terrible afternoon as did Davis defensively, with Conway and Dixon running them ragged in that second half.

[CammyF 7,988]

Once again, we were far too narrow in midfield and the DUFC wide players were allowed to run unchallanged from the half-way line to the edge of our penalty area - this is not the fault of the full back, it is a result of not having anyone in a wider area.

 

The goal keeper has to be questioned as well as neither cross was what you'd describe as undefendable. Both were lofted rather than fired across the box and both could have been intercepted by the keeper.

 

Also, both Papac and Lee MC were found wanting twice at the back post and posted missing when Wilkie and Flood scored.

 

Not a great day for the defence.

 

Cammy F

[calscot 0]

Cal, if I'd waited a few days to write that instead of that afternoon you would have probably seen a more reasoned review. I was livid at dropping more points in a game I felt we should have run.

 

I didn't think your review was so unreasoned and I agreed with most of it.

 

Whilst I agree we are due a turn in fortunes in terms of luck and decisions from the officials, we cannot assume that this will just happen.

 

That's true but I think that the OF are so close these days that it can decide who wins the league. We really need some decent officials as the decisions mounting up against us are beyond belief. Luck is one of the mysteries of the universe and hopefully will take care of itself.

 

I would have to re-watch the highlights to see if I agree with you re: the goals. But at the time I remember thinking Whittaker had a terrible afternoon as did Davis defensively, with Conway and Dixon running them ragged in that second half.

 

I don't disagree that Whittaker had a bad game, I just personally don't think he was the most to blame for the two incidents that led to the goals. Most of their attacks came from the left wing but then both goals came from the back post where Papac should have been defending.

 

I think our whole defence was a bit ragged and we definitely need another CB to partner Bougherra with Weir as back up. I now prefer Broadfoot to Whittaker at RB. At LB, I'd really like to see Stevie Smith back to his previous form, but that may never happen.

[Super_Ally 0]

Have to agree re: Broadfoot and WHittaker. Whilst I thought KB rightly deserved to play right back because of his displays there, I was expecting Whittaker to eventually show his Hibs form and make the position his own. Now i'm not so sure he can.