A Tactically Astute Performance Let Down By Poor Finishing

[Rousseau 9,486]

 

A top-of-the-table clash, with both sides going into the game in good (-ish) form. Hibs get the three points, cutting the deficit at the top to 5 points, but Rangers were the more tactically astute, but were let down by poor finishing.

 

Mark Warburton said going into the game that there would be no major changes. It turned out there were a few. Firstly, the personnel changed from the previous game, seeing Clark come in for Miller, who dropped out of the squad completely, and Ball retain his place despite the return of Wilson; Zelalem dropped to the bench for the defender.

 

Seeing Ball, Wilson and Kiernan was a surprise. Initially, it looked like Ball would simply take the place of Halliday in the defensive midfield, allowing Halliday to push forward; with Clark playing as lead striker, with Waghorn out wide. However, after a few minutes it was clear there was a significant formation change, with Rangers lining up in a 3-5-2. Halliday, alongside McKay and Holt, retained his defensive midfield role in front of a back three of Ball, Wilson and Kiernan; Tavernier and Wallace played wing-back; Waghorn and Clark led the line.

 

Hibs were unchanged. Generally, we have seen them play a 3-5-2 against us -- possibly the reason for Warburton's change in formation? -- but they changed to a basic 4-4-2, with a very narrow midfield, almost playing as a diamond when going forward. The midfield quartet of McGinn, Henderson, McGeouch and Fyvie being there most creative assets, Allan Stubbs likes to get as many on the pitch as possible. Malonga and Cummings, two of the best forwards in the league, played up top; Cummings especially, has a very good record against us.

 

Outwith Rangers being denied a stonewall penalty after 2 minutes, Hibs started the better, pressing aggressively, and winning most of the second balls. Rangers, it seemed, were a little unsure in their changed formation.

 

There was a disconnect in central midfield, with McKay naturally drifting wide, or into the channel, meaning the space between him and Halliday and Holt was too large, giving Hibs a clear numerical advantage in midfield; 4v3 initially, but 4v2 when McKay drifted giving no chance of controlling the centre.

 

Holt got on the ball a few times, and managed to get Wallace in behind, but the final ball was woeful and invariably cleared. With Hibs playing very narrow, there was space on the flanks tailor-made for Tavernier and Wallace, but our numerical disadvantage meant that the central midfielders were rarely able to play the required pass.

 

The goal was a superb finish, but Wilson was caught for pace, allowing Cummings to cut inside to fire a powerful shot into the far left corner past the diving Foderingham. Undeniably a good finish, but Cummings should never have been allowed to get his shot away.

 

After Hibs scored they sat back and played on the counter. Rangers were quite comfortable at this stage with lots of the ball in our own third, but whether that was because we had the extra man at the back or because Hibs never pressed as aggressively, is difficult to say. Perhaps a bit of both? The three-man defence helped our control of the game, but our midfield was unable to build on it.

 

Up front was not much better, with Waghorn and Clark seemingly getting in each others way. When we got in behind, both wanted to drop deep to receive the cut-back. There needed to be more variability in their movement: one should have pushed to get in front, the other dropping deep, thereby causing difficulty for the Hibs defenders.

 

Rangers started the second-half very well, playing a more direct style. The 3 centre-backs and Halliday were fizzing quicker balls directly into the feet of McKay, Holt and Waghorn. It seemed to push Hibs back, allowing more space. Generally, the link-up between the forwards and the wing-backs was poor, but on the one ocassion it worked, we scored. Wallace drilling a cut-back into a defender, before the ball nestled in the bottom corner. Nothing more than we deserved; gained with a little bit of luck.

 

 

5-10 minutes after the equiliser, Warburton decided to change the formation again, reverting to the usual 4-3-3. Wilson and Clark were replaced by Oduwa and Zelalem. McKay was able to move back to LW, alongside Waghorn and Oduwa; Zelalem slotted in beside Halliday and Holt.

 

Instantly, there was more control in the central areas, with Zelalem keeping the ball moving and creating good angles for team-mates, and Holt darting into pockets. We were still outnumbered in the middle 4v3, but with Tavernier and Wallace always pushing forward there was always an out-ball.

 

The main advantage to reverting to a 4-3-3 was that we had better wing-play. Hibs playing narrow meant there was a lot of space on the flanks, but with only wingbacks during the first 55 minutes, we rarely were able to take advantage. The Full-backs and the Wingers linked up with the central midfielders creating little triangles, and allowing Rangers to overload and target the Hibs full-backs. It seemed to work. We were getting a lot of time on the ball in that left side especially. Alas! we could never take advantage. Despite hitting the wood-work a few times, in general, the finishing lacked quality.

 

A rare corner for Hibs, followed by poor man-marking and a wandering 'keeper, gifted Hibs a soft winner.

 

Tactically, it was quite an intriguing game. Warburton changed to a back-three to cope with a talented Hibs quartet, which seemed to aid control after an initial Hibs onslaught. Then when we got the equiliser, the Manager changed it again, to a 4-3-3. Again, it worked, allowing us greater control of the ball and creating overloads on the flanks with some intricate play. Unfortunately, a tactically astute performance was let down by poor finishing.

 

It was not the best performance, but it was certainly no the worst. Like the gaffer said: "We'll play a lot worse this season [...] and come away with points."

[Rousseau 9,486]

I wasn't going to bother with this because of the result, but I thought it was interesting the way we set up, and the way the Manager changed it mid-game.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Rousseau

[Frankie 8,182]

I wasn't going to bother with this because of the result, but I thought it was interesting the way we set up, and the way the Manager changed it.

 

No, I think it's more important for such critiques when we lose matches.

 

Generally, after a slow/passive first 20mins, where we struggled a bit with the combination of a new formation and a high-tempo Hibs attack, we controlled the game and I actually felt the manager changing things to a 4-3-3 would win us the game. Unfortunately, it was another poorly conceded goal from a set-piece that cost us the chance to win.

 

Moreover, once again our final ball and finishing wasn't good enough. For all the good work Wallace does, his final ball is invariably poor while Tavernier has been rather poor of late also with some dreadful decision-making. Waghorn should also have taken one of the two good chances he had.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Frankie

[Bruno55 0]

I wasn't going to bother with this because of the result, but I thought it was interesting the way we set up, and the way the Manager changed it mid-game.

 

So we do have a plan B Rousseau?

[Frankie 8,182]

Now online:

 

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/match-analysis/470-a-tactically-astute-performance-let-down-by-poor-finishing

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Once we had weathered their initial onslaught at 1-0 , i was quietly confident we would draw level then take control. Second half we upped our tempo and should have put them well behind us, that's football the best team doesn't always win games.

[Rousseau 9,486]

So we do have a plan B Rousseau?

 

Going forward? Meh. I suppose the 3-5-2 would constitute a Plan B. Unfortunately the execution was poor. Like others have said, we could do with a target man to change it, but we require a proper 'target man', not Waghorn, Clark or Miller, as neither have the ability.

 

I was pleased to see Warburton change it. We were under the impression that he'd be quite dogmatic in his 4-3-3. I'm pleased because it means he can change when he feels he needs to. It will require a bit of practice from the players IMO.

[stewarty 1,877]

Wilson had a very poor game. He looks off pace (as seen by the way he was turned for their first) and lacking confidence.

[der Berliner 3,283]

On a sidenote, how did McKay and Holt perform?

[Bruno55 0]

On a sidenote, how did McKay and Holt perform?

 

Not involved enough..