minstral 5,375 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Why does he set out to win games 1-0 instead of having a right go. The only time he will take a chance is when we go a goal behind and we have no choice. You only have to look at how we played in the second half when we could have scored 4 or 5 goals by attacking and playing at a faster pace. What annoys me is the Rangers way used to be to try and win every game and be scared of no team, but someone should tell Walter that. Also the players walter has signed are mediocre players earning big money, with no width no entertainment, and boring to watch. We have also managed toget to the top of the league about 3 times only to lose it next game, so what is that all about. Lets hope we can still win it, but i feel Walter has learned nothing since his last spell at our club, same negative tactics that cost us 10 in a row and if he stays next season god help us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 So you think we set out only to win 1-0 last night by playing the same team that had won 7 on the bounce (with one change for the old firm game) and scoring a good few goals in the process...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
minstral 5,375 Posted May 14, 2009 Author Share Posted May 14, 2009 So you think we set out only to win 1-0 last night by playing the same team that had won 7 on the bounce (with one change for the old firm game) and scoring a good few goals in the process...... Yes he did set out for a 1-0, 51 minutes before we had a shot on target. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 So you think we set out only to win 1-0 last night by playing the same team that had won 7 on the bounce (with one change for the old firm game) and scoring a good few goals in the process...... Yes he did set out for a 1-0, 51 minutes before we had a shot on target. That was down to the players not the formation....how is playing a 4-4-2 with a formation that had won seven games in a row whilst scoring a good few goals being defensive ? Explain ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
minstral 5,375 Posted May 14, 2009 Author Share Posted May 14, 2009 So you think we set out only to win 1-0 last night by playing the same team that had won 7 on the bounce (with one change for the old firm game) and scoring a good few goals in the process...... Yes he did set out for a 1-0, 51 minutes before we had a shot on target. That was down to the players not the formation....how is playing a 4-4-2 with a formation that had won seven games in a row whilst scoring a good few goals being defensive ? Explain ? Two player up front the have no pace, and lumping high balls to them all first half, yes wonderful attacking football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 So you think we set out only to win 1-0 last night by playing the same team that had won 7 on the bounce (with one change for the old firm game) and scoring a good few goals in the process...... Yes he did set out for a 1-0, 51 minutes before we had a shot on target. That was down to the players not the formation....how is playing a 4-4-2 with a formation that had won seven games in a row whilst scoring a good few goals being defensive ? Explain ? Two player up front the have no pace, and lumping high balls to them all first half, yes wonderful attacking football. But attacking football none the less. Your claim we were trying to win 1-0 has no substance. Complain, rightly, about the style of the our play in the first half but it’s total bollocks to claim were looking to do anything but win by as many goals as we could. It was an attacking team for the last month so you can’[t claim it wasn’t just because it didn’t work last night…… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
minstral 5,375 Posted May 14, 2009 Author Share Posted May 14, 2009 So you think we set out only to win 1-0 last night by playing the same team that had won 7 on the bounce (with one change for the old firm game) and scoring a good few goals in the process...... Yes he did set out for a 1-0, 51 minutes before we had a shot on target. That was down to the players not the formation....how is playing a 4-4-2 with a formation that had won seven games in a row whilst scoring a good few goals being defensive ? Explain ? Two player up front the have no pace, and lumping high balls to them all first half, yes wonderful attacking football. But attacking football none the less. Your claim we were trying to win 1-0 has no substance. Complain, rightly, about the style of the our play in the first half but it’s total bollocks to claim were looking to do anything but win by as many goals as we could. It was an attacking team for the last month so you can’[t claim it wasn’t just because it didn’t work last night…… Your head is buried in the sand, all Walters teams are negative teams to say otherwise is absurd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Great arguement and reasoning you have used there...that's me convinced...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
minstral 5,375 Posted May 14, 2009 Author Share Posted May 14, 2009 Great arguement and reasoning you have used there...that's me convinced...... You will wake up when its to late, happy to watch negative football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbo 588 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 How is Walter to blame? He picked a team last night that had won 7 games on the bounce and players such as Velicka (who didn't show up) had scored a goal in all his games since his return. Walter went with what was working and it was the players that failed to perform. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 The thing is walter smith is defensive minded as a coach, no one is denying it but I need to presume you haven’t bothered watching the last eight games if you are claiming we have a defensive line up…either that or you are incredibly poor at reading a game of football….. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Right_To_Censor 1,951 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 How is Walter to blame? He picked a team last night that had won 7 games on the bounce and players such as Velicka (who didn't show up) had scored a goal in all his games since his return. Walter went with what was working and it was the players that failed to perform. he sat back and watched for 45+ mins of his players hoofing the ball up the park to nobody the changes in the second half where to late because by that time hibs already scored. there for smith is to blame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest therabbitt Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 I can see where you're both coming from with this debate. Walter and his management team could and should have told the players to stop their long ball tactics. It was never going to work against a team sitting so deep and with such a strong tall centre half to mop it up against two strikers that are not the most mobile or strong in the air. So yes, that is negative tactics. However, whether that was Walter's game plan or was the players taking things on themselves to play like that we won't know. The team selection and tactical shape was not negative. It's the same team that has played and won convincingly in recent times playing some impressive football. The selection was not correct, Lafferty should have started in my opinion, but I can see why Smith stuck with a partnership in Boyd and Velicka that was playing well and scoring. I think that what happened last night was that we started off lackadaisically, not one player stepping above the precipice and taking charge. They looked as though they expected the win. When they realised things weren't going to plan, we hadn't scored, we weren't playing well, we didn't look like scoring - they reverted back to desperation tactics of lumping the ball forward. Whether that is Smith's fault is arguable. I will say that I believe it was more to do with the players themselves than the team selection and manager. He should and could have changed it before half time in terms of tactics, but he did so at half time and it worked. We looked a better side and dominated the game. We were very unlucky to not get a winner or indeed win by some 4 goals... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnstoneBear 0 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 You make a very good point minstrel. I, too, am convinced that Walter puts out a team with the sole intention of grinding out a result right from the off instead of having a go and being entertaining at the same time. With the financial predicament our club is in, I can understand that we can't afford the David Villa's or the C. Ronaldo's of this world, but if we can't even coach our players to play in an attacking and entertaining manner, then alot of questions must be asked. Now, I'm going to make a valid point here, so those with a particularly weak stomach, please look away now. Last season, their was a fairly bad fixture pile up for us, I don't put this down to the SFL not doing enough to help us, I put it down to Walter's negative tactics. If you add the games that had to be replayed domestically aswell as the extra time and penalty's that our players went through, then you'll find that it all adds up. Forget entertaining for a moment, but had we attacked teams from the off instead of fearing that we're not good enough to have a go, we could quite possibly be looking to do 2 in a row whilst being the holding champions of the UEFA cup. Stop fearing other teams Walter, stop putting out a team to soak up the pressure and responding with a counter attack, which may or may not work. It's a sad day when ANY Ranger feels they can't match any other team for desire and commitment. We ARE the People. We show it in the stands, YOU show it on the football pitch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
minstral 5,375 Posted May 14, 2009 Author Share Posted May 14, 2009 The thing is walter smith is defensive minded as a coach, no one is denying it but I need to presume you haven’t bothered watching the last eight games if you are claiming we have a defensive line up…either that or you are incredibly poor at reading a game of football….. You really need to go to specsavers if you dont think we play negative football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 I can see where you're both coming from with this debate. Walter and his management team could and should have told the players to stop their long ball tactics. It was never going to work against a team sitting so deep and with such a strong tall centre half to mop it up against two strikers that are not the most mobile or strong in the air. So yes, that is negative tactics. However, whether that was Walter's game plan or was the players taking things on themselves to play like that we won't know. The team selection and tactical shape was not negative. It's the same team that has played and won convincingly in recent times playing some impressive football. The selection was not correct, Lafferty should have started in my opinion, but I can see why Smith stuck with a partnership in Boyd and Velicka that was playing well and scoring. I think that what happened last night was that we started off lackadaisically, not one player stepping above the precipice and taking charge. They looked as though they expected the win. When they realised things weren't going to plan, we hadn't scored, we weren't playing well, we didn't look like scoring - they reverted back to desperation tactics of lumping the ball forward. Whether that is Smith's fault is arguable. I will say that I believe it was more to do with the players themselves than the team selection and manager. He should and could have changed it before half time in terms of tactics, but he did so at half time and it worked. We looked a better side and dominated the game. We were very unlucky to not get a winner or indeed win by some 4 goals... We scored three goals against them two weeks ago with the same tactics, how can they be called defensive ? Should they have been changed, yes of course, and they would have been at h/t which would have been understandable if hibs hadn't scored a wonder goal....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 The thing is walter smith is defensive minded as a coach, no one is denying it but I need to presume you haven’t bothered watching the last eight games if you are claiming we have a defensive line up…either that or you are incredibly poor at reading a game of football….. You really need to go to specsavers if you dont think we play negative football. so you keep saying but you have doen nothign to convince me on this thread you know what you are talking about...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westenclosuregal 0 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Great arguement and reasoning you have used there...that's me convinced...... Any manager worth their salt would not play their 2 slowest forwards against Jones. Walter should have put Novo and Lafferty on from the start. If he thought the high ball would work against Jones then he's just as much of a clown than ever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
minstral 5,375 Posted May 14, 2009 Author Share Posted May 14, 2009 You make a very good point minstrel. I, too, am convinced that Walter puts out a team with the sole intention of grinding out a result right from the off instead of having a go and being entertaining at the same time. With the financial predicament our club is in, I can understand that we can't afford the David Villa's or the C. Ronaldo's of this world, but if we can't even coach our players to play in an attacking and entertaining manner, then alot of questions must be asked. Now, I'm going to make a valid point here, so those with a particularly weak stomach, please look away now. Last season, their was a fairly bad fixture pile up for us, I don't put this down to the SFL not doing enough to help us, I put it down to Walter's negative tactics. If you add the games that had to be replayed domestically aswell as the extra time and penalty's that our players went through, then you'll find that it all adds up. Forget entertaining for a moment, but had we attacked teams from the off instead of fearing that we're not good enough to have a go, we could quite possibly be looking to do 2 in a row whilst being the holding champions of the UEFA cup. Hi mate some are just blind or wont have a word said against walter, some seem to accept that we have went to being the biggest club in Britain to being the second best club in scotland at the moment. Stop fearing other teams Walter, stop putting out a team to soak up the pressure and responding with a counter attack, which may or may not work. It's a sad day when ANY Ranger feels they can't match any other team for desire and commitment. We ARE the People. We show it in the stands, YOU show it on the football pitch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Great arguement and reasoning you have used there...that's me convinced...... Any manager worth their salt would not play their 2 slowest forwards against Jones. Walter should have put Novo and Lafferty on from the start. If he thought the high ball would work against Jones then he's just as much of a clown than ever. What does that even mean ? We scored three goals against them with the same tacics two weeks ago...was jones playing ? Who were the forwards ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanMac 185 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 If we weren't trying to play for a 1-0 why did we sit back in the first half and try to hit on the counter? Please explain GLC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest therabbitt Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 I can see where you're both coming from with this debate. Walter and his management team could and should have told the players to stop their long ball tactics. It was never going to work against a team sitting so deep and with such a strong tall centre half to mop it up against two strikers that are not the most mobile or strong in the air. So yes, that is negative tactics. However, whether that was Walter's game plan or was the players taking things on themselves to play like that we won't know. The team selection and tactical shape was not negative. It's the same team that has played and won convincingly in recent times playing some impressive football. The selection was not correct, Lafferty should have started in my opinion, but I can see why Smith stuck with a partnership in Boyd and Velicka that was playing well and scoring. I think that what happened last night was that we started off lackadaisically, not one player stepping above the precipice and taking charge. They looked as though they expected the win. When they realised things weren't going to plan, we hadn't scored, we weren't playing well, we didn't look like scoring - they reverted back to desperation tactics of lumping the ball forward. Whether that is Smith's fault is arguable. I will say that I believe it was more to do with the players themselves than the team selection and manager. He should and could have changed it before half time in terms of tactics, but he did so at half time and it worked. We looked a better side and dominated the game. We were very unlucky to not get a winner or indeed win by some 4 goals... We scored three goals against them two weeks ago with the same tactics, how can they be called defensive ? Should they have been changed, yes of course, and they would have been at h/t which would have been understandable if hibs hadn't scored a wonder goal....... Yes, exactly. I never said they were negative tactics. Edit - yes I did Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Stars Bearette 1 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 I think he would have used Miller instead of Velicka had he been fit which would have produced a different result last night Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
minstral 5,375 Posted May 14, 2009 Author Share Posted May 14, 2009 The thing is walter smith is defensive minded as a coach, no one is denying it but I need to presume you haven’t bothered watching the last eight games if you are claiming we have a defensive line up…either that or you are incredibly poor at reading a game of football….. You really need to go to specsavers if you dont think we play negative football. so you keep saying but you have doen nothign to convince me on this thread you know what you are talking about...... What about 2 stikers with not a bit of pace between them, but you cant convince people who only see what the want to see. I must speak to different fans from you, i have yet to speak to one who does not think Walters sets out negative teams. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest therabbitt Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 What I was meaning is that the negative tactics that we ended up employing were perhaps not from Walter Smith. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts