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

[Rousseau 9,427]

1 minute ago, CammyF said:

No I'm not expecting Dowell to score a worldy every week. Rewatch the goal, he could have squared it to Danilo for a tap-in. So it was a quality chance.

 

Why are set-pieces irrelevant? How many goals are scored / conceded from set-pieces? I'm expecting us to score MORE from set-pieces - they are hardly irrelevant. A chance created from a set-piece is as relevant as a chance from open play. 

 

In Cifu's disallowed goal, we should have gotten a penalty which would have, most likely, seen us go 2-0 in front.

 

What is irrelevant is when we create and / take chances. Would the scoreline have flattered us if our XG was high 1st half and we were leafing 3-0 in first 15mins instead of scoring in the last 15mins? 

 

As for being deliberately obtuse just because I have a different opinion from you and don't give a monkeys about XG, is well, eh, obtuse. 

That's a lot of 'should's. I'm only interested in what actually happened.  

 

There's only so many times I can say it: we did not create enough when facing a low block. That's the entirety of my point.  

 

Oh - we can disagree; that's fine. What's obtuse is you continuously missing my point. 

[CammyF 6,824]

1 hour ago, yuddie said:

Because a member posted about him being sluggish - just chipping in and creating discourse.

 

I wouldn't drop him but he definitely needs rotated, he's struggling.

Well I hope his less sluggish replacement can replicate his numbers. Otherwise we are losing a lot of goals and assists. 

[CammyF 6,824]

1 minute ago, Rousseau said:

That's a lot of 'should's. I'm only interested in what actually happened.  

 

There's only so many times I can say it: we did not create enough when facing a low block. That's the entirety of my point.  

 

Oh - we can disagree; that's fine. What's obtuse is you continuously missing my point. 

I'm not missing the point - I'm disagreeing with your opinion. 

 

And re-read my last post - there was 1 'should'. 

 

You first stated we didn't create sufficient chances. When I pointed out the chances we created, the argument was then it wasn't enough quality chances. Again, I listed a the quality chances we created, you then said some of those weren't quality chances - fair-dos that's your opinion.

 

Low block or not, we created chances in BOTH halves of the game including 4 or 5 against the "low block". 

 

We did create more chances and scored goals later in the game. I really struggle to work out how that's an issue and makes the scoreline "flattering".

 

We won the easily, we won the game scoring 3 wonderfully created and executed goals (and one from an set-piece which isn't an irrelevance), we win playing some good football.

 

Could it have been better? Of course it could have, but on the other hand, it could have been a lot worse. 

 

[yuddie 1,013]

1 hour ago, Gonzo79 said:

I'm hoping he can be replaced during the course of this season.  As I said previously, we've seen the best of him, need to look to the future and focus on winning trophies.

I agree but that won't happen sadly.

[CammyF 6,824]

Interestingly, David Martindale said yesterday that in his 10 years of managing Livingston, yesterday's defeat is the heaviest he's suffered at Ibrox. 

[Rousseau 9,427]

19 minutes ago, CammyF said:

I'm not missing the point - I'm disagreeing with your opinion. 

 

And re-read my last post - there was 1 'should'. 

 

You first stated we didn't create sufficient chances. When I pointed out the chances we created, the argument was then it wasn't enough quality chances. Again, I listed a the quality chances we created, you then said some of those weren't quality chances - fair-dos that's your opinion.

 

Low block or not, we created chances in BOTH halves of the game including 4 or 5 against the "low block". 

 

We did create more chances and scored goals later in the game. I really struggle to work out how that's an issue and makes the scoreline "flattering".

 

We won the easily, we won the game scoring 3 wonderfully created and executed goals (and one from an set-piece which isn't an irrelevance), we win playing some good football.

 

Could it have been better? Of course it could have, but on the other hand, it could have been a lot worse. 

 

My point was - and will continue to be - we did not create enough against the low block. 

 

Just because we created a flurry of chances when the game opened up is irrelevant. 

 

It's 'flattering' because for 80 minutes (74 minutes? Whenever the 2nd went in) the performance was p*sh. 

 

I mean, you say, '4 or 5 chances against the low block'; in 80 minutes?! Is that really good enough? It was more than that, but it's not enough. 

 

It is an issue because we need to create and score more against the low block. If we don't we're going nowhere. 

[CammyF 6,824]

9 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

My point was - and will continue to be - we did not create enough against the low block. 

 

Just because we created a flurry of chances when the game opened up is irrelevant. 

 

It's 'flattering' because for 80 minutes (74 minutes? Whenever the 2nd went in) the performance was p*sh. 

 

I mean you said '4 or 5 chances against the low block'; in 80 minutes? Is that really good enough?

 

It is an issue because we need to create and score more against the low block. If we don't we're going nowhere. 

If we convert 50% of 4 or 5 chances, we're scoring 2 goals. 

 

But you've misunderstood - we created 4 or 5 chances in the 1st 45 minutes. The goal, the disallowed goal (no matter how irrelevant you think it was, it was a chance and a 'goal') Dessers header on half time and Souttars shot over from about 10 yards out. There is possibly more, that's just me sitting thinking back to the game (I've only watched the highlights).

 

It's irrelevant when we scored the goals, we scored 4, could and should have scored more. 

Edited August 13, 2023 by CammyF

[Rousseau 9,427]

24 minutes ago, CammyF said:

If we convert 50% of 4 or 5 chances, we're scoring 2 goals. 

 

But you've misunderstood - we created 4 or 5 chances in the 1st 45 minutes. The goal, the disallowed goal (no matter how irrelevant you think it was, it was a chance and a 'goal), Dessers header on half time and Souttars shot over from about 10 yards out. There is possibly more, that's just me sitting thinking back to the game (I've only watched highlights). 

A 50% conversion rate means an xG of 0.5?! They would have to be exceptional chances; almost tap-ins. 

 

That's fair - I did say we did actually create more than that. It was 7 in total during the first half. 

 

I don't think that's enough. They're certainly not high quality chances.

 

It would be phenomenal if we scored 2 goals from 4 shots. It's just not consistently repeatable. We can't expect our players to score 1 goal from two shots - we don't have Messi or Ronaldo. 

 

The whole premise of my position is that we need to be able to consistently create a good amount of good quality chances against the low block. 

[Gonzo79 13,718]

48 minutes ago, yuddie said:

I agree but that won't happen sadly.

Aye, it's wishful thinking.  

 

The whole 55 squad needs moved on in the near future, if you ask me.  

[weebluedevil 1,176]

Interesting debate on the chances created.

 

I don't think we created enough during Livingston's low block, I watched the game and was frustrated. But, we do need to find a solution.

 

We won comfortably in the end, but Livi came out too early in the second half, like an 800m runner sprinting ahead with 400m to go. That's unusual for Livi, especially as Martindale said he thought his team looked dangerous going forward at times. So they should have continued to frustrate us and hope they could steal a point from a counter.

They will learn their lesson as will the other 8 teams that will do the same. We also need to learn to counter the low block better, it's the biggest issue we face in the league.