match thread (image) [FT] St Johnstone 1 - 2 Rangers (Morelos 65, 88)

[ian1964 10,720]

 

[DMAA 3,658]

Well well well, the heresy of orthodoxy is gaining a fooothold as 4-4-2 saves our blushes. 

 

Who could have predicted that the purist’s “4-3-3” wouldn’t produce a single shot on goal after an hour’s worth of football again ?

 

Who could have predicted that our three centre midfield magicians would have failed to weave their way through yet another Scottish defence? 

 

Well, credit has to go to Gerrard - who clearly does indeed read Gersnet - for reading through the midweek debate on the forum and doing the unthinkable, abandoning plan A and dusting down the old 4-4-2 in order to actually do something in the opposition box. 

 

The impact was immediate. Straight away we looked far more attacking. A ball was won by one striker while the other striker looked to get onto it, or get into a goalscoring position. For the first goal Lafferty didn’t even appear to be involved. Yet you watch the replay and that free header is somewhat explained as the centre back was watching Lafferty running in as the ball was crossed rather than the better positioned Morelos. And for the second goal you have 4-4-2 at its best. Long ball is won by the big striker (drawing away a centre back and creating that crucial space in the box) and played out to the wing, while the wee striker gets into a goalscoring position in the box. We know the rest. 

 

Gerrard again has trumped his predecessors with a bit of common sense and pragmatism when the game was crying out for it. Time to give that a go from the start. It’s clear as day that there weren’t enough goalscorers in the team that started yesterday and many recents games where we either drew a blank or made very hard work of getting a goal. 

 

 

Edited December 24, 2018 by DMAA

[Rousseau 10,519]

The Irony for me, was that the runs Candeias and Lafferty were making in the 4-4-2 were the same runs they should be making in the 4-3-3, if they're the wide men.

 

I'm not convinced the 4-4-2 is the way to go, but we played it well, and more importantly for me, there was a good positional structure to it. 

 

We were susceptible on the counter, but we were pretty gung-ho at that point. 

[DMAA 3,658]

1 minute ago, Rousseau said:

The Irony for me, was that the runs Candeias and Lafferty were making in the 4-4-2 were the same runs they should be making in the 4-3-3, if they're the wide men.

 

I'm not convinced the 4-4-2 is the way to go, but we played it well, and more importantly for me, there was a good positional structure to it. 

 

We were susceptible on the counter, but we were pretty gung-ho at that point. 

Pardon my gloating I just had to make the most of it. For me it’s as much about the players at our disposal as the formation per se. We’re more likely to score with Lafferty on the park in Coulibaly’s place. But due to the lack of creativity across the midfield I think we’re also currently more likely to score with two men on the oppositions centre backs than just an outnumbered Morelos. 

[buster. 5,132]

8 minutes ago, DMAA said:

Pardon my gloating I just had to make the most of it. For me it’s as much about the players at our disposal as the formation per se. We’re more likely to score with Lafferty on the park in Coulibaly’s place. But due to the lack of creativity across the midfield I think we’re also currently more likely to score with two men on the oppositions centre backs than just an outnumbered Morelos. 

Very much so.

To continue in what obviously wasn't and hasn't worked in many such games would be the equivalent of 

 

Do we start that way against Hibs if the midfield options are bereft of creativity ?

 

 

Quick word on Lafferty. The footballing gods have certainly been against him getting on the scoresheet of late.

 

Edited December 24, 2018 by buster.

[Rousseau 10,519]

1 minute ago, DMAA said:

Pardon my gloating I just had to make the most of it. For me it’s as much about the players at our disposal as the formation per se. We’re more likely to score with Lafferty on the park in Coulibaly’s place. But due to the lack of creativity across the midfield I think we’re also currently more likely to score with two men on the oppositions centre backs than just an outnumbered Morelos. 

Sure, more strikers on the pitch, more chance of scoring. It's not universal, but yes, I can go along with that. 

 

4-4-2 is not needed for that. Like I said, I felt they were making the runs that they should be making in the 4-3-3. 

 

However, we're getting ahead of ourselves; this was game specific. If we can do it from the start, and win, then I'm all for it.  

[Rousseau 10,519]

1 minute ago, buster. said:

Very much so.

To continue in what obviously wasn't and hasn't worked in many such games would be the equivalent of 

 

Do we start that way against Hibs if the midfield options are bereft of creativity ?

 

 

Quick word on Lafferty. The gods have of late have certainly been against him getting on the scoresheet.

 

8 minutes ago, DMAA said:

Pardon my gloating I just had to make the most of it. For me it’s as much about the players at our disposal as the formation per se. We’re more likely to score with Lafferty on the park in Coulibaly’s place. But due to the lack of creativity across the midfield I think we’re also currently more likely to score with two men on the oppositions centre backs than just an outnumbered Morelos. 

That's not a failure creativity -- although we were short in that area -- that's just a failure of proper offensive structure. 

[buster. 5,132]

3 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

 

That's not a failure creativity -- although we were short in that area -- that's just a failure of proper offensive structure. 

I'd take it back to a failure of recruitment in the summer.

 

We knew about the middle to front issue in July.

In August, Windass was sold, Murphy was badly injured and we qualified for the ELGroupStages before the window shut.

 

Edited December 24, 2018 by buster.

[DMAA 3,658]

10 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

this was game specific

Game specific formation and tactics is something there hasn’t been enough of since we got promoted and it’s cost us dearly repeatedly. One size doesn’t fit all and a good manager sees that before and/or during a game. I think when everyone is fit we have the players to switch between 4–2-3-1/4-3-3 and 4-4-2 depending on the game. 

 

I doubt very much Gerrard is ready to switch from the current set up but I think it’s just not working with the midfielders currently available and Lafferty has far more to offer than some of them. 

Edited December 24, 2018 by DMAA

[Rousseau 10,519]

2 minutes ago, DMAA said:

Game specific formation and tactics is something there hasn’t been enough of since we got promoted and it’s cost us dearly repeatedly. One size doesn’t fit all and a good manager sees that before and/or during a game. I think when everyone is fit we have the players to switch between 4–2-3-1/4-3-3 and 4-4-2 depending on the game. 

 

I doubt very much Gerrard is ready to switch from the current set up but I think it’s just not working with the midfielders currently available and Lafferty has far more to offer than some of them. 

The midfield, but also the front line doesn't work yet, but... 

 

I agree.