QotS vs. Rangers: Review

[Rousseau 9,505]

QotS vs. Rangers: Review

 

DUMFRIES -- Palmerston Park is an old-fashioned ground, tight and intimate, from the standing area to the wooden stand facade and little clock; residential buildings nearby loom large over the low terraces. The Rangers fans were packed like sardines tightly together in the standing area, wrapped in their blue scarfs and tammies on this pitch-black, cloudless night. The pitch is a thing of wonder; it is like a bowling green, pristine and well-defined. Artificial surfaces get a bad press but many have commented on the 3G surface at Palmerston as being "a lovely playing surface;" at least we weren't going to get bobbles.

 

Rangers lined up with a standard 4-4-2. Bell had a muscle strain so the diminutive Robinson deputised; Mohsni replaced a suspended McCulloch in defense; and Templeton replaced Shiels. It was a flat-back-four of McGregor, Zaliukus, Mohsni and Wallace; Law and Murdoch placed central midfield, flanked by Templeton on the left and Vuckic on the right; Miller and Clark led the lines.

 

Queen of the South lined up in a 3-5-2 formation, but it was more like a 5-3-2 with the Wing-backs rarely getting forward. They are known for being a hardworking and energetic side with lots of pacey players, and in previous games were comfortable sitting back and countering with pace.

 

Initially I saw a problem in central midfield: we would be outnumbered 3v2 so we would need to be sharp on the ball and get it wide quickly.

 

Rangers started well, passing it around comfortably. It was clear we would have the majority of possession with QotS happy to soak up pressure and counter when they got the chance. We tried to get it wide to our wingers, but QotS's Wing-backs and Wide-centre-midfielders doubled-up quickly; When Vuckic got the ball -- which was rarely -- he has ushered wide to prevent him getting on his strong left-foot; Templeton received the ball often early on but cut inside on too many occasions and couldn't deliver a good cross or find the target, or he was robbed.

 

With no penetration on the flanks we resorted to the much maligned long-ball. At first there seemed some method to the madness as it looked like we were trying a pre-planned long-diagonal. Alas to no avail. For me, to start with Clark precludes playing those long-balls; he is too slight and small to win headers. The same goes for Miller who can't hold-up the ball. Their strength is their running game, but they never got in behind; mainly because our midfielder never got time on the ball in the centre because they were outnumbered.

 

QotS rarely threatened, but on the one occasion they did, they scored. A simple long ball was launched over the top on the right-hand-side and Wallace got in front of the attacker but was pushed to the ground -- illegally in my view, but he was easily pushed -- and the ball was squared and bobbled up nicely for veteran Derek Lyle to half-volley it into the opposite side of the net to a thunderous roar from the home fans. 1-0.

 

Nothing changed; it was the same pattern of Rangers dominating the ball but with no penetration. The fans were still pretty confident going into the second-half, but not 19 seconds in that bubble was burst. QotS broke down the left and whipped in a ground-cross in behind the defense where the unmarked Kidd fired a tame shot across goal; it was going wide until an off-balance Wallace couldn't adjust his feet and scuffed it into his own net. 2-0.

 

This is when the Rangers players lost it mentally. Their heads went down under the realisation that they weren't going to win this game; 1-0 is fine, but 2-0 is near impossible with no real chances created apart from a Clark header that went wide in the first-half. Mohsni summed it up by trying to get us back into the game by forcing difficult passes and getting wound-up by the crowd and punching the ground in frustration to loud cheers from the home fans. He deserves credit for trying and he showed what winning means to him; it's a good trait, but he must learn to ignore the crowd. The team retreated into the same long-ball game that had no chance of succeeding.

 

QotS continued to press and got their reward when substitute Crawford dawdled on the ball and lost it; a quick 1-2 allowed Reilly a one-on-one chance and he calmly slotted it low into the inside of the near post. 3-0.

 

All the substitutions were man-for-man with no change to the formation, so nothing was going to change. Boyd came on and looked like he could hold up the ball better than Clark and Miller, and he did win a fair share of flick-ons, but his poor first touch let him down on too many occasions. He did get some space when a nice deep cross found him at the back post, but his header was too central and the 'keeper tipped it over the bar. Apart from a looping Miller header earlier on in the second half, Boyd's header was the only real chance. I think Boyd should have started, if we were going to play the long-balls; he'd certainly have fared better than Clark and Miller in that respect.

 

What a fickle and capricious mind the Rangers fan possesses. A few months ago we were at our lowest ebb, pessimistic about getting promotion and complaining that the players had no redeeming qualities and they must get put down. The last few weeks saw a complete reversal after two impressive wins over nearest rivals Hibs and then Champions Hearts, who by all accounts have strolled to this title with barely a whisper of a challenge from us. Now the morning after the night before brings more pessimism: "Will we get promoted?"; "We need to get another manager for next year"; "[so-and-so] is finished".

 

One defeat -- and we must remember it is only McCall's first -- does not define a career. McCall was not my first choice but I was pleasantly surprised with his tactical awareness against both Edinburgh clubs. He just got it wrong last night; he is allowed to make mistakes.

 

Moreover, I wouldn't place the blame on the players. We started very well, passing it around -- albeit with no end product -- and easily dominating possession. There is certainly cause for Wallace to be blamed for the first and second goals. Too easily out-muscled for the first, but he could also have been given a foul; and he knocks the ball into his own net for the second after a tame shot is heading wide. Again, Templeton -- or is it Tempelton? -- can be criticised for an ineffectual display where on a day he finally got a chance to shine he was too easily dispossessed or couldn't find an end-product, from numerous crosses that never quite reached their man, to shot that were powerful but lacked any accuracy and too often kept rising high over the bar with too much back-spin. If he could just hit the ball flatter he'd cause more problems for the 'keeper because he gets a lot of power behind his shots. Case in point was a very tame, long-range shot from Mohsni that because it was on target forced the 'keeper to parry it.

 

But I don't want to blame the player because I think the strategy was wrong. We were outnumbered in central midfield 3v2; that simple numerical advantage meant that it was going to be very difficult to get through the middle or have any time and/or space on the ball. When a team plays three at the back you need to stretch them and that was what, I think, McCall was trying to do with the two wingers, but QotS had their Wing-backs, Wide-midfielders and the Wide-centre-backs to cover. The only way to counter this is to get the full-backs to make deep overlapping runs, but it never materialised so our wingers were constantly marked 2v1, sometimes 3v1. The ineffectual -- or non-existent -- runs by the full-backs compounded the problem. McGregor never ventured forward, but Wallace did quite often. Unfortunately it was never an overlapping run from Wallace but more like the 'underlap' that Baines has made famous, but that was no good because they dominated the middle of the park, so Wallace just ran into more defenders and no one could thread a pass through to him.

 

If we were going to combat QotS last night we had to go 4-3-3, with the two wingers pushed high to press the Wing-backs, and the full-backs making overlapping runs to stretch the back-three and get in behind. An extra man in central midfield would have allowed us to match the Queen's midfielders.

 

It was a disappointing result to say the least, but I don't blame the players too much other than a few individual errors. In my view we were doomed from the start when the formations were announced. McCall got his tactics wrong, but it is not the end of our season. It is a lesson learned.

[Frankie 8,186]

Now on the main site:

 

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/match-analysis/361-queen-of-the-south-3-0-rangers-rosseau-s-review

 

Generally, I agree with your analysis and McCall is culpable regarding his tactics (and failing to change them early on) but I think you're being too kind on the players.

 

There wasn't enough work-rate, the decision-making was poor and we were too slow on the ball - whether it was passing or shooting. Not good enough and it's no wonder fans are losing patience with the likes of Law.

[Rousseau 9,505]

There wasn't enough work-rate, the decision-making was poor and we were too slow on the ball - whether it was passing or shooting. Not good enough and it's no wonder fans are losing patience with the likes of Law.

 

I thought we were quite competent during the first half; energy levels were ok. But we couldn't create chances which was down to the tactics (i.e. being outnumbered in the centre and no full-backs getting forward etc.). What we set out to do was pre-planned. There is no way a player can be blamed for doing what was pre-planned, they're simply doing their job, and it was the job that was ineffectual not the players' execution of it, if you get my meaning? Once we conceded the second we collapsed mentally, and then i'd agree we were slow, lethargic and resorted to those long-balls etc which were never going to work.

[RANGERRAB 3,306]

Whilst I'd say McCall got his team selection & tactics badly wrong last night, perhaps the biggest challenge he faces is trying to make Rangers harder to play against and harder to beat. That means, for starters, conceding a lot fewer goals, something he has to put right before play-offs. I'd suggest the 3-5-2 system QOS used last night would be better-suited for us as it allows 5 in defence when defending and five in MF going forward. Defensively we always seem likely to concede so having greater numbers at the back should help although individual errors played a big part in the QOS goals last night

What must not be repeated is last nights 4-4-2 where we had two up front, two wide men and Law and young Murdoch in central MF. It was far too cavalier an approach to a game against a team whose tactics at home on their plastic surface are often too invite a team to attack them then hit them on a quick counter.McCall must learn from last night's shambles before the play-offs or it is another unappealing season in the championship

[Frankie 8,186]

Yeah, we really need someone to lead the line as Clark and Miller are too similar: Clark roving in wider positions, while Miller comes too deep looking for the ball meaning we can't do much from central positions.

 

Problem is Daly and Boyd are so poor while Hardie is probably still too raw. Perhaps Gallagher may be an option but he seems well out of the picture.

 

I think we'd be helped by playing Vuckic on the left. Playing Temps there inhibits Wallace's instincts while Vuckic on the right doesn't work. Why not balance out the team with Temps (or AN Other) on the right? McGregor is useful defensively but is limited going forward.

 

We really lack balance in the side.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Frankie

[Anchorman 0]

What has happened to Barrie McKay since he went out on loan? A confident BM would have relished that surface last night. He would have given more than Temps.

[Rousseau 9,505]

What has happened to Barrie McKay since he went out on loan? A confident BM would have relished that surface last night. He would have given more than Temps.

 

And Gallagher for that matter. Good young players with pace and creativity; they should be given a game. However, saying that, is Barrie McKay not still on loan at Raith? Or was he recalled? I know Gallagher is back rotting in the youth teams...

 

Even Gasparrotto (How do you spell it?) is not getting a chance.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

I thought we were quite competent during the first half; energy levels were ok. But we couldn't create chances which was down to the tactics (i.e. being outnumbered in the centre and no full-backs getting forward etc.). What we set out to do was pre-planned. There is no way a player can be blamed for doing what was pre-planned, they're simply doing their job, and it was the job that was ineffectual not the players' execution of it, if you get my meaning? Once we conceded the second we collapsed mentally, and then i'd agree we were slow, lethargic and resorted to those long-balls etc which were never going to work.

I thought we were dreadful from start to finish, nothing resembling competent. The football was slow, predictable, turgid. There was no pace and movement in attack and we never looked like scoring. At the back we were the usual chaotic shambles, easily cut open when they attacked with pace. Bear in mind who we were playing against, a competent performance from us should be winning handsomely and with style.

 

To me this was a typical Ally McCoist style mind numbing performance where you just want it to finish so you can do something far more interesting.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Ser Barristan Selmy

[colinstein 294]

I was sure we were going to win and like a big wean I've been avoiding the papers today

[der Berliner 3,290]

And Gallagher for that matter. Good young players with pace and creativity; they should be given a game. However, saying that, is Barrie McKay not still on loan at Raith? Or was he recalled? I know Gallagher is back rotting in the youth teams...

 

Even Gasparrotto (How do you spell it?) is not getting a chance.

 

Luca Gasparotto is out on loan with Airdrieonians and will return at the beginning of May. His contract with us runs till the end of May.

 

Gallagher has been on loan to Cowdenbeath till January and is now back with the u20s. He and Hardie are regulars there and both have featured on our bench of late. We have to keep in mind that Rangers have a commitment to the u20s league as well, so games there might clash with those of the first team.

 

Walsh has made a real impact and will return on Sunday, much like Shiels. These two alone will be an improvement to our attack play.