Rousseau

I thought Kiernan was good today. He's quite frustrating though: at times he can be brilliant, blocking, intercepting passes and can be physical in the air; then at other times he can look distinctly average, almost amateur. Consistency is key for him. If he can add it to his game we have a good player. I think that can be applied to the squad as a whole.

Pep's decision making is always to control the game, so putting Sagna and Kolarov (who's played their before tbf) into a back-three may not seem like the best way to go about it defensively, I think it gives him a better chance of controlling the game. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, merely suggesting a reason for it. Craig beat me to it, but I'm not sure Bravo is the issue. I think you've made a good point about the 100 mph nature of our game compared to the slower 'continental' style (although I don't agree there is a 'continental' style per se, as Italian, Spanish, German and Dutch styles are completely different).

McKay was terrific; he always tries the intricate pass, but it's amazing how better he is with a bit of confidence. Garner was a constant thorn in their side. It doesn't bother me too much that he's not scoring -- although I'd prefer it -- as long as he puts in shifts like today. We could have had a few more if Waghorn was not so greedy -- can't really blame him, though!

Well, that was a pretty commanding performance. It's difficult to pick a MotM.

That Miller miss, though...

That was f****** magic! Pace, energy, aggression. Excellent. The 4-1-4-1 is allowing us to outnumber them in the middle and the pressing is causing them to panic. Tavernier athleticism and drive has been brilliant. Tav and Holt are hitting the half-space well, allowing options on the ball. Halliday has been cool and composed on the ball, and he drops into a makeshift back-three to deal with their 2 up front.

I think Tavernier brings more athleticism to the team, which will be needed today, than Forrester and Waghorn -- perhaps not waghorn, but he is a striker so it's difficult to see him competing with Tav for a position.

I actually think MacKay has the skills -- as he is from the same football "school" as Warburton (aka Watford!) -- but I think the text message situation means he shouldn't be given this role.

Interesting to see where Tavernier is playing, with Hodson presumably RB. Hodson deserves a run in the team; he's been solid without being spectacular, which is pretty good for a defensive player IMO. Young Burt's on the bench too.

[tweet]807585665131171844[/tweet]

"Donalda"?!

That's it published, Pete!

I find it strange: To me, both McKay and MOH have the attributes to play out wide, but don't look comfortable. MOH probably the faster player at the club but his pace is wasted most of the time. McKay needs more supporting runs -- he'll find a pass most of the time if it's there. I hope it'll come with more coaching and familiarity with the system.

Aye, that's who I was thinking off... *Google's Bobby Graham and Willie Pettigrew* Yes, just because we play with a front-three doesn't mean two players are on each touchline and the striker is isolated in the middle. The wingers need to come inside or a central midfielder needs to support. The long ball can still be played in the 4-3-3.

It's been an indifferent start to the season. Despite being 2nd, results have been average and performances have certainly not been up to the standard we've come to expect. We seem to go through a check-list of blame, the latest of which is that it's the formation that's wrong: it's broken, it doesn't work, the players don't fit in the system... it's just wrong; Change it. The one formation bandied about is the 4-4-2. This is understandable: it's comfortable, it's traditional; most sides of yesteryear played it, and of course Rangers have played it in the past to great success. But times have changed. Is it still an option? And is it the answer to our current woes? We have played 4-3-3 since Mark Warburton arrived, and this formation has been implemented throughout the club, from academy to first-team. We have had success with it: winning the league; reaching the Scottish Cup Final; with some wonderful performances along the way. Many now believe that success was because we were playing at a lower level, and that now that we've reached the Premiership it no longer works. The main reason used is that the players don't fit in the system, despite having exactly the same squad apart from an extra few players (Barton's away, Kranjcar's out, Rositter's out; the only new additions that play somewhat regularly are Hill, Windass, Dodoo and Garner). The main criticism, that the system is not working, implies that we are executing it the way it's supposed to be executed. But, I don't believe we are. We've shown glimpses if it working well over the season -- Kilmarnock being the prime example, but even in our defeat to Aberdeen, we played well -- but not consistently, and not to the same level as last season. Of course, teams get used to it and teams this season are clearly fitter, stronger, faster etc. I don't think we're executing it as well as we can; we've lost the knack: connections between players are non-existent, there are fewer options on the ball, our movement's not as good and the pace is generally slower. If you execute any formation poorly, you're going to struggle. A change to 4-4-2 is held up as the answer, a return to a simpler way of playing. There are a number of teams in the top five leagues employing the 4-4-2, all to great success. My issue is that these teams share certain traits that don't apply to Rangers, or at least shouldn't; like resources, performance, tactical philosophy and objectives. Atletico Madrid are perhaps the most well-known exponent of the 4-4-2. Simeone's side have achieved incredible things, winning La Liga -- breaking the Barca-Real duopoly -- and reaching two Champions League Finals. Atletico line up in a horizontally compact 4-4-2, and look to defend in a low block and counter with devastating speed. Simeone sets his side up in three lines stacked on top of each other, with two banks of four (four defenders with four midfielders sitting right on top of them). At first their 2 Centre-Forwards (CF) press opposing Centre-Backs (CB) before the whole team gradually drops off into that low block. They allow teams to have the ball and they just shift laterally to block the side of the pitch the opponent is trying to move the ball. The system is inherently reactive. Atletico are organized, horizontally compact, ruthless on the counter, and generally impossible to break down. Against weaker opposition this is much more difficult because those teams won’t attack them in numbers and will allow them the ball. However, against Real Madrid, Barcelona, and other top sides in the Champions League, Simeone’s Atletico can be devastating. Another successful side that adopts the 4-4-2 is Borussia Mönchengladbach (A German team). Lucian Favre -- who has since left as manager -- is considered a tactical genius and achieved remarkable success, taking 'Gladbach from the relegation zone to qualifying for the Champions League. Mönchengladbach were one of the most difficult teams to play against, using a compact 4-4-2 and a fast-paced counter-attacking style. The difference is that they pressed like demons in a limited form of Jurgen Klopp's Gegenpress. 'Gladbach’s system relies on the players shifting laterally across the field in order to limit the passing options for the opposition and force them into risky passes forward or safe backward passes. While all shift to one side (leaving a large space on the other), one ball-far side-midfielder (RM if the ball is at the other side) will shift out to mark the free space, leaving a gap in between the RM and RCM so they can better press when the ball is switched. This space could be a weakness, but their 2 CF's cover the space centrally. Again, it is inherently reactive football. In attack they move the ball vertically at pace -- the defensive approach is used to destabilize the opponent and once the ball is won they hit with pace while their opponent is still trying to adjust. There are 3 basic counter-attacks: an aggressive long ball played forward behind the defense for a forward to run onto; fast direct running from wingers or center forwards; fast team movement forward combined with short passes. The first approach is generally what English (and British) sides do, with Leicester being the prime example. The second approach is what Atletico do. The third is the Gladbach (and German) approach, where the entire team flows forward at pace while combining short passes to devastating effect. Leverkusen can also be included as a side that execute the 4-4-2 successfully, but are simply a more intense pressing side like Gladbach. Leicester too, but without the intense pressing. All these teams are smaller teams in their respective leagues, all have a handicap in terms of resources. Atletico are a wealthy club, but compared to Real Madrid and Barcelona they earn relatively little. Monchengladback and Leverkusen are big names, but relatively poor. All are smaller sides punching above their weight. The tactical philosophy is inherently reactive, rather than proactive -- they defend and wait to counter, rather than go out to win the game. Their fans don't care too much about being entertained week-in week-out, but wish for their team to achieve a certain position at the end of the year. All these things don't, or at least shouldn't apply to Rangers. We are the biggest in the league, with vastly superior resources. We have to be proactive; we have go out and win games against smaller sides that just want to frustrate. And, most importantly, we demand to be entertained. A 4-4-2 is not entirely appropriate for any of these things. Walter Smith's 4-4-2 was successful because we had better players and more resources than most, but the performances were some of the most boring. The only team I can think off that play a 4-4-2 whilst also dominating their league is Red Bull Salzburg in Austria. Being owned by Red Bull, their resources are vastly superior to anyone else in their League; they can afford to outbid everyone and assemble sides that are superior to anything else domestically. RB Salzburg were managed by Roger Schmidt (who has since went on to manage Beyer Leverkusen, a team mentioned above for their intense press) at the time of their dominance with 4-4-2. To attack they would use an intense pressing game to force mistakes from their opponents then counter at pace. If teams allowed them the ball, they would play long balls, with a 4-2-4 overload in the final-third. Salzburg's 4-4-2 required supreme athleticism, strength and incredibly quick players -- Sadio Mane, now at Liverpool, was a key player in the system -- to make it work. I'm not sure we have that. Our players are more slight, technical. And we certainly don't have RB Salzburg's resources to go out and assemble one. Every manager has a philosophy, a certain style that they know best. It is very difficult for them to then coach their teams to play a different way. Simeone is strong defensively, with a speedy counter-attack; he couldn't then coach his team to play like Barcelona. Roger Schmidt's philosophy includes an intense pressing game, which he has reproduced at Salzburg and Bayer Leverkusen; he can't then coach his sides to play a possession-based game. A 4-4-2 requires a shift in philosophy that's just not viable. Warburton's philosophy is possession-based. He demands his teams play from the back, using short passes to move the ball forward into the final third. The 4-3-3 is the best base formation to implement that philosophy; it allows overloads and triangles in every area of the pitch. As much as it pains me to say, Brendan Rogers has a similar philosophy; a successfully executed 4-3-3 philosophy is there for us to see. There's no denying our performances have been poor, with results not much better. But I don't think it follows that we need a drastic formation and style change. Quite frankly, it's not going to happen. Managers have their preferred philosophy. There is an example of a well-executed 4-3-3 in our league (albeit with a 2-1 midfield, rather than a 1-2); they just have better players and more resources at the moment. Moreover, our players are more suited to a 4-3-3 than any other formation. (Yes, Garner could use more support, but that can be done with a front-three.) I don't believe 4-4-2 is the answer. I don't believe our 4-3-3 needs to be changed. However, it does need to be executed much better than it has been thus far.

I believe Preston are using the fines to refund their fans? It's unusual (teammates fighting each other) but I recall Dyer and Bowyer having such a bust-up.

Thanks for the highlights. The tackle on MOH looks worse every time I see it; completely inexplicable decision.

I think we all agreed that as good as Liverpool can be, it was always going to be how they did against so-called lesser opposition that will define their season.

Can I say I thought we played better at Pittodrie? Referee's hampered us in both games, but I felt the passing, possession and control was better in the away game and missing yesterday. We showed great hunger and determination, with many good battles, though and that should be the minimum required. Great win!

Aye, at one point Halliday stole the ball almost at the half-way line and then ran past Garner and Miller!? Lovenkrands was perplexed at that. If anyone follows Halliday then we create a chance IMO.

Garner needs to find his scoring boots, but you can't doubt his effort and determination.

Perhaps a little fortunate to go 1-0 up but after that we were superb. It was scrappy, and we had to show a bit of character and desire to win headers and tackles, but Aberdeen are nothing special; what did they actually do apart from launch a few balls into the box? 2nd best in Scotland? pfft... I keep saying it, but we play nicer football when we bunch up, so there are options on the ball-carrier. First half felt like we were too spread out so no-one had an easy ball. Garner was superb, battling all day; McKay brought a bit of guile; Hill and Kiernan were solid; and Waghorn was brilliant when he came on too -- hopefully we see more of it.

Aberdeen are man-marking quite directly, so a Forrester type could be effective; to beat his man.

I like the desire and hunger, but I hate the lack of control in the match. Every player seems miles away from another. We're supposed to be making triangles but they're just dots. Hill and Kiernan have been solid -- I think both Kiernan and WIlson need a Hill next to them for guidance -- and I like McKay's guile, although nothing much has come off (except the Wallace chance). Miller has been poor; why he needs to pass it back every time he gets it I don't know; It's never a controlled pass but a high wayward one that any receiver struggles with. Tom was saying the Referee is brother to a former Rangers player, but I wasn't listening 100% as I was annoyed at a wayward pass.

I can see 4-4-2 in the line-up, but the website says Miller in midfield, so maybe the same 4-3-3? I initially thought it was simply McKay that would play deeper, which he's done before.