Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KingKirk

Style of play

Recommended Posts

This is a major factor as to why we are struggling to win games consistently since our return to this league IMO Since warburton was appointed we seem to have gone down the total football route. I know thats our style in our academy and I think its the correct way to go but first team level its about winning. I dont give a fuck how it looks on the eye as long as we are winning.

I think the winning at any cost has been overlooked for winning whilst looking good and for me only the top teams Barcelona man city etc can pull this off because they throw millions at it something we dont have.

Time to ditch this style imo we dont have the players that can play it and tbh I doubt it really works in scotland teams are happy to give us the ball and defend no interest in attacking they start with a point and dont wanna loose it mentality. Played a piss poor sheep team twice in the league 1 point and once in a semi with 60%+ possession beat 1-0

Doubt it'll happen but its the style thats costing us and its time for a rethink   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the style? We haven't tried to play football since about October.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TMB said:

Warburton's emphasis on possession was a flawed tactic that resulted in failure.  We HAD to pass it out from the back so teams would sit right up the park pressing our Keeper and defenders.  Our players were reluctant to cross it in to the box.  We HAD to pass it out from corners so there was no set-piece threat other than Tavernier's direct free-kicks.  Even when the ball broke to one of our wide players high up the park they would often just pass it straight back in to centre midfield so we could recycle possession.  It was predictable, it lacked defensively (Kranjcar and McKay aren't going to press), and it was possession for the sake of possession.  Opposition teams would put 5 guys in midfield, prevent us from passing it around, and we would completely fall apart.  When Warburton's 4-3-3, came up against Rodger's 4-3-3, there was one major difference and that was their front three were far more direct.  Keeping the ball is fine up until a point.  

Gerrard's counter pressing 4-3-3 is a modern formation and playstyle.  We're sitting high up the pitch, pressing opposition teams, and looking to force mistakes.  For this reason, I think Gerrard's 4-3-3 works better against teams who are willing to push up the park and have a go which is why we did so well in Europe and against celtic.  In possession we're getting the ball to our front three and trying to create chances there's no overemphasis on possession here.  If we stick with his 4-3-3 for all domestic games we need a bit more individual quality to help break down teams that choose to sit in.  Up until now we've lacked creativity mainly from the centre of the pitch.  Gerrard's 4-3-3 has one dedicated CDM and two box-to-box players in the middle.  I think Arfield is the only capable box-to-box player we've had up until now and it's been a problem.  When Arfeild missed the game against Hibs in December we played Jack, McCrorie, and Coulibaly in midfield.  Three CDM midfielders because we had no other options.  During the January window we brought in Davis.  I thought he and Arfeild together, with a dedicated CDM behind them, would be huge improvement on what we've seen up until now.  Arfield and Davis have EPL quality, they can both offer an attacking threat, this is the type of player we've been needing.  I think Davis is more important to us than Defoe. 

The 4-3-3 worked great for us in Europe, we beat celtic with it, we were joint top of the league when we reached the winter break.  Yesterday, against Kilmarnock, we abandoned the 4-3-3 in order to shoehorn in Defoe which is something I never expected and we paid a big price for it.  I don't know what exactly was happening with that diamond 4-4-2 but it clearly didn't work.  I can only hope this will be a case of lesson learned like when Gerrard tried the 3-5-2 against Motherwell and we never seen that formation again.  My concern moving forward is that due to Defoe's status as a player, and maybe even the terms of the loan, that he'll need to play when fit.  If Defoe plays when fit, and we can't drop Morelos, is that the end of the 4-3-3?  will it be 3-5-2 and variations of a 4-4-2 moving forward?  I honestly think Defoe could be more of a problem than a blessing if we need to change the formation and style just to accommodate him.  

 

Agree with all of your post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stick with 433 and work on changing formations during training/bounce games, that gives everyone a chance to learn their roles and also gives Davis and Defoe a chance to build fitness and get match sharp.

Changing a winning team/formation going into one of the the biggest games of the season, was stupid as fuck.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TMB said:

Warburton's emphasis on possession was a flawed tactic that resulted in failure.  We HAD to pass it out from the back so teams would sit right up the park pressing our Keeper and defenders.  Our players were reluctant to cross it in to the box.  We HAD to pass it out from corners so there was no set-piece threat other than Tavernier's direct free-kicks.  Even when the ball broke to one of our wide players high up the park they would often just pass it straight back in to centre midfield so we could recycle possession.  It was predictable, it lacked defensively (Kranjcar and McKay aren't going to press), and it was possession for the sake of possession.  Opposition teams would put 5 guys in midfield, prevent us from passing it around, and we would completely fall apart.  When Warburton's 4-3-3, came up against Rodger's 4-3-3, there was one major difference and that was their front three were far more direct.  Keeping the ball is fine up until a point.  

Gerrard's counter pressing 4-3-3 is a modern formation and playstyle.  We're sitting high up the pitch, pressing opposition teams, and looking to force mistakes.  For this reason, I think Gerrard's 4-3-3 works better against teams who are willing to push up the park and have a go which is why we did so well in Europe and against celtic.  In possession we're getting the ball to our front three and trying to create chances there's no overemphasis on possession here.  If we stick with his 4-3-3 for all domestic games we need a bit more individual quality to help break down teams that choose to sit in.  Up until now we've lacked creativity mainly from the centre of the pitch.  Gerrard's 4-3-3 has one dedicated CDM and two box-to-box players in the middle.  I think Arfield is the only capable box-to-box player we've had up until now and it's been a problem.  When Arfeild missed the game against Hibs in December we played Jack, McCrorie, and Coulibaly in midfield.  Three CDM midfielders because we had no other options.  During the January window we brought in Davis.  I thought he and Arfeild together, with a dedicated CDM behind them, would be huge improvement on what we've seen up until now.  Arfield and Davis have EPL quality, they can both offer an attacking threat, this is the type of player we've been needing.  I think Davis is more important to us than Defoe. 

The 4-3-3 worked great for us in Europe, we beat celtic with it, we were joint top of the league when we reached the winter break.  Yesterday, against Kilmarnock, we abandoned the 4-3-3 in order to shoehorn in Defoe which is something I never expected and we paid a big price for it.  I don't know what exactly was happening with that diamond 4-4-2 but it clearly didn't work.  I can only hope this will be a case of lesson learned like when Gerrard tried the 3-5-2 against Motherwell and we never seen that formation again.  My concern moving forward is that due to Defoe's status as a player, and maybe even the terms of the loan, that he'll need to play when fit.  If Defoe plays when fit, and we can't drop Morelos, is that the end of the 4-3-3?  will it be 3-5-2 and variations of a 4-4-2 moving forward?  I honestly think Defoe could be more of a problem than a blessing if we need to change the formation and style just to accommodate him.  

 

thought we looked good first 20 mins last night, unlucky not be two up, Killie hadnt a clue. was a stroll for us tbh. then up steps worrall. knocked the whole heart out of the team, killies tails are up and momentum is with them. altho i thought SG should have changed things quicker. IMO worrall cost us that game. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TMB said:

Warburton's emphasis on possession was a flawed tactic that resulted in failure.  We HAD to pass it out from the back so teams would sit right up the park pressing our Keeper and defenders.  Our players were reluctant to cross it in to the box.  We HAD to pass it out from corners so there was no set-piece threat other than Tavernier's direct free-kicks.  Even when the ball broke to one of our wide players high up the park they would often just pass it straight back in to centre midfield so we could recycle possession.  It was predictable, it lacked defensively (Kranjcar and McKay aren't going to press), and it was possession for the sake of possession.  Opposition teams would put 5 guys in midfield, prevent us from passing it around, and we would completely fall apart.  When Warburton's 4-3-3, came up against Rodger's 4-3-3, there was one major difference and that was their front three were far more direct.  Keeping the ball is fine up until a point.  

Gerrard's counter pressing 4-3-3 is a modern formation and playstyle.  We're sitting high up the pitch, pressing opposition teams, and looking to force mistakes.  For this reason, I think Gerrard's 4-3-3 works better against teams who are willing to push up the park and have a go which is why we did so well in Europe and against celtic.  In possession we're getting the ball to our front three and trying to create chances there's no overemphasis on possession here.  If we stick with his 4-3-3 for all domestic games we need a bit more individual quality to help break down teams that choose to sit in.  Up until now we've lacked creativity mainly from the centre of the pitch.  Gerrard's 4-3-3 has one dedicated CDM and two box-to-box players in the middle.  I think Arfield is the only capable box-to-box player we've had up until now and it's been a problem.  When Arfeild missed the game against Hibs in December we played Jack, McCrorie, and Coulibaly in midfield.  Three CDM midfielders because we had no other options.  During the January window we brought in Davis.  I thought he and Arfeild together, with a dedicated CDM behind them, would be huge improvement on what we've seen up until now.  Arfield and Davis have EPL quality, they can both offer an attacking threat, this is the type of player we've been needing.  I think Davis is more important to us than Defoe. 

The 4-3-3 worked great for us in Europe, we beat celtic with it, we were joint top of the league when we reached the winter break.  Yesterday, against Kilmarnock, we abandoned the 4-3-3 in order to shoehorn in Defoe which is something I never expected and we paid a big price for it.  I don't know what exactly was happening with that diamond 4-4-2 but it clearly didn't work.  I can only hope this will be a case of lesson learned like when Gerrard tried the 3-5-2 against Motherwell and we never seen that formation again.  My concern moving forward is that due to Defoe's status as a player, and maybe even the terms of the loan, that he'll need to play when fit.  If Defoe plays when fit, and we can't drop Morelos, is that the end of the 4-3-3?  will it be 3-5-2 and variations of a 4-4-2 moving forward?  I honestly think Defoe could be more of a problem than a blessing if we need to change the formation and style just to accommodate him.  

 

Look at how many are trying to play possession based football these days and imo unless you throw millions at it or have world class players it won't work.

Joe Worrall made a howler that aside look at why the mistake was mde he had zero option in a forward position to pass to without punting it long.

Then you look at actual ability on the ball zero doubt in my mind Worrall believes he's a player the reality is very different. Beating your man is what's important in a possession based tactic. That's the only way you are gonna break the shape of your opposition. Kent is the only one that's capable of doing it.

Every new coach is gonna play possession based football that's how it goes but only the very few will succeed at the highest level.

To get Rangers successful again it's time to get back to basics mate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem isn't style, it is lack of creativity and idiotic errors. 

We know that most teams sit in against us - if nobody is able to pick a pass or beat a man we end up with short sideways passes. The opponent can just sit and chill out. As for Worrall, the less said the better I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SG has often pointed out, though not as much as my fucking blood pressure has, that the cunts can come into matches and literally stroll about. When we turn up like that we struggle.

This fucking pass the ball 3 yards sideways destroys any potency we have going forward.

He keeps seeing it, keeps moaning about it but does fuck all to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ForeverAndEver said:

Warburton’s really the only one who had us playing decent football

Pity he only had one philosophy and came unstuck against better opposition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BlueMe said:

Stick with 433 and work on changing formations during training/bounce games, that gives everyone a chance to learn their roles and also gives Davis and Defoe a chance to build fitness and get match sharp.

Changing a winning team/formation going into one of the the biggest games of the season, was stupid as fuck.

 

Pretty much how I see it mate, dropping McCrorie and Candeias to change shape and system away to Kilmarnock was extreme fucking foolishness imo.

You do that at home games V teams nearer the bottom of the league to get players used to it and get the 2 guys who haven't played much up to speed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our style of play can be said to be, inconsistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×