match thread (image) [FT] Kilmarnock 2 - 1 Rangers (Defoe 12)

[DMAA 3,603]

4 minutes ago, Frankie said:

We can talk about player a or b until we're blue in the face but the fact was it was a poor team performance.

 

As usual Killie were well organised, sat deep and pressed at the right times.  Meanwhile, we looked like a team trying out a new system after a four week break: we were sluggish, lazy at times, didn't take responsibility, our passing and shooting were woeful and our decision-making again bizarre.  Yes, two individual mistakes (Worral and Kent I think) cost us the goals against a team that never really looked dangerous but too many players had an off night and the same old failings were again evident.

 

The manager also has to take his fair share of the blame as Defoe and Davis both looked well short of fitness; more so Defoe whom, goal aside, did absolutely nothing.  The other side of the coin does say we need to play them to get them fit but using both from the start and for most of the match was an unnecessary gamble that didn't pay off.

Agree up till the bit about Davis and Defoe. I think they could have just been removed earlier. Defoe is being slated but he was doing very well when we were playing well. And nothing came in his direction for ages after that. 

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,476]

1 hour ago, Briton said:

I don't think Defoe is good enough to change the formation for.  He got his tap in, fair enough, but he was dire for the rest of the game and should never have lasted 78 minutes.  I know he has only played a few games this season but I'm doubtful he'll be able to compete in the rough and tumble of the SPL.  Hope I'm wrong.

Harsh indeed. Defoe is an goalscorer and we created next to nothing for him. What problems we had last night don't lie at the door of a guy making his debut. The formation just didn't work IMO. Still don't understand why Davis was subbed (apart from fatigue)

[Frankie 8,150]

The ball moves quickly over these surfaces and it came through the defender's legs which explains why McGregor was slow in getting down and wasn't able to move his feet.

 

I thought McAuley did the right thing initially by not committing himself at the half-way line.  But to then not close down Jones properly was almost as inexplicable as Worrall's brain fart in the first half.

 

When games are always going to be as tight as last night's was, we simply cannot afford to give away cheap goals like that.  We can criticise the manager for the system but even he can't account for mistakes that are completely avoidable.

[Frankie 8,150]

2 minutes ago, DMAA said:

Agree up till the bit about Davis and Defoe. I think they could have just been removed earlier. Defoe is being slated but he was doing very well when we were playing well. And nothing came in his direction for ages after that. 

Like I say, it was a gamble to play both are neither are anywhere near fit IMO.

 

It showed in the first half when Davis didn't really get into the game (though I'm not sure the let side of the diamond suits him) and Defoe - whilst never someone who's going to lead the line like Morelos - didn't do anything of note that I can remember.

 

But like I say it's a team game and they were no worse than anyone else.

[DMAA 3,603]

5 minutes ago, Frankie said:

But to then not close down Jones properly was almost as inexplicable as Worrall's brain fart in the first half.

Absolutely. Gerrard was badly let down last night by those mistakes. 

[Rousseau 9,369]

We were sluggish, and lacking a bit of fight -- but, anytime we do show fight we're getting booked left right a centre. We needed more urgency, though.

 

I thought the tactics were fine, if not perfect.

 

The Full-backs need to provide the width, but I thought they were too deep. The midfield three (outwith Kent, who had a roaming role) were not properly positioned to find each other; I felt they were all isolated. 

 

When we crossed the ball we had loads of players in the box! Which I thought we great. If the Full-backs were higher it would've been more fruitful. Even the deep crosses could've been better if the midfield/attackers could've dropped off. 

 

It seemed to me like it was just a lack of experience in the formation. 

 

Of course, he did change it: we went 4-3-3 towards the end, with more orthodox width. We maybe got in behind a couple of times, but the crosses were still not great and there were fewer players in the box. 

 

I feel like we gave them two goals. 

 

I don't know what it is about away games?

[Rousseau 9,369]

RE: "The midfield three (outwith Kent, who had a roaming role) were not properly positioned to find each other; I felt they were all isolated. "

 

I was so annoyed I switched it over to the Man City game, and although it was a slightly weakened side, you can see every time a midfielder has the ball, there are always options on the ball. Their structure is perfect: they're always 10 yards away from each other, staggered proportionally across the pitch.

 

It means they have lots of options and easy passes to move opponents around, to work the space. 

 

When I look at us, too often there is just no options on the ball. The attacking midfielders go forward too early, meaning Jack has sideways passes to make, and the defenders start dithering. 

 

We have to build the ball up through the phases. 

[buster. 4,808]

Wrong team and shape IMO

Poor performance (players and mgmt)

 

Consistent inconsistency = Forget the Title

 

[JohnMc 2,468]

Our system nullified our full backs last night. Tav in particular really missed Candeias and so we missed our right flank. I was surprised Dafoe started, I assumed he'd be a player we used from the bench, either to replace Morelos after he'd ran himself ragged or to change formation for the last 15 mins if we're chasing a goal. 

Kilmarnock played well though, their number 8 was the best player on the pitch I thought, he controlled the midfield and the tempo of the match. Jones had an outstanding spell in the second half, I was really impressed by him having previously been a bit meh about him.

I do think though that it was just one of those nights. We gifted them the first and the second, although from 25 yards I don't think he should be able to score, but they didn't create much apart from that whereas their keeper had a couple of good saves and we'd one off the post and a penalty claim that on another day would have been given. 

It's frustrating and we really didn't work hard enough or smart enough, but let's not overreact, there's still a long way to go and other teams will drop points at Rugby Park too. 

Edited January 24, 2019 by JohnMc

[cooponthewing 1,139]

37 minutes ago, Frankie said:

The manager also has to take his fair share of the blame as Defoe and Davis both looked well short of fitness; more so Defoe whom, goal aside, did absolutely nothing.  The other side of the coin does say we need to play them to get them fit but using both from the start and for most of the match was an unnecessary gamble that didn't pay off.

Completely agree with this and didn’t understand starting Defievladt night? Did Davis and Defoe offer anything that we already didn’t have last night? They were both well short of match fitness. I also feel there is zero chance of a partnership with Defoe and Alfie. It’s just the way Alfie is, he is a Lone Ranger and works on his own.