Fluidity Slices Through Defensive Block

[Rousseau 9,399]

IBROX-- A scarcely packed crowd watched Rangers produce an accomplished performance, making sure a Scottish Cup slip-up was avoided. Fluidity from back to middle cut through a deep and tight defensive block. An adventurous front two from Cowdenbeath hinted at a positive approach, but was snuffed out as Rangers settled into their rhythm. A tidy display saw Rangers run-out comfortable winners against the Blue Brazil.

 

 

Two changes for Rangers saw Law and Kiernan drop out. Dominic Ball came in to make a back 5 of Foderingham, Wallace, Wilson and Tavernier. Halliday and the sprightly Holt retained their places, with Zelalem stepping in to make the midfield three. A front three of McKay, Waghorn and Miller completed the 4-3-3 line-up.

 

Cowdenbeath made one change from the team that narrowly lost to runaway League One leaders Dunfermline, with Brett replacing Kane in a solid 4-4-2. The Blue Brazil had to do without the ineligible on-loan Ranger Andy Murdoch, but their team still included individuals who have caused problems for Rangers in the past. Greig Spence was part of the Raith Rovers and Alloa Athletic sides that humbled Rangers in successive Challenge Cup campaigns.

 

A front two from Cowdenbeath suggested a positive approach, but from the kick-off Rangers settled into their dominant possession game. Second-striker Gordon Smith was forced to drop into midfield, making a solid 4-5-1. Allowing Rangers possession, the Blue Brazil settled into a defensive block.

 

From the outset there was more fluidity from Rangers from back to middle. Attacking moves started from the two centre-backs. The primary pass was out wide to the full-backs, but this tended to restrict passing options. A variation on the first-phase, with Wilson in possession, allowed Wallace to bomb forward and Halliday shuttled left into a make-shift back-three -- reminiscent of Gareth Barry of Everton. From there 3-4 passing lanes were opened up.

 

The general game-plan remained the same: to work the ball wide and either take on the full-back or slot balls in behind. Waghorn and Miller interchanged position, with one or the other taking a wide berth and drifting inside to link-up with their partner. McKay hugged the touchline, widening the pitch and creating space for Zelalem and Holt.

 

Zelalem and Holt in reply zipped around the channels and half-spaces, fluid in their movement. Holt was an anonymous but tireless worker, lacking the plaudits through a lack of a killer-ball or his customary goal; nevertheless, an important figure. Zelalem interchanged position with Wallace and McKay to great effect. When Wallace drifted inside for the one-two, Zelalem would drift out wide, covering and creating a passing triangle. The on-loan Ranger was always looking to play balls forward, creating difficult angles to defend against; it was unfortunate his teammates could never play a similar ball to him when he found space in central areas.

 

The tireless Wallace rarely over-lapped (with a deep defensive block, Cowdenbeath would deal with any over-lap easily), but would again prefer the under-lap, cutting through the channel, between full-back and centre-back; defenders were unsure how to track him.

 

The first goal came from just this move. Wallace following up his pass into the striker, before a penetrative under-lap cuts through the defensive block; Miller slots in a delightful through-ball to Wallace, who slid the ball under the 'keepers legs.

 

The second came from McKay. He picked the ball up inside his own half and ran at the retreating defenders before cutting inside and firing a dipping ball into the far corner.

 

The counter-press was used to win the ball back quickly; McKay, Zelalem and Halliday won the ball back on numerous occasions. Tavernier played a little deeper and narrower, providing an extra body in a central area in which to cover. Generally the centre-backs dealt with any danger, cutting out the ball rather than following the defender. When they weren't shielded by the midfielders however, they seemed to panic. Ball conceded a sloppy free-kick from such a situation. Foderingham had no change with a pin-point free-kick.

 

Another three goals were added in the second-half from similar moves (albeit two from penalties): intricate wing-play, fluid movement and incisive running had the Blue Brazil running about daft. Waghorn swiftly dispatched his first, second -- out-muscling his defender and assisted by a deft touch from Zelalem -- and third into the net.

 

Towards the end several changes were made, leading to a mess in shape. Shiels replaced Halliday in the defensive-midfield role and recycled the ball well, was adept at playing forward passing, cutting through defensive lines. Debutant Forrester replaced Zelalem, and looked lively: always looking to run at his defender but made wrong decisions in his eagerness. The impressive Miller made way for Hardie. Hardie stuck to his role well, taking up the central and wide position when required -- perhaps evidence of the same system played at youth level?

 

Once Halliday and Zelalem left the field Rangers lost organisation and shape, with several players occupying forward positions and then inter-changing with each other. The game was over at this point, but in their eagerness to add to the tally most players took up central positions adding to an already congested midfield.

 

The fluidity of movement from Rangers was impressive, building on the dominant possession-based foundation. Zelalem and Halliday controlled the middle of the park and dictated the play. Wallace was always a threat with his incisive under-laps cutting through Cowdenbeath's defensive block. However, Man-of-the-match had to be McKay. He did the graft, tracking back and helping to retain possession, but was the main attacking threat, targeting and running at defenders all game; rounding off the performance with a sublime solo effort. It was a bit of a training-session in the end, but the main thing is progression.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Rousseau

[Frankie 8,157]

Excellent commentary as always mate - much appreciated!

 

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/match-analysis/556-rangers-fluidity-slices-through-cowdenbeath-s-defensive-block

 

I'd definitely agree with McKay as man of the match. It was interesting though that he was firstly moved to the right wing in the second half (presumably to free up space for Forrester) before then moved to a more central, deeper role after the subs. That didn't really work though so it wasn't until later in the game when he moved out wide once more, he started to look dangerous again.

 

All in all, it was a very satisfying performance from the bulk of the team but, as much as we should be happy with five goals, we also missed a few real good chances and that could prove costly in tougher matches. However, I'd certainly be a lot more worried if we were creating such opportunities and it's perhaps unrealistic to expect us to score every time.

[Tannochsidebear 2,316]

Just a couple of points to an otherwise good read.

 

I didnt ever see Halliday making a back 3. I dont think you have got that right with respect. Any comparisons with Gareth Barry are surely only in our dreams!

 

The other point I guess was put in there especially to get my heckles up! "The impressive Miller made way for Hardie" One lovely touch for Wallace's first goal does not an impressive performance make. His failure in front of goal, where he had 3 great chances again and missed the lot, and his all-round play, is simply awful to watch. His decline from what at his peak wasnt too bad but wasnt great either is sad to see, and even sadder to be paying for. No pace, no touch, no vision. If he is impressing you, I find it hard to take your other analysis seriously.

[Rousseau 9,399]

Just a couple of points to an otherwise good read.

 

I didnt ever see Halliday making a back 3. I dont think you have got that right with respect. Any comparisons with Gareth Barry are surely only in our dreams!

 

The other point I guess was put in there especially to get my heckles up! "The impressive Miller made way for Hardie" One lovely touch for Wallace's first goal does not an impressive performance make. His failure in front of goal, where he had 3 great chances again and missed the lot, and his all-round play, is simply awful to watch. His decline from what at his peak wasnt too bad but wasnt great either is sad to see, and even sadder to be paying for. No pace, no touch, no vision. If he is impressing you, I find it hard to take your other analysis seriously.

 

I'll admit Halliday shuttling across to take up a LCB position was very early on and only happened a couple of times, but I thought it worth mentioning. Of course, we've got nothing like Gareth Barry -- and I'm not saying Halliday is anything like him -- just that it was reminiscent of that move in the first phase of play. I think it's quite common from Matinez and other Spanish coaches. My one criticism of Halliday is that I think he plays too far in advance of the centre-backs; I'd much prefer he stays back, making a back three at times and starting attacks.

 

With respect, I doubt any performance from Miller will be deemed good in your eye. I'll admit he was wasteful in front of goal, and his first touch is poor, but his movement, link-up play was very good. He popped up on the right, up top and in the hole. If we had a better forward, then I'd gladly see Miller dropped, but for now his contribution is good.

[Tannochsidebear 2,316]

I'll admit Halliday shuttling across to take up a LCB position was very early on and only happened a couple of times, but I thought it worth mentioning. Of course, we've got nothing like Gareth Barry -- and I'm not saying Halliday is anything like him -- just that it was reminiscent of that move in the first phase of play. I think it's quite common from Matinez and other Spanish coaches. My one criticism of Halliday is that I think he plays too far in advance of the centre-backs; I'd much prefer he stays back, making a back three at times and starting attacks.

 

With respect, I doubt any performance from Miller will be deemed good in your eye. I'll admit he was wasteful in front of goal, and his first touch is poor, but his movement, link-up play was very good. He popped up on the right, up top and in the hole. If we had a better forward, then I'd gladly see Miller dropped, but for now his contribution is good.

 

I think if Halliday "could" play that position it would help the centre backs tremendously, but he cant. He is contributing to the side, but clearly we need a natural holding player there. I would be happy with three centre backs against some opponents, although the one game we tried it, at easter road, it was a disaster but I maintain that was due to individual mistakes by Wilson, not necessarily the system which allows the full backs to become midfielders without one of them having to sit, which is how this system should be working if we were more disciplined.

 

We will have to disagree on Miller, I think his attempts at linking-up usually lead to an opponents attack, and his movement is nowadays akin to an oil tanker doing a u-turn! As a wide forward, he should be in the box when the play is down the other flank, he is never to be found there. He just doesnt know how to play that role at all. When he plays the central striker role he is at least in better positions, but his control is so poor he is responsible for most of our attacks breaking down. And that is before I go on about his scoring conversion rate. We have a better forward in Hardie, we probably have a better forward in Clark, who to this day has not had a sufficient run of starting games to see if he can settle in to the team properly, and if none of the strikers in the development team are better at finishing than Miller, then let them go just now because they aint going to make it!

[Big Jaws 570]

That's what Halliday is supposed to do in this system whenever the defence is under pressure. He's also supposed to be interchangeable with any of the defensive four, should they be out of position, when we don't have the ball. It tends to be more often than not that we dominate possession up to as much as 80% so you don't see it as often as you might with a team having more possession. The rest of the midfield three are supposed to be moving/positioning laterally across the park at the same time.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Big Jaws

[Rousseau 9,399]

I think if Halliday "could" play that position it would help the centre backs tremendously, but he cant. He is contributing to the side, but clearly we need a natural holding player there. I would be happy with three centre backs against some opponents, although the one game we tried it, at easter road, it was a disaster but I maintain that was due to individual mistakes by Wilson, not necessarily the system which allows the full backs to become midfielders without one of them having to sit, which is how this system should be working if we were more disciplined.

 

We will have to disagree on Miller, I think his attempts at linking-up usually lead to an opponents attack, and his movement is nowadays akin to an oil tanker doing a u-turn! As a wide forward, he should be in the box when the play is down the other flank, he is never to be found there. He just doesnt know how to play that role at all. When he plays the central striker role he is at least in better positions, but his control is so poor he is responsible for most of our attacks breaking down. And that is before I go on about his scoring conversion rate. We have a better forward in Hardie, we probably have a better forward in Clark, who to this day has not had a sufficient run of starting games to see if he can settle in to the team properly, and if none of the strikers in the development team are better at finishing than Miller, then let them go just now because they aint going to make it!

 

Absolutely, Halliday is naturally an offensive player -- a winger at former clubs, I believe? -- so we're are asking a lot. He has done an admirable job. I don't think we necessarily need to play a back-three, just utilise a counter-press (winning the ball back as quickly as possible) and/or, as you say, acquire a natural holding midfielder.

 

Ha! It appears we will have to agree to disagree. I agree about Millers control and conversion-rate, but I still maintain his movement and overall contribution is decent. Like I said above, a better striker would be preferable in my opinion, but until then he does a job. Although, I would like to see Hardie get a run of games.

[Big Jaws 570]

You're reading of our defensive shape is fairly accurate. However the shape isn't supposed to be a back three its supposed to be a back two who split either side of the 18 yard box with Wallace and Tav promoted further up on either side with Halliday as the pivot point in line with the pen spot in the middle of the park ( A horseshoe shape with Halliday as the point of a triangle between the two CH).

 

As it is... its not quite as fluid as Michels great Ajax side of the 70's. If it was total football type fluid then Holt and Zalelem would also be interchangeable with Halliday who is, as I already mentioned, supposed to be interchangeable with any of the back four.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Big Jaws

[pete 2,499]

You're reading of our defensive shape is fairly accurate. However the shape isn't supposed to be a back three its supposed to be a back two who split either side of the 18 yard box with Wallace and Tav promoted further up on either side with Halliday as the pivot point in line with the pen spot in the middle of the park ( A horseshoe shape with Halliday as the point of a triangle between the two CH).

 

As it is... its not quite as fluid as Michels great Ajax side of the 70's. If it was total football type fluid then Holt and Zalelem would also be interchangeable with Halliday who is, as I already mentioned, supposed to be interchangeable with any of the back four.

 

A bit unfair as that Ajax team had Johan Neeskins Arie Haan Gerrie Mühren with Johan Cruijff. Sjaak Swart and Piet Keizer in front of them. Not to forget Ruud Krol and Wim Suurbier as full backs That is a world team and not many teams could do what they did. I would love to have seen them against a modern day Barcelona.

Edited January 11, 2016 by pete

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I enjoyed reading your analysis as ever and have learned a new tactical expression under-lap.

 

I won't even bother with any thoughts about Zelalem "always looking to play balls forward" because they almost always went straight to the opposition; I know you are a fan of his recycling and you know I prefer the more direct approach of Law and Shiels.

 

However, I must disagree with this comment:

A front two from Cowdenbeath suggested a positive approach, but from the kick-off Rangers settled into their dominant possession game. Second-striker Gordon Smith was forced to drop into midfield, making a solid 4-5-1. Allowing Rangers possession, the Blue Brazil settled into a defensive block.

(Agree about the two lines of four, defensive block.)

 

From my position behind Marvin Andrews, Cowden had 2 up until the last few minutes when they were on their knees and had subbed Smith who was more or less unable to move by then; but previously I didn't see drop back into midfield as you suggest.

 

No question Barry McKay was the man of the match by a country mile.

Edited January 11, 2016 by BrahimHemdani