Rousseau

Can a Mod change the title to 'Tactical' rather than 'Technical'?

Generally yes, but we did have a few shots at goal that were over or saved, and more annoyingly, we over-hit several passes which would have allowed us in behind. I maintain we're doing the right, things tactically, but continue to execute the final ball poorly.

Not that it'll change your view, but I meant 'tactical ability', not technical ability. (How do I change the title?) Actually, we're not a million miles away in opinion. I did suggest that we don't have the necessary quality to make the system work, as you say -- a team with a good work-ethic can beat us. I maintain that our philosophy is better, although not quite 'clicking' at the minute. Our defense doesn't bother me, because I see it as a consequence of our attacking philosophy. I'm more annoyed at the lack of quality up front, the final ball etc. I think that most Scottish sides have a good work-ethic; it's their main asset. I'm suggesting the next stage, the tactical ability, is missing. It's evident in the Scotland National side IMO. I think we (Rangers) have the beginnings of a good tactical base, that should be able to deal with those teams that simply have a good work-ethic, but we've not got the quality at the minute. I know we usually disagree on the game, but I've never had such a strong reaction from yourself! Thanks for your reply nevertheless.

The problem with Scottish football is that all too often a hard-working team can beat a team trying to play football. Nowhere else in the world would a hard-working side be able to beat a side of a much higher tactical ability. The reason for this is a lack of quality in the execution. Rangers were comfortable and dominant for large spells of the game against Falkirk, but were again let down by a severe lack of quality in playing the final ball, or taking a shot. Rangers lined-up in their usual 4-3-3. Three changes from the disappointing 2-2 draw with Morton saw Miller, Zelalem and Ball drop out for Oduwa, Shiels and Wilson. Ball and Kiernan took the majority of the blame for the draw, with the space between the pair far too inviting for breaking players; Wilson, despite not being quick, reads the game well and is calm on the ball. Zelalem missed out through injury, so a chance for Shiels who had made a decent impact coming on late in games. Presumably, Oduwa was brought in to provide width. Falkirk were lined-up in their usual 4-4-1-1. The team has been unchanged for several weeks, apart from 17-year-old O'Hara swapping from match-to-match with McHugh; O'Hara got the nod against Rangers. Falkirk are a direct team, possessing creativity out wide in the form of Sibbald and Alston. They create numerous chances without ever having more than 55% possession. Their 'keeper has often had to make several saves per game. Falkirk go into the game in buoyant mood, having been unfortunate to concede a late equiliser against Hibs last weekend. The pattern of the match was pretty much set within the first 5 minutes: Rangers dominating possession; Falkirk sitting deep and breaking at pace. In the third minute, Halliday is caught in possession high up the pitch, and Falkirk break with several players getting in behind the Rangers midfield. Vaulks, making a run from central to left, dragged Wilson out-of-position, forcing a wild lunge from the returning centre-back. The referee pointed to the spot, despite the initial challenge being several yards outside the box. 1-0. Rangers burst into life after going behind, forcing Falkirk back, and spraying passes about; Wallace, McKay, Shiels and Holt were effective in creating triangles in recycling possession. The majority of the forward passes were central, into the feet of Shiels, Holt and Waghorn, before being forced back; Waghorn in particular was outnumbered any time he received the ball, always with back to goal. Falkirk were content to sit deep and hit the long pass. Their second-striker, O'Hara, spun wide on several occasions into the vacated full-back spaces to receive the ball, before running into the space and forcing our full-backs to cover. O'Hara and Baird's pace was a danger-sign. This move almost reaped rewards later, but a goal was chopped-off for offside. The triangles continued, but the objective seemed to shift from a central focus to a flanking focus. When the ball came to McKay, he started to take on his full-back on the outside; Oduwa also took on his defender, with both wingers stretching the play by hugging the touchline. This aggressive wing-play was where the equiliser came from. Halliday taking a chance from distance, before the ball gets deflected wide to Oduwa in space. Oduwa then centres the ball, before it falls to McKay at the back post via a deflection or two. McKay slotted it into the far corner first-time. 1-1. The game went through a heated few minutes, with jeers from the crowd after every tackle and decision. Commentators suggested that Referee "Willie Collum [was] part of the narrative." Should a referee be part of the narrative of the game, or simply a silent director? Collum made several wrong decisions -- most tellingly the decision to award a penalty which was several yards outside the box. Not too encouraging considering this is the man chosen to referee at the European Championships... Falkirk seemed to retreat into themselves a little, becoming unsure in their attacking play. Conceding the congested central ground, Rangers continued to target the flanks. One tactic that looked promising was the Wallace 'under-lap'. Everton's Baines was unplayable when knocking the ball to his winger and making a run inside the full-back; the full-back and covering midfielder were unsure what to do. Wallace made several of these runs, allowing Rangers to get in behind. More quality on the through-ball would have caused a lot of problems for Falkirk. Oduwa had a good first-half: linking well with his inside midfielder and taking on his defender. Unfortunately, Tavernier never supported him enough. It seemed Tavernier was told to sit back, perhaps to cover the dangerous Sibbald? Wallace in contrast bombed forward all game. The second-half saw a much more direct approach from Rangers, by trying to play over the congested midfield. Wilson and Kiernan played several exquisite long diagonal balls to the wingers; and on a couple of occasions, Waghorn. Space seemed to open up, but again the final-ball was a let down. Then came the wind. Falkirk took the lead, doing what Rangers couldn't: drill a corner into the box, and not allowing the wind to catch higher balls. Unable to deal with the first-ball, a lay-off was drilled into the far corner. 2-1. Rangers went through a really shaky 15 minutes, where confidence evaporated. Falkirk didn't even bother to play long passes, but simply lumped aimless balls forward; the wind catching the ball from going through to the safety of Foderingham's arms. Again, their second-striker spun into the space. A bit of quality on the final pass could have seen them score more. Even so, they hit the post and Foderingham made a couple of sublime saves. Kiernan looked lost, unable to deal with the movement of Baird and O'Hara, with much of the trouble self-inflicted by trying to force forward passes and conceding possession. Law and Miller came on to replace Shiels and Oduwa, and seemed to show promise. Law in particular changed the game by running with the ball, playing it wide quickly and hitting the bar with a controlled shot. The changes galvanised the team. The tempo increased, balls were played wide more quickly. Individual skill and incisive passing saw Rangers get in behind several times. The final-ball was a let-down, or the Falkirk pulled off a good save. A few long shots looked to be nestling in the net, until the hands of Rodgers deflects the ball to safety. A final change saw Clark come on for Wilson, as Rangers continued to bang at the door. At this stage, any structure or formation goes out the window, with Rangers playing what seemed like a 3-3-4 at times. A penalty was awarded late on -- retribution for the one wrongly given in the first 5 minutes -- but Waghorn, frustrated all game, saw his strike saved, as the last hope was snuffed out. Overlooking the 10 minutes where confidence disappeared and where any aimless ball was a serious danger, Rangers were the dominant side: tactical superior, recycling possession with relative ease and creating a barrow-load of chances. Again, a severe lack of quality on the final-ball see's Rangers leave with nothing; again, the hard-working team has got the points. Nowhere else in the world is a hard-working side able to beat a side of a much higher tactical ability. It's Scottish football in microcosm: work-ethic over tactical ability. A good work-ethic is a great asset, but it shouldn't be the main tactic. Until Scottish football changes in this regard, it'll continue to be a laughing-stock on the world-stage. From Rangers' point-of-view, better quality is needed. The current level is not always enough to beat a hard-working side, despite the tactical superiority. Winning the Championship title was almost guaranteed during the euphoria and excitement of our early season form. Now, it's not quite so certain. The only positive is it's still early in Warburton's reign, with another few windows before we really see the team he's looking to develop.

Relatively speaking, that would be quite a coup. I've not seen much of him, but I am aware that he's highly regarded.

Gutted for Mourinho. I'm a big fan. I truly believe the players have just not performed for him this year, and going by the response from the Chelsea fans, they don't disagree with me. How much can his application to tactics, strategy etc really change? IMO Mourinho rarely changes his approach. To me the players is the only differing variable. Everyone knows he's quite an arrogant figure -- not a bad thing -- but it's also true that most former players love him; It must be a fine line between love and hate. Pep Guardiola is apparently leaving Bayern at the end of the year, with Man City favourites with Man Utd. Out of those, I don't see why he'd choose City over Utd? Maybe a 'blank cheque' at City, but Man Utd is so much more than that surely? Likewise, Chelsea, I don't think have the 'history' -- for want of a better word -- to attract Pep; He didn't choose Bayern for the money -- although it was a benefit! I think Chelsea will get a stop-gap until the end of the season, then we'll see. I think (hope?) Guardiola will choose Utd over anyone else, because it fits IMO. What's also interesting is Swansea going for Bielsa! The man that Guardiola says is the best in the world! Interesting to see 'the professor' ply his trade in the UK. It'll be interesting to see how the style of play works in British football.

You're assuming our focus has changed, which I would disagree with; I think the opposition are more aware and organised against our way of playing. We could certainly be a little more direct and more intense, but I think we're doing the right things -- we created 22 shots at goal yesterday, of which only 6 were on target: that is an issue. I am quite pleased our focus is to retain possession -- I hate end-to-end games, as invariably it means someone has lost control -- but, of course, we need that intensity and change of pace in the final third to get that goal: possession for the sake of it is pointless.

Just looked at the Coefficient: the Swedish, Norwegian and Danish are higher than the Scottish league in the coefficient, and all play in the summer months. It must have some benefit. More points mean more CL places, which means it's a lot easier for us to get into the Group Stage!

The Swedish Allsvenkan runs from March to early November. Teams are going to be more 'match sharp' for European qualifiers, but of course their 'level' means that they don't go far. Not sure if we (Scotland) are much 'better' than the Scandinavian countries. Wouldn't attendances be better in the summer months, with the weather allowing more people to go along to a game, than attendances in the winter months?

The Swedish Allsvenskan seems to be the best model, where "seasons run from late March or early April to beginning of November, with the 16 clubs all meeting each other twice, resulting in a 30-match season". It also says, "Allsvenkan is ranked 20th in the UEFA coefficients of leagues based on performances in European competitions over the last five years. As it stands now, Allsvenskan is ranked highest of the leagues in Scandinavia". Not sure how it helps the sides in Europe because it shows that a few reach the Europa League group stages, but don't go any further. Malmo have obviously been quite conspicuous in there 'success' because they've beaten them, and have done OK in Europe; nothing spectacular though, or maybe it is quite good in regards to their level? Summer football sounds good, giving us more chance of uninterrupted football, fewer cancellations and a head start in Europe -- at least initially. (Even the 30-match season whereby 16 teams play each other twice sounds a lot better than what we currently have. I doubt we'll see those kind of changes though!)

Swansea's philosophy is very specific, developed by Martinez and Rodgers et al. Monk was schooled by these managers, so it was an appointment that made sense in that regard, even if his experience was non-existent. Moyes hasn't got a clue when it comes to this type of football, which is why he failed at Real Sociedad. He doesn't fit IMO. Bad move.

Christ, I had trouble with Kanchelskis until I managed to sound it out phonetically! This is worse! I'll just call him Vlad...

These "journalists" are a joke. FFS. How many times does he have to say otherwise? It's done. Move on. But, of course they won't...

I was/am not worried about these links to Fulham, but now they've stated they don't want him, I've got to say I'm a little miffed: 'What, he's not good enough for you?' He's going nowhere though, so I'm quite content.

Acquisitions thus far have been very good, with a good age range and potential for future development, but I can't help feel a little underwhelmed by the clubs these players are coming from. Accrington Stanley finished 17th in League Two last season. But, I'm more than willing to give these guys a chance. W&W have not let us down yet.

It's a strange move, but not really. He is inexperienced, but he has links to the owner -- Lim? -- who also owns 50% of Salford City, the club that Nevile co-owns with the rest of the '92 players. There are links there, but you're right: very inexperienced for such a job; the only saving grace is that it's an interim period of 5 months only. Gutted for MNF: now we only have Carra; who's going to translate?!

I doubt he'll want to leave the project he's involved with just now. The attraction of European football is a great goal; one that'll not be on his radar in England IMO. This is a good job, with good scope.

It may be a confidence issue with Tavernier, but could it not be that he's simply being marked more? I seem to recall 2 or 3 players on him every time he got the ball. He put in a couple of good crosses -- and a bad one! -- but I don't think it's too much of an issue if he's not scoring; that's not his job, and it was really unusual that he was. If he can defend well, provide width, and put in a couple of good crosses per game, he'll be doing very well IMO.

Much appreciated. Halliday was superb; well deserved his MOTM award. I think he played deeper, so he was able to collect the ball more; his distribution was good too, with direct, vertical passes starting play very well; he's not afraid to put a foot in too! I thought Miller played well; Like I said though, he seems to get the ball into feet, so he has to stop, then play, rather than getting the ball on the run. Not sure if that's his control, or the pass he receives; bit of both, perhaps? He played in the half-space effectively, and linked up with Waghorn very well. He gives us a different option. He's getting on, but I still think he can contribute.

Shiels was a little more direct and willing to beat a man, but it was nothing we were't doing before IMO; he just happened to be playing when St Mirren were pushing forward, leaving lots of space. I think we'd been doing the same things throughout. He got us over the line though. I believe the final is at Hampden.

Yes, I think so too. It's a complete shift. We need to be a little more patient, and a little more aware of the things we are trying to do. It's a lot better than what we are used to IMO. It's nice to see things I read about tactically from the 'bigger' sides.

It was really nice to see the way they kept switching position. I'm not sure if I've seen it before or not from us, but long may it continue.

Rangers dominated the central areas in the Petrofac Training Cup Semi-final, causing St Mirren to play deeper and deeper, with the wide players leaving the touchline to play in the half-spaces. Stellar performances from Halliday, Wilson and Kiernan provided an excellent platform from which to dominate possession, with each reading the game, stopping any St Mirren counter-attack before it had begun. Rangers lined up in their usual 4-3-3 formation. Oduwa and Ball dropped out to be replaced by Miller and Wilson. Wilson slotted in to the standard back-four of Tavernier, Kiernan, Wilson and Wallace. Halliday sat in the hole, with Holt and Zelalem in front. McKay, Waghorn and Miller made up the front-three. Hardie got a well-deserved spot on the bench, after some excellent goal-scoring performances for the U20s. St Mirren lined up in their typical 4-4-2. Thompson dropped out, perhaps to allow for more energetic forward players. St Mirren have always provided a test this season, with a high-pressing front-two, and midfield runners, particularly giving Rangers plenty of problems. What was apparent from the outset was the slight change in the movements of the Rangers wide players. The last few games saw both McKay and Oduwa hug the touchline, which, to a large extent, is their natural game. With Miller coming in, it was obvious he would play more centrally. However, both McKay and Miller played in the half-space, leaving the touchline altogether. This resulted in an overload in the central areas, where Rangers often had 4 versus 2. St Mirren front-two never dropped deep to help, leaving their central-midfield paring to cover a lot of players; their wide players were preoccupied with Wallace and Tavernier. Zelalem was quite clever. Whenever McKay came inside, Zelalem overlapped, stretching the play. He found himself up against an isolated full-back, which he tried to take on several times early in the game. The movement caused St Mirren problems, but Zelalem failed every time to beat his man, so nothing came from it directly, but it open up space for Wallace and McKay. Holt, as always, was clever and positive in his movement, always looking to nip in behind -- in fact, the first goal saw this movement come good. It was not during open-play, but the movement was devastating. A long, deep corner taken by Holt -- something that had to be attempted, because St Mirren often had 2 or 3 players over blocking the usual short-corner -- found it's way over to the right. Tavernier attempted to make space for a shot, but eventually had to pass it back to Halliday, who then chipped a delightful ball over the defence, for Holt, who slotted low into near post in acres of space. From the kick-off, the St Mirren front-two looked to press our centre-backs, but their midfield never supported the press, so it was very easy for Foderingham to bypass our centre-backs -- and the St Mirren forwards -- altogether, targeting Halliday with several long passes, before beginning the build-up again. The rest of the St Mirren team were content to sit deep and allow us to have the ball, which was conducive to a dominant possession game. The Rangers build-up was slow and methodical, and generally came down the left, where Wallace, Zelalem and McKay looked to create triangles, and waited for the final through-ball. Unfortunately, the execution of the through-ball was atrocious, with Holt and Zelalem guilty of over-cooking simple passes. When St Mirren did manage to win the ball back, they knocked it long to one of their two forwards, but excellent reading of the game from Wilson and Kiernan meant that the ball rarely stuck, and we won the ball back relatively quickly. Kiernan was guilty of a few lapses in concentration, but Wilson put in an assured and composed performance. Halliday was important for this solid defensive base, as he often dropped deep to collect the ball, providing a base for the next attack and an extra man to collect any loose balls; it also helped that our two centre-backs were happy to knock a short ball into Halliday, instead of trying to force a longer ball. Halliday himself was the start of most attacks, pin-pointing direct, vertical balls into any of the forward players in space. The positional interplay between the front 5 was very interesting: all changed positions easily, with a teammate taking the vacated spot. It made marking tough for St Mirren, and created a lot of space for us. Waghorn and Miller link-up especially well, with one coming deep and the other going long; there was always one in the hole. Despite his clever movement, Miller found it difficult to make things happen because he often got the ball to feet, which made him stop, rather than getting the ball in front so he could take it on the run, and make things happen that way. Another obvious tactic was the long switch of play. Guardiola often had his Barcelona team recycle the ball on one side of the pitch, drawing the opposition into a tight space on one side, before switching it to the other side, where Daniel Alves would invarably be in a lot of space. Here, Rangers' wide players played in the half-space, and Holt and Zelalem drfited over the the left; Miller was a decoy midfielder, dropping back slightly, but most players were over on the left. Zelalem then lofted a long diagonal over to Tavernier. It happened in the second-half also, but with McKay as the open wide player. Again, poor execution on both occasions let down this tactic. For a period in the second-half St Mirren came into the game, by pressing more aggressively from midfield. Rangers added to this with a positional disconnect between the front and back 5; the distance between Halliday and rest of the midfield was too great. The substitutions were probably the cause of this, with Rangers not coming to terms with the change. Clark and Shiels came on for Holt and McKay, which meant we had 3 out-and-out strikers up front. All 3 tended to stay on the shoulder of the St Mirren defenders, whereas before Miller and McKay played in the half-space, creating space and pulling the opposition out of shape. Eventually, we got to grips with the changes. As it turned out, the positioning of the forwards (on the shoulder of the defence) allowed for Shiels to play a reverse, through ball to Waghorn; who calmly squared the ball for a greatful Miller to bundle it home. It was one of the few times the through-ball was executed effectively. The game was over at 2-0 as St Mirren lost discipline and shape, allowing Waghorn and then Shiels to pick the ball up and drive at the defence, before the ball found it way into the net twice in the remaining 5 minutes. The directness of Shiels and Waghorn was effective late on, but only because the St Mirren players never covered the runs. A cameo from Hardie in the last 10 minutes was well-deserved. He was bright and confident, always pointing to where he wanted the ball to be placed. A real talent for the future; one that deserves more game-time. As a support, we are not 'tuned-in' to the patient build-up. We are very quick to get frustrated when things don't work-out and, therefore, often think that we are doing the wrong things. Rangers are doing the right things, but the players are not executing their passes or shots well-enough. Several players were guilty of messing-up their final ball, or shot at goal. It was a good, tactical performance: a patient, methodical build-up, interesting wing-play and a strong defensive base created a game in which Rangers dominated completely. If we play like this, we'll not lose many.

Anything's possible with a striker on fire! They'll fall away when they face the better teams, which is next. Finishing in the top half will be a very good season.

Surely if they thought we were poor up front they'd give us all the space in the world?