The end of the beginning: Rangers v Celtic

[jhunter 0]

You know that that's essentially rubbish, but not unlike you to throw that in.

 

If you align our players of Saturday in a 3-4-3 line-up, which I assumed we were playing, you'd end up with ...

 

Foderingham

 

Kiernan - Hill - Wilson

 

Tavernier - Holt - Halliday- Windass

 

Miller - Garner - McKay

 

... Windass was leftish midfield. And that - for me - is the wingback position in this line-up. Whether the player listed there is actually a leftback, left defender, wingback, winger or not - or even does not play an actual wingback during the game. It is not quantum mechanics to figure that line of thought out.

 

Maybye people saw it differently, but I was not under the impression that WIlson was really playing left-back, so no real 4-3-3 as per usual. So 3-4-3 with the "positions" as above.

 

I can't make that any clearer and if that's not enough, so be it.

 

mckay was definitely wide left.

[Frankie 8,150]

McKay was wide left but rarely tracked back so it was a definite 3-5-2 we played for much of the match.

[der Berliner 3,247]

McKay was wide left but rarely tracked back so it was a definite 3-5-2 we played for much of the match.

 

Following my logics, it would have been him and Tav playing the wingback roles then. Theoretically.

 

Anyway, Sinclair and Izagueri (sp?) were having far too much fun all afternoon on our right hand side, by comparison our left was "quiet" despite not having a "real fullback".

[craig 5,198]

McKay was wide left but rarely tracked back so it was a definite 3-5-2 we played for much of the match.

 

Either way we didn't play with a wingback on the left hand side. Not by the definition of a wingback.

[calscot 0]

We effectively didn't play one on the right hand side and that cost us dearly...

 

It seems to me that to play three at the back you really need wing backs or some other way of guarding the wide spaces at the back which we didn't have.

[craig 5,198]

You know that that's essentially rubbish, but not unlike you to throw that in.

 

If you align our players of Saturday in a 3-4-3 line-up, which I assumed we were playing, you'd end up with ...

 

Foderingham

 

Kiernan - Hill - Wilson

 

Tavernier - Holt - Halliday- Windass

 

Miller - Garner - McKay

 

... Windass was leftish midfield. And that - for me - is the wingback position in this line-up. Whether the player listed there is actually a leftback, left defender, wingback, winger or not - or even does not play an actual wingback during the game. It is not quantum mechanics to figure that line of thought out.

 

Maybye people saw it differently, but I was not under the impression that WIlson was really playing left-back, so no real 4-3-3 as per usual. So 3-4-3 with the "positions" as above.

 

I can't make that any clearer and if that's not enough, so be it.

 

It was a 3-5-2, not a 3-4-3

 

McKay was playing slightly ahead of the midfield but not so far forward as to be playing like a true winger

 

Either way, we can agree to disagree

[ranger_syntax 3,771]

I'm glad we are all agreed that Windass was not playing wingback.

 

All I was trying to say was that Tavernier needs replaced and that Hodson wasn't good enough to do it.

 

No idea why anyone thought we had to talk about all that other stuff.