compo 6,122 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 well a few weeks with no rangers games and old compo is lost and to make things worse the world cup has wetted my appetite for footie I just hope we at ibrox play a passing and free flowing type of game something that will have the fans begging for more , lets hope . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,148 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) well a few weeks with no rangers games and old compo is lost and to make things worse the world cup has wetted my appetite for footie I just hope we at ibrox play a passing and free flowing type of game something that will have the fans begging for more , lets hope . Yeah, I've not watched a huge amount of the WC but some of the football has been pretty good. Interestingly though, over the last few months, I think I've enjoyed watching teams like Atletico Madrid, Chile and Costa Rica more than some of the supposedly more talented teams. Their compact shape and direct nature is quite interesting and it's certainly combated the likes of Barca and Spain well. With that in mind, it wouldn't surprise me to see McCoist try and mimic that with almost a 3-4-3 formation. Sure it's not really 3 attackers (more one lone striker with two deeper/wider) but some teams have used this set-up quite well to counter more orthodox formations such as 4-4-2 or 4-5-1. Problem is, do we have the players to do this? I'm not so sure but something like the following would certainly be a bit different and it may be more attractive than the 4-2-3-1 we used for much of last season. _____________Bell_______________ __Mohnsi_McGregor_Wallace__ Peralta__Law____Black___Macleod Aird_____Daly/Boyd_______Miller I guess we'll see soon enough! Edited June 26, 2014 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 McCoist won't do anything modern fancy or good. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,239 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Next Thursday the pre-season will kick off. I reckon we will get some rather good footie (by comparison to our (sic!) last seasons), whether it will last till next May is anyone's guess. If people don't set their expectations too high, the disappointment levels will be kept at a sustainable level. We are where we are and have players that are only so good. At the end of the day, the much used phrase kicks in again: the main objective is promotion, whether it is won ugly or with aplomp is secondary. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Yeah, I've not watched a huge amount of the WC but some of the football has been pretty good. Interestingly though, over the last few months, I think I've enjoyed watching teams like Atletico Madrid, Chile and Costa Rica more than some of the supposedly more talented teams. Their compact shape and direct nature is quite interesting and it's certainly combated the likes of Barca and Spain well. With that in mind, it wouldn't surprise me to see McCoist try and mimic that with almost a 3-4-3 formation. Sure it's not really 3 attackers (more one lone striker with two deeper/wider) but some teams have used this set-up quite well to counter more orthodox formations such as 4-4-2 or 4-5-1. Problem is, do we have the players to do this? I'm not so sure but something like the following would certainly be a bit different and it may be more attractive than the 4-2-3-1 we used for much of last season. _____________Bell_______________ __Mohnsi_McGregor_Wallace__ ___Law_____Black___Macleod___ Aird_____Daly/Boyd_______Miller I guess we'll see soon enough! 3-3-3? Nothing would surprise me. In all seriousness, 3 at the back is something done successfully very rarely. A few teams abroad do it, some sides have done it in the world cup but it rarely works in modern day football (particularly in the UK) and you have to be very tactically astute to pull it off successfully. Celtic had success originally but ended up getting ripped apart on the flanks by Eck. Man City experimented with it and were atrocious. Ally is bad enough without playing 3 at the back, just a disaster waiting to happen. Also, can you honestly imagine a 3 man central defence containing Moshni and Wallace? IT's not like McGregor is good enough to carry them. Plus you have no wing backs? Confused.com. We get torn apart with 4 defenders and 5 midfielders let alone 3 centre backs and no wingbacks! If 4 at the back is good enough for Bayern, Real Madrid and Barca it is good enough for us. Also I think you need to wake up a bit. Ally is a very negative manager. 3-4-3? That's certainly amused me this morning. I remember Rijkaard playing 3-4-3 with Barca for a while. He was sacked shortly after that. I also feel experimenting with 3 at the back was Guardiolas downfall at Barca. PS - Atletico play 4 at the back. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,239 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Essentially, once we had the ball, we often switched to a 2 at the back, 3 at most. The game is dynamic and footballers should take responsibilities when need arises, e.g. Law or Macleod covering the place of an advancing CH or fullback. As I said before, I wouldn't mind a back 4 with Faure - Mohsni - McGregor - Wallace, where Mohsni generally acts as a sweeper just in front of the defence. Faure can cover right back and CH slots should Mohsni decides to go forward. It all depends on the opposition though. Utilizing Mohsni in there should free the place of a defensive midfielder ... Bell Faure - McGregor - Wallace Mohsni Templeton - Law - Macleod - Aird Miller - Boyd/Daly/Clark There is enough pace in there to cover defense and midfield, should we lose the ball. Again, that is just one line up. This can and should be adjusted pending on opponents and state of play. If there e.g. is next to no thread from the opposition, why would we need a back four? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,148 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 3-3-3? Nothing would surprise me. In all seriousness, 3 at the back is something done successfully very rarely. A few teams abroad do it, some sides have done it in the world cup but it rarely works in modern day football (particularly in the UK) and you have to be very tactically astute to pull it off successfully. Celtic had success originally but ended up getting ripped apart on the flanks by Eck. Man City experimented with it and were atrocious. Ally is bad enough without playing 3 at the back, just a disaster waiting to happen. Also, can you honestly imagine a 3 man central defence containing Moshni and Wallace? IT's not like McGregor is good enough to carry them. Plus you have no wing backs? Confused.com. We get torn apart with 4 defenders and 5 midfielders let alone 3 centre backs and no wingbacks! If 4 at the back is good enough for Bayern, Real Madrid and Barca it is good enough for us. Also I think you need to wake up a bit. Ally is a very negative manager. 3-4-3? That's certainly amused me this morning. I remember Rijkaard playing 3-4-3 with Barca for a while. He was sacked shortly after that. I also feel experimenting with 3 at the back was Guardiolas downfall at Barca. PS - Atletico play 4 at the back. Haha - my mistake with the midfield! I absolutely know it's unlikely for McCoist to adopt something more expansive but it just wouldn't surprise me given Miller's acquisition. Clearly the personnel I selected could be changed as well with Peralta, Wallace and Smith all used in wider areas with Faure in defence instead. Like I say, it's unlikely - 4-2-3-1 being most probable again - but I'd find it interesting and, if done properly, perhaps it would be more attractive to some of the fans eager for change in the way we play. One thing seems certain and that's the manager won't be going anywhere so what style do you think he should opt for? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,148 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 If there e.g. is next to no thread from the opposition, why would we need a back four? That's my point. Yes, we have to ensure we're covered for counter attacks but, for most games, we don't need four defenders and we should be looking to have more attacking/creative players in the team. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 743 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 When playing 3 at the back you need 3 centre halfs with 1 playing as a sweeper. Martinez did it well with Wigan on occasion but the quality he had wasn't good enough. With Boyd possibly on his way back and Miller signed I cant see anything other than a 4-4-1-1 ugly style under Ally. Id like to see 4-3-3 or 3-5-2 _______________________Bell_____________________ _________Faure______Moshni_____McGregor_____ _________________Black________Law________________ Templeton_________Macleod__________Wallace__ ________________Miller_____Boyd_______________ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 I see no issue with the 4-2-3-1 formation - if it is used correctly!!! Part of our problem has been that the 3 advanced midfielders have generally sat too deep, effectively giving us a 5-man midfield. This is fine when the team is under pressure from the opposition, they have been too slow pushing back up the pitch in support of the main striker. We saw some glimpses last season that it could work VERY effectively. On these rare occasions the whole team tended to sit higher up the pitch, putting all the pressure on the opposition. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.