Rousseau

The graph does show we created 11 chances, but most were very difficult chances that we were unlikely to score -- the chances of a long range shot or shots from tight angles etc. are very small. Over the course of the game -- averaging it out -- we were expected (xG) to score 3; clearly we did better than that -- which is better than we've done all season.

I just put a request in to @11tegen11 (11tegen11.net) on Twitter. I asked last week, but he'd only got round to doing it. I think he can do them quite quickly -- some requests were fulfilled the same day. I don't know how hard it is to get the Scottish data, though -- I can never find any!

Incidentally, football shows/games in the American MLS now provide audiences with the xG to show many goals teams should score depending on the chances created. We may see it more often over here soon too.

ExpG or xG stands for Expected Goals. It measures how many goals an average team would have scored with the amount and quality of shots created. Each goal scoring attempt is assigned a number based on the chance that this attempt produces a goal. It just shows how many goals a team should score for the quality of the chances they've created. Each time the line (blue, from left to right) jumps up indicates where/when we created a chance. Some chances were missed, others taken; some were better quality chances than others. The 3.09 suggests we would've been expected to score 3 goals over the game. Clearly we did better than that last weekend. Generally under MW we've been averaging around 2 per game, but we've really struggled to take our chances so have struggled to score more than 1.

And this is the xG, which shows we consistently created good chances and tended to take the big ones -- and look how little Hamilton did! Perhaps showing how well we closed them down?

Finally got the pass map for the Hamilton game. The double-pivot is quite striking, with many connections between them and the back-four; Tavernier has a lot of the ball; Hyndman and McKay are narrow, with the width coming from Tavernier and Wallace; and there looks to be a lot of movement from the front-two -- which does look like a front-two, not Miller as No.10, although he drifted about. We'd maybe hope to see more connections into the front four players in future -- especially from Toral and Holt.

No, that's unacceptable. That's the figure we should be using to criticise the teams performance thus far.

33 points is misleading. Although we are certainly under-performing, they are having an exceptional season. Walter Smiths (2nd spell) best points tally was 93 points, but included 3 draws and 5 defeats. They would need to lose 5 and draw 1 in their remaining 9 games to come up short of that.

I remember him losing the ball early, but didn't notice PC's orders; Interesting. It might cut down on Tavernier's mistakes if he can't dally.

I'm not too bothered by BF. He has the knowledge for the role, which is not a coach. It would probably help him if he did want to become a (better) coach. As for going behind the manager's back: PLG was so weak he allowed it; PC does not seem like he would take any sh***. There is an argument against the appointment, but I'm not too concerned; there are far worse appointments. F*** it! * Ohh Barry Barry... *

It's so nice to be able to take about new things in our tactical approach. MW was a breath of fresh air last season, but it became too idealistic, inflexible and predictable. I hope we can now talk about little tweaks each week instead of the 'same old same old'.

Can you re-size an image using the bb code? Like: [*IMG height="100" width="100" *] - src - [*/IMG*]

Incidentally, this is a pass map from earlier in the season against Aberdeen: The spacing was quite good, with many connections, but Garner is nowhere to be seen and the passing to waghorn is few and far between; it looks quite open at the back; and there are not many out-balls from McKay. It will be interesting to compare it to Saturdays game. We should see more/better connections up front.

I wanted to include a pass map, but it's taking longer than I thought to get that, so I've just added a rough formation guide. Hopefully I'll get that pass map soon -- it'll be interesting to see the difference.

IBROX -- Pedro Caixinha cut an imposing figure as he emerged in black from the tunnel into the glare of the afternoon sun. Ibrox responded with a customary roar, but a quick raised hand was all before he took up position on the touchline; arms folded, legs apart, he gazed over his new players like a general examining his troops. I hate to go all 'hipster' this early, but with a new manager comes a new style and philosophy; and two words that have followed Caixinha throughout his career has been Tactical Periodisation (TP). TP is not a philosophy in itself, nor a style of play; it is merely a way of thinking about the game by breaking it into key stages, namely: Defensive Organisation; Offensive Transition; Offensive Organisation; and finally, Defensive Transition. According to TP, these are the 4 key stages in any game of football. It is then up to the manager to decide how he wants his team to react in each of these stages. Some sides, like Guardiola's Man City want that Offensive Organisation set up before they play out from the back; others like Klopp's Liverpool, prefer to play with pace on the transitions; others prefer to focus on Defensive Organisation, like Simeone's Atletico. On first look, transitions seem to be the most important aspect of a game to Caixinha. On RangersTV, Tom Miller said that Transition was a new word for the counter-attack. Whilst Tom's not wrong, it's not the whole picture either, because although a team can transition offensively when they win the ball -- the counter-attack -- they also transition defensively when they lose the ball too. Offensive Transitions Our offensive transitions were a breath of fresh air. We moved the ball up the pitch quickly, whether with pacey, short one-twos, or with longer balls into space. Hamilton couldn't deal with the pace of our transitions at times. We also mixed up our transitional play with some longer balls into space, which were crucial in giving Hamilton something different to think about; both Waghorn and Miller were constantly looking to run in behind into the spaces, stretching play. Offensive Organisation The offensive organisation was slightly different to what we've been used to too. There were rumours that the width in Caixinha's teams come from the Full-backs, and this looks to be true. Instead of both wingers hugging the touchline, which too often saw our forward isolated, both "wide-midfielders" (McKay and Hyndman) played narrow. This gave space for Tavernier and Wallace to stretch the play. We've seen our Full-backs bomb forward a lot this season, causing untold damage to our defensive stability. The difference on Saturday was the double-pivot; both Toral and Holt took up sitting positions to guard the back-four and support the rampaging Full-backs, and both were effective in their roles. Ironically, our pitch geography -- a staple under our last manager -- was rather good: we created impressive overloads in key areas. Defensively, the double-pivot created a box-like formation at the back, allowing us to overload any Hamilton counter. Conversely, on the flanks we had 4v2 overloads, with Tavernier, Hyndman and Miller on the right-flank, with Holt supporting. Defensive Transition Those overloads also helped our defensive transitions. As soon as we lost the ball several players instantly press the ball and the passing options with an intensity that has been missing for far too long. The 'hunting-in-packs' approach allowed us to win the ball back quickly, and initiate offensive transitions. It's no surprise that Tavernier -- like the rest of the back four -- had his best game in quite some time, because he was actually supported on the defensive transition instead of being left to do it himself; he's not a natural defender, his first instinct is to go forward, so he needs help. Holt was constantly by his side, applying pressure, with Hyndman supporting too. Tavernier's pace and energy always suited the intense press, but now that he has support, we should see him become a more consistent performer. Defensive Organisation Although our first instinct was to press on the defensive transition, there was a period towards the end of the game when we set up defensively in a low block, with two banks of four and a forward drifting to fill in gaps. Caixinha has said previously that if the press fails, then he wants his teams to be compact defensively. It's not something we want to see too often, but there will be times when we need to sit in. It was therefore pleasing that we didn't look troubled as Hamilton dominated possession and territory in this short spell. Another pleasing sight was our variation in set-pieces. Over the last couple of games we've seen a revival in goals scored from set-pieces, and a lot of credit has to go to Graeme Murty for this -- the banner thanking him was a nice touch, and fully deserved. On the rare occasion when we crossed the ball, it was usually Tavernier hitting out-swingers; they were generally easy to defend against. On Saturday we saw Toral -- who had an impressive game all-round, distributing the ball with crisp accuracy -- deliver some delightful in-swingers; Clint Hill's goal came straight from such a delivery. Provided by The Back Pass Rule The game felt a lot more satisfying offensively. Too often we've seen possession for possession's sake, without creating too many chances. On Saturday it felt like the directness and pace of our attacks contributed to a lot more chances -- and better quality chances at that. The stats seem to back that up. According to The Back Pass Rule, our average expected goals (xG -- a metric measuring how many goals an average team would have scored with the amount and quality of shots created) is 1.87 -- that's under 2 goals per game. Saturday saw that figure rise to 3.33 xG. The graph shows that we regularly created good chances throughout the game, and generally took them. It's easy to get over excited, but we have to remember that this is just one game; Caixinha's first, against a struggling club. Nevertheless, it looks like we will have a team that is well-drilled, intense in the press, able to attack with variation, and able to defend compactly when the situation arises. Caixinha now has an international break in which to work with his new players. It is just one game, but the signs are positive.

It's only one game, but as someone on Twitter said, it's good to get back to beating these "diddy teams" with relative ease. Every game under MW became a chore.

The last 15 minutes or so were frustrating because we were defending, but it is pleasing to see us set up defensively and not look frail. Good performance; good result. Looking forward to see the manager work with the players over the int'l break -- usually comes at the worst time for fans, but it should be beneficial for the team.

Absolutely. Villareal are one of the few sides I actually enjoy watch playing a 4-4-2! Incredibly fluid, with many little triangles throughout; and, as you say, the front pair's movements are interesting to watch.

It was indeed a 4-2-3-1, but I think when we're attacking Miller -- who looks like he's the No.10 -- pushes up to support making it more like a 4-4-2. Holt and Toral are sitting deep, giving us a box-like defensive shape; this is allowing us to press when we lose the ball, instead of there being no one there! The wide midfield players -- Hyndman and McKay -- are playing very narrow, allowing Wallace and Tavernier to provide the width. Our transitions have been very quick, both offensively and defensively. Our set-piece play has been good too: usually it's Tav's out-swinger, but Toral has taken a few in-swingers today which is causing trouble for Hamilton.

The transitions -- that you mentioned elsewhere -- have been very quick, allowing us to attack the space.

A few are moaning on Twitter about the fact that it is the same team -- were they expecting Pedro to sign a new team last night?

Could be. Perhaps I'm just used to seeing 4-3-3 with Waghorn right and Miller "up top"? We'll know when we kick-off.

I reckon it's 4-3-3, but it depends on how he deploys the midfield three: is it 1 sitting, 2 advanced, or 2 sitting with a No.10 like a 4-2-3-1?

I bow to your superior experience in coaching youngsters, and I agree prioritising technical ability at the younger age groups is sensible, but are there not certain tactical principles -- not whole theories at that age, of course -- that they can learn, pre-11-a-side, with which older age groups can build upon? It would be interesting to see how continental sides incorporate the tactical element -- they seem to be more competent tactically... and technically too!