Lee Wallace: Captain Fantastic

[Rousseau 9,504]

Following on from the excellent Gersnet article on Lee Wallace earlier this month, I thought it would be appropriate to add to it with an overview of the tactical progress our captain has made over the past few years. Bought as a rampaging full-back, Lee Wallace has transformed himself into a Guardiola-esque full-back, demonstrating a tactical awareness all too lacking in the Scottish game. The thoughtful full-back arrived on the cusp of our demotion, and had to show loyalty and determination at a time of great adversity.

 

The young Wallace was born in Edinburgh in 1987, and like many youngsters, he would gravitate towards football. Showing promise, he eventually made his way through the Hearts Youth Academy, making his first-team debut at 17. The Hearts Academy has been relatively successful over the past decade or so, churning out talented youngsters who would go on to play at a decent level. Early on he was showing the raw running ability that would become his trademark, when in 2006 he would score his first goal for Hearts in the Scottish Cup by running a full 70-yards to stroke the ball into the net.

 

It was this powerful running game that brought the 23 year-old to the attention of McCoist's Rangers in 2011. Tactically lacking, McCoist always would prefer the powerful, athletic footballers over the next few years; the rampaging full-back fit the bill perfectly. Signed for £1.5m, Wallace would face strong competition at left-back, with stand-out Sasa Papac ahead in the pecking-order. He was not put-off however, saying "I'll be working hard [...] to push my way into the team and capture the success". Wallace was aware of the challenge, and was only looking forward to learning: "These are top players [...] I can learn from. Training with these players every day can only benefit me and that's what I'm looking for. I'll certainly be working hard to try to progress into the team".

 

Unfortunately for Wallace, this would be the highest level he would play at for quite some time, as Rangers were unceremoniously demoted by the SFA, who hypocritically cited "sporting integrity". He could easily have left along with the other first-team players -- the ones he so looked forward to learning from -- but chose to stay faithful to the club; one of only three first-team players that did so. The full-back would devote himself to regaining Rangers' rightful place at the top of Scottish Football, and looked to improve himself as a footballer. (It seems many of the deserters could have learned something from him...)

 

To become a more complete player, the relatively young Wallace would put himself through his coaching badges. Keen on Frank DeBoer, he did his thesis on Ajax, assessing their strengths and weaknesses, looking to understand their philosophy and way of playing. He unashamedly describes himself as a "geek" in these matters, stating he is "relentless [and] borderline insane when it comes to studying and research". His first choice subject for his thesis was Barcelona, but a friend got there first, so he had to settle for doing a little personal work on them, reading several books on Guardiola. Wallace is never happier than when studying team formations and philosophies, which can only stand himself and Rangers in good stead for the future -- the only negative being he was willing to give such analysis to Neil Lennon's Celtic in preparation for their defeat against Ajax!

 

Displaying loyalty, tactical awareness and a desire for self-improvement, Wallace was named captain by Mark Warburton. Following in the footsteps of greats like Greig, Butcher and Gough, Wallace would wear the armband with pride, leading in his own way. Never a 'ranter and raver', Wallace looked to bring an air of calm to a distressed dressing room, seeking to lead by example. In the modern-era, an understanding of the teams philosophy is key; Wallace seeks to lead by demonstrating this understanding, ensuring Rangers lead the way, suggesting "[the] other teams should be watching us".

 

Signed for his qualities as a rampaging full-back, a mid-season 'crisis' brought a halt to this 'to-hell-with-the-consequences' running game. After a series of disappointing results where too many goals and points were conceded, Warburton sought to tighten up the defence, admitting that Rangers were a little too gung-ho. As a result, the full-backs were more disciplined in their positioning. It is testament to his tactical awareness that Wallace can adapt to a more disciplined game, whilst still providing a strong attacking threat. A subtle positional shift by Warburton has allowed Wallace to utilise this running game in a new way.

 

As in Chess, the centre is the main zone; control the centre of the pitch, you control the game. The reason for this is quite simple: the choices are greater in the middle of the pitch. Theoretically, if a player has the ball on the wing he is restricted by the touchline into only having a 180-degree view of the game. Whereas a player in the centre theoretically has a 360-degree view of the game. Simple maths.

 

Of course, receiving the ball in the middle is difficult because there are more defenders to block the way to goal; loosing the ball in the centre is also often more dangerous. Wing-play is the opposite. A player receives the ball with less pressure, with only a full-back to press him. The danger of loosing the ball out wide is less dangerous because you have your defensive players set up centrally.

 

Half-spaces provide the best of both worlds. The half-spaces are the channels, the space in between the centre column and flank. By taking up positions in the half-spaces, a player can simultaneously occupy a more central position, therefore having a greater view of the game in front of him, and move away from the more congested central defensive zone.

 

This opens-up the diagonal passes. A typical defensive position will see a 4-4-2 zonal defense. If the attacking team move to the right flank, the defensive team shuffles across. If the attacking team move the ball to the centre, the defensive team tightens-up. Moving the ball horizontally gains little territory, but forces the defensive team to move alongside; vertical passes gain a lot of territory, but the defensive team merely has to drop deeper. By occupying the half-spaces, a player can open up diagonal passes (both short and long) to gain territory, which in turn forces the opposition into more complex moves, both horizontal and back.

 

It is with these ideas that Guardiola has tuned his full-backs to target the half-space. Bayern Munich's Bernat, Lahm and Alaba will start at full-back, but instead of drifting wide, they will drift inside to take the half-space. This has the effect of freeing space for the natural winger, dominating the centre of the pitch and providing more diagonal passes. Lahm has made this position his own.

 

Over the last few games Wallace has incorporated this tactical awareness into his game, taking up position in the half-space so he is effective playing centre-midfield. A typically Scottish response to this change in position was "Lahm eat your heart out". By doing so, Wallace allows Rangers to dominate the centre, strengthen the middle column against any counter-attack and provide more passing options for our possession game. Moreover, his running power is used more centrally within the half-spaces, providing a difficult defensive task for any defense: do you man-mark leaving the gaps for Holt and Miller to exploit? Or do you play zonal and allow him to penetrate directly through your defense?

 

The club, bereft of many of our recent stars after 2012, has in many ways found a better one; one that espouses all the qualities of a modern, tactically proficient player with the grit and determination to develop, and to always look to the future. Wallace's raw running ability steered his game towards that of a rampaging full-back, but his self-confessed 'geekiness' and constant need for self-improvement has seen him develop into a cultured, Guardiola-esque full-back, demonstrating a tactical awareness all too lacking in the Scottish game. His loyalty and understanding in the face of great adversity for our club has endeared him to many. The thoughtful Captain, leading by example, is a modern-day full-back.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Rousseau

[Frankie 8,186]

Enjoyed that analysis mate and it was interesting that when we played Morton last week, in the second half, Wallace was effectively playing central midfield at times.

 

I must admit though, I'm not always convinced about him as captain. Yes, he's a great professional, a top player and someone for younger lads to look up to but, for me anyway, sometimes he's too passive and you don't always see him grab folk by the scuff of the neck during games when we really need it.

 

For example on Friday night, no-one can argue that Wallace was excellent in the first half but, after half-time, he completely disappeared from the game and while it's unfair to blame him alone for the defeat, I didn't see many examples of someone on the pitch taking responsibility for us losing control of the game. Wallace has rightly been praised for his contribution in recent weeks but on Friday we seen the good and the bad he brings.

 

FWIW, I think the manager deserves criticism as well.

[Rousseau 9,504]

The article wasn't really a response to that game, merely a response to his slight shift in position etc., but I agree with you.

 

The changes made weren't bad -- O'Halloran, Forrester and Clark in theory don't slow the game down -- but I thought the main issue was mentality. We thought it was over; we weren't as sharp and, as the manager said, took too many touches. We can learn from it, as the team has done many times this season, and move on.

 

As for Captain material, I'm not sure the 'ranter and raver' is really necessary any more. We have a few players that will hurt after a game, and I'm sure they'll have words with each other, but I don't think taking someone by the scruff of the neck is really necessary. Wallace is more of a leader by example. His understanding of the philosophy is important and beneficial. He did put a shoulder round Burt when he came on, so he does take that type of responsibility. Getting wound-up and angry in games can benefit some, but I'm sure for many others that is detrimental. I prefer the calmness he brings to the game and dressing room; he leads by example, providing the basis for the players to carry out their jobs on the pitch.

 

I was just impressed by his self-improvement off the pitch and his tactical/positional switch. It was the managers doing, but it takes a player willing and with a tactical/positional awareness to implement it.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Rousseau

[Frankie 8,186]

That's the article on the main site:

 

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/current-affairs/599-lee-wallace-captain-fantastic

[Frankie 8,186]

The article wasn't really a response to that game, merely a response to his slight shift in position etc., but I agree with you.

 

The changes made weren't bad -- O'Halloran, Forrester and Clark in theory don't slow the game down -- but I thought the main issue was mentality. We thought it was over; we weren't as sharp and, as the manager said, took too many touches. We can learn from it, as the team has done many times this season, and move on.

 

As for Captain material, I'm not sure the 'ranter and raver' is really necessary any more. We have a few players that will hurt after a game, and I'm sure they'll have words with each other, but I don't think taking someone by the scruff of the neck is really necessary. Wallace is more of a leader by example. His understanding of the philosophy is important and beneficial. He did put a shoulder round Burt when he came on, so he does take that type of responsibility. Getting wound-up and angry in games can benefit some, but I'm sure for many others that is detrimental. I prefer the calmness he brings to the game and dressing room; he leads by example, providing the basis for the players to continue with their jobs on the pitch.

 

I was just impressed by his self-improvement off the pitch and his tactical/positional switch. It was the managers doing, but it takes a player willing and with a tactical/positional awareness to implement it.

 

In the first hour, King, McKay and Miller were our best players and it was because of their quick feet, pace and passing that we were so dominant - often on the counter from Falkirk attacks. As such, on the face of it, making like-for-like subs should have worked but clearly Clark isn't anywhere near as good as Miller while MOH still seems to be struggling to adapt to the way we play.

 

For me the solution should have been simple: drop Halliday deeper to sit alongside Ball and move the defence across one to help the struggling Tavernier. For some reason we didn't do this and too many players fell out of the game - Halliday was one and Wallace was another (though most of the threat was on the opposite wing to be fair to him). The game from around the 55th minute mark reminded me so match of the corresponding fixture just before Christmas where, for around 15-20mins, we simply couldn't deal with the direct nature of Falkirk's play. They missed out the midfield, nullified Ball and exposed Tavernier by playing almost completely on him at times.

 

As much as I'm all for the principles of Warburton's attacking football but sometimes you need to adapt accordingly to what's happening in games or you'll suffer. That happened on Friday and whilst we can get away with such defeats in this division, we won't next year. The manager and players have to react more effectively at times.

 

I agree we don't necessarily need a ranter and raver as captain but there seemed to be few players on Friday capable of taking a breath, organising the team and taking responsibility for allowing Falkirk back into the game. Instead we had panic set in and that's why we lost two of the goals. We can't win every game and we shouldn't over-react to bad results but it's worth examining when bad performances do happen.

 

In that sense, Wallace is the captain and instead of taking it upon himself to perhaps tuck in and help out the rest of the defence, he continued to play wide left and was completely anonymous for the last 35mins or so. Sure the manager should have been the person to affect such a change but as a senior player and student of the game, Wallace should be prepared to make such decisions for himself in situ. Even if, dare I say it, it goes against what the manager may see.

[Rousseau 9,504]

In the first hour, King, McKay and Miller were our best players and it was because of their quick feet, pace and passing that we were so dominant - often on the counter from Falkirk attacks. As such, on the face of it, making like-for-like subs should have worked but clearly Clark isn't anywhere near as good as Miller while MOH still seems to be struggling to adapt to the way we play.

 

For me the solution should have been simple: drop Halliday deeper to sit alongside Ball and move the defence across one to help the struggling Tavernier. For some reason we didn't do this and too many players fell out of the game - Halliday was one and Wallace was another (though most of the threat was on the opposite wing to be fair to him). The game from around the 55th minute mark reminded me so match of the corresponding fixture just before Christmas where, for around 15-20mins, we simply couldn't deal with the direct nature of Falkirk's play. They missed out the midfield, nullified Ball and exposed Tavernier by playing almost completely on him at times.

 

As much as I'm all for the principles of Warburton's attacking football but sometimes you need to adapt accordingly to what's happening in games or you'll suffer. That happened on Friday and whilst we can get away with such defeats in this division, we won't next year. The manager and players have to react more effectively at times.

 

I agree we don't necessarily need a ranter and raver as captain but there seemed to be few players on Friday capable of taking a breath, organising the team and taking responsibility for allowing Falkirk back into the game. Instead we had panic set in and that's why we lost two of the goals. We can't win every game and we shouldn't over-react to bad results but it's worth examining when bad performances do happen.

 

In that sense, Wallace is the captain and instead of taking it upon himself to perhaps tuck in and help out the rest of the defence, he continued to play wide left and was completely anonymous for the last 35mins or so. Sure the manager should have been the person to affect such a change but as a senior player and student of the game, Wallace should be prepared to make such decisions for himself in situ. Even if, dare I say it, it goes against what the manager may see.

 

I don't necessarily want to see us scoring 2 and then defending it out. I agree we should have tightened up when they came back into it, but that's difficult to put across during the game (or without a team talk at half-time, for example). To be fair, we have learned in the past to be less gung-ho; Tavernier and Wallace are not as 'rampaging' as they used to be. It was reminiscent of the previous game: I am annoyed that we didn't have a plan to protect Tavernier. I'm hopeful it'll be rectified.

 

I'm not sure I want to see players necessarily taking that type of responsibility during the game; it's up to them to implement what the manager wants; otherwise we have every player doing whatever they want. I'm all for a player 'directing' and organising, but we need a cohesive game-plan, not several players doing what they want, or going against the manager. I'll admit that's not Wallace's strength (directing). He seems to prefer just implementing what the manager wants, which I actually like, but I'll concede that we need a player that is willing to direct a little.

 

(Perhaps not the best time for this particular article!)

Edited March 21, 2016 by Rousseau

[buster. 4,808]

Wallace appears to be an on-field extension of the management team in that the application of tactics, shape etc trump the 'rant & rave' as a first reaction to adversity. It also appears a natural fit because of what appears to be the LW on-field character.

 

LW has played exceptionaly well this season and the captaincy seems to have helped his game and approach, certainly not hindered it in any way. He's quietly stayed with the club throughout these past few years whilst some others were getting overly lauded and he is now coming out the other end ready to make the most of the last third of his career.

 

IMO he's the best player at the club and this season seems to have developed his game in the attacking third. The way he placed his shot into the top of the net against Morton recently was a thing of beauty.

 

I look forward to the day we see him holding the top flight League Championship trophy above his head.

 

---------------

 

As for the Falkirk game, signs of complacency were there from the start with numerous defensive blunders that went unpunished.

It tends to happen to teams that have already won or more or less won the League. I see it as something that can be made into a positive, bringing the squad back down to earth, keep the language modest leading up to the semi-final and attempt to time our run back to high tempo and all round concentration for the Celtic match.

[Frankie 8,186]

I don't necessarily want to see us scoring 2 and then defending it out. I agree we should have tightened up when they came back into it, but that's difficult to put across during the game (or without a team talk at half-time, for example). To be fair, we have learned in the past to be less gung-ho; Tavernier and Wallace are not as 'rampaging' as they used to be. It was reminiscent of the previous game: I am annoyed that we didn't have a plan to protect Tavernier. I'm hopeful it'll be rectified.

 

I'm not sure I want to see players necessarily taking that type of responsibility during the game; it's up to them to implement what the manager wants; otherwise we have every player doing whatever they want. I'm all for a player 'directing' and organising, but we need a cohesive game-plan, not several players doing what they want, or going against the manager. I'll admit that's not Wallace's strength (directing). He seems to prefer just implementing what the manager wants, which I actually like, but I'll concede that we need a player that is willing to direct a little.

 

(Perhaps not the best time for this particular article!)

 

Oh, I'm not suggesting for a second we should be scoring two goals then parking the bus. Just that if we have a lead and the course of a game changes, we should be looking to protect ourselves if need be. To fair the manager did make three subs before Falkirk scored to try and regain the upper hand but these didn't work all that well because the defence was so isolated.

 

As much as I don't want players to go against instructions per se, guys such as Wallace, Wilson and Halliday in particular should be able to acknowledge issues in situ and act accordingly - even if just for a temporary period. If we'd done that on Friday, I've no doubt we'd have seen the game out and there's no shame in altering game-plans to suit.

 

Like I say, I think the manager - perhaps for the first real time - is just as culpable for Friday's loss and as much as I agree with his attacking ethos and have been impressed with his tactical responses to such, there's nothing wrong with saying let's sit in for ten mins, find a solid foundation and regain control of the game. In actual fact in the December game we did that by taking off Oduwa for Law and even moving to a three man back-line late on whilst still having enough attacking players to have drawn the game then with the late penalty.

 

What was worrying about Friday was we didn't seem to recognise or react to Falkirk's change of system which left us open to the direct counter as it did in December. We should have seen this coming (and indeed had plenty of warning with two good Foderingham saves) but we failed to adjust and not enough players seemed to have the awareness to take responsibility themselves.

 

On the plus side, this hasn't happened too often this season (and it's usually only for short-medium periods in one-off games) but as the opposition improves week-to-week, we'll need more effective leadership when required. It's not a weakness to adjust in games - it's a strength and as much as I admire Warburton, he should realise that.

[ian1964 10,457]

Still no room for Wallace & Mckay in the Scotland set up despite Steven Whittaker and Steven Naismith pulling out of the squad to be replaced by Paul Caddis and Ross McCormack

[buster. 4,808]

Still no room for Wallace & Mckay in the Scotland set up despite Steven Whittaker and Steven Naismith pulling out of the squad to be replaced by Paul Caddis and Ross McCormack

 

You have to wonder why Whittaker was named in the squad to begin with given he hasn't played a minute of first team football in 2016.