The REAL problem with the motherwell game!

[Del 667]

Was anyone else a bit annoyed that Smith changed formation?

When i seen the team he was playing i thought that it would have been the 4-3-3/4-5-1 with Rothen and Miller out wide and Boyd in the middle. Instead it was a flat normal 4-4-2.

Its also worth noting that we were much more of a threat when Naisy and Novo came on and we changed back to the 4-3-3/4-5-1.

Ive seen in other threads Boyd getting stick, McCulloch getting slagged everything but noone has mentioned the formation! (Maybe they have and ive missed it, if so sorry)

4-3-3/4-5-1 is the formation of modern day football imo and we actually play it well now we have some pace out wide and we have scored a lot of goals in recent games playing that style as well.

Its pretty certain that against Stuttgart on Wed we will play 4-3-3/4-5-1 so why change it for Motherwell? I could see the logic if we thought that 4-4-2 was more attacking and that we could maybe have got a few more chances but we were playing really well before at the back and up top!

Anyone got any thoughts?

[papaguy51 912]

I am building up to a large post on this in the next few days Del, much in the same vein as this.

[Muff 245]

I hate the 4-4-2 formation, especially away from home, and when McCulloch is in the middle of the park.

I think we'll continue to see it, especially with Davis out on the right, and Rothen out on the left, and it just does not work.

4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-5-1....is the way to play, depending on the opposition, but even with that, our manager then has to get the personnel right.

[Del 667]

I will look forward to it mate!

I just dont see the advantages 4-4-2 could have given us that 4-3-3/4-5-1 didnt.

[Garry88 0]

While I would also like to see us play 433, we didn't change our formation for the motherwell game. We played 442 against falkirk and hamilton as well.

[Del 667]

I hate the 4-4-2 formation, especially away from home, and when McCulloch is in the middle of the park.

I think we'll continue to see it, especially with Davis out on the right, and Rothen out on the left, and it just does not work.

4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-5-1....is the way to play, depending on the opposition, but even with that, our manager then has to get the personnel right.

I agree mate and if you look at the personnel we have then surely 4-3-3/4-5-1 is the way to play?

We only have Rothen who actually play LM and we dont have any natural RM's, so that pretty much means that 4-4-2 is relying on people like Lafferty/Naisy etc playing LM. At least in a 4-3-3/4-5-1 they are still forwards.

4-3-3 means that we can use a sitting midfielder, Edu/McCulloch/Thomson, to sit back and not get involved much apart from playing simple passes and putting some tackles in, and if im honest i thought McCulloch done pretty well at it in the past few games.

It also means that we can play Davis/Mendes/Edu/Thomson in the other CM positions and means that we have plenty of cover for injuries and suspensions.

[Boab 73]

I am building up to a large post on this in the next few days Del, much in the same vein as this.

*Hint, you've spoiled mine now*

[Muff 245]

I knew we'd resort back to this awful 4-4-2 formation. It's absolutely terrible. Davis is wasted out on the right, McCulloch leaves far too many gaps in the middle of the park, and Mendes goes hiding for far too long.

[Del 667]

While I would also like to see us play 433, we didn't change our formation for the motherwell game. We played 442 against falkirk and hamilton as well.

Maybe it was the way we played that made me think different then but in both those games Fleck and Naisy were up with the other strikers and it seemed like a 4-3-3/4-5-1 to me.

[papaguy51 912]

We give the SPL dross far too much respect.

[50ShadesofBlue 667]

Motherwell's pitch is small which meant there was little room for wing play so the 442 option made sense as most of the play would have to come through the middle. I just wish he hooked Boyd off instead of Miller. Boyd was crap and in close quarters play you need skillful players, something Boyd isn't. At least Miller can go on a through mazey runs now and again.

It would of made more sense to take off Boyd, replacing him with Naismith and sub McCulloch and put on Thomo.

[Garry88 0]

While I would also like to see us play 433, we didn't change our formation for the motherwell game. We played 442 against falkirk and hamilton as well.

Maybe it was the way we played that made me think different then but in both those games Fleck and Naisy were up with the other strikers and it seemed like a 4-3-3/4-5-1 to me.

Our movement was generally better in those games, so I can understand you're point, also that rothen and davis were sitting much deeper than our wide players in previous games (as much as I like davis, it infuriates me when he's sitting deeper than our centre backs), but the only competitive game we've played 451 in was hearts, and that lasted about 13 mins. We'll see a 451 on wednesday i'm sure

[markybear 136]

after goin 2c the man city friendly i thot y the hell would walter want 2 play 442 anymore?

the link up play, the movement as well as having an extra defending body, it just seemed 2

work really well.man city really struggled with us at times, i think now havin rothen, he

should play wide left of the 5 and we shud play 433 attackin and 451 wen the opposition hav the ball.

this will give papac more cover wen defending down the left cos it doesnt look like rothen has the legs

2 give papac cover, 442 is outdated, 433 is the way fwd

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

I am building up to a large post on this in the next few days Del, much in the same vein as this.

If your no fast your last!

[Amac9 2,060]

4-4-2 can only be played with two wide men and we don't have them. We play Davis (a CM) there and we have played the likes of Lafferty, Smith, Naismith, Novo, Fleck out of position on the left to fill that void.

Now that Rothen has come in we expect him to play LW but he is not an out and out winger. He, like Davis, will tuck in which leaves us far too narrow in the middle which puts even more pressure and initiative on the full backs to push forward and give that width.

We have to play 4-3-3 as it is the only formation that allows us to utilise the players we have. A middle-attack of this would be ideal IMO;

Davis Thomson/Edu Mendes

Naismith Lafferty Novo/Rothen

[Zappa 358]

I am building up to a large post on this in the next few days Del, much in the same vein as this.

*Hint, you've spoiled mine now*

If his use of the English language is better than that used in the Kenny Miller article, it's all good!!

[Muff 245]

Absolutely no pressure on the opposition when they are in possession.

We sit far too deep, and invite the opposition on to us.

Very little movement off the ball. No rhythm, very little pace, no drive, desire, flair....

Massive gaps between our midfield and strikers - we resort and rely on long balls up the park on too many occassions.

Poor ball retention.

No plan B.

2nd best for too long. Out-fought, and out-thought at times.

Tactically, we were a shambles.

[LegendofCoop 17,453]

after goin 2c the man city friendly i thot y the hell would walter want 2 play 442 anymore?

the link up play, the movement as well as having an extra defending body, it just seemed 2

work really well.man city really struggled with us at times, i think now havin rothen, he

should play wide left of the 5 and we shud play 433 attackin and 451 wen the opposition hav the ball.

this will give papac more cover wen defending down the left cos it doesnt look like rothen has the legs

2 give papac cover, 442 is outdated, 433 is the way fwd

I'm beginning to genuinely believe that Smith doesn't really pay any attention to friendlies....and only uses them as a means to give the players a run out. This is fine obviously.....so long as you have a good old plan B!

We were playing some really good stuff in the pre-season games by all account. The minute the SPL stars, were back to same old, same old!

[Zappa 358]

Absolutely no pressure on the opposition when they are in possession.

We sit far too deep, and invite the opposition on to us.

Very little movement off the ball. No rhythm, very little pace, no drive, desire, flair....

Massive gaps between our midfield and strikers - we resort and rely on long balls up the park on too many occassions.

Poor ball retention.

No plan B.

2nd best for too long. Out-fought, and out-thought at times.

Tactically, we were a shambles.

I mostly agree with you, but I'd add that Motherwell are looking much better this season & yesterday they looked good enough to get at least a point from any SPL team at Firpark!!

[Muff 245]

Didn't look too good against both Aberdeen and St. Johnstone, from what I saw, and read. They, like everyone, raise their game when it comes to the Old Firm at their own place.

McGregor, Whittaker, Bougherra, Papac, Davis, Mendes, Rothen, Boyd....should be far too strong for sides like Motherwell - home or away.

It was the same old Rangers performances, and, poor management, along with a piss-poor attitude.

[Charliebluenose1 0]

Motherwell have always been a problem team for us

When they came to Ibrox, especially under TB they played their socks off,

The junior teams always play for the scalp of the ' old firm ' and we must appreciate that

They played well, we need to learn that we cannot allow this to happen anymore

it should be No Surrender to all opposition.....

[Zappa 358]

Didn't look too good against both Aberdeen and St. Johnstone, from what I saw, and read.

They took 2 draws & 2 points from those 2 away games though!!

[markybear 136]

after goin 2c the man city friendly i thot y the hell would walter want 2 play 442 anymore?

the link up play, the movement as well as having an extra defending body, it just seemed 2

work really well.man city really struggled with us at times, i think now havin rothen, he

should play wide left of the 5 and we shud play 433 attackin and 451 wen the opposition hav the ball.

this will give papac more cover wen defending down the left cos it doesnt look like rothen has the legs

2 give papac cover, 442 is outdated, 433 is the way fwd

I'm beginning to genuinely believe that Smith doesn't really pay any attention to friendlies....and only uses them as a means to give the players a run out. This is fine obviously.....so long as you have a good old plan B!

We were playing some really good stuff in the pre-season games by all account. The minute the SPL stars, were back to same old, same old!

cudnt agree more matey

[Creampuff 22,628]

I thought our biggest problem was that we didn't score

[Muff 245]

Nothing special tbh. Aberdeen are absolutely rotten, and St. Johnstone are not much better.

We made Motherwell look a decent side. If you were a neutral, you would hardly know what ones were the Champions, and competing in the Champions League, and what ones were fighting it out for a top 6 place in one of thje worst leagues in World football.