The Rise Of Vertical Football

[Frankie 8,182]

'Interplay' (is that a word?) is the key IMO. Having individual players that can beat a defender is great, but IMO it's better if we have 2 or 3 players making off-the-ball runs and passing options, to unlock defenses.

 

Agreed. And this is where we struggle (centrally at least) as while Waghorn is fine at linking the player, Miller and Clark are usually less effective - though the latter did OK last night to be fair.

 

I think we have a lack of depth and I was also surprised that, despite the tight game, the manager didn't make more changes late on. I do wonder how well Walsh would do in the number 9 role...

[Tannochsidebear 2,320]

Maybe I am more simple in terms of tactical awareness, but in my book we have struggled to match the tempo of the opening weeks for two simple reasons.

 

1. Our passing is slower, the movement from the midfielders and forwards is not as quick and as often as before and is therefore easier to defend against.

2. We are no longer attacking in packs when we lose possession in the final third and therefore we are not winning the ball back as often in dangerous areas. We scored a lot of goals in the first few weeks by winning the ball back well upfield.

 

While being thoroughly entertained in the early weeks by the above two points in particular, it was also a worry that we would not be able to maintain that level of intensity over the course of a season, especially with a small squad. For the same reasons as our opponents visibly tired late in games by our above tactics, it seems as though our front 6 no longer have the same energy as in the early weeks. We still look a lot fitter than our opponents, rightly so given the resources, but the intensity has most certainly dropped.

 

I would respectfully suggest that it is nothing to do with the opponents working us out or how to play us, or systems learned from the almighty Pep, and more to do with our own intensity, pace of movement, and accuracy of passing in the final third. We do not play against Real Madrid and Dortmund every week, but Livingston & Morton, and we do not need the tactical genius of Kasparov to break them down, just good players playing well and a system that works.

[Frankie 8,182]

Maybe I am more simple in terms of tactical awareness, but in my book we have struggled to match the tempo of the opening weeks for two simple reasons.

 

1. Our passing is slower, the movement from the midfielders and forwards is not as quick and as often as before and is therefore easier to defend against.

2. We are no longer attacking in packs when we lose possession in the final third and therefore we are not winning the ball back as often in dangerous areas. We scored a lot of goals in the first few weeks by winning the ball back well upfield.

 

While being thoroughly entertained in the early weeks by the above two points in particular, it was also a worry that we would not be able to maintain that level of intensity over the course of a season, especially with a small squad. For the same reasons as our opponents visibly tired late in games by our above tactics, it seems as though our front 6 no longer have the same energy as in the early weeks. We still look a lot fitter than our opponents, rightly so given the resources, but the intensity has most certainly dropped.

 

I would respectfully suggest that it is nothing to do with the opponents working us out or how to play us, or systems learned from the almighty Pep, and more to do with our own intensity, pace of movement, and accuracy of passing in the final third. We do not play against Real Madrid and Dortmund every week, but Livingston & Morton, and we do not need the tactical genius of Kasparov to break them down, just good players playing well and a system that works.

 

I think you make some fair comments there but it can be argued that with respect to point 1 especially the reason our passing is slower is because the pass now isn't on (or as easy) like it may have been in some of our earlier games. Many times last night we tried the quicker pass but it was intercepted through a combination of inaccuracy from us and good positioning/defensive numbers from Livi.

 

Similarly, with regard to point 2, I'd agree that we do seem to have lost that intensity but it was the same hunting in packs that seen our defence isolated and the concession of some soft goals earlier in the season. Halliday in particular was being overrun at times so, as Rousseau points out, we're now less open at the back.

 

I do agree we have to up the pace of the game at times (certainly more often) but I don't think it's realistic (or fair) not to acknowledge the effects of the opposition on how we're playing.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

As interesting a read as that was, I think playing that formation would be bonkers! Ultimately it's irrelevant what system we play against these teams because the league is already won. What's relevant is developing a system that we can make a good attempt at the SC this season with, and also challenge for the top tier next season, then become a credible outfit in Europe thereafter.

 

We're not going to do any of this playing three at the back, no wing backs and Lee Wallace as one of the back 3. Wallace is an attacking fullback, and that's where his strengths lie. Playing him in a back three would completely nullify that and focus on his weaknesses.

 

I would like to just see us playing a simple 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 regardless of the opposition, varying the attacking intensity depending on their quality. We are not Bayern Munich, we will be going into European competitions against much better and more skillful teams and have to try and deal with that.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Ser Barristan Selmy

[Frankie 8,182]

As interesting a read as that was, I think playing that formation would be bonkers! Ultimately it's irrelevant what system we play against these teams because the league is already won. What's relevant is developing a system that we can make a good attempt at the SC this season with, and also challenge for the top tier next season, then become a credible outfit in Europe thereafter.

 

We're not going to do any of this playing three at the back, no wing backs and Lee Wallace as one of the back 3. Wallace is an attacking fullback, and that's where his strengths lie. Playing him in a back three would completely nullify that and focus on his weaknesses.

 

I would like to just see us playing a simple 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 regardless of the opposition, varying the attacking intensity depending on their quality. We are not Bayern Munich, we will be going into European competitions against much better and more skillful teams and have to try and deal with that.

 

Again I agree and disagree.

 

I agree that for the medium-long term we're perhaps better concentrating on our strategy for dealing with better teams but, to be honest, why can't we have two or three different systems dependent on the circumstances?

 

Moreover, I'm not convinced the league is already won. Hibs are on a decent run and while we're well clear just now, the last few games have been a bit trickier in terms of obtaining a result. With injuries and suspensions still to arrive and two tough(er) games up next, things can change quickly in this league so we should be well prepared to deal with any situation and have the tactical flexibility to deal with it.

 

There's a fine line between confidence and complacency.

[Rousseau 9,488]

As interesting a read as that was, I think playing that formation would be bonkers! Ultimately it's irrelevant what system we play against these teams because the league is already won. What's relevant is developing a system that we can make a good attempt at the SC this season with, and also challenge for the top tier next season, then become a credible outfit in Europe thereafter.

 

We're not going to do any of this playing three at the back, no wing backs and Lee Wallace as one of the back 3. Wallace is an attacking fullback, and that's where his strengths lie. Playing him in a back three would completely nullify that and focus on his weaknesses.

 

I would like to just see us playing a simple 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 regardless of the opposition, varying the attacking intensity depending on their quality. We are not Bayern Munich, we will be going into European competitions against much better and more skillful teams and have to try and deal with that.

 

The 3-3-1-3 was not a serious consideration really, merely used to show the way in which Guardiola has tried to overcome those compact defences.

 

The 4-3-3 (the 4-2-3-1 is simply a variation of the former) is the most flexible. I agree it should be our base. However, I don't see why we can't change depending on the opposition. Likewise, I don't see why a back-three can't work (I'd prefer Wallace at LWB/LM), and in fact, having a pivot that drops deep would provide this during play in a 4-3-3. We need to be flexible IMO. There are many sides that go up against better opposition playing in a different way, looking to tactically overcome them: Chile, a smaller side, were phenomenal at the WC playing 3-4-1-2; dominating teams and being aggressive. Again, overlooking that fact that we lack the right type of players, I don't see why we cannot do that?

 

In regards to developing a team for SC and further, you seem to be assuming that we're going to be the underdogs -- and I suppose we are to a certain extent initially --, but I'd like to see us take the initiative. I don't want to see us go back to Walter's tactics, of sitting deep and waiting to counter. I want to see us attacking, keeping the ball and being creative. I think we differ on the premise: you assume we'll be defending against better sides; I would like to see us be the attacking side. From your premise, I understand why you'd want a simple, stable formation and system.

 

Nevertheless, a 4-2-3-1 can be very flexible and creative: just look at Athletic Bilbao!

Edited October 21, 2015 by Rousseau

[Rousseau 9,488]

As interesting a read as that was, I think playing that formation would be bonkers! Ultimately it's irrelevant what system we play against these teams because the league is already won. What's relevant is developing a system that we can make a good attempt at the SC this season with, and also challenge for the top tier next season, then become a credible outfit in Europe thereafter.

 

We're not going to do any of this playing three at the back, no wing backs and Lee Wallace as one of the back 3. Wallace is an attacking fullback, and that's where his strengths lie. Playing him in a back three would completely nullify that and focus on his weaknesses.

 

I would like to just see us playing a simple 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 regardless of the opposition, varying the attacking intensity depending on their quality. We are not Bayern Munich, we will be going into European competitions against much better and more skillful teams and have to try and deal with that.

 

On reflection, if the league is won, which I don't think it is, why can't we use this time to experiment with a few things? Isn't this the best time?

[Rousseau 9,488]

I think there are 2 layers to any team's 'system'. The first layer is their style, the way in which the players interchange, move and pass. Then the second layer is the tactical layer, a formation or a way of playing which looks to target the weaknesses of an opponent. I think a team needs both: the first will stay no matter what, but the second will change depending on the opposition.

 

I also think, looking at the comments so far, there are 2 broad views on football style. There's the Mourinho view, which is inherently negative, looking to be stable and difficult to beat. And then there's the Guardiola view, which is essentially positive, looking to attack. Mourinho will tweak tactics to stop a team, whereas Guardiola will tweak his tactics to overcome a opponent. I'm not saying one is better than the other, because both are successful, but I'd prefer to see the Guardiola outlook practiced at Rangers.

[Frankie 8,182]

I think there are 2 layers to any team's 'system'. The first layer is their style, the way in which the players interchange, move and pass. Then the second layer is the tactical layer, a formation or a way of playing which looks to target the weaknesses of an opponent. I think a team needs both: the first will stay no matter what, but the second will change depending on the opposition.

 

I also think, looking at the comments so far, there are 2 broad views on football style. There's the Mourinho view, which is inherently negative, looking to be stable and difficult to beat. And then there's the Guardiola view, which is essentially positive, looking to attack. Mourinho will tweak tactics to stop a team, whereas Guardiola will tweak his tactics to overcome a opponent. I'm not saying one is better than the other, because both are successful, but I'd prefer to see the Guardiola outlook practiced at Rangers.

 

Fair point and it's quite interesting how folk (myself included) always want exciting, attacking football but, when it comes to the crunch, get hung up on the defensive side perhaps a little too easily.

 

FWIW, it may be we're less open than before because the manager is working on the team's transition setup ahead of the next two matches?

[Germinal 27]

Hugely interesting post which I've been pondering instead of working for several hours now. Many thanks indeed.