match thread (image) [FT] Rangers 2 - 0 Stranraer (Arfield 44; Defoe 66pen)

[ian1964 10,370]

31 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

What disappointed me most last night was fringe players who made little or no impact. They really need to ‘step up’ when they get their chance.

The manager said exactly the same thing. It is worrying.

[ian1964 10,370]

?

[der Berliner 3,207]

1 hour ago, ian1964 said:

The manager said exactly the same thing. It is worrying.

It is worrying that the manager says such stuff.

 

Getting a bit of perspective here :

 

 - We totally dominated a game against 10 defence-minded players. Games we have had similar performances before, by our starting brigade. 33-0 shot, 10-0 on target, 12-0 corners. We seemingly moan on a high level here.

- The gaffer deemed it worthwhile to stick to his one-striker line up against this. We all know what was coming, so did he. Was it adjusted? Nope.

- He threw in Halliday and Barker from essentially no-where, assuming that they gel. Same with Jones after months out with injury. BTW, in case people missed it before, Jones and Barker are not skill-wizards, they work with space, pace and their directness. How much of that did they get? Against Tashkent Jones got space and was far more effective.

- Credit is being heaped on Patterson, who did well. But he was essentially not tested and was thus given quite  bit of freedom to bomb forward.

 

Dunno, but it doesn't sit well with me when we hardly ever give the "fringe" players any real chance to shine, then throw them in against the ultimate brick wall and expect them to ran them down and over (in a way that the first row usually doesn't do either). And then, straight after the match, come up with these remarks? When the bucket should also stop with those selecting players for every game and tactics for every game at hand. Out of my head I can remember but one or two games where we adjusted the formation according to the opposition at hand and cast the "4-3-3" aside. Obviously, as Stewart was out injured, a second striker was not to be, even though we could have played Aribo or even Jones there.

 

[Gaffer 1,665]

36 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

It is worrying that the manager says such stuff.

 

Getting a bit of perspective here :

 

 - We totally dominated a game against 10 defence-minded players. Games we have had similar performances before, by our starting brigade. 33-0 shot, 10-0 on target, 12-0 corners. We seemingly moan on a high level here.

- The gaffer deemed it worthwhile to stick to his one-striker line up against this. We all know what was coming, so did he. Was it adjusted? Nope.

- He threw in Halliday and Barker from essentially no-where, assuming that they gel. Same with Jones after months out with injury. BTW, in case people missed it before, Jones and Barker are not skill-wizards, they work with space, pace and their directness. How much of that did they get? Against Tashkent Jones got space and was far more effective.

- Credit is being heaped on Patterson, who did well. But he was essentially not tested and was thus given quite  bit of freedom to bomb forward.

 

Dunno, but it doesn't sit well with me when we hardly ever give the "fringe" players any real chance to shine, then throw them in against the ultimate brick wall and expect them to ran them down and over (in a way that the first row usually doesn't do either). And then, straight after the match, come up with these remarks? When the bucket should also stop with those selecting players for every game and tactics for every game at hand. Out of my head I can remember but one or two games where we adjusted the formation according to the opposition at hand and cast the "4-3-3" aside. Obviously, as Stewart was out injured, a second striker was not to be, even though we could have played Aribo or even Jones there.

 

I disagree with a lot of what you say here but this is a good post and helps discuss the other side of the argument.  We have players who are expected to be able to come in and replace others in our system.  Most of those who did come in last night failed to show they have what it takes.  Where we differ is that I think that does deserve criticism but I understand your perspective.  If these players cannot break down the brick wall of Stranraer, how can they be expected to break down the walls of Aberdeen, Hibs, Killie, St Mirren, etc?  Also, I understand why people think that two strikers is more attacking than one, but it really isn't.  Our 4-3-3 or 4-3-2-1 is one of the most attacking setups I've ever seen so that's not the problem.  The problem is that we don't have enough quality in the likes of Jones, Ojo, Halliday to make the most of our tactics.

 

If ever there was a reminder of just how fragile our team is, it was last night.  If we lose Kent, or Morelos, or Tav, or Barisic, or two or more of our midfielders, we are in big trouble.  If Gerrard decides to cash in on Barker, Jones, and Halliday, or if he sends Ojo back, I'll not be bothered in the slightest.  There's no point in having backups if they can't perform when required.  As you all know, I was against Patterson coming in but once again it shows that the management team know what they're doing.  He came in and performed so there can be no excuse from the fringe players about lack of game time or match sharpness.  He did it because he committed.  The others either didn't commit or don't make have the quality.  Either way that means their days with us should be numbered.  Ojo in particular frustrates me.  Like Ejaria, he has all the skill but lacks the mentality to be at a club like ours.

 

I am continually reminded (normally because the manager proves me wrong) that he knows what he's doing and I trust him.  I am also reminded on nights like last night just how much work he still has to do to create a championship winning squad.  We have a championship winning team but we are quite some way off having a squad capable of challenging in all competitions.

[craig 5,195]

2 hours ago, RANGERRAB said:

What disappointed me most last night was fringe players who made little or no impact. They really need to ‘step up’ when they get their chance.

The only one who staked a claim, as Gerrard said, was Paterson and, I guess, Edmondson

 

Halliday offered little, though played injured for over half a game.  Jones was almost anonymous.  Barker offered nothing and Ojo came on and offered nothing too.

 

Worrying if we have to rely on some of these guys at crucial stages of the season.

[craig 5,195]

2 hours ago, ian1964 said:

?

Have to love their honesty ?

[craig 5,195]

1 hour ago, der Berliner said:

It is worrying that the manager says such stuff.

 

Getting a bit of perspective here :

 

 - We totally dominated a game against 10 defence-minded players. Games we have had similar performances before, by our starting brigade. 33-0 shot, 10-0 on target, 12-0 corners. We seemingly moan on a high level here.

- The gaffer deemed it worthwhile to stick to his one-striker line up against this. We all know what was coming, so did he. Was it adjusted? Nope.

- He threw in Halliday and Barker from essentially no-where, assuming that they gel. Same with Jones after months out with injury. BTW, in case people missed it before, Jones and Barker are not skill-wizards, they work with space, pace and their directness. How much of that did they get? Against Tashkent Jones got space and was far more effective.

- Credit is being heaped on Patterson, who did well. But he was essentially not tested and was thus given quite  bit of freedom to bomb forward.

 

Dunno, but it doesn't sit well with me when we hardly ever give the "fringe" players any real chance to shine, then throw them in against the ultimate brick wall and expect them to ran them down and over (in a way that the first row usually doesn't do either). And then, straight after the match, come up with these remarks? When the bucket should also stop with those selecting players for every game and tactics for every game at hand. Out of my head I can remember but one or two games where we adjusted the formation according to the opposition at hand and cast the "4-3-3" aside. Obviously, as Stewart was out injured, a second striker was not to be, even though we could have played Aribo or even Jones there.

 

Disagree with almost everything you say here.

 

1.  Gerrard is spot on with his comments.  The fringe players offered very little despite being given 90 minutes.

2.  Shouldn’t need to play more than one up top when the two “wingers” are playing narrow, effectively as strikers themselves - particularly when the full backs, Paterson especially, was playing as a winger and giving a 4th player up top.

3.  You throw out stats and say they’re similar to our “starting brigade” yet ignore that the opposition are two leagues lower, part rather than full time, than the teams our “starting brigade” produce those stats against.

4.  You downplay the credit Paterson gets because he “wasn’t tested” and at the same time absolve Halliday and Barker from being poor.... were they tested more than Paterson ?  No.  But it suits your agenda to suggest so.

5.  “He threw in Halliday and Barker” hoping they would gel.... he threw in Paterson too and he would have to help with whomever played down that side.... and he did for an hour... and he’s a youth, not an established 1st team squad member.

6.  In fact, Kai Kennedy offered more in 10 minutes than Barker did all game.  Barker just isn’t good enough for us, it really is that simple.

7.  Bemoaning fringe players not getting game time - they got the chance last night against a team where they should shine.  And they didn’t.  If they can’t look good against 3rd division opponents then they’re going to struggle against Premier League opponents.  They aren’t good enough.

8.  You keep banging on about changing formation - why should Gerrard change formation ?  Domestically he’s lost two  games all season, one where we were robbed.... and, funnily enough, that game we lost was when he changed from his usual narrow 4-3-3 - yet here you are complaining that he should change tactics - why should he change a winning formula ?  Makes absolutely zero sense to me.  None whatsoever.  We’ve just pumped our nearest domestic rivals on their own patch using his trusted narrow 4-3-3.  So why change it ?  Further, a change of formation last night would have told him NOTHING about whether those fringe players can fit his system.
9.  Jones or Aribo as a second striker ???  No thanks.  If it comes to that then we definitely need a striker to come in.

10.  “...adjusted formation according to the opposition at hand...”.  We’re playing the best football in the country, were two points off top with a game in hand, we’ve qualified for the EL last 32, we’ve lost one league game all year (funnily enough when we changed formation....) yet you want us to change formation for the opponent at hand ?  This season Gerrard and his team have proven time and time again that it’s other teams who need to adjust because if they don’t we will beat them.  We’ve overrrun Celtic in 4 of the last 5 games against them and the one we didn’t was the game when WE changed formation from our preferred.  No thanks.

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,466]

8 minutes ago, craig said:

The only one who staked a claim, as Gerrard said, was Paterson and, I guess, Edmondson

 

Halliday offered little, though played injured for over half a game.  Jones was almost anonymous.  Barker offered nothing and Ojo came on and offered nothing too.

 

Worrying if we have to rely on some of these guys at crucial stages of the season.

Not sure what Jones has to offer as he looks like just wearing a Rangers jersey is good enough for him. He simply needs to do more or he'll be on his way out

[craig 5,195]

5 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

Not sure what Jones has to offer as he looks like just wearing a Rangers jersey is good enough for him. He simply needs to do more or he'll be on his way out

To be fair to Jones though, he was playing very well prior to injury.  He’s easing himself back to fitness.

 

Id be looking to get rid of Barker and Ojo in the first instance.
 

 Ojo has something but doesn’t produce it often enough.

 

Barker offers virtually nothing.  I was more impressed by Kennedy in his 10 minute cameo than I was with Barker

 

[der Berliner 3,207]

1 hour ago, craig said:

Disagree with almost everything you say here.

 

1.  Gerrard is spot on with his comments.  The fringe players offered very little despite being given 90 minutes.

2.  Shouldn’t need to play more than one up top when the two “wingers” are playing narrow, effectively as strikers themselves - particularly when the full backs, Paterson especially, was playing as a winger and giving a 4th player up top.

3.  You throw out stats and say they’re similar to our “starting brigade” yet ignore that the opposition are two leagues lower, part rather than full time, than the teams our “starting brigade” produce those stats against.

4.  You downplay the credit Paterson gets because he “wasn’t tested” and at the same time absolve Halliday and Barker from being poor.... were they tested more than Paterson ?  No.  But it suits your agenda to suggest so.

5.  “He threw in Halliday and Barker” hoping they would gel.... he threw in Paterson too and he would have to help with whomever played down that side.... and he did for an hour... and he’s a youth, not an established 1st team squad member.

6.  In fact, Kai Kennedy offered more in 10 minutes than Barker did all game.  Barker just isn’t good enough for us, it really is that simple.

7.  Bemoaning fringe players not getting game time - they got the chance last night against a team where they should shine.  And they didn’t.  If they can’t look good against 3rd division opponents then they’re going to struggle against Premier League opponents.  They aren’t good enough.

8.  You keep banging on about changing formation - why should Gerrard change formation ?  Domestically he’s lost two  games all season, one where we were robbed.... and, funnily enough, that game we lost was when he changed from his usual narrow 4-3-3 - yet here you are complaining that he should change tactics - why should he change a winning formula ?  Makes absolutely zero sense to me.  None whatsoever.  We’ve just pumped our nearest domestic rivals on their own patch using his trusted narrow 4-3-3.  So why change it ?  Further, a change of formation last night would have told him NOTHING about whether those fringe players can fit his system.
9.  Jones or Aribo as a second striker ???  No thanks.  If it comes to that then we definitely need a striker to come in.

10.  “...adjusted formation according to the opposition at hand...”.  We’re playing the best football in the country, were two points off top with a game in hand, we’ve qualified for the EL last 32, we’ve lost one league game all year (funnily enough when we changed formation....) yet you want us to change formation for the opponent at hand ?  This season Gerrard and his team have proven time and time again that it’s other teams who need to adjust because if they don’t we will beat them.  We’ve overrrun Celtic in 4 of the last 5 games against them and the one we didn’t was the game when WE changed formation from our preferred.  No thanks.

 

1 ... is helping no-body, not least those singled out under IMHO the wrong circumstances. Play pacy wingers against a brick wall?

2 ... a second striker would lurk in/around the area, the penalty spot, the place left open when the main striker is draged wide. We saw that time and time again of late, only Aribo dropped into that hole of late. 3-5-2 would leave you with two wingers still, narrow or wide, as it pleases.

3 ... how many games against the brick wall teams saw our first row union play out dire wins? Yet, are / we / are expect the 2nd and 3rd row to blast them apart? Playing shyte and still totally dominating them. Same story, different angle?

4 ... No downplay, just a remark. Paterson was hardly tested as a defender, so he had room to explore and took it.

5 ... Up-playing Paterson and downplaying fringe guys, one might say.

7 ... see above, 1 and 3

8 ... see above, 3. There was no need to play that system against a side that only sat deep. If EVER there is a chance to test other options, why not use them?

9 ... Aribo played there for Nigeria, Jones before with Killie. They were the only ones springing to mind. SG threw in Ojo as a lone striker ... that was sure not better.

10 ... see above 3 and 8.

 

BTW, I'm not having a hatchet job at SG, likewise he sure is not beyond critique.