Match Thread [FT] Rangers 4 (Lammers 10'; Danilo 78'; Sima 84'; Dowell 90') - 0 Livingston

[compo 6,169]

Well now it's on to Tuesday and to see if we're up to the task of getting a result 

[CammyF 6,807]

Just watched the highlights and noticed a couple of things I missed at the game;

 

- Balogun and Souttar completely dominated the Livi striker, especially in the air. He normally bullies our CH's. 

 

- at the disallowed goal, we should have been awarded a penalty as Balogun is clearly fouled when trying to meet the corner. 

 

- when Sima had the chance in 2nd half which the keeper saved, he was to honest as he stayed on his feet when the defender attempted to tackle him. If he'd gone down it was a pen (with Robertson, you never know tho). 

 

- Butlands save from Shinnie was top class but as my old man says (he's not got any sympathy for goalies), that's his job 🙂

 

- Lastly, there must be 1000s of fans who were at the game who missed the 2nd, 3rd and 4th goals. 

[Rousseau 9,407]

11 hours ago, CammyF said:

Both full backs delivered quality into the box today. The "one" you remember was especially good as Borna had only two players to aim for and played a perfect ball the Danilo couldn't miss.

 

Neither were "beaten" easily today, we kept a clean sheet and think Livi managed 6 shots on goal, with only 2 on target (dam stats again).

 

It's fine as I understand that some have made their minds up with regards to Tav and Borna, and no matter what they do, they have will never "redeem" themselves. 

I'm a big fan of Tavernier, but he was rinsed a couple of times. He looks sluggish; slow in thought and action. 

 

Barisic was good. 

[Rousseau 9,407]

I think 4-0 flattered us. 

 

The switch to more of a counter-attacking style when Livingston chose to gamble was great; that got us three goals. 

 

However, the inability to break down low blocks remains: We created bugger-all for the majority of that game. 

 

Defensively we were solid - that block or interception from Souttar at the near post when it was almost a tap-in equaliser was superb - but Livingston didn't do much. 

[Blue Moon 1,114]

5 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I think 4-0 flattered us. 

 

The switch to more of a counter-attacking style when Livingston chose to gamble was great; that got us three goals. 

 

However, the inability to break down low blocks remains: We created bugger-all for the majority of that game. 

 

Defensively we were solid - that block or interception from Souttar at the near post when it was almost a tap-in equaliser was superb - but Livingston didn't do much. 

It was always going to be stuffy given how Livingston were set up and we are definitely a work in progress.  Last season in the same fixture we drew.  We are going in the right direction and I think there are grounds for optimism.

[Gonzo79 13,714]

32 minutes ago, CammyF said:

Lastly, there must be 1000s of fans who were at the game who missed the 2nd, 3rd and 4th goals. 

Queueing for the subway is far more interesting than watching Rangers, apparently.

 

33 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I'm a big fan of Tavernier, but he was rinsed a couple of times. He looks sluggish; slow in thought and action. 

I think his game is based a lot on his fitness/physique but he's now past his best.

[Rousseau 9,407]

21 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

 

I think his game is based a lot on his fitness/physique but he's now past his best.

Yes.

 

That and striking the ball. That's his whole game. 

[CammyF 6,807]

1 hour ago, Rousseau said:

I think 4-0 flattered us. 

 

The switch to more of a counter-attacking style when Livingston chose to gamble was great; that got us three goals. 

 

However, the inability to break down low blocks remains: We created bugger-all for the majority of that game. 

 

Defensively we were solid - that block or interception from Souttar at the near post when it was almost a tap-in equaliser was superb - but Livingston didn't do much. 

I don't think it did -

 

we totally dominated the game with the exception of a 5 minute spell in 2nd half. We had over 20 shots at goal and 9 of those were on target from circa 70% possession.

 

we created a lot of chances, had a goal disallowed and could / should have had 2 penalties. 

 

I've read that because we scored 3 goals on last 15 minutes, it flattered us. Really? Doesn't matter when you score as long as you do. 

[Rousseau 9,407]

2 minutes ago, CammyF said:

I don't think it did -

 

we totally dominated the game with the exception of a 5 minute spell in 2nd half. We had over 20 shots at goal and 9 of those were on target from circa 70% possession.

 

we created a lot of chances, had a goal disallowed and could / should have had 2 penalties. 

 

I've read that because we scored 3 goals on last 15 minutes, it flattered us. Really? Doesn't matter when you score as long as you do. 

What happened to your 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics' patter? I suppose stats are alright when they help your argument.  

 

I disagree. 

 

We dominated, but created very few chances against the low block. It was only when Livingston gambled that we created chances - which was great, don't get me wrong: you want to see MB taking advantage of the state of the game. 

 

You can be happy with the final result if you wish, but, for me, we still have the same issues. If Livingston kept their defensive shape it would have been a poor 1-0 victory.  

 

Our xG was 2.3. We need to be creating more. 

[Gonzo79 13,714]

Can we not just call it defensive tactics instead of 'low block'?

 

That sort of jargon reminds me of the pish I'm subjected to at work.  

 

If a team sets up defensively and is well organised, with fit players, it will nearly always be a struggle to get goals.  Even the greatest sides often toil when the opposition play that way.