match thread (image) [FT] Celtic 5 - 0 Rangers

[Rousseau 9,370]

If it's going to be a back-three/-five, it'll be Tavernier and John playing in the Wing-back positions. 

 

It'll be the same set-up as normal (4-2-3-1), with perhaps Cummings starting, and one of Docherty / Holt to partner Dorrans.

 

Windass will start, and has to, if we have any desire to press them. 

[der Berliner 3,245]

37 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Back in the real world, that set-up is silly.   

In what way? I at least gave you some reason behind it, but you'll sure have a better line-up in store with a decent reasoning behind it?

 

Martin is a right-sided centre-half who's played right-back before (and long spells). Candeias usually tracks back well too. Tavernier has been ineffective for about two months on the trott as wingback. Docherty and Holt to chase any wingers if need be.

 

Alves usually plays left of centre and it would fall down to Murphy to track back if need be, but more part of Docherty and Holt again. Given we play 4-x-y-z and leave our centre-halfs exposed anyway, McCrorie would be the additional guard, perhaps stepping out every now and then to break up attacks.

 

So what we'll have is a packed central defence, a solid midfield of workers and three creative people. Up front, Cummings and Morelos will keep their defenders on their toes, perhaps keepig their fullbacks deeper in their half than they were at Hampden. In any case, we'd have two people up there to aim our long(er) balls at than just Morelos.

 

John and Windass as later additions, Halliday to kick the Legoeaters crown jewells, if he finds them ...

Edited April 27, 2018 by der Berliner

[Rousseau 9,370]

5 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

In what way? I at least gave you some reason behind it, but you'll sure have a better line-up in store with a decent resoning behind it?

 

Martin is a right-sided centre-half who's played right-back before (and long spells). Candeias usually tracks back well too. Tavernier has been ineffective for about two months on the trott as wingback. Docherty and Holt to chase any wingers if need be.

 

Alves usually plays left of centre and it would fall down to Murphy to track back if need be, but more part of Docherty and Holt again. Given we play 4-x-y-z and leave our centre-halfs exposed anyway, McCrorie would be the additional guard, perhaps stepping out every now and then to break up attacks.

 

So what we'll have is a packed central defence, a solid midfield of workers and three creative people. Up front, Cummings and Morelos will keep their defenders on their toes, perhaps keepig their fullbacks deeper in their half than they were at Hampden. In any case, we'd have two people up there to aim our long(er) balls at than just Morelos.

 

John and Windass as later additions, Halliday to kick the Legoeaters crown jewells, if he finds them ...

It was more a dig at your Windass comment rather than anything else.

 

Although, I don't like, and can't see Murty, going with wingers at WB; it's just asking for trouble, IMO. 

[der Berliner 3,245]

12 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

It was more a dig at your Windass comment rather than anything else.

 

Although, I don't like, and can't see Murty, going with wingers at WB; it's just asking for trouble, IMO. 

Well, we know where we find John and Tavernier anyways ... and more often than not in recent OF games, Tav has lacked the discipline to stay in his place and defend well for 90 mins.

 

But the team against the Scum is essentially clear, with the only question mark hanging over Cummings or Morelos. Elsewhere it will be the same band that started against Hearts, unless Murty tries something "audacious" and plays - you guessed it - Windass from the start!

[Rousseau 9,370]

12 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

Well, we know where we find John and Tavernier anyways ... and more often than not in recent OF games, Tav has lacked the discipline to stay in his place and defend well for 90 mins.

 

But the team against the Scum is essentially clear, with the only question mark hanging over Cummings or Morelos. Elsewhere it will be the same band that started against Hearts, unless Murty tries something "audacious" and plays - you guessed it - Windass from the start!

If we lack defensive "discipline" with Tavernier and Candeias, we're giving them a free run at goal with just Candeias. It's silly... IMO, of course.

 

Playing Windass is not "audacious"; in fact, it's the only way to go if we have any desire to press them.

[DMAA 3,603]

1 hour ago, Rousseau said:

It'll be the same set-up as normal (4-2-3-1)

I suspect you're right, but I have to wonder how wise that is after losing 4-0 with it.

 

The element of surprise is huge in football and a change in formation can work a treat. Celtic will be preparing to play us in 4-2-3-1 and will be very comfortable with how they plan to play against it.

 

If we come out in a 3-5-2 or a 4-1-2-1-2, the sacrifice of a player who'd normally start would likely be more than cancelled out by the advantage gained by the surprise. An example of this is perhaps the shock 3-0 win over Aberdeen when Murty first whipped out the diamond.

Edited April 27, 2018 by DMAA

[Rousseau 9,370]

This is our best team:

 

Foderingham

 

Tavernier - Bates - Alves - John

 

Docherty - Dorrans

 

Candeias - Windass - Murphy

 

Morelos

 

Martin and/or McCrorie may come in for the injured Bates and Alves.

 

There's no point in changing it. 

 

The only question is how we execute it. If we sit back, like in the Semi-Final, we're asking for trouble. If we press, like in the game at Ibrox, then we've got a chance -- if we have a bit of luck, and both teams keep 11 men on the pitch...   

[Rousseau 9,370]

2 minutes ago, DMAA said:

I suspect you're right, but I have to wonder how wise that is after losing 4-0 with it.

 

The element of surprise is huge in football and a change in formation can work a treat. Celtic will be preparing to play us in 4-2-3-1 and will be very comfortable with how they plan to play against it.

 

If we come out in a 3-5-2 or a 4-1-2-1-2, the sacrifice of a player who'd normally start would likely be more than cancelled out by the advantage gained by the surprise. An example of this is perhaps the shock 3-0 win over Aberdeen when Murty first whipped out the diamond.

Maybe. 

 

In those set-ups we'd be going without Murphy and Candeias; I can't see that. 

 

I think we could press very aggressively in a 4-1-2-1-2, with Windass, Morelos and Cummings. However, we gave them the flanks in the Semi, which didn't work out too well.

[DMAA 3,603]

13 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Maybe. 

 

In those set-ups we'd be going without Murphy and Candeias; I can't see that. 

 

I think we could press very aggressively in a 4-1-2-1-2, with Windass, Morelos and Cummings. However, we gave them the flanks in the Semi, which didn't work out too well.

All true. I do quite like the idea of a diamond due to how vulnerable they would be to pressing given they aren't playing with full backs. I wouldn't like to sacrifice Murphy but could play the Windass role quite comfortably. You'd want Docherty and Dorrans (or Holt for energy) behind and McCorie holding midfield. I think that's a pretty solid team.

Edited April 27, 2018 by DMAA

[TheUKCrazyhorse 96]

19 minutes ago, DMAA said:

The element of surprise is huge in football and a change in formation can work a treat. Celtic will be preparing to play us in 4-2-3-1 and will be very comfortable with how they plan to play against it.

You want the element of surprise - start O'Halloran instead of Windass.

 

I actually half-wonder if Murty was giving us a hint that he might start him, by bringing him on as a sub last Sunday. I think he'd give us the same pace and penetration that Windass does (on a good day), but be less of a passenger.