match thread (image) [FT] Livingston 0 - 0 Rangers

[alexscottislegend 2,090]

1 hour ago, ian1964 said:

No idea why Barker keeps getting game time ahead of Murphy, JJ, even Middleton?

Nor me. We sure needed some orthodox wing play out there. How often have you heard it said that the way to beat a packed defence is to go down the flanks? Neither Kent nor Hagi are wingers in the accepted sense and Barker is just not up to scratch.

[DMAA 3,603]

30 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

I really don't see how this formation would change anything for us.

Having two strikers to hold the ball up and get us further up the field in games like that is very important IMO. It makes it easier to find a forward pass too because you have more to aim at. 

[rbr 1,247]

I’m amazed that my fellow fans are getting in such a tizzy over this , never in my 54 years have I witnessed teams such as these , adopt the tactics they currently  use .

The first time livi were in our box was the 42nd minute when Barclay went on a run , and they were at home .

we simply need to find a midfielder that can shot from distance , aka Albertz , we simply do not have that in our team , and given how good our manager was it amazes me that he isn’t trying to find a player like that .

[T-1000 174]

1 hour ago, ian1964 said:

No idea why Barker keeps getting game time ahead of Murphy, JJ, even Middleton?

The manager and his team see the players in training each day and they have obviously come to the conclusion that neither Murphy or Middleton are good enough as they are not even included on the subs bench.  With respect to Middleton he did not hold down a regular place in the Hibs side where he went on loan.  There he was playing in a team that does not play against sides that park the bus the way they do with Rangers.  This should have given him a good opportunity to showcase his skills and pace but he did not take the opportunity.  I rather suspect he has a limited future at Rangers.

[compo 6,210]

55 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

A few long balls once in a while wouldn't hurt.  

Wouldn't go wrong to just lump the ball up into their box because everything else failed, a good old up and under as Eddie Waring used to say .

[ranger_syntax 3,790]

34 minutes ago, DMAA said:

Having two strikers to hold the ball up and get us further up the field in games like that is very important IMO. It makes it easier to find a forward pass too because you have more to aim at. 

So why not just recommend swapping a number ten for a striker? Leave the defence out of it.

[DMAA 3,603]

6 minutes ago, T-1000 said:

The manager and his team see the players in training each day and they have obviously come to the conclusion that neither Murphy or Middleton are good enough as they are not even included on the subs bench.  With respect to Middleton he did not hold down a regular place in the Hibs side where he went on loan.  There he was playing in a team that does not play against sides that park the bus the way they do with Rangers.  This should have given him a good opportunity to showcase his skills and pace but he did not take the opportunity.  I rather suspect he has a limited future at Rangers.

His treatment of Murphy is strange though. He went to Burton and in 10 games scored 7 and assisted 2. He showed that he still has it. But Gerrard won't even put him on the bench. As I said, I think he likes a certain type of player and it is disappointing when quality players like Murphy lose out.

[DMAA 3,603]

Just now, ranger_syntax said:

So why not just recommend swapping a number ten for a striker? Leave the defence out of it.

I said my preference would be 4-4-2.

[craig 5,199]

3 hours ago, DMAA said:

I think we need to play a more attacking formation with two strikers. A version of 4-4-2 would be good too. It is very difficult to pass through teams who park the bus on a terrible pitch. With two strikers , if you put the ball in the box often enough, with support from midfielders, you’ll cause them far more trouble. There is no doubt that the formation failed yesterday, and not for the first time in those games. Celtic put this theory to the test last season and proved it.

Mate, at points yesterday Goldson was halfway inside the Livvy half, that’s how deep Livvy played.  The average position in the first half for 10 of their players was 5 yards inside their own half.  Their striker’s average position was about 5 yards inside ours.

 

Whilst we may have started as a 4-3-3 yesterday at times it seemed like a 1-3-3-3 with Helander dropping off Goldson, Barišić and Tav like wingers.

 

The problem wasn’t so much the formation as it was the lack of creation.  Livvy played so deep that a formal formation was nigh on pointless as they just blocked the 18 and let us come wave after wave

[DMAA 3,603]

3 minutes ago, craig said:

The problem wasn’t so much the formation as it was the lack of creation

A formation change is also about the change in personnel though and the qualities they bring to the side.