The end of the beginning: Rangers v Celtic

[SteveC 150]

The best team won. We had lots of chances to win or draw but we didn't take them.

 

We also gifted them loads of opportunities. Some of our passing at the back is laughable.

 

The manager now has to focus on getting a couple of players in. Right back must be the priority. After that he can have another go getting a midfielder.

 

I think Hodson has looked OK/good at right back

[jhunter 0]

I don't think it was "by default": I mentioned earlier that Celtic like to change to 3-4-2-1 in-game, so isolating McKay was a decent decision. The manager deserves credit where credit is due, and, of course, vice versa. Playing a natural winger at wing-back has worked wonders for Chelsea.

 

I thought we played OK, but just lack that quality. I think the Manager deserves praise for that. The players need to do better, though.

 

yeah well we didn't play ok and gifted 23 attempts at goal for the opposition

 

if it hadn't been for Foderingham playing yet another MOTM we'd have been looking at another 5-1 or worse.

[limeburner 0]

I don't think it was "by default": I mentioned earlier that Celtic like to change to 3-4-2-1 in-game, so isolating McKay was a decent decision. The manager deserves credit where credit is due, and, of course, vice versa. Playing a natural winger at wing-back has worked wonders for Chelsea.

 

I thought we played OK, but just lack that quality. I think the Manager deserves praise for that. The players need to do better, though.

Should Hodson have started?

[Rousseau 9,382]

I must admit, I think having a back-three and Tavernier in the team worked better than a back 4 with Tavernier: Tavernier would've bombed forward leaving Wilson/Kiernan and Hill at the back against their three (assuming Hodson would also play slightly forward at LB), which gives me nightmares.

[chilledbear 16]

Will take a while, but we'll get there.

 

Just wish MW would concentrate on the defence first.

 

All the best lads.

[limeburner 0]

I must admit, I think having a back-three and Tavernier in the team worked better than a back 4 with Tavernier: Tavernier would've bombed forward leaving Wilson/Kiernan and Hill at the back against their three (assuming Hodson would also play slightly forward at LB), which gives me nightmares.

 

Stop skirting around the question.

Hodson can defend,Tavernier cant.Again ,should Hodson have started?

[Rousseau 9,382]

Stop skirting around the question.

Hodson can defend,Tavernier cant.Again ,should Hodson have started?

 

I thought I answered? No. I agree Hodson is a better defender, but not sure he's a better wing-back. Like I said, I think having a back-three with Tavernier at wing-back worked better than Hodson and Tavernier (who was always going to play) in a back-Four.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Rousseau

[jhunter 0]

Stop skirting around the question.

Hodson can defend,Tavernier cant.Again ,should Hodson have started?

 

he should have at least replaced tavernier at HT who was absolute garbage.

[Rousseau 9,382]

he should have at least replaced tavernier at HT who was absolute garbage.

 

For whom? Hodson? Then we can't attack and would've had a very shaky back-four of Wilson, Hill, Kiernan and Hodson. Tavernier was poor, but it's the best option we had for today's game.

[limeburner 0]

I thought I answered? No. I agree Hodson is a better defender, but not sure he's a better wing-back. Like I said, I think having a back-three with Tavernier at wing-back worked better than Hodson and Tavernier (who was always going to play) in a back-Four.

Thanks,you dont want our better defenders on the park,rather a half arsed midfielder instead.!!