Rousseau

I'm not convinced we need Nolan at all. He's an attacking midfielder, whereas, like Rab said, we need a defensive midfielder. I understood and welcomed the Eustace deal; I do not care for the Nolan link. He may be 3 years younger, and played at a higher level, but he doesn't play well in a defensive role, and he's not used to our attacking, free-flowing style. He's a 'big Sam' type of player, not 'oor Warbs'.

I suggested as much, with regards to the finishing. Miller was unlucky not to score as the goal that was chopped-off was onside IMO. Nevertheless, surely the fact that Miller is missing chances suggests he's doing something right, or perhaps, that the strategy of playing a striker on one wing is working? It was just the execution of the final ball, and/or the finish, that was severely lacking. I was suggesting that the aggressive pressing from St. Mirren hampered our normal possession game. However, as you say, we did still create a few chances. Perhaps Clark or Hardie should get a run in the main striker role, with Waghorn playing wide? I think we might go with 2 out-and-out wingers against Hibs though.

I don't think we necessarily need to respond to this kind of bile. It belittles the accusations by not responding IMO. Nevertheless it is an intelligent rebuttal that doesn't descend into the kind of childishness it is rebutting. (I'm certainly punching the air!)

It was one of the worst performances of the season. But I refuse to believe it was as bad as it appeared. Our possession was down on our average, but our chance-creation was still quite good. It was our execution that let us down. It must also be said that St Mirren executed a good tactical plan. After a poor performance, there naturally follows a cry for a plan B, for a change in our style to mix it up. And there is certainly a case that a Target Man, and a more direct style, would have benefited us against St Mirren. There were those that thought we were "off the pace", and "our passing wasn't as good as past games", "ball retention" was suspect, and players were "missing in midfield." All true. Most of these problems stemmed from the tactics that Ian Murray employed. It worked a treat. It has often been the case recently that opponents sit deep. Not with St Mirren. They lined-up in a 4-4-2, but with a wide diamond in midfield. The result was that they had 2 strikers to press our centre-backs, 2 wide players to press our Full-backs, and finally, an extra presser in midfield making life difficult for Halliday. It was one of the most aggressive strategies we have faced. Add big Goodwin in a defensive midfield, destroyer role, and it makes for a difficult prospect; no matter how well we play. The aggressive press meant that our centre-back's had very little time on the ball in which to play passes into midfield. At times Halliday dropped into defence to make a temporary back-three, and was able to pick up the ball and start an attack. But with St Mirren's Stevie Mallan (or was it Howieson?) snapping at his heels, it was all too rare. Rangers line-up with the standard 4-3-3. Both Full-backs were aggressive, but there tended to be only one that would attack at any one time, with the other sitting deeper. Halliday and Zelalem were quite static, never roaming too much. This meant Holt was the main attacking threat from midfield, taking up positions in the pockets, and making intelligent, late runs in behind. It was a lop-sided attack, because, whereas McKay kept to the touchline on the left, Miller would often drift inside -- not surprising, considering he is a striker by nature. With Miller in the side, we lacked width on the right, but his incessant inside, diagonal runs were a good route in behind. The interplay with Waghorn was quite interesting. Waghorn often dropped deeper to pick up the ball, dragging defenders out of position, allowing Miller to exploit the space. Miller got in behind on a few occasions -- without the ball! -- but his finishing was suspect when he did receive it. The only goal of the game came from the movement of Waghorn, Miller and Holt. Waghorn dropped deep to pick up the ball, dragging defenders out. Miller takes the central Stiker role, again causing problems for the St Mirren defenders. Meanwhile Holt makes darting diagonal run, where Waghorn is able to thread a ball through, before blasting it from a very tight angle. The 'keeper really shouldn't be getting beat from the acute angle. With St Mirren pressing aggressively in the middle of the park, direct, 'vertical' balls were few and far between. Our possession naturally suffered. What was more, however, was that Holt often drifted wide to find space to receive the ball. This had the effect of 'flattening' our midfield trio -- 'flat' in the sense that they were literally flat, not 'flat' in the sense of lacking energy. Obviously, this meant that the interplay between them was poor: if one's only passing option in square from you, then the only pass is square. It must be said that Zelalem was particularly poor in his distribution, often trying to force passes when a simple ball would suffice, and consequently gave the ball away on numerous occasions. Moreover, Holt drifting wide meant we had fewer numbers in the middle, and when we lost the ball St. Mirren had lots of time and space in which to run at our defence. Halliday often drifted wide also to cover the attacking Fullback. This contributed to most of St Mirren's chances in the game: long range strikes. It was one of the few games this season in which we have had to rely on Foderingham. He pulled off some fine saves. We became more stable late in the second half when Shiel's was introduced. Shiel's does not have the pace, and so tends to stay in a central area. This 'base' of Shiels and Halliday allowed us to see more of the ball, and brought about a few chances late on. It was a disappointing game overall, simply because we never had the possession we normally expect. A lot of the problems stemmed from St. Mirren's aggressive press. There was certainly a lot of space in midfield when we were able to overcome the press, contributing to quite an end-to-end game. We were in need of more direct balls into midfield, to exploit the space. Law could have been a better option in place of the poor Zelalem, whereby a midfield 'runner' would have had the space to exploit, rather than a midfield metronome that lacked the ability to pass effectively in this particular game. Law is also always a goal threat. Despite the problems, if we had taken our chances we would have ran-out comfortable winners. But we also must give credit to Ian Murray and St. Mirren, for a very effective tactical set-up.

Just testing something...

I think he's an important player in our side. It'd be great to get him for the remainder of the season. He's so important to the side, I worry about replacing him for next season! Maybe he'd come back to play in the Premiership?

Mourinho is an arrogant man. Those that like him relish that because he was always right, always winning. Those that dislike him are now entitled to relish his failures. Trying to be impartial, I do feel he gets pulled-up a lot by the FA. Others get away with it. To be fair, I don't think there should be any fines or punishments altogether for criticising the referees: they get it wrong on so many occasions, surely they should get blamed; and, likewise, praised for doing a good job?

Partly, but he did round the 'keeper only to hit the side netting, and 'sky' a shot from outside the box. It's not too much of an issue IMO, because he can only improve. His composure is excellent for a young man -- even when the final finish was lacking; my two examples above were preceded by wonderful touches and composure on the ball to fashion the shooting chance -- and that is much more difficult to 'learn'. An excellent prospect.

Hardie's accuracy was woeful the first half, but his composure for his first was awesome. He's got a turn of speed too. I'd like to see him get a game or two for the first team.

There were a few first-team players in that Hibs side! Well done the lads.

Rather! Faria's forearm smash would certainly have been a foul in the Rugby game. I'm all for aggressive football, but it just seemed excessive. Frankie beat me to it, but, to be fair, there were a couple of media guys questioning the approach. Great read.

I think there are 2 layers to any team's 'system'. The first layer is their style, the way in which the players interchange, move and pass. Then the second layer is the tactical layer, a formation or a way of playing which looks to target the weaknesses of an opponent. I think a team needs both: the first will stay no matter what, but the second will change depending on the opposition. I also think, looking at the comments so far, there are 2 broad views on football style. There's the Mourinho view, which is inherently negative, looking to be stable and difficult to beat. And then there's the Guardiola view, which is essentially positive, looking to attack. Mourinho will tweak tactics to stop a team, whereas Guardiola will tweak his tactics to overcome a opponent. I'm not saying one is better than the other, because both are successful, but I'd prefer to see the Guardiola outlook practiced at Rangers.

On reflection, if the league is won, which I don't think it is, why can't we use this time to experiment with a few things? Isn't this the best time?

The 3-3-1-3 was not a serious consideration really, merely used to show the way in which Guardiola has tried to overcome those compact defences. The 4-3-3 (the 4-2-3-1 is simply a variation of the former) is the most flexible. I agree it should be our base. However, I don't see why we can't change depending on the opposition. Likewise, I don't see why a back-three can't work (I'd prefer Wallace at LWB/LM), and in fact, having a pivot that drops deep would provide this during play in a 4-3-3. We need to be flexible IMO. There are many sides that go up against better opposition playing in a different way, looking to tactically overcome them: Chile, a smaller side, were phenomenal at the WC playing 3-4-1-2; dominating teams and being aggressive. Again, overlooking that fact that we lack the right type of players, I don't see why we cannot do that? In regards to developing a team for SC and further, you seem to be assuming that we're going to be the underdogs -- and I suppose we are to a certain extent initially --, but I'd like to see us take the initiative. I don't want to see us go back to Walter's tactics, of sitting deep and waiting to counter. I want to see us attacking, keeping the ball and being creative. I think we differ on the premise: you assume we'll be defending against better sides; I would like to see us be the attacking side. From your premise, I understand why you'd want a simple, stable formation and system. Nevertheless, a 4-2-3-1 can be very flexible and creative: just look at Athletic Bilbao!

'Interplay' (is that a word?) is the key IMO. Having individual players that can beat a defender is great, but IMO it's better if we have 2 or 3 players making off-the-ball runs and passing options, to unlock defenses.

I'd keep them both. Bell as a decent back-up, and Temps, on his day -- admittedly few and far between -- is a good winger. We're quite short on wingers anyway. I'd keep Temps and hope to see Assulin sign.

Quick question: do the shorter paragraphs make it easier or more difficult to read?

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/current-affairs/460-the-rise-of-vertical-football "Whoever has the ball is the master of the game" --Xavi We have seen more 'masterful' performances from our team this season. Intricate passing and incisive movement has resulted in impressive possession stats of over 65%. This is our primary defense: restrict the opposition to as little of the ball as possible and you go a long way to negating their attacking threat. But we've still seen some calamitous defending when our opponents do get the ball. Unfortunately, our attacking potency has also been somewhat diminished. Teams are starting to restrict our goal tally by defending compactly and deep. We were regularly hitting 4, 5, 6 goals a game at the dawn of the season. Now, we are struggling to get 2 or 3. It's not surprising. Rangers were a surprise package at the seasons start, with teams unsure how to cope. Now, they know what to expect. On the continent, some of the best tacticians have been dealing with this problem for years. How to penetrate deep, compact defenses when you have lost the element of surprise. Again, I look to Guardiola and Bielsa for inspiration. Barcelona, Athletic Bilbao, Chile, and now Bayern Munich have had to deal with teams sitting deep, restricting space. The solution is Vertical football. When teams defend compactly, they are subconsciously adopting a form of football that is concerned with the horizontal. It's quite common, and quite easy to spot. Generally, they narrow and retreat into two banks of four. Then they shuttle from side to side, depending on the placement of the ball. It's success comes down to how it forces the attacking team to adopt a horizontal attack, forcing the ball into the wide players where it's easy to defend. The shape that this creates is what Guardiola calls 'the U': where the ball goes wide and forward, before being forced back and across to the other side. And repeat. We are seeing this at Rangers. We struggle to penetrate, and are often forced wide by the compact opposition. We go wide to Wallace or Tavernier, up to the Wingers, and are forced back when we can't get in behind, only to try the other flank. It creates a horizontal passivity in the attacking side. Vertical football is a little more direct. It consists of direct, penetrating passes with the aim of breaking the lines of defence. It's not to be confused with route-one: this is not getting the 'keeper or centre-back to 'hoof it' long! And it does not mean longer balls, but more vertical passes. There is a subtle, but significant difference between a long, aimless ball, and a long, targeted pass. We've already seen hints of a more direct style at Rangers with more long diagonal passes to the wingers, with the aim of bypassing the defensive block of the opposition. Even at the recent Livingston game -- at least early in the second half -- we saw Tavernier go high and wide on the right, with the rest of the team shuttling over to the left, allowing for a long, direct pass to Tavernier, who was invariably in open space because the opposition had narrowed into a horizontal defence. Guardiola’s teams are now more direct, but in a controlled manner -- again, this does not mean long and high balls from the 'keeper or centre-back into the strikers. Guardiola looks for his teams to create situations where they can penetrate opponents rather than playing the ball from side to side; with the aim of negating the horizontal passivity and ineffective possession which afflicts possession-based sides. Key to this vertical football is a slight tweak in formation. The 3-3-1-3. Guardiola uses it now and again for certain games, and Bielsa uses it on a regular basis, especially when manager of Chile (they still adopt a similar system under Sampaoli, a disciple of Bielsa). It's not even a new formation. Louis Van Gaal won the Champions League with a youthful Ajax side with this formation in 1995, with such players as Overmars, Kluivert, Litmanen, Davids, Rijkaard, and of course, the De Boer twins. Recently, Guardiola implemented this formation in Bayern's top-of-the-table clash against Borussia Dortmund. It resulted in a 5-1 thrashing. The line-up was: The formation does not dictate the vertical, or direct, style, but rather just happens to lend itself very well to it. Most of you will be incredulous at me drooling, misty-eyed over a style of play that is nothing new. I am slightly drooling considering it, but I freely admit that it's nothing new. But it is a tweak to another, seemingly incompatible, possession-based game. The direct style has been implemented in many formations over the years. Most recently -- 2 years ago -- Jurgen Klopp's Dortmund were a great possession-based side, but played an incredibly direct style. Inspired by the tactics used by Guardiola against Dortmund, My mind drifted to considering a Rangers side utlising this formation: A variation on Xavi's quote is for the Chess fans. Kasparov always said if one controls the centre, one controls the board, and therefore the game. The 3-3-1-3 allows for another midfielder in the centre, creating a combination that would be very difficult to negate for the defending side. It could completely overload the middle making any attack difficult, but it also stops the opposition from dominating the centre. The formation also allows for an extra man at the back: a three-man defence, providing extra cover on the counters. Another change I spotted at the Livingston game was a shift -- during play -- to a back-three when in phase one. Tavernier dropped back alongside Ball and Kiernan, with Wallace bombing forward. It allowed another passing option for when Foderingham had the ball, when Livingston often pushed three men up to man-mark -- a sight we'll probably see more of. These changes still allow for proper wingers. The 3-3-1-3 creates 4 horizontal lines of personnel, which allows for greater options on the vertical plain, and allows for quick transitions. A player can bypass a line without passing too far, and risk loosing control. A player has more options with which to surprise the opposition, and can be more effective in breaking the lines of defence. Another benefit is allowing overloads. A quick, direct pass to the number 10 can break the lines of defence, and when combined with runners concentrating of one area can allow for an overload. Even if a team is doubling-up on a winger, the number 10, the RCM and the RW, can overload the the flank, creating a 3v2. Again, there were hints of Rangers trying to overload certain areas against Livingston: Oduwa drifted over to McKays flank -- Law drifting wide to cover the departed Oduwa -- and combined with Holt and Wallace on occasion -- albeit unsuccessfully. There are also defensive benefits. Vertical compactness -- as a result of the 3-3-1-3 -- means that any side trying to attack us will have to force the ball through more lines of defence. Instead of just passing through 2 lines, they would have to pass through 3 or 4, making it very risky, and easier to recover possession. Or, with the central ground firmly in our control, it would force the opposition wide, into inefficient attacks. It is much more manageable for a defensive set-up to force the opponent wide where we can over-power them. Moreover, harking back to Warburton's statistical sensibilities, it is generally inefficient for an attacking side to score by crossing the ball into the box: that is why Rangers invariably play corners short. Finally, having a compact formation and overloads in central areas, it allows a team to press in greater numbers, and further up the pitch where ball recovery can be deadly to defenders out of position. Again, Klopp's Dortmund were masters of direct play, but incorporated a form of transition pressing, whereby they would press, in numbers, high up the pitch hoping to recover the ball when opponents were out of position. This is only a hypothetical musing. It is highly unlikely that Rangers will be incorporating these ideas any time soon. Regardless, there have been hints of some variations in our play: whether overloads on certain flanks; a change to a back-three; or a more vertical, direct style of play. These subtle changes are encouraging. It makes me hopeful that a Rangers side in the future could be a tactically astute proposition for any side.

I don't think I could cope with that kind of responsibility anyway!

It doesn't matter. It was just a little query, which I submitted before noticing the "HTML switch off" permission. I completely understand why. Security comes first.

It's a good point. One would hope the structure is implemented so as to work independent of any managerial changes. Southampton, for example, have a structure that works independently of the manager; in fact, the structure chooses the manager that best fits the structure.

Can we embed HTML tags? Like... <iframe width="350" height="500" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://lineupbuilder.com/350x500/?p=11&a=40303&t=&c=2100db&1=GK___388_174&2=DLL_Wallace__293_56&3=DCL_Kiernan__327_138&4=DCR_Wilson__327_211&5=DRR_Tavernier__293_292&6=DMC_Halliday__258_174&7=MCRR_Zelalem__218_226&8=MCAL_Holt__186_138&9=WL_Oduwa__116_64&10=WR_McKay__116_284&11=FCA_Waghorn__80_174&c2=ffffff&c3=ffffff&output=embed"></iframe> ...Apparently not. Can we get a facility for this? Ah, I see HTML is turned off. Fair enough. Forget it. You can delete the thread.

Ah, so it's his injury record that you have a problem with, rather than his age or ability. I understand that. Isn't it true that he -- despite, as you state, not playing much -- was a key player for his clubs? Like I said, I don't expect him to play much, but he'll play a important part IMO, in the sense that we need a DM/pivot, and his off-field presence which could be very beneficial. I agree a pay-as-you-play could be quite good.

We need a pivot/Defensive Midfielder. Eustace was one of the best in that position for Derby last season, which results will testify. He cannot have dipped that much in ability in 1 year to the extent that he cannot play a part for us. His off-field benefits have been intimated by Warburton and a few of the players. I think he'll be a very good signing all round. Neil Lennon was doing a fairly decent job at C***** at 36, with very little ability, and still played a part for Nottingham Forest a year later. Even our very own Sir David of Weir played until 40. Age is irrelevant if they can play a role: Serie A is littered with players in their late 30's; they are cherished, protected and carefully managed so they can play a part of the team -- sometimes a crucial part -- until a very late age; They are not shafted because they reach an arbitrary age. I think Eustace will play a very important role for us.

That requires some sort of forethought. Our idiot 'leaders' are only interested in the short-term. We're struggling to find sponsors. Surely that should be sounding huge alarm bells?