Whenever Rangers concede a corner kick...

[Frankie 8,151]

Valid point....but there is a flip side.

 

How often are we able to quickly break from a corner, get the ball up field (to one of our players), and effectively clear the lines. At best we tend to clear the ball to midway in our own half, most often to an opposition player, who plays it straight back into the box.

 

I actually think our counter-attacking play is usually pretty good which is why some players appear to be more comfortable starting from deep rather than having to break down other teams.

 

If the point isn't to concede goals and it works then I think it's very difficult to argue against.

[Darthter 542]

It's not cowardly to defend well.

 

If employing this tactic minimises goals conceded from such set-pieces (and the play immediately following the break down) then the manager will argue it's worthwhile. And I'd find that hard to argue against.

 

Yes, it's not easy on the eye but, then again, I enjoy good defensive play as much as I do attacking from time to time.

 

Loading EVERYONE into the box is not good defending (IMHO...). It is safety in numbers. I'm sure McCoist would argue that it is required due to the number of opposition players being sent forward, but you could also argue that the opposition are sending extra players forward, coz there is no counter-attack threat - its a bit of a vicious circle.....

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

It's not cowardly to defend well.

 

If employing this tactic minimises goals conceded from such set-pieces (and the play immediately following the break down) then the manager will argue it's worthwhile. And I'd find that hard to argue against.

 

Yes, it's not easy on the eye but, then again, I enjoy good defensive play as much as I do attacking from time to time.

We don't defend well. We defend in huge numbers to compensate for the fact we are incapable of defending well.

[Frankie 8,151]

Loading EVERYONE into the box is not good defending (IMHO...). It is safety in numbers. I'm sure McCoist would argue that it is required due to the number of opposition players being sent forward, but you could also argue that the opposition are sending extra players forward, coz there is no counter-attack threat - its a bit of a vicious circle.....

 

I think we defend corners pretty well by and large. It may be down to the extra bodies - it may not but it works so I'm not going to argue too strong against it.

 

Put it this way, it's far from our biggest problem so I find it quite funny that people get so uptight about it.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

It's not cowardly to defend well.

 

If employing this tactic minimises goals conceded from such set-pieces (and the play immediately following the break down) then the manager will argue it's worthwhile. And I'd find that hard to argue against.

 

Yes, it's not easy on the eye but, then again, I enjoy good defensive play as much as I do attacking from time to time.

 

Anyone can defend with 11 men in the box; if we had quality defenders we wouldn't need the whole team back. Who says Boyd and Miller in the defensive box constitute "good defensive play"?

[Frankie 8,151]

Anyone can defend with 11 men in the box; if we had quality defenders we wouldn't need the whole team back. Who says Boyd and Miller in the defensive box constitute "good defensive play"?

 

I think we still have an element of organisation within the overload. If not, we'd still concede goals from them and, it seems, generally we don't.

 

Like I say, I don't think this is a huge issue. A disappointment or annoyance, sure, but not a problem per se IMHO.

[Darthter 542]

Put it this way, it's far from our biggest problem so I find it quite funny that people get so uptight about it.

 

It is synonymous with our general style of play though - safe. We appear to be more concerned about not losing goals than scoring them at times.

[Frankie 8,151]

It is synonymous with our general style of play though - safe. We appear to be more concerned about not losing goals than scoring them at times.

 

I'd suggest ensuring we deal with defensive corners well rather than looking to score from them isn't just safe but fairly sensible.

 

Again, I disagree with the tactic but it's not a huge issue so it just surprises me people get so angry about it. I'd see the point if we still conceded goal after goal from them but we don't so as a 'safe' defensive strategy it's an understandable annoyance.

[Tannochsidebear 2,315]

I hate that we bring everyone back to defend corners, but I can understand him bringing back any tall players to cope with an opposition aerial threat. I thought Boyd won more headers from hibs corners than anyone else last night.

 

I would always want to leave someone like Aird or Temps up front that will make the opposition worry about his threat from a resulting breakaway, and also someone to close down a cleared pass to rush the defender who currently has all the time in the world to play his ball back into the box.

 

Again, I think it all comes back to the fact that Jig cannot defend. He cant look at both the ball and the man and cover any run made. Last night he was desparately trying to be the spare man at every opportunity so he didnt have to mark anybody. I watched him carefully under this 3 CH formation and that was how he tried to work it.

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

I actually think our counter-attacking play is usually pretty good which is why some players appear to be more comfortable starting from deep rather than having to break down other teams.

 

If the point isn't to concede goals and it works then I think it's very difficult to argue against.

 

We had 3 against 1 ramapaging over the half way line yesterday and never even made it into the Hibs box. Absolutely shocking and normal. Our counter attacking play is very poor, as you would expect when it starts in our own box with all 11 players.

 

I heard McCoist asked if he could put the subs in the box as well. Any goal we lose from a corner is generally because we get in each other's way.