Rousseau

It's nice to see a respectful response, without anyone being offended. Thank you. I agree Zelalem has to make more of a killer pass, but I don't see every midfielders role is 'to score goals'. He needs to assist more, sure, but I think he contributes a lot, and can continue to without needing to score goals. I like the idea of him playing deeper, as the link-up between the defence -- it's lets me have his control in the team, while freeing up a space for your box-to-box player. Perhaps Halliday would have more of a 'killer' influence in the final third? He's certainly more likely to take a shot at goal.

It's nice to see people thinking again about Law. He has certain qualities that could be beneficial. Like RANGERRAB says, Holt and Law would be an interesting experiment in midfield; or even pushing Halliday further forward and dropping back Zelalem (I think someone else mentioned that?). I think on reflection, we actually have a decent variety of central-midfield players, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. A bit of tinkering might bring some rewards.

"Our game", as in the Scottish game? An attitude that explains our diminishing status on the European stage. This obsession with, to quote Germinal -- who has made my point for me --, "Effort! Fitness! Work rate! And if they can pass, that's only a bonus", is out-of-date. An all-round box-to-box player is a great addition to any side, but shouldn't be the main complement. I accept I like the "metronome", but I've not said it's absolutely necessary in our team. The benefits are clear. I prefer to see us dominate possession rather than go back to the 'run harder', 'hit-and-hope' type nonsense we are all used to in Scotland. No wonder Scottish sides fail in Europe. Zelalem is a terrific wee player; a modern player with a bright future. Any scout, pundit, analyst will say the same. Is he absolutely necessary to our side at the minute? Perhaps not. But he's a big influence IMO on our possession, which is nine-tenths of the modern game. Dominate possession and you go along way to negating the opposition. From that base you then need the box-to-box midfielder, or an attacking-midfielder to go and make things happen. A mix is what is required. I think you need to ask more people 'in-the-know' before suggesting you know which type of player is more valuable to a winning team. (I'm certainly no expert either.) And as for which one is better to watch? That's a personal opinion. I prefer the slower, possession-based, 'chess' game than the clueless, running-about that is Scottish football; give me Barcelona-Bayern over any open, end-to-end game. At the end of the day, we have differing opinions on the game. We'll never see eye-to-eye, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think your conception of a midfielder is out-of-date, or just doesn't exist.

He's not a goal-scorer, so doesn't grab the headlines. He's a metronome, keeping the ball ticking over. He's an excellent passer, great at creating angles for passing and receiving the pass. I think we miss him when he's not in the side.

Disappointing Eustace isn't signing, but if he isn't fit, then so be it. Zelalem is an important player for us; delighted he'll be staying on for the rest of the season.

I think we have to look at Wallace and Tavernier's early season form as abnormal; for full-backs to score so many goals is really unusual. Now, perhaps is the 'normal' level. Although, I would like to see more from them. We do need leaders. I think Halliday could grow into that role, as I think he has the desire. Foderingham has gone up against is manager before -- Di Canio no less! -- so I would expect him to have a little fire in his belly; might take a while for that to come through at a new club though. Wilson would become a leader -- if only his ability was better! Most of our players do seem to be 'followers', but I don't think that's too much of a surprise considering the average age of the squad.

Tax avoidance is immoral. Discuss. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is immoral, but merely unethical. It's not black-and-white when it's legal...

It is a generalisation, and there are exceptions -- because there are many more variables involved. I was merely responding to the presumption that forwards make more attacking/successful managers: IMO it's the other way around -- for the reasons stated. I did a rough tally of where the 10 most successful managers played during their playing career: 4 were defenders; 4 midfielders; and 2 were strikers. It is a generalisation, and there are exceptions, but I think it holds true.

He was an outstanding forward, but even if he could work defenders and bring players into play, my point still stands: defenders and midfielders need greater game awareness -- forwards are very focused on one aspect: scoring goals -- and therefore it is no surprise IMO that they make better managers.

McCoist only tapped the goals in: he had no notion of how the ball should be moved to create the chance in the first place IMO. Defenders, like Guardiola actually, have a need to defend, but also need a greater awareness of the bigger picture, and an understanding of how the ball has to be moved, and how players need to react to it etc. IMO it is no surprise that defensive-type players have a greater understanding, and therefore better managerial performance, than a striker that merely taps the ball into the net at the end of all the hard work.

If you are considering them as a squad of individuals, then sure, the '09 squad is 'better'. But you could also turn it on it's head by asking how many of the '09 squad would fit into Warburton's team, in terms of philosophy? I count 8, out of 20 (I am probably being too critical). Players like Weir and Papac, who were exceptional in that team, would not fit into our current team. Like Frankie says, we do have a good group of young player that will grow into better players. It is unfair to judge them when they are still so young. The youthfulness is a cause of much of our difficulties. One would hope that with a little more experience, those silly mistakes will diminish. The style of football is also better. I would much rather watch the current team, than that '09 team...IMO. It's better football, more progressive, modern. It stands us in good stead for the future. That '09 side was 'short-termism' at it's worst, in the sense that I never had any confidence of where the team was heading. Just being difficult to beat, while being adequate domestically, was boring to watch and was not great for our future development. It may have reached a UEFA Cup final, but boy were we lucky to get that far! We weren't even a good counter-attacking side: Athletico Madrid are a good counter-attacking side. We defended for our lives and got a wee bit of luck. In terms of style I'd say this current side is better, albeit not as efficient yet. IMO, it's not about the group of individuals, but the team as a whole. We can better the current side by incorporating better quality players, but at some stage adding a better quality player is detrimental to the overall team ethic and playing philosophy. Weir was an exceptional defender, but adding him -- even at a younger age -- would be suicide. Boyd was a out-and-out goalscorer in his pomp, something that most fans are saying we need, but wouldn't fit into our style -- he didn't even fit into Walter's team for the big matches! Take the Mouldy vs. Molde game: were Molde better individually, or simply better as a team? (I'm not sure what my point was, but I'm sure it's in their somewhere...)

It's unprecedented in Britain, but Juventus are struggling near the relegation zone this year, and Borussia Dortmund were in the relegation zone for the first half of the season last year. It's difficult when your players are not performing, and, apart from Willian, they've all been piss poor. I think Chelsea have been a lot better recently, but haven't been able to capitalise. Mourinho is still Mourinho, so I'm not sure sacking him is the way to go. Dortmund stuck with Klopp, and he got them out of it.

Tidy wee player with an eye for a pass. A good prospect if a deal can be done. I noticed that he's played in the NextGen series that Warburton set up; seems to be a common thread in his signing policy, which focuses on young, talented players with a sell-on value, which is not bad at all.

That's what it looked like it would be, but Halliday was playing quite deep and Ball was on the left, so it had to be a 3 at the back? I agree, finishing let us down, and individual mistakes. Wilson is a tad too slow for dealing with counter-attacks; he was also beaten far too easily for the goal.

It's not an unusual thing. Most of the best wingers in the world just now are playing on the wrong side. Ronaldo -- when he actually played wide! -- played on the opposite flank so he could cut inside.

I agree with most of that. I mentioned that McKay was often too far in advance of his midfield teammates, so it did look like a 3-4-3, and for all intents and purposes it was. A more orthodox 3-4-3 might have worked better, with link-up men for the wing-backs, like you said. Overall, it was something it seemed we needed more practice with. I'm pleased Warburton tried it though: it shows he can change; also makes it more interesting for us!

I'd agree with that. At number 10 he'd have more options, but he'd still need the forwards to make runs wherever he plays; he'll find the pass if the forwards make runs. Mata does a decent job playing RW at Man Utd, cutting inside. I don't think one needs to be a natural 'winger', in the somewhat old-fashioned sense, to be successful; in fact, most successful wingers these days play on the opposite side because they cut inside.

Holt did OK; McKay wasn't involved enough because we couldn't find him when he played centrally -- not surprising as Hibs had 4 playing centrally -- but was a little better when he went back to playing LW.

Going forward? Meh. I suppose the 3-5-2 would constitute a Plan B. Unfortunately the execution was poor. Like others have said, we could do with a target man to change it, but we require a proper 'target man', not Waghorn, Clark or Miller, as neither have the ability. I was pleased to see Warburton change it. We were under the impression that he'd be quite dogmatic in his 4-3-3. I'm pleased because it means he can change when he feels he needs to. It will require a bit of practice from the players IMO.

I wasn't going to bother with this because of the result, but I thought it was interesting the way we set up, and the way the Manager changed it mid-game.

A top-of-the-table clash, with both sides going into the game in good (-ish) form. Hibs get the three points, cutting the deficit at the top to 5 points, but Rangers were the more tactically astute, but were let down by poor finishing. Mark Warburton said going into the game that there would be no major changes. It turned out there were a few. Firstly, the personnel changed from the previous game, seeing Clark come in for Miller, who dropped out of the squad completely, and Ball retain his place despite the return of Wilson; Zelalem dropped to the bench for the defender. Seeing Ball, Wilson and Kiernan was a surprise. Initially, it looked like Ball would simply take the place of Halliday in the defensive midfield, allowing Halliday to push forward; with Clark playing as lead striker, with Waghorn out wide. However, after a few minutes it was clear there was a significant formation change, with Rangers lining up in a 3-5-2. Halliday, alongside McKay and Holt, retained his defensive midfield role in front of a back three of Ball, Wilson and Kiernan; Tavernier and Wallace played wing-back; Waghorn and Clark led the line. Hibs were unchanged. Generally, we have seen them play a 3-5-2 against us -- possibly the reason for Warburton's change in formation? -- but they changed to a basic 4-4-2, with a very narrow midfield, almost playing as a diamond when going forward. The midfield quartet of McGinn, Henderson, McGeouch and Fyvie being there most creative assets, Allan Stubbs likes to get as many on the pitch as possible. Malonga and Cummings, two of the best forwards in the league, played up top; Cummings especially, has a very good record against us. Outwith Rangers being denied a stonewall penalty after 2 minutes, Hibs started the better, pressing aggressively, and winning most of the second balls. Rangers, it seemed, were a little unsure in their changed formation. There was a disconnect in central midfield, with McKay naturally drifting wide, or into the channel, meaning the space between him and Halliday and Holt was too large, giving Hibs a clear numerical advantage in midfield; 4v3 initially, but 4v2 when McKay drifted giving no chance of controlling the centre. Holt got on the ball a few times, and managed to get Wallace in behind, but the final ball was woeful and invariably cleared. With Hibs playing very narrow, there was space on the flanks tailor-made for Tavernier and Wallace, but our numerical disadvantage meant that the central midfielders were rarely able to play the required pass. The goal was a superb finish, but Wilson was caught for pace, allowing Cummings to cut inside to fire a powerful shot into the far left corner past the diving Foderingham. Undeniably a good finish, but Cummings should never have been allowed to get his shot away. After Hibs scored they sat back and played on the counter. Rangers were quite comfortable at this stage with lots of the ball in our own third, but whether that was because we had the extra man at the back or because Hibs never pressed as aggressively, is difficult to say. Perhaps a bit of both? The three-man defence helped our control of the game, but our midfield was unable to build on it. Up front was not much better, with Waghorn and Clark seemingly getting in each others way. When we got in behind, both wanted to drop deep to receive the cut-back. There needed to be more variability in their movement: one should have pushed to get in front, the other dropping deep, thereby causing difficulty for the Hibs defenders. Rangers started the second-half very well, playing a more direct style. The 3 centre-backs and Halliday were fizzing quicker balls directly into the feet of McKay, Holt and Waghorn. It seemed to push Hibs back, allowing more space. Generally, the link-up between the forwards and the wing-backs was poor, but on the one ocassion it worked, we scored. Wallace drilling a cut-back into a defender, before the ball nestled in the bottom corner. Nothing more than we deserved; gained with a little bit of luck. 5-10 minutes after the equiliser, Warburton decided to change the formation again, reverting to the usual 4-3-3. Wilson and Clark were replaced by Oduwa and Zelalem. McKay was able to move back to LW, alongside Waghorn and Oduwa; Zelalem slotted in beside Halliday and Holt. Instantly, there was more control in the central areas, with Zelalem keeping the ball moving and creating good angles for team-mates, and Holt darting into pockets. We were still outnumbered in the middle 4v3, but with Tavernier and Wallace always pushing forward there was always an out-ball. The main advantage to reverting to a 4-3-3 was that we had better wing-play. Hibs playing narrow meant there was a lot of space on the flanks, but with only wingbacks during the first 55 minutes, we rarely were able to take advantage. The Full-backs and the Wingers linked up with the central midfielders creating little triangles, and allowing Rangers to overload and target the Hibs full-backs. It seemed to work. We were getting a lot of time on the ball in that left side especially. Alas! we could never take advantage. Despite hitting the wood-work a few times, in general, the finishing lacked quality. A rare corner for Hibs, followed by poor man-marking and a wandering 'keeper, gifted Hibs a soft winner. Tactically, it was quite an intriguing game. Warburton changed to a back-three to cope with a talented Hibs quartet, which seemed to aid control after an initial Hibs onslaught. Then when we got the equiliser, the Manager changed it again, to a 4-3-3. Again, it worked, allowing us greater control of the ball and creating overloads on the flanks with some intricate play. Unfortunately, a tactically astute performance was let down by poor finishing. It was not the best performance, but it was certainly no the worst. Like the gaffer said: "We'll play a lot worse this season [...] and come away with points."

I liked big kirk. Never the most talented of players but gave his all for the jersey.

Charlie Addams Family. *gets coat...*

Lafferty: shat myself every time he got the ball!