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

[Gonzo79 13,764]

We're a bit too predictable.  Teams that are happy to play for a point know how to set up against us.

 

Gerrard should have changed things sooner yesterday.  We never looked like doing anything until the final fifteen minutes. 

[PoohBear 1,084]

23 minutes ago, CammyF said:

To be fair he showed more in his cameo than Hagi, Arfield and others showed. 

You're not wrong, but I feel that's more of a damning indictment of Hagi and Arfield's game rather than any positive indication that Barker is a suitable player for us.

 

What do they call that, damning with faint praise?

[DMAA 3,603]

11 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I don't subscribe to this 'we don't need 2 DMs' argument - it's a bit of a naive argument, IMO

Neither of them are really DMs for a start. 

[Rousseau 9,494]

I feel like we're not working on offensive movement; it's too off-the-cuff. 

 

I think they set the general positions -- Morelos central, Kent and Hagi roaming around, with Barisic wide left, Tavernier wide right, which is fine -- but then they leave it to them to do something, and they don't know what to do. 

 

We need to be working on attacking movements (if player A has it, then x, y, z move here and there, etc.) and set patterns in passing (Jack into Morelos, with a first time ball into Hagi, who should be aware of this, and then Morelos spins in-behind).  That's an over-simplification, but that's the idea. 

 

I don't think a formation change will help, because the issue is the way we play with the ball. 

[DMAA 3,603]

2 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I feel like we're not working on offensive movement; it's too off-the-cuff. 

 

I think they set the general positions -- Morelos central, Kent and Hagi roaming around, with Barisic wide left, Tavernier wide right, which is fine -- but then they leave it to them to do something, and the don't know what to do. 

 

We need to be working on attacking movements (if player A has it, then x, y, z move here and there, etc.) and set patterns in passing (Jack into Morelos, with a first time ball into Hagi, who should be aware of this, and then Morelos spins in-behind).  That's an over-simplification, but that's the idea. 

 

I don't think a formation change will help, because the issue is the way we play with the ball. 

I don't think we need a permanent formation change, but I do think we need to consider whether our system is going to work on this pitch against this system. With Aribo out in particular, I was very concerned it wouldn't. I think we need to be more direct on plastic pitches and two strikers in the box would be a big help to making that work. We shouldn't be too proud to be pragmatic. The fact is that our attacking midfielders have a terrible record of breaking down teams in those circumstances.

[Rousseau 9,494]

I don't like teams that rely on the individual creativity of a player, where they rely on a piece of magic. It's not dependable, consistent or repeatable. 

 

I think a group of average players, well drilled in attacking movements (tell them exactly how they should be moving) is more dependable and repeatable and consistent than relying on a top-class player to change the game. 

 

Case in point is Leeds Utd. Squad of average players, languishing in the lower half of the table, and now champions because they have a manager that is very controlling in that regard.  

[Rousseau 9,494]

Just now, DMAA said:

I don't think we need a permanent formation change, but I do think we need to consider whether our system is going to work on this pitch against this system. With Aribo out in particular, I was very concerned it wouldn't. I think we need to be more direct on plastic pitches and two strikers in the box would be a big help to making that work. We shouldn't be too proud to be pragmatic. The fact is that our attacking midfielders have a terrible record of breaking down teams in those circumstances.

I agree, but that's not a formation change - or at least it's not needed. We can do that with this formation, and we kind of did towards the end with Itten and Roofe on the pitch.

 

Like I said, the offensive movements are non-existent - that includes being direct.  

[DMAA 3,603]

Just now, DMAA said:

The fact is that our attacking midfielders have a terrible record of breaking down teams in those circumstances.

On that subject, not including goals he has scored himself, Rangers have scored 47 league goals since Kent's last league assist in February 19 vs Hamilton Accies, 28 games ago. He plays in our front 3 and we spent £7m on him to create goals. I said when we signed him that I would be bemoaning his lack of end product and here we are.
 

[Rousseau 9,494]

17 minutes ago, PoohBear said:

You're not wrong, but I feel that's more of a damning indictment of Hagi and Arfield's game rather than any positive indication that Barker is a suitable player for us.

 

What do they call that, damning with faint praise?

What would you prefer: a top class player that's not doing what you want them to do, or a below average player that is doing what you want them to do?

 

You can only use what you've got. 

[ranger_syntax 3,795]

58 minutes 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.

How is adding another central defender a more attacking formation?