Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard

[Rousseau 9,493]

You see, that is the whole problem I have. Warburton is imposing a philosophy and has brought in several new players to play this way. Unfortunately the players are nowhere near good enough to play this system, very few teams worldwide are, and that is my problem with it. After an initial few weeks when it was new and everyone was fresh and energetic and we really did hit the ground running, reality has set in for a couple of months now, and the cold hard facts are that we cannot combine this system of play, with these players, and achieve winning football. Therefore it has failed and something needs to change.

 

Given we are not going to bring in 6-8 quality players in Jan, we need to change the system to one that wins football matches. Warburton is not going to be given 3-4 years to build this slowly, not at Rangers. We have by far the biggest budget in our division, we have the best players and the best manager, so it must be the tactics/ formation that is wrong. By all means go back to 4-3-3 in this style next year when we are up a level and have given W&W another 2 windows to get the players to play his system, but until then he has to find a new system to win 2nd tier football matches against really poor opponents, Hibs apart.

 

Not one Falkirk player would get in our starting 11, so why were we beaten so comfortably and unsurprisingly? Tactics. Simples.

 

I don't think you have to be 'world-class' to play this way. Swansea are (were?) a perfect example of a team playing good, technical football and being successful with it. You don't need top-class players to be a decent brand of football -- although we do need better players than we have. I know we're bred on winning football, but for me, the stuff under Walter, for example, was intolerable at times; I was always looking for something more. I'd watch my team at the weekend, get caught up in the thrill etc., but then look forward to a proper game of football later on.

 

I'm not saying we're playing 'proper football' at the moment, but I am positive about where we are going. Yes, I would like to see us win, but I'd also like to see us trying new things, trying to play the game the right way.

 

And, yes, we were beaten by tactics. But, not because our's we wrong, but because we never executed them properly. (And, never defended properly.) Again, I maintain that our tactics were better than Falkirk's -- because intricate wing-play and trying to thread through-balls is better than an aimless punt -- albeit not as effective. My point is this basic 'tactic' -- I don't see how one can call it a tactic; it's more a work-ethic -- from Falkirk is not enough at the European level. We don't have the players to make it stick at the minute, but there's no doubt in my mind that we're doing the right things.

 

However, I do sympathise with you point that we could be a little more 'basic' to get out of this league and up to a higher level. But at some stage this 'basic', work-based football endemic in Scotland needs to be overcome if we are to progress.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Rousseau

[Rousseau 9,493]

I would be rather hesitant with such claims, as you see exactly the opposite quite often. It's not like Real, Barca, Bayern et al never get beaten. Or, indeed Chelsea and ManU. They all usually deploy better tactics and technical ability than their opponents.

 

That said, what actually is "tactical superiority"? We play an attacking 4-3-3 tactic, the opposition usually a 1-1-4-4 or the like, mainly to play up to their own strengths and the ability of their players. Whether our strengths and abilities are best suited with 4-3-3 is up for debate too, at the end of the day it is a game of tactics where the best one on the day wins. I wouldn't go as far as saying 4-3-3 is superior to other Scottish teams tactics "just because" we play it or some world-class, star-studded team can afford it. We reached Manchester being tactical aware of our opponents and our strengths and weaknesses. By logic, we employed a tactically "superior" system against our opponents, whatever system they played.

 

By the looks of it, just to keep this in mind as well, our supposedly "superior system" is rather weak in certain aspects, as it leaves us open to quick counter attacks. And it matters not a jot who actually plays as centre-half, for e.g. the Irish beat the Germans to bury Scotland's dreams of a international summer with the exact hit-and-hope stuff that we endure week in and week out. It is hard to play against brick walls at one end and cope with these counter attacks at the other - week in and week out. You would hope that people adapt, but people are still human beings and football players of a certain ability.

 

What does cost us is our inability to score more goals from the chances that we create. And that, IMHO, is no real marker whether our system is tactically "superior" either. It would be testimony that our current players are good enough to play our system to its best effect.

 

Thanks for your post: fantastic point. Surely there is an inherent 'hierarchy' of tactics? Offensive football is inherently better than defensive tactics. So, I'd say our tactics to Manchester were 'effective', but there's no doubt that our opponents were tactically 'superior'.

[der Berliner 3,286]

I'd say that it is quite dependent on the quality of players at hand. If you play a top-notch player 4-4-2 against a 4-3-3 (or 3-5-2 or 4-1-4-1) of similar quality players, you would be able draw conclusions about superiority. And even that will have to exclude luck and other influences (like referees). The Scottish teams play up to the best abilities of their players and a system they are most comfortable with. Which usually is 4-4-2, i.e. something they learned from kicking a ball in earnest for the first time. Which is also a point that we have to realize ... i.e. our players needing to adapt (again, you would expect that most have by now). Those years of experience in the 4-4-2 style gives them a little (if not much of an) edge against us as well. All little pieces that can fall into place if we don't click.

 

If we start scoring from even a third of our chances by next week, no such discussion would be high on the agenda.

Edited December 20, 2015 by der Berliner

[the gunslinger 3,366]

It doesn't most of the time and it's not just in Scotland. Chelsea won a European cup doing it.

[Rousseau 9,493]

It doesn't most of the time and it's not just in Scotland. Chelsea won a European cup doing it.

 

Exception that proves the rule?

[rbr 1,247]

I don't think you have to be 'world-class' to play this way. Swansea are (were?) a perfect example of a team playing good, technical football and being successful with it. You don't need top-class players to be a decent brand of football -- although we do need better players than we have. I know we're bred on winning football, but for me, the stuff under Walter, for example, was intolerable at times; I was always looking for something more. I'd watch my team at the weekend, get caught up in the thrill etc., but then look forward to a proper game of football later on.

 

I'm not saying we're playing 'proper football' at the moment, but I am positive about where we are going. Yes, I would like to see us win, but I'd also like to see us trying new things, trying to play the game the right way.

 

And, yes, we were beaten by tactics. But, not because our's we wrong, but because we never executed them properly. (And, never defended properly.) Again, I maintain that our tactics were better than Falkirk's -- because intricate wing-play and trying to thread through-balls is better than an aimless punt -- albeit not as effective. My point is this basic 'tactic' -- I don't see how one can call it a tactic; it's more a work-ethic -- from Falkirk is not enough at the European level. We don't have the players to make it stick at the minute, but there's no doubt in my mind that we're doing the right things.

 

However, I do sympathise with you point that we could be a little more 'basic' to get out of this league and up to a higher level. But at some stage this 'basic', work-based football endemic in Scotland needs to be overcome if we are to progress.

 

 

Rousseau , I agree almost 100% with what you have posted so far and agree with your analysis of our play , that the manager has only had 6 weeks and 1 transfer window to turn the shambles of our club around seems to have been forgotten by many on here , but then again we Rangers fans aren't exactly noted for pour patience.

 

That MW desperately wants/needs a defensive midfielder shouldn't be forgotten and the Eustace saga has proved costly but I believe he was right to give him time to recover , that he hasn't signed for whatever reason is just one of those things , some people have us lost this league already , its pretty pathetic IMHO but each to their own , we will get there in the fullness of time of that I have no doubt .

 

The part I highlighted in bold in your reply is probably the biggest single problem we have in Scotland , this belief that effort overcomes everything , it holds us back at club and national level yet we are so pig headed we just cannot see the wood for the trees .

 

Its no wonder our U15's and 16's can compete and beat every other country with the work rate and effort they show every time I watch them , however as they get older that effort is always defeated by the same teams being technically better , its not rocket science.

Edited December 20, 2015 by rbr

[ranger_syntax 3,795]

What were Falkirk's tactics? Sit back, defend and use a long pass. The first half I would suggest they used a long pass, but it was rare and apart from the non-penalty we managed to deal with it. Second-half it wasn't even a long pass, but a long aimless punt. Again, omitting that 10-15 minutes period when we were absolutely abysmal, with any and every ball causing trouble, we did OK with it. That aberration was down to a lack of confidence and the fact that we were trying to force ourselves back into the game; a psychological issue that needs to be rectified. And, defensively we need to improve. We're still going to be open, because that's how we play, but we need to deal with it better.

 

If you're saying that the long aimless ball means they were tactically superior, then I don't get that at all. I'd admit they were more effective, but looking back, we got in behind much more than them, but didn't have the quality on the final ball: how many times was a through-ball over-hit, when a better weight would've seen us create a goal-scoring chance?

 

What do you think makes one tactic superior to another?

[ranger_syntax 3,795]

Surely there is an inherent 'hierarchy' of tactics? Offensive football is inherently better than defensive tactics. So, I'd say our tactics to Manchester were 'effective', but there's no doubt that our opponents were tactically 'superior'.

 

This would make a great tl;dr for the original post.

[trublusince1982 243]

pre season and transfer windows have nothing to do with making poor decisions. The formation doesn't fit the squad, doesn't mean we cant find a formation that fits both his philosophy and the squad for the short term, but that aside the starting 11 he choose yesterday was never going to beat falkirk. Warburton has said before he watches videos of the opposition but yesterday he obviously paid no attention to the falkirk squad and made the poor decision of bringing Wilson in against pace.Everybody and their dog knew that would hurt us. The constant rotation of the central defensive partnership is a hindrance not a positive. He also failed to pick a midfield that would bring anything to the game in either an attacking or defensive mind. His substitutions fail to change the game and are repetitive with no real thought to stopping the opposition or altering our attacking style. Never mind picking shiels holt and halliday as the midfield, what was the game plan in relation to those three? For weeks it has been apparent we need more cover along side halliday, so what does he do? he brings a guy into the midfield who has a massive blind spot which makes him susceptible to defensive mistakes.

 

None of that has anything to do with lack of time or squad, the tools to win this league are available to him he just needs to utilise them in the correct fashion instead of trying to drive square pegs into round holes.

 

That aside if he wanted to play this formation he should have insured he had the players at his disposal to do so before the season began. At the very least the key positions should have been filled, he failed to do so, nobody to blame but himself for that. We all knew we lacked strikers but he disagreed and said hardie, clark, miller and waghorn would be more than enough. A poor decision. We all knew we needed a strong defensive mid he agreed but failed to secure one when he gambled on Eustace. In hindsight a poor decision but that's the kind of decision he is paid to get right. Same goes for the wingers, anyone having even a cursory look at Templetons history would know we couldn't rely on him to be fit enough to play any sort of meaningful amount of games, he had to ensure we had enough cover for what is arguably our most important positions in the formation he prefers. Time had nothing to do with this decisions we had time after all those things became apparent to bring in replacements he chose not to.

 

At the end of the day he needs to learn and learn quick. The teams in this league are not great but they are not as big a mugs as he seems to be taking them for. You cannot keep rotating the squad with no thought of the opposition we will face that day, you cannot go into top of the league clashes with the mentality its just another game, you cant keep ignoring weaknesses to our game and not expect them to be exploited, and most of all you cannot expect to repeat the same things over and over and get different results.

[rbr 1,247]

pre season and transfer windows have nothing to do with making poor decisions. The formation doesn't fit the squad, doesn't mean we cant find a formation that fits both his philosophy and the squad for the short term, but that aside the starting 11 he choose yesterday was never going to beat falkirk. Warburton has said before he watches videos of the opposition but yesterday he obviously paid no attention to the falkirk squad and made the poor decision of bringing Wilson in against pace.Everybody and their dog knew that would hurt us. The constant rotation of the central defensive partnership is a hindrance not a positive. He also failed to pick a midfield that would bring anything to the game in either an attacking or defensive mind. His substitutions fail to change the game and are repetitive with no real thought to stopping the opposition or altering our attacking style. Never mind picking shiels holt and halliday as the midfield, what was the game plan in relation to those three? For weeks it has been apparent we need more cover along side halliday, so what does he do? he brings a guy into the midfield who has a massive blind spot which makes him susceptible to defensive mistakes.

 

None of that has anything to do with lack of time or squad, the tools to win this league are available to him he just needs to utilise them in the correct fashion instead of trying to drive square pegs into round holes.

 

That aside if he wanted to play this formation he should have insured he had the players at his disposal to do so before the season began. At the very least the key positions should have been filled, he failed to do so, nobody to blame but himself for that. We all knew we lacked strikers but he disagreed and said hardie, clark, miller and waghorn would be more than enough. A poor decision. We all knew we needed a strong defensive mid he agreed but failed to secure one when he gambled on Eustace. In hindsight a poor decision but that's the kind of decision he is paid to get right. Same goes for the wingers, anyone having even a cursory look at Templetons history would know we couldn't rely on him to be fit enough to play any sort of meaningful amount of games, he had to ensure we had enough cover for what is arguably our most important positions in the formation he prefers. Time had nothing to do with this decisions we had time after all those things became apparent to bring in replacements he chose not to.

 

At the end of the day he needs to learn and learn quick. The teams in this league are not great but they are not as big a mugs as he seems to be taking them for. You cannot keep rotating the squad with no thought of the opposition we will face that day, you cannot go into top of the league clashes with the mentality its just another game, you cant keep ignoring weaknesses to our game and not expect them to be exploited, and most of all you cannot expect to repeat the same things over and over and get different results.

 

But preseason and transfer windows are crucial if you want a certain type of player to play a crucial role in how you want your team to play , Andy Halliday was never brought in as a defensive/holding midfielder he just happens to be the one playing that role just now , the formation does fit the squad , if we had taken half the chances we create we wouldn't be having this debate .

 

You state that yesterdays 11 was never going to beat Falkirk , strange statement given they were handed a goal and we missed a penalty ,as for the rest of your post its just with hindsight drivel imho , your calling him out after he was in place for less than 6 weeks and had a change in personnel of over 24 players ,(coming and going ) , don't you think he deserves a wee bit more time