theiconicman 3,120 Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I'll start by saying that I'm no great tactician - even Football Manager tactics baffle me, however last night where I was sitting it seemed like we were playing a 4-3-3 for most of the nightAlexanderArgyriou Cribari Bocanegra WallaceBlack Faure MacleodLittle Jig ShielsOur defence, mostly, looked a lot more settled last night and that had a lot to do with the work rate of Black, Faure and Macleod closing down Falkirk as soon as we lost possession, aided by Shiels and Little occasionally. It was good to see.I felt the only thing we lacked was use of the wings. Wallace/ Argyrio did get forward sometimes but I felt we could have used it more. There were plenty of times a long diagonal would have broken us free, not sure if anyone other than young Macleod can do it though.So for all the tacticians out there, what were your thoughts? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No.12 508 Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Didn't see the game last night, but I'd say that's a good formation to have defensively, and when being in a attacking position, Wallace moving forward into a 3-4-3 would be highly effective. I think anyway.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theiconicman 3,120 Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 Didn't see the game last night, but I'd say that's a good formation to have defensively, and when being in a attacking position, Wallace moving forward into a 3-4-3 would be highly effective. I think anyway....Wallace and Argyriou played more as wingbacks as Falkirk only had the 1 forward (who did nothing but foul all night). It wasn't a flat back 4 but it worked as our 3 midfielders were alert to any runs and meant Cribari and Bocanegra rarely were outnumbered or out of position. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alandRFC 1 Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Most formations will work if the work ethic and attitude is there imo, the players knew they had to improve.I'd be happy for the old 442 with two wide men, Rangers have always been good when they get it down and pass it but it has to start with the keeper. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
donegal_ger 271 Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Looked like a 4-4-2 to me last night with Little and McLeod wide and Faure and Black in the middle with Shiels just off McCulloch. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertkay 39 Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 For me it moved between 4-3-3 (4-2-3-1) and 4-4-2 for most of the night which worked very well.Shiels has been given a free role by the looks of things and depending on his positioning the rest of the team take shape from there. (from middle to front).It certainly started as a flat four at the back but as someone mentioned, the less they posed a threat the more our fullbacks pushed on, which again altered the shape middle to front.I like 4-3-3 and would like it to be our formation, primarily because we have the players for it. 3 at the back will never make me feel comfortable and it just lends itself to Alexander punting it up that park. With 3 in the middle we should never be outnumbered in our first 2 thirds and the 3 up top stretches their back line and pushes back their fullbacks.Just my views on it, but definitely would love 4-3-3, or a variation of it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theiconicman 3,120 Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 For me it moved between 4-3-3 (4-2-3-1) and 4-4-2 for most of the night which worked very well.Shiels has been given a free role by the looks of things and depending on his positioning the rest of the team take shape from there. (from middle to front).It certainly started as a flat four at the back but as someone mentioned, the less they posed a threat the more our fullbacks pushed on, which again altered the shape middle to front.I like 4-3-3 and would like it to be our formation, primarily because we have the players for it. 3 at the back will never make me feel comfortable and it just lends itself to Alexander punting it up that park. With 3 in the middle we should never be outnumbered in our first 2 thirds and the 3 up top stretches their back line and pushes back their fullbacks.Just my views on it, but definitely would love 4-3-3, or a variation of it.Yes, I'd agree the shape was a lot more fluid and certainly worked, as someone said, as long as the players chase down and work hard we'll do well.It was nice to see our possession against Falkirk (a team known for possession play) was 57% last night. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.