Stevie Smith - 2 Year Deal

[pete 2,499]

If Stevie Smith could ever find the form he had before injuries took over then even Wallace would have to be wary of his place. I doubt he ever will though I suppose he has not been released from all these teams for nothing.

[pete 2,499]

Sandaza got the sack for revealing details of his salary. Craig how do you know the new players pay is lower than those going out?

 

He's gone for a leak.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

personally i think 3 at the back is an abomination. but some pretty good coaches in Italy etc disagree with me and i am no football coach.

I don't know why it's such a popular suggestion on Rangers forums. I'm not sure if these people actually watch much football?

 

Sure some sides like Napoli, Udinese and Marco Bielsa's Chile have deployed it with some success in recent years but it is very, very rarely deployed successfully and usually gets used by teams completely out of ideas to little success. It relies on 3 very strong centre backs and sides with high technique and strong tactical discipline, along with an experienced, intelligent coach. Remind me why there's the clamour for such a formation when 99.99999% of the rest of the world are playing 4 at the back?

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Very, very few coaches deploy 3 at the back in this day and age. The norm is to deploy variations of 4-5-1 (whether that be 4-2-3-1, a straight 4-5-1, 4-3-3 (when in possession) etc etc). It is the accepted norm right now, but may change again.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Man City fell on their arse this season after initially playing 3 at the back and leaking goals. Similarly, Guardiola's Barca took a nose dive when he started experimenting with his teams of midfielders with a back 3. They generally only deployed it in easier ties but for me it resulted in them losing their consistency when they switched back to a 4.

 

And who can remember Rijkaard playing 3 at the back with Barca...no wonder the guy struggles to find work now.

[54andcounting 0]

I'll be honest and say I was a bit disappointed when SS left, he was a decent player in his time here, maybe he can replicate that 2nd time around

 

Fingers crossed

[der Berliner 3,286]

Absolutely not. We would get crucified down the flanks with those 3 at the back.

 

Smith & Faure arent even close to being fast enough to shut down wingers in a back 3. Wallace would be covering for them all day long.

 

IMHO the only way a 3 at the back works these days is if there is either pace from the 3 of them or if they have a wall of midfielders sitting right in front of them, we dont have the former and heaven forbid if we need the latter in SFL2.

 

I would be OK with a back 3 if they each had pace or could read the game like Davie Weir - but they dont.

 

Actually, this was meant with tongue in cheek. Then again, if you look how teams play (us included) a 4-4-2, you often get nigh all people bar the two centre-halfs in a forward movement, with little wing-cover anyway. Hence, you do need at least one (if the other has a football-brain like Weir) if not two quick centre-halfs. A 3-5-2 would require the holding midfielders to fall back if needed, likewise the wingers would have to do a wing-back job as well. Hence, a 3-5-2 would e.g. look like this:

 

Bell

 

Faure - Wallace - Smith

 

Law - Macleod

 

Little - Templeton - Aird

 

Clark - McCulloch

 

Both Law and Macleod having the engine to attack as well as to cover the defense, should e.g. Wallace decide to venture forward. Likewise, Little and Aird would rove down the flanks, with Templeton taking up a free role on either flank, should it become free. McCulloch would e.g. cover the centre of defence in case of a corner.

 

The main point of such a formation is to keep the opposition busy in their own penalty area, so they do not get a chance to actually cause any havoc in ours. And where best to test and trial it than in the lower leagues of Scotland?

Edited June 1, 2013 by der Berliner