trublusince1982 243 Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Thanks and thanks for taking the time. I don't think the increase in tempo was because Zelalem went off, more because Holt came on. Holt provides more in the final third, more direct and willing to take risks. He is best (IMO) at finding space, so players were able to find him quicker. According to Gersreport (I will use them as they can provide raw data), Zelalem was responsible for 44% of Rangers' shots, from primary assists and secondary passes. And, he was joint-second in controlled zone entries. These stats suggest he did in fact cause damage to the opposition. I think we are better with both Holt and Zelalem: Zelalem dictating the play, recycling possession, and able to pick out Holt, who finds intelligent space and is willing to take risks in the final third. I only talked of him in the same breath as Arteta (in his role for Arsenal, not for us) in the same way you can talk about Jonjo Shelvey and Xabi Alonso in the same breath: same style, same approach to the game, same role for their respective teams; but clearly Shelvey is nowhere near the same level as Alonso. do you have a link for gersreport? Tried googling it but just get yes vote crap! Sounds like a good site would be interested to see the numbers for waghorn 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 9,300 Posted February 7, 2016 Author Share Posted February 7, 2016 While I have my doubts that Zelalem will ever become a top class midfielder as there are too many flaws in his game for his age, I am astounded at those who thought he didn't put in a good performance in the first half. Finally, we are starting to see the boy listen to the coaching he is no doubt getting, and realise he has to contribute more than he was doing in a game. He was regularly further forward than we have ever seen him before, and was trying to find a pass to create a chance. His creative passing needs a lot more work, but no lack of effort yesterday and was the best of the midfield trio. Unfortunately, like at Raith, his second half failed to live up to the first and he was hooked, although Halliday was again anonymous in the advanced role and I am slightly worried about that. Ball was much better today at DM, although it was an easy shift given Killies lack of forward play. I agree he didn't have as much influence the second-half -- it might have came? -- but I don't think he was "hooked" per se. I just think that's Warburton's usual 60 min sub. It looked like there were players he would rather have on the pitch (Halliday) for a certain quality (strength? long shots?), despite Zelalem performing better. Tactics rather than performance IMO. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 9,300 Posted February 7, 2016 Author Share Posted February 7, 2016 do you have a link for gersreport? Tried googling it but just get yes vote crap! Sounds like a good site would be interested to see the numbers for waghorn http://therangersreport.com/ They just compile stats per game, so it might take a bit of searching to find stats for a specific player. I think it's a good alternative interpretation of our games. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 http://therangersreport.com/ They just compile stats per game, so it might take a bit of searching to find stats for a specific player. I think it's a good alternative interpretation of our games. thanks for that Rousseau it looks good. He has a small bit on waghorn in the shots outliers part 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 9,300 Posted February 7, 2016 Author Share Posted February 7, 2016 thanks for that Rousseau it looks good. He has a small bit on waghorn in the shots outliers part Ah yes. It looks bad when you see 0 shots on target out of 5 shots, but when you consider 3 were blocked, it's not so bad. All he can do is try to hit the target, and the stats suggest he did so 3 out of 5 times -- it just so happens Killie blocked them! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 I agree he didn't have as much influence the second-half -- it might have came? -- but I don't think he was "hooked" per se. I just think that's Warburton's usual 60 min sub. It looked like there were players he would rather have on the pitch (Halliday) for a certain quality (strength? long shots?), despite Zelalem performing better. Tactics rather than performance IMO. How do you view the fact that MW almost always sends on 2 subs in the 60th minute and most times the players who are coming off e.g. Miller appear to know that it is them who are going to be subbed. In the case of Miller (and Law when returning from injury) it is easy to understand the reasoning and many of us would prefer to see him return to the last 30 minute sub role he played successfully at the start of the season, it is less clear why Zelalem would be in that frame if he has the influence on the game that you claim for him. He's a young man of 19 but hasn't played 90 minutes since November. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 9,300 Posted February 7, 2016 Author Share Posted February 7, 2016 How do you view the fact that MW almost always sends on 2 subs in the 60th minute and most times the players who are coming off e.g. Miller appear to know that it is them who are going to be subbed. In the case of Miller (and Law when returning from injury) it is easy to understand the reasoning and many of us would prefer to see him return to the last 30 minute sub role he played successfully at the start of the season, it is less clear why Zelalem would be in that frame if he has the influence on the game that you claim for him. He's a young man of 19 but hasn't played 90 minutes since November. I'm not saying he is influencing every game all the time; clearly he drifts in and out of some games, and some games are better than others -- I think that's true of every player. As for the usual subs, in my view it's just what I said: there are players more preferable to have remain on the pitch, regardless of performance. In the Killie game, we needed to retain strength and a more potent threat of goal. Ball must remain for his defensive ability, and Halliday for his strength and long-range goal-threat. The only make-way is Zelalem. GZ has been involved in each of the last 7 games, where he has generally come off or on around 65 - 75 minutes. In these games we've been chasing a goal in half and been comfortably in the lead in half (4:3 to chasing). It suggests to me that Warburton is simply refreshing the team. I think you've made your own point: he's a young man of 19 (just turned), why would he be expected to play 90 minutes? I don't know of many 18/19 year-old's that can play 90 minutes at full-pelt. Moreover, it's a lean squad: naturally Warburton will look to rotate. Of course, that's just my opinion. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 people are not going to like it but i think the double sub is picked before the game 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,306 Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 I agree he didn't have as much influence the second-half -- it might have came? -- but I don't think he was "hooked" per se. I just think that's Warburton's usual 60 min sub. It looked like there were players he would rather have on the pitch (Halliday) for a certain quality (strength? long shots?), despite Zelalem performing better. Tactics rather than performance IMO. You have misinterpreted my wording. Hooked, subbed, replaced, call it what you like. It wasnt intended to suggest it was for poor play. I would have taken the anonymous Halliday off before GZ yesterday in the normal hour mark changes. I have yet to see MW make a tactical change on the hour mark. It seems to me he just makes two changes as part of squad rotation and game time for players. The shape, formation etc never changes, just some people move about to fit in the players he has pre-determined he wants to bring on for 30 minutes game time. He does mention this quite a lot in his comments. Obviously sometimes injuries etc determines the changes, but most of the time I get it right with who is coming off and who is coming on when I predict it at kick off. It rarely takes into account who is having a good game and who is having a quieter game. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 9,300 Posted February 7, 2016 Author Share Posted February 7, 2016 You have misinterpreted my wording. Hooked, subbed, replaced, call it what you like. It wasnt intended to suggest it was for poor play. I would have taken the anonymous Halliday off before GZ yesterday in the normal hour mark changes. I have yet to see MW make a tactical change on the hour mark. It seems to me he just makes two changes as part of squad rotation and game time for players. The shape, formation etc never changes, just some people move about to fit in the players he has pre-determined he wants to bring on for 30 minutes game time. He does mention this quite a lot in his comments. Obviously sometimes injuries etc determines the changes, but most of the time I get it right with who is coming off and who is coming on when I predict it at kick off. It rarely takes into account who is having a good game and who is having a quieter game. Apologies. "Hooked" has such a negative connotation. I agree, with that: it's usually fairly obvious who'll come off. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.933227737d9b1db3d025cd3f6cbbf371.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.