3-4-3 or 3-5-2? Ally goes back to 3-5-2 to beat The Shire

[bluenose_72 198]

After a frustrating start to life in Division Three up at Peterhead, Ally McCoist’s men picked up their first win in a convincing 5-1 victory over East Stirlingshire. One of the most talked about things from the game at Balmoor was the formation that McCoist used. He started with a 3-4-3, which had promise, but in the end failed to get the win many expected.

Throughout the game the defence struggled to cope with the pressure put on them by Peterhead’s front two and the Rangers midfield failed to boss the game. One of the main reasons for this was the long ball tactic used. For most of the game the back three were sending long balls up to Lee McCulloch, which rarely worked. We have two midfielders in Lewis MacLeod and Ian Black who can both pass and control the tempo of a game. They shouldn’t have been bypassed and by doing this the two wide midfielders were left alienated. When using the 3-4-3 it is important to get the roles correct. The two central midfielders should have been playing as deep lying midfielders and the two wide midfielders as wing backs. By not doing this the defence were left exposed on more than one occasion and Rangers were made to pay.

The size of the pitch at most Division 3 sides is on the small side to say the least. This might take a bit of time to get used to but McCoist must adapt a formation to suit the surroundings. I’d go for a narrow diamond midfield away from home, similar to what was used at Brechin. Broadfoot and Wallace were used as one of the main outlets that day and it worked well with Wallace picking up the man of the match award.

But of course at Ibrox we have that big pitch which most of the Third Division aren’t used to and we used that to great effect yesterday. Ally changed the formation back to the 3-5-2 that was used towards the end of last season and we seen a much different performance to that against Peterhead.

Aside from a shaky start at the back, the defence looked a bit more assured and they used the ball better than they did against Peterhead. The main reason for this was the midfield that saw Lee McCulloch start there after starting the season up front. Having that extra man in the midfield made all the difference. The defence had the option of the short pass to start an attack with all three central midfielders taking turns to drop deep. There was no need to use the long ball when the defence had a midfielder standing in space to pass the ball to. They would also rotate between the three of them who would join the attack. Two would attack while one stayed back to protect the defence in case of a counter attack. We seen the advantages of this as Ian Black and Lee McCulloch both had chances before McCulloch scored late on.

Having that extra man in midfield also gave license to Lee Wallace and Andy Little to get forward and they seen much more of the ball than they did at Peterhead. Lewis MacLeod was able to expose the width of the pitch as he continued to show his range of passing with some great cross-field passes to Andy Little.

Last season Sone Aluko was terrific after he arrived on a free transfer. Usually a winger, Aluko found himself to be most effective playing just off the striker in a position that more often than not is impossible to mark. With McCoist going back to that formation we seen just how effective Barrie McKay can be. After coming on as a substitute after Dean Shiels went off injured he was arguably the man of the match. Like Aluko, he has great pace and skill and when he is running at the opposition from deep they struggle to cope with him. Last week at Peterhead I felt he was restricted playing just off McCulloch alongside Shiels, but yesterday he had a lot more freedom in that role. Even when he took over Andy Little’s role as a wing back he played well, creating a goal for Lee McCulloch in the process. His versatility will see him play a big role in Ally McCoist’s team this season but I think we seen yesterday his best role is playing off the striker.

So despite a bad start yesterday Ally McCoist got the formation right. The Ibrox pitch was used wisely as we exposed the width, but having that extra man in midfield we were able to keep the ball and bring everyone into play. The 3-4-3 has potential but should we change from the 3-5-2 that has worked so well for us? We have the players who fit into it perfectly and I’d be reluctant to alter it.

http://rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=886:the-chalkboard-assessing-mccoists-3-4-3-formation&catid=150:sfl&Itemid=515

[SwallowsHisOwnSpunk 7,926]

not a fan of the formation the only reason we play it is to fit the more experienced players into the team. The most important thing is that we don't just boot the ball up but keep it on the ground Ally really needs to ditch the long ball tactics the 3rd division players eat those balls up they struggle with actually footballing ability hammer throwers are not needed. I still feel we need an out and out winger with pace and skill as it's unfair to rely on McKay as he is only 17 and as you say he is better off the front man.

I would get rid of Goian and Bocanegra as it's obvious they don't want to be here their heart isn't in it and they are both on 15kpw plus I would then sign the French defender and another fullback perhaps the Greek Anestis Argyriou if he is any good. The formation I would play would be a 4-3-3 or a 4-4-2.

Alexander

Broadfoot Perry Cribari Wallace

Black McCulloch Shiels

Little Sandaza McKay

or

Alexander

Broadfoot Perry Cribari Wallace

McKay Black Shiels (New Winger)

Little Sandaza

with Sebastien Faure, Anestis Argiriou, Darren Cole, Chris Hegarty, Kamil Wiktorski, Kyle Hutton, Lewis McLeod, Robbie Crawford, Kal Naismith, Kane Hemmings, Kevin Kyle as backup or pushing for a place in the 1st team.

[bluenose_72 198]

I don't want to see us play 4-4-2 TBH. If we are going to play 4 at the back then I'd like to see a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1.

Ally seems to like 3 at the back so if he isn't for altering that then I am happy to play 3-5-2 that was actually a 3-3-4 at some points yesterday.

[markybear 136]

On sat I thought we looked soft or bare at the back, a better team would have scored a few in the 1st 20mins.

The 3 defenders looked unsure as to whom should go for certain balls or certain attackers.

With 4 in defense we are much more solid and lee Wallace can still bomb up the wing anyway.

Not a fan of the 3 at the back at all

[bluenose_72 198]

I thought the defence improved as the game went on but then again they weren't up against much. It will be interesting to see how they do against Falkirk. They're obviously a better team than East Stirling so should test them more and if the 3 of them aren't up to it then we need to ship them out.

[jamess 3,453]

A half decent team is going to kill us with 3 at the back (well this 3). 4 at the back, don't give away easy goals, and our quality will always give a few goals. But at least we have the luxury of time to experiment.

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,043]

3-5-2 is the way to go as ive said before, but you need guys that are interested

Bocanegra would be the sweeper for us if he could be arsed or was playing well, then you just need 2 centre halves that go an attack everything flung at them

Im not a fan of mcculloch as holding midfielder as he is too slow, the holding midfielder needs to cover massive amounts of ground to drop back and help the back 3, or to get out wide again to help the back 3

However the central core of the team is solid as fuck with a 3-5-2, and that can make the difference in ames

[Albertz123 598]

Who was trying to tell me we had been playing 4 at the back last night?

[A.T.G 10,773]

Whats wrong with 4-4-2 ?

Anyway, bring on wee Gers

[GWR1979 2,012]

I thought we were shocking for the first 20 minutes yesterday, when we get the ball on the deck our quality shows.

The secound half was much better, I hope we can keep the ball on the deck against Falkirk.

[achaleven 38]

Three at the back in this league should be the way to go however to play that formation you need the right defenders that are comfortable defending that way. Too often yesterday the back 3 ended up as a back 2. Reason for this I think was that Kirk likes to bomb forward as a wing back. Now I'm not knocking him because although I'm not a fan I thought he did alright. Just that i don't think he looks comfortable in a three and would be happier in a back 4. It looks like Ally will stick with this formation and hopefully the players will adapt but I fear if we come up against a better quality side we may be opened up too easily and he will have to revert to a four.

[MillwallLoyal 284]

Being an old centre back, playing 3 at the back was great if you had 2 like-minded players with football brains.

If they're just lug-heeds with 1.5 cells between them then it'll never work.

A thinking footballer will always make 3-5-2 work. Or to be more precise, 3-5-2 or 3-4-1-2 if you have a Barrie McKay in the hole ;-)

[nachothelegend 1,932]

4-2-3-1 is the way for me especialy at Ibrox .

Its more suited to our players and gives our midfield and defence a bit of a breather at times.

I lnow Ally is trying to break down compact defences , but Peterhead exploited our back 3 and where picking our defence of at times.

Same as Brechin both Teams ran the chanels well and where quite sucessfull.

I say a back 4 and keep tjat Ball down and play patient posesion Football.

Andy little and young Mckay can hurt them.

And our midfield can cjamge from attack to defence quicker witj 4-2-3-1

And we need a winger big time.

[skinnymate1690 666]

the problem is we arent playing that formation correctly imo. for the majority of the game on saturday it wasnt 3 CB's it looked like a lb cb and rb because they were that far apart and we will get caught out by better teams if we continue like that. i dont like the formation personally and especially not away from home judging on the last 2 games.

if it doesnt work against falkirk then ally should change it

[MillwallLoyal 284]

4-2-3-1 is the way for me especialy at Ibrox .

Its more suited to our players and gives our midfield and defence a bit of a breather at times.

I lnow Ally is trying to break down compact defences , but Peterhead exploited our back 3 and where picking our defence of at times.

Same as Brechin both Teams ran the chanels well and where quite sucessfull.

I say a back 4 and keep tjat Ball down and play patient posesion Football.

Andy little and young Mckay can hurt them.

And our midfield can cjamge from attack to defence quicker witj 4-2-3-1

And we need a winger big time.

The squad we have I would go either with a 4-3-1-2 or a 3-4-1-2.

I honestly think wingers are very over-rated these days, unless you unearth an exceptional one.

And then he's only exceptional for one season until the hatchet men cotton on.

Much better to conquer using exceptional tactics, ie the diamond midfield against certain teams, 3-4-1-2 against others.

[southcoastbear 1,639]

With both Wallace and Broadfoot apparent preferance for playing as wing backs surely we would be crazy not to play to their strengths and play 5,3,2/3,5,2 . Also this solves the problem of where else would we get the width from due to our shortage of genuine wide players.

We also have the players to vary the level of attack from the 3 midfielders from playing shiels and mckay with black or perhaps mitchell and hutton should we require a more defensive set up in the cup competitions.

I still think we need a few more signings though some as cover for the likes of black who by the very nature of the position will get into trouble on a points basis let alone his ability to attract cards like few others. We also need some wide players either wing backs or out and out wingers and it would be a sad day to see a rangers team without wingers after rich history we have of players in that particular position.

[TMB 14,167]

Three at the back in this league should be the way to go however to play that formation you need the right defenders that are comfortable defending that way. Too often yesterday the back 3 ended up as a back 2. Reason for this I think was that Kirk likes to bomb forward as a wing back. Now I'm not knocking him because although I'm not a fan I thought he did alright. Just that i don't think he looks comfortable in a three and would be happier in a back 4. It looks like Ally will stick with this formation and hopefully the players will adapt but I fear if we come up against a better quality side we may be opened up too easily and he will have to revert to a four.

Broadfoot is good going forward, against East Stirling(shire) he put in a great cross for a goal and should have won a penalty in the second half. However, if you're playing three at the back then you need them all to stay back with defense being their main priority. Ally should be telling Broadfoot to stay back at all times but I don't think that's in Broadfoot's nature. If Perry or Cribari was brought in for Broadfoot then that system might look a lot stronger. Cribari looked solid when he came on he's good in the air and comfortable passing the ball about a bit.

If the system is to be a 3-5-2 then Broadfoot and Wallace would be best place either side of that midfield as both are comfortable in defense and going forward. Two holding midfielders and a central attacking midfielder and we'd be sorted. Up front Little should always be picked because he provides the movement the others don't.

Alexander

Perry Goian Cribari

Broadfoot Black Sheils/MacKay McCulloch Wallace

Sandaza Little

[BlueSuedeSambas 54,644]

I'm still not overly keen on a back three/five.

[OLE SUPER WILBERT 2,475]

This is how I'd line up:

Alexander

Broadfoot Perry Bocanegra Wallace

Black Macleod

Little Shiels McKay

McCulloch