Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard

[Rousseau 9,508]

The problem with Scottish football is that all too often a hard-working team can beat a team trying to play football. Nowhere else in the world would a hard-working side be able to beat a side of a much higher tactical ability. The reason for this is a lack of quality in the execution. Rangers were comfortable and dominant for large spells of the game against Falkirk, but were again let down by a severe lack of quality in playing the final ball, or taking a shot.

 

 

Rangers lined-up in their usual 4-3-3. Three changes from the disappointing 2-2 draw with Morton saw Miller, Zelalem and Ball drop out for Oduwa, Shiels and Wilson. Ball and Kiernan took the majority of the blame for the draw, with the space between the pair far too inviting for breaking players; Wilson, despite not being quick, reads the game well and is calm on the ball. Zelalem missed out through injury, so a chance for Shiels who had made a decent impact coming on late in games. Presumably, Oduwa was brought in to provide width.

 

Falkirk were lined-up in their usual 4-4-1-1. The team has been unchanged for several weeks, apart from 17-year-old O'Hara swapping from match-to-match with McHugh; O'Hara got the nod against Rangers. Falkirk are a direct team, possessing creativity out wide in the form of Sibbald and Alston. They create numerous chances without ever having more than 55% possession. Their 'keeper has often had to make several saves per game. Falkirk go into the game in buoyant mood, having been unfortunate to concede a late equiliser against Hibs last weekend.

 

The pattern of the match was pretty much set within the first 5 minutes: Rangers dominating possession; Falkirk sitting deep and breaking at pace. In the third minute, Halliday is caught in possession high up the pitch, and Falkirk break with several players getting in behind the Rangers midfield. Vaulks, making a run from central to left, dragged Wilson out-of-position, forcing a wild lunge from the returning centre-back. The referee pointed to the spot, despite the initial challenge being several yards outside the box. 1-0.

 

Rangers burst into life after going behind, forcing Falkirk back, and spraying passes about; Wallace, McKay, Shiels and Holt were effective in creating triangles in recycling possession. The majority of the forward passes were central, into the feet of Shiels, Holt and Waghorn, before being forced back; Waghorn in particular was outnumbered any time he received the ball, always with back to goal.

 

Falkirk were content to sit deep and hit the long pass. Their second-striker, O'Hara, spun wide on several occasions into the vacated full-back spaces to receive the ball, before running into the space and forcing our full-backs to cover. O'Hara and Baird's pace was a danger-sign. This move almost reaped rewards later, but a goal was chopped-off for offside.

 

The triangles continued, but the objective seemed to shift from a central focus to a flanking focus. When the ball came to McKay, he started to take on his full-back on the outside; Oduwa also took on his defender, with both wingers stretching the play by hugging the touchline. This aggressive wing-play was where the equiliser came from. Halliday taking a chance from distance, before the ball gets deflected wide to Oduwa in space. Oduwa then centres the ball, before it falls to McKay at the back post via a deflection or two. McKay slotted it into the far corner first-time. 1-1.

 

The game went through a heated few minutes, with jeers from the crowd after every tackle and decision. Commentators suggested that Referee "Willie Collum [was] part of the narrative." Should a referee be part of the narrative of the game, or simply a silent director? Collum made several wrong decisions -- most tellingly the decision to award a penalty which was several yards outside the box. Not too encouraging considering this is the man chosen to referee at the European Championships...

 

Falkirk seemed to retreat into themselves a little, becoming unsure in their attacking play. Conceding the congested central ground, Rangers continued to target the flanks. One tactic that looked promising was the Wallace 'under-lap'. Everton's Baines was unplayable when knocking the ball to his winger and making a run inside the full-back; the full-back and covering midfielder were unsure what to do. Wallace made several of these runs, allowing Rangers to get in behind. More quality on the through-ball would have caused a lot of problems for Falkirk.

 

Oduwa had a good first-half: linking well with his inside midfielder and taking on his defender. Unfortunately, Tavernier never supported him enough. It seemed Tavernier was told to sit back, perhaps to cover the dangerous Sibbald? Wallace in contrast bombed forward all game.

 

The second-half saw a much more direct approach from Rangers, by trying to play over the congested midfield. Wilson and Kiernan played several exquisite long diagonal balls to the wingers; and on a couple of occasions, Waghorn. Space seemed to open up, but again the final-ball was a let down. Then came the wind.

 

Falkirk took the lead, doing what Rangers couldn't: drill a corner into the box, and not allowing the wind to catch higher balls. Unable to deal with the first-ball, a lay-off was drilled into the far corner. 2-1.

 

Rangers went through a really shaky 15 minutes, where confidence evaporated. Falkirk didn't even bother to play long passes, but simply lumped aimless balls forward; the wind catching the ball from going through to the safety of Foderingham's arms. Again, their second-striker spun into the space. A bit of quality on the final pass could have seen them score more. Even so, they hit the post and Foderingham made a couple of sublime saves. Kiernan looked lost, unable to deal with the movement of Baird and O'Hara, with much of the trouble self-inflicted by trying to force forward passes and conceding possession.

 

Law and Miller came on to replace Shiels and Oduwa, and seemed to show promise. Law in particular changed the game by running with the ball, playing it wide quickly and hitting the bar with a controlled shot.

 

The changes galvanised the team. The tempo increased, balls were played wide more quickly. Individual skill and incisive passing saw Rangers get in behind several times. The final-ball was a let-down, or the Falkirk pulled off a good save. A few long shots looked to be nestling in the net, until the hands of Rodgers deflects the ball to safety.

 

A final change saw Clark come on for Wilson, as Rangers continued to bang at the door. At this stage, any structure or formation goes out the window, with Rangers playing what seemed like a 3-3-4 at times. A penalty was awarded late on -- retribution for the one wrongly given in the first 5 minutes -- but Waghorn, frustrated all game, saw his strike saved, as the last hope was snuffed out.

 

Overlooking the 10 minutes where confidence disappeared and where any aimless ball was a serious danger, Rangers were the dominant side: tactical superior, recycling possession with relative ease and creating a barrow-load of chances. Again, a severe lack of quality on the final-ball see's Rangers leave with nothing; again, the hard-working team has got the points. Nowhere else in the world is a hard-working side able to beat a side of a much higher tactical ability. It's Scottish football in microcosm: work-ethic over tactical ability. A good work-ethic is a great asset, but it shouldn't be the main tactic. Until Scottish football changes in this regard, it'll continue to be a laughing-stock on the world-stage.

 

From Rangers' point-of-view, better quality is needed. The current level is not always enough to beat a hard-working side, despite the tactical superiority. Winning the Championship title was almost guaranteed during the euphoria and excitement of our early season form. Now, it's not quite so certain. The only positive is it's still early in Warburton's reign, with another few windows before we really see the team he's looking to develop.

Edited December 20, 2015 by pete

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

Ive rarely read such utter drivel on this site. Your continued blinkered defence of a system that DOESNT WORK is becoming ridiculous Rousseau, with due respect to your entitled opinion. Highly superior technical what? Playing square passes. Ignoring runners, on the rare occasion there may actually be a runner to find.

 

Substitutions that are set in stop for the 60 minute mark no matter the score or state of play.

 

This manager has only a plan A, which might work with quality players, but not with bargain basement lower league journeymen. That we have been amateurish in defence since July and not done a damn thing about it is either arrogance or lack of coaching skills.

 

By all means you can argue we had more possession, more attempts etc but never in a million years can you get away with saying we would have won if our opponent didn't work as hard as they did, and bemoan it as a problem in our game. Yes, let's all slow the game down to a snails pace and make 500 ineffective passes per game, look how pretty it looks on a tactics board. Utter drivel man.

[colinstein 294]

we were unable to pass to a player who had time and space to shoot at goal.

That's tactics against a tight defence at fault not necessarily the quality of the player looking to strike.

[Rousseau 9,508]

Ive rarely read such utter drivel on this site. Your continued blinkered defence of a system that DOESNT WORK is becoming ridiculous Rousseau, with due respect to your entitled opinion. Highly superior technical what? Playing square passes. Ignoring runners, on the rare occasion there may actually be a runner to find.

 

Substitutions that are set in stop for the 60 minute mark no matter the score or state of play.

 

This manager has only a plan A, which might work with quality players, but not with bargain basement lower league journeymen. That we have been amateurish in defence since July and not done a damn thing about it is either arrogance or lack of coaching skills.

 

By all means you can argue we had more possession, more attempts etc but never in a million years can you get away with saying we would have won if our opponent didn't work as hard as they did, and bemoan it as a problem in our game. Yes, let's all slow the game down to a snails pace and make 500 ineffective passes per game, look how pretty it looks on a tactics board. Utter drivel man.

 

Not that it'll change your view, but I meant 'tactical ability', not technical ability. (How do I change the title?)

 

Actually, we're not a million miles away in opinion. I did suggest that we don't have the necessary quality to make the system work, as you say -- a team with a good work-ethic can beat us. I maintain that our philosophy is better, although not quite 'clicking' at the minute.

 

Our defense doesn't bother me, because I see it as a consequence of our attacking philosophy. I'm more annoyed at the lack of quality up front, the final ball etc.

 

I think that most Scottish sides have a good work-ethic; it's their main asset. I'm suggesting the next stage, the tactical ability, is missing. It's evident in the Scotland National side IMO. I think we (Rangers) have the beginnings of a good tactical base, that should be able to deal with those teams that simply have a good work-ethic, but we've not got the quality at the minute.

 

I know we usually disagree on the game, but I've never had such a strong reaction from yourself! Thanks for your reply nevertheless.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Rousseau

[Rousseau 9,508]

we were unable to pass to a player who had time and space to shoot at goal.

That's tactics against a tight defence at fault not necessarily the quality of the player looking to strike.

 

Generally yes, but we did have a few shots at goal that were over or saved, and more annoyingly, we over-hit several passes which would have allowed us in behind. I maintain we're doing the right, things tactically, but continue to execute the final ball poorly.

[Rousseau 9,508]

Can a Mod change the title to 'Tactical' rather than 'Technical'?

[trublusince1982 243]

I just don't see the tactics you allude to. The team was set up today without any sense of balance or plan. The best you could say was we intended to attack the full backs, but the plan falls short there. We have no pace, no strength and no pressure from the midfield going forward. We have very few goal threats that score with any sort of regularity. We have no midfield or wingers who can shoot from distance, also no cover for a right back who is clearly needing dropped before his confidence completely combusts. The defence is woeful, why any manager would bring in Wilson today I have absolutely no idea.

 

The rotation of the squad for no reason is detrimental especially when added to the fact players whos performance calls for them to be dropped play regardless. I thought the whole rotation idea was to ensure all players felt like there was a path to the first team, doubt aird or Thompson would agree.

[colinstein 294]

our defence frailties are certainly a result of our attacking philosophy...... no argument there !

even with improved quality up front, we'll still get cut open at the back....and teams with more quality than Hibs and Falkirk will make us pay

[Rousseau 9,508]

I just don't see the tactics you allude to. The team was set up today without any sense of balance or plan. The best you could say was we intended to attack the full backs, but the plan falls short there. We have no pace, no strength and no pressure from the midfield going forward. We have very few goal threats that score with any sort of regularity. We have no midfield or wingers who can shoot from distance, also no cover for a right back who is clearly needing dropped before his confidence completely combusts. The defence is woeful, why any manager would bring in Wilson today I have absolutely no idea.

 

The rotation of the squad for no reason is detrimental especially when added to the fact players whos performance calls for them to be dropped play regardless. I thought the whole rotation idea was to ensure all players felt like there was a path to the first team, doubt aird or Thompson would agree.

 

The wing-play, the 'under-lap' from Wallace, the long diagonals were the things I noticed. think the issues you mention are down to the individual. I think the tactics are OK, were trying to play the right way, do the right things IMO. I certainly thought we tried different things. The execution let us down.

 

The poor defence is a consequence of our attacking play, although a better centre-half pairing would deal with it better! A David Weir would struggle. We need more a David Luiz or Thiago Silva type player rather than a tough, old-fashioned centre-back.

[trublusince1982 243]

agree we tried to hit a better array of passes today but the runs are the same. No third player runs, nothing. just Wallace trying to overlap on the left, but its pointless. Even when he does overlap there is no ball to be played. Waghorn is crowded out nobody is attacking the front or back post and maybe holt at the most is the only midfielder trying to get into the box on the end of anything.

 

That starting line up was never going to beat Falkirk, it does not exhibit one clear strength. What are our strengths? seems to me the only thing we are good at is keeping the ball in the middle of the park and moving side to side.

 

Our centre backs for me need courage more than anything. Ours seem scared to square up and be aggressive against our opposition they don't pressureise any forward. They were playing against a 17 year old today and not once did I notice him being shrugged off the ball or over powered.

Edited December 19, 2015 by trublusince1982