[FT] Rangers 1 (Morelos 18) - 2 Malmo

[DMAA 2,827]

4 minutes ago, craig said:

We’ll need to agree to disagree on us being powderpuff in the first 40 minutes.  Malmo could barely get out of their own half the whole time and they made a number of defensive mistakes.  We actually got in behind a few times and but for a slack final ball could have been 2 or 3 up.

 

Hagi does look sharper than most but the only person he’s have replaced is Wright - and in fairness to Wright he has started the season well and in the first leg against Malmo did very well when he came on.  Wright deserves his chance IMHO.

 

I wouldn’t have changed anything at half time - I don’t think the manager got that wrong.  Aside from a 5 minute spell in the first half we absolutely dominated them.  They then go down to 10 men so why change anything ?  Also better to see how they change formation and tactics first before making your own because you know they’re going to change something.  Unfortunately they scored two very poorly defended goals fairly quickly in the second half which changed the complexion of the game.

I don’t think we disagree, I just meant that for a period of dominance and great pressure we didn’t actually come close to scoring much, I don’t think we had an effort on target aside from the goal. You would normally expect the keeper to be very busy during a spell like that. 

[BlackSocksRedTops 1,998]

Our overall passing and general touch has been shocking over the last few games. Kent and Barasic look like they have just seen a football for the first time. It's puzzling.

[BlackSocksRedTops 1,998]

2 minutes ago, DMAA said:

I don’t think we disagree, I just meant that for a period of dominance and great pressure we didn’t actually come close to scoring much, I don’t think we had an effort on target aside from the goal. You would normally expect the keeper to be very busy during a spell like that. 

I agree. We were aggressive and full of energy but still lacked composure and created very little. 

[MacK1950 1,773]

Haven't read all posts,came home last night utterly disgusted at our lack of being able to play against and beat ten men.Have seen this many times through the years and it is obviously down to complacency.

Last night was a recurring nightmare as the above,still Friday here we come,with a good few changes I hope.

[RANGERRAB 2,125]

55 minutes ago, craig said:

We’ve been moving the ball far too slowly and rarely is it vertical.

 

Last night we played far, far too many square balls in defense and midfield.

 

Shifting the play from one side to the other is fine, but once you do so, you have to make vertical passes to get beyond their low block.  We didn’t do it.

 

we also moved the ball too slowly for playing against 10 men.  Last week they were out on their feet after 70 minutes get last night, for the most part, they were fine….. because we didn’t have them chasing anything.

 

So disappointing - such an opportunity to make the CL proper.

 

As said already, the formation wasn’t the issue.  We dominated them for the first 40 minutes and, in fairness, we could have been out of sight by half time.  I’m not even sure the personnel was the issue given that first 40 minutes.  But after the break we collapsed, mentally.  I do think we badly missed Kamara and even Roofe last night - so the fall out from Slavia has hurt us badly.

 

We also aren’t having any luck.  At various points last season we carried that wee bit of luck but so far this year we haven’t.  There were a number of efforts last night that were last ditch blocks that on another night would have went in.  But up 1-0 against 10 men we shouldn’t have to rely on luck.

We should have changed tactics with the extra man advantage. We did nothing at all. 

[Rousseau 4,986]

23 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

We should have changed tactics with the extra man advantage. We did nothing at all. 

We actually went with a 4-4-2 diamond with Kent in the hole and Morelos and Sakala up front, as the latter came on. Didn't change much. The players were still p*sh. 

 

I get your point, though; we should have made changes, to go for it more. To be fair, though, I'm not sure if it was so wrong to still be conservative after half-time; we were level and in a dominant position. But, when we went behind, certainly.  

[Rousseau 4,986]

 

I agree with his point, but, "old enough to remember 94/95"?

 

Well, yes; it was only a couple of years ago-- wait. 

 

Oh.

 

F*ck...

[alexscottislegend 1,281]

11 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:

I was inclined to leave early.  The outcome was obvious at 70 minutes.  As it happened I ended up staying until the end.

 

Did you stay in the stadium until the end?

I live 350-odd miles away. Outcomes are never obvious after 70 minutes. If you had been in Malmo, by that logic you would have left after their second goal.

[alexscottislegend 1,281]

12 hours ago, RANGERRAB said:

The calibre of opposition we’d face in the CLQ’s was always going to be tougher than the ELQ’s we’d faced. 
I think that needs to be remembered.

To a point, but are Malmo better than Benfica or Galatasaray for example? They were 68th in Eufa rankings: we are 40th.

[alexscottislegend 1,281]

51 minutes ago, MacK1950 said:

Haven't read all posts,came home last night utterly disgusted at our lack of being able to play against and beat ten men.Have seen this many times through the years and it is obviously down to complacency.

Last night was a recurring nightmare as the above,still Friday here we come,with a good few changes I hope.

That point may be closer to the truth than some of us think. Complacency is not easily shrugged off - it can be absorbed into your very fibres. The late Bobby Robson used to say that you cannot switch form on like turning on a tap.