Aggressive Press Hampers Possession

[Rousseau 9,487]

It was one of the worst performances of the season. But I refuse to believe it was as bad as it appeared. Our possession was down on our average, but our chance-creation was still quite good. It was our execution that let us down. It must also be said that St Mirren executed a good tactical plan. After a poor performance, there naturally follows a cry for a plan B, for a change in our style to mix it up. And there is certainly a case that a Target Man, and a more direct style, would have benefited us against St Mirren.

 

There were those that thought we were "off the pace", and "our passing wasn't as good as past games", "ball retention" was suspect, and players were "missing in midfield." All true. Most of these problems stemmed from the tactics that Ian Murray employed. It worked a treat. It has often been the case recently that opponents sit deep. Not with St Mirren.

 

 

They lined-up in a 4-4-2, but with a wide diamond in midfield. The result was that they had 2 strikers to press our centre-backs, 2 wide players to press our Full-backs, and finally, an extra presser in midfield making life difficult for Halliday. It was one of the most aggressive strategies we have faced. Add big Goodwin in a defensive midfield, destroyer role, and it makes for a difficult prospect; no matter how well we play.

 

The aggressive press meant that our centre-back's had very little time on the ball in which to play passes into midfield. At times Halliday dropped into defence to make a temporary back-three, and was able to pick up the ball and start an attack. But with St Mirren's Stevie Mallan (or was it Howieson?) snapping at his heels, it was all too rare.

 

 

Rangers line-up with the standard 4-3-3. Both Full-backs were aggressive, but there tended to be only one that would attack at any one time, with the other sitting deeper. Halliday and Zelalem were quite static, never roaming too much. This meant Holt was the main attacking threat from midfield, taking up positions in the pockets, and making intelligent, late runs in behind. It was a lop-sided attack, because, whereas McKay kept to the touchline on the left, Miller would often drift inside -- not surprising, considering he is a striker by nature.

 

With Miller in the side, we lacked width on the right, but his incessant inside, diagonal runs were a good route in behind. The interplay with Waghorn was quite interesting. Waghorn often dropped deeper to pick up the ball, dragging defenders out of position, allowing Miller to exploit the space. Miller got in behind on a few occasions -- without the ball! -- but his finishing was suspect when he did receive it.

 

The only goal of the game came from the movement of Waghorn, Miller and Holt. Waghorn dropped deep to pick up the ball, dragging defenders out. Miller takes the central Stiker role, again causing problems for the St Mirren defenders. Meanwhile Holt makes darting diagonal run, where Waghorn is able to thread a ball through, before blasting it from a very tight angle. The 'keeper really shouldn't be getting beat from the acute angle.

 

With St Mirren pressing aggressively in the middle of the park, direct, 'vertical' balls were few and far between. Our possession naturally suffered. What was more, however, was that Holt often drifted wide to find space to receive the ball. This had the effect of 'flattening' our midfield trio -- 'flat' in the sense that they were literally flat, not 'flat' in the sense of lacking energy. Obviously, this meant that the interplay between them was poor: if one's only passing option in square from you, then the only pass is square. It must be said that Zelalem was particularly poor in his distribution, often trying to force passes when a simple ball would suffice, and consequently gave the ball away on numerous occasions.

 

Moreover, Holt drifting wide meant we had fewer numbers in the middle, and when we lost the ball St. Mirren had lots of time and space in which to run at our defence. Halliday often drifted wide also to cover the attacking Fullback. This contributed to most of St Mirren's chances in the game: long range strikes. It was one of the few games this season in which we have had to rely on Foderingham. He pulled off some fine saves.

 

We became more stable late in the second half when Shiel's was introduced. Shiel's does not have the pace, and so tends to stay in a central area. This 'base' of Shiels and Halliday allowed us to see more of the ball, and brought about a few chances late on.

 

It was a disappointing game overall, simply because we never had the possession we normally expect. A lot of the problems stemmed from St. Mirren's aggressive press. There was certainly a lot of space in midfield when we were able to overcome the press, contributing to quite an end-to-end game. We were in need of more direct balls into midfield, to exploit the space. Law could have been a better option in place of the poor Zelalem, whereby a midfield 'runner' would have had the space to exploit, rather than a midfield metronome that lacked the ability to pass effectively in this particular game. Law is also always a goal threat. Despite the problems, if we had taken our chances we would have ran-out comfortable winners. But we also must give credit to Ian Murray and St. Mirren, for a very effective tactical set-up.

[Frankie 8,182]

Excellent analysis as always mate.

 

Now published: http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/match-analysis/467-aggressive-press-hampers-possession

[Frankie 8,182]

Worth noting that Hibs played in a similar way in the 1-0 league game at Ibrox.

 

By flooding the midfield with Fyvie, Henderson and McGinn along with Cummings and Boyle in more advanced roles, we struggled to maintain possession in that game and Hibs also countered very well.

 

Food for thought ahead of Sunday.

[calscot 0]

Great analysis.

 

It seems to dovetail with what I've been saying about judicious use of the long ball. When a team presses, you can bypass most of their forward pressing players over the top and catch them out - switch from plan A to B. If you catch them out enough, you'll either score or at worst force them to cover the back meaning they can't press so much, which is when you switch back to plan A - with the odd reminder of B to keep them on their toes. (Like the badminton serve analogy.)

 

The difference to the long ball tactics under McCoist is that firstly the plan B is not the main strategy, its real goal is to curb the press of the opposition to allow you to mostly use plan A. It also requires more targetted passing than punting it forward, and a lot of running off the ball from the strikers.

 

I think while some of Smith's latter day tactics in Europe were like plan B in nature, compared to Ally, they were more this targetted version, with much more accurate passing and players who were adept at beating the offside and receiving the ball under control. I think Beasley and Darcheville were very good at this. To be fair, they were a much higher standard of player than Ally could afford (and he didn't have the luxury of much choice) once the shit hit the fan.

 

There are probably multiple solutions but I think if there are weapons to use, using them with some variety makes us unpredictable and harder to be neutralised by a set game plan.

 

I can see why we're sticking to one main strategy to ingrain the type of football we want to play on the team, but I think now is the time to expand from there or it will be like chess, where you opposition know the all counter moves until the later stages of the game.

[stewarty 1,877]

Really enjoy your game analysis, Rousseu. Cheers!

[aweebluesoandso 290]

It's complicated but i am getting there. call it educating AWBSOS.

[Tannochsidebear 2,320]

Very detailed and interesting analysis Rousseau, thanks.

 

However we can analyse all we want about what went wrong, how the opponent frustrated us, etc, but if we had only played with 11 men instead of 10 plus Miller, we would have had the game in the bag inside 40 minutes and been able to turn on the style in the second half.

 

If Warburton continues to play the absolutely garbage Miller from the start in games, we will continue to struggle. It's that simple. He has no pace left, he cannot trap a ball, he cannot see or find a pass often enough or with enough precision and he cannot shoot with sufficient accuracy even when in great goal-scoring positions (should have had 3 on Sunday before half time). I can see some credence to bringing him on in a wide striker role for the last 20 minutes when the opponent is already tired and beaten (would still prefer someone else but he has added some late goals this season) but he is not going to contribute to the tiring and beating of the opponent anywhere near often enough to merit a starting spot.

[craig 5,199]

Very detailed and interesting analysis Rousseau, thanks.

 

However we can analyse all we want about what went wrong, how the opponent frustrated us, etc, but if we had only played with 11 men instead of 10 plus Miller, we would have had the game in the bag inside 40 minutes and been able to turn on the style in the second half.

 

If Warburton continues to play the absolutely garbage Miller from the start in games, we will continue to struggle. It's that simple. He has no pace left, he cannot trap a ball, he cannot see or find a pass often enough or with enough precision and he cannot shoot with sufficient accuracy even when in great goal-scoring positions (should have had 3 on Sunday before half time). I can see some credence to bringing him on in a wide striker role for the last 20 minutes when the opponent is already tired and beaten (would still prefer someone else but he has added some late goals this season) but he is not going to contribute to the tiring and beating of the opponent anywhere near often enough to merit a starting spot.

 

Whilst I understand the frustration with Miller I think that is pretty unfair to say "10 men plus Miller" from last weekend. I thought Zelalem and Tavernier were even worse than Miller.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Whilst I understand the frustration with Miller I think that is pretty unfair to say "10 men plus Miller" from last weekend. I thought Zelalem and Tavernier were even worse than Miller.

 

Tavernier had a nightmare afternoon, quite his worst performance for us; suspect in defence and offering little but misplaced passes going forward.

 

Miller performed the late sub role exceptionally well in the first two games of the season , why expect more?

[Rousseau 9,487]

Very detailed and interesting analysis Rousseau, thanks.

 

However we can analyse all we want about what went wrong, how the opponent frustrated us, etc, but if we had only played with 11 men instead of 10 plus Miller, we would have had the game in the bag inside 40 minutes and been able to turn on the style in the second half.

 

If Warburton continues to play the absolutely garbage Miller from the start in games, we will continue to struggle. It's that simple. He has no pace left, he cannot trap a ball, he cannot see or find a pass often enough or with enough precision and he cannot shoot with sufficient accuracy even when in great goal-scoring positions (should have had 3 on Sunday before half time). I can see some credence to bringing him on in a wide striker role for the last 20 minutes when the opponent is already tired and beaten (would still prefer someone else but he has added some late goals this season) but he is not going to contribute to the tiring and beating of the opponent anywhere near often enough to merit a starting spot.

 

I suggested as much, with regards to the finishing. Miller was unlucky not to score as the goal that was chopped-off was onside IMO. Nevertheless, surely the fact that Miller is missing chances suggests he's doing something right, or perhaps, that the strategy of playing a striker on one wing is working? It was just the execution of the final ball, and/or the finish, that was severely lacking. I was suggesting that the aggressive pressing from St. Mirren hampered our normal possession game. However, as you say, we did still create a few chances.

 

Perhaps Clark or Hardie should get a run in the main striker role, with Waghorn playing wide? I think we might go with 2 out-and-out wingers against Hibs though.