The "He can't play 4-3-3, he can only play 4-4-2" thread

[donegal_ger 256]

The problem with the system is not the ability of the players but their discipline to keep a solid team shape, too many of our players are caught out of position most notably the full backs but central to the system is the holding midfielder and we haven't had one in the 18 months or so he's been manager if for example you look at Barcelona whose system we use the holding midfielder Busquets very rarely ventures far from the centre circle and is always between his two centre backs protecting them looking at our holding midfielder we can usually find him on the wing, trying to go beyond the striker or on his arse if someone is challenging him anywhere but where he is meant to be! 

This lack of discipline comes from the management, Thierry Henry talked about the tactical discipline of Pep when he played under him at Barca, Henry was playing as the central striker in the 4-3-3 system we play and Pep wanted him to stay central and not drop off to the left wing like he used to do at Arsenal but in the first half of a match he did that and got a goal then at half time Pep warned him not to do this again and at the start of the second half Henry did it again and scored and Pep immediately subbed him, Henry said he never ignored his instructions again. Does anyone think our manager has it in him to do that if our holding midfielder or full backs are posted missing or our centre forward is nowhere near the box when we are attacking?

[loyalfollower 1,543]

3 minutes ago, donegal_ger said:

The problem with the system is not the ability of the players but their discipline to keep a solid team shape, too many of our players are caught out of position most notably the full backs but central to the system is the holding midfielder and we haven't had one in the 18 months or so he's been manager if for example you look at Barcelona whose system we use the holding midfielder Busquets very rarely ventures far from the centre circle and is always between his two centre backs protecting them looking at our holding midfielder we can usually find him on the wing, trying to go beyond the striker or on his arse if someone is challenging him anywhere but where he is meant to be! 

This lack of discipline comes from the management, Thierry Henry talked about the tactical discipline of Pep when he played under him at Barca, Henry was playing as the central striker in the 4-3-3 system we play and Pep wanted him to stay central and not drop off to the left wing like he used to do at Arsenal but in the first half of a match he did that and got a goal then at half time Pep warned him not to do this again and at the start of the second half Henry did it again and scored and Pep immediately subbed him, Henry said he never ignored his instructions again. Does anyone think our manager has it in him to do that if our holding midfielder or full backs are posted missing or our centre forward is nowhere near the box when we are attacking?

No

[danger ranger 922]

38 minutes ago, George Goudie said:

Garner is just a poor footballer and only good footballers can play as the lone striker for Rangers and do the job well.

A striker can be shit at football as long as he puts the ball in net, often.

[murzo 7,449]

1 hour ago, Ryju84 said:

Instead, we have players who have a dummy leg that does nothing, and constantly CONSTANTLY CONSTANTLY control the ball with their one foot. Opponents can read them like a book...



Was never a problem for this guy and he only used one foot... but had more skill in that foot than our  entire current squad put together. 

[cr3_bear 15,020]

3 hours ago, rangerslion said:

I see this a lot on here for loads of different players. Take Joey Garner for example to pick one of the players. A load of people are under the opinion he's much more suited to a 4-4-2 formation because he plays like a Mark Hateley esque type player. I can see the reasoning to that and it would suit his style of play to have a second striker role in a 4-4-2.

 

But, here's my question. These players are professional footballers, paid X thousand per week, with the best available coaching and resources in the country. Surely they should be able to adapt/change their style to suit different formations and systems and still be capable of putting in a performance worthy of their price tags/valuations/expectations?

The manager is also a professional manager who is paid thousands of pound a week . begging the question why on earth is he so reluctant to change a system which clearly is not working .

[JCDBigBear 10,863]

3 hours ago, rangerslion said:

I see this a lot on here for loads of different players. Take Joey Garner for example to pick one of the players. A load of people are under the opinion he's much more suited to a 4-4-2 formation because he plays like a Mark Hateley esque type player. I can see the reasoning to that and it would suit his style of play to have a second striker role in a 4-4-2.

 

But, here's my question. These players are professional footballers, paid X thousand per week, with the best available coaching and resources in the country. Surely they should be able to adapt/change their style to suit different formations and systems and still be capable of putting in a performance worthy of their price tags/valuations/expectations?

But we don't have good players, that is part of the problem and the other part is a manager who won't change his formation to suit the way our average players can actually play.     

[JCDBigBear 10,863]

1 hour ago, donegal_ger said:

The problem with the system is not the ability of the players but their discipline to keep a solid team shape, too many of our players are caught out of position most notably the full backs but central to the system is the holding midfielder and we haven't had one in the 18 months or so he's been manager if for example you look at Barcelona whose system we use the holding midfielder Busquets very rarely ventures far from the centre circle and is always between his two centre backs protecting them looking at our holding midfielder we can usually find him on the wing, trying to go beyond the striker or on his arse if someone is challenging him anywhere but where he is meant to be! 

This lack of discipline comes from the management, Thierry Henry talked about the tactical discipline of Pep when he played under him at Barca, Henry was playing as the central striker in the 4-3-3 system we play and Pep wanted him to stay central and not drop off to the left wing like he used to do at Arsenal but in the first half of a match he did that and got a goal then at half time Pep warned him not to do this again and at the start of the second half Henry did it again and scored and Pep immediately subbed him, Henry said he never ignored his instructions again. Does anyone think our manager has it in him to do that if our holding midfielder or full backs are posted missing or our centre forward is nowhere near the box when we are attacking?

If our striker scored twice in a game by ignoring the manager, I'd get rid of the manager.

[Big Al 55 9,311]

3 hours ago, rangerslion said:

I see this a lot on here for loads of different players. Take Joey Garner for example to pick one of the players. A load of people are under the opinion he's much more suited to a 4-4-2 formation because he plays like a Mark Hateley esque type player. I can see the reasoning to that and it would suit his style of play to have a second striker role in a 4-4-2.

 

But, here's my question. These players are professional footballers, paid X thousand per week, with the best available coaching and resources in the country. Surely they should be able to adapt/change their style to suit different formations and systems and still be capable of putting in a performance worthy of their price tags/valuations/expectations?

If they were good players yes. 

If you had limited time to build a team would you buy a player who fitted your intended formation or spunk £1.8m on one, in the hope you could train him to be successful in a different formation?

[6superbarry6 14,245]

4 hours ago, rangerslion said:

I see this a lot on here for loads of different players. Take Joey Garner for example to pick one of the players. A load of people are under the opinion he's much more suited to a 4-4-2 formation because he plays like a Mark Hateley esque type player. I can see the reasoning to that and it would suit his style of play to have a second striker role in a 4-4-2.

 

But, here's my question. These players are professional footballers, paid X thousand per week, with the best available coaching and resources in the country. Surely they should be able to adapt/change their style to suit different formations and systems and still be capable of putting in a performance worthy of their price tags/valuations/expectations?

Or how about signing players to suit the system we play or how about changing our system to suit our players rather than being stubborn and blinkered just a thought like,Warburton reminds me of a Lidl Arsene Wenger with his stubbornness and unfounded arrogance tbh

[the_r_sole 366]

You can force players to play a formation or position that doesn't suit their ability - or you could adapt your style and formation to exploit the ability within your playing squad.

When you don't have brilliant all round players the way to get the most out of them is to play to their strengths.

Until we have all the players to work a 433 system I think we need to adapt to use the players we have.

It's very clear that garner for example, doesn't suit the role as the central striker in a 433 as there is no one getting near him to take a knock down, while he is good at challenging in the air, he isn't the best at taking the ball to feet and making cute passes, so why bother to give him a role where he can't use his strongest attributes.

It's not necessarily saying we need to play 442 it's just saying that every game and/or opposition might need an adapted system to make the best use of the players we have against the opposition

[Hutton2008 646]

3 hours ago, George Goudie said:

Garner is just a poor footballer and only good footballers can play as the lone striker for Rangers and do the job well.

What did he score last season in the English championship- like 6 goals in 40 odd games. 

He gets stuck in, wears his heart on his sleeve yada yada yada - that's not good enough. Especially for the better part of £2m. 

People need to wake up and smell the coffee - he's wrank. No evidence to the contrary 

[weehank 41]

5 hours ago, Captain Hilts said:

Is this an official thread?

Lack of ****** indicates it's unofficial 

[DennyBlueNose 652]

5 hours ago, Lance1697 said:

Its worse than that though....if Warburton came in yesterday for his first day and tried to shoehorn those players into a certain formation i'd have sympathy for him and for the players, he's set in his ways and his has beliefs..

It's worse because he's signed most of the squad to play his formation, when clearly some of them just don't fit it in the slightest, Garner being 1 example, Tav another

I agree with your points but I actually think tav suits this style, most of your best attacking fullbacks have questions over their defensive abilities. The problem is when you play that style it inevitably leaves holes that a deep sitting midfielder or centre back should fill and cover, but either they're missing in action or scared to put the boot in so we leak goals and will continue to leak goals until something changes. 

[DennyBlueNose 652]

1 hour ago, 6superbarry6 said:

Or how about signing players to suit the system we play or how about changing our system to suit our players rather than being stubborn and blinkered just a thought like,Warburton reminds me of a Lidl Arsene Wenger with his stubbornness and unfounded arrogance tbh

Tbf Arsene did take a team unbeaten through an entire PL season so he's earned his arrogance in my eyes 

[6superbarry6 14,245]

4 minutes ago, DennyBlueNose said:

Tbf Arsene did take a team unbeaten through an entire PL season so he's earned his arrogance in my eyes 

Yeah fair dos I'm talking more of the recent Wenger rather than the successful one he's still a cock tho successful or not ?

[DennyBlueNose 652]

4 minutes ago, 6superbarry6 said:

Yeah fair dos I'm talking more of the recent Wenger rather than the successful one he's still a cock tho successful or not ?

Aye he's nuts, I think it was Mourinho who broke him. I remember during his first spell at Chelsea they had the mind games thing going on in the media and he looked like he'd cracked, never been the same since. 

[6superbarry6 14,245]

5 minutes ago, DennyBlueNose said:

Aye he's nuts, I think it was Mourinho who broke him. I remember during his first spell at Chelsea they had the mind games thing going on in the media and he looked like he'd cracked, never been the same since. 

His own stubbornness is his downfall everycunt and their dog has said for years they need a strong CB and dcm and he tries to play perfect football often with no end product,remind you of anyone ? difference is we don't have world class talent like  Alexis Sanchez to pull us out the shire when we're dire 

[MasterD 7,446]

4 hours ago, JCDBigBear said:

If our striker scored twice in a game by ignoring the manager, I'd get rid of the manager.

Remember when Billy King scored a goal and Warburton said something along the lines of it was a good finish but he shouldn't even have been in that position.

The guy on the left of a supposed front 3 wasn't supposed to be in the box when our RB was crossing the ball.

[GWR1979 1,987]

8 hours ago, rangerslion said:

I see this a lot on here for loads of different players. Take Joey Garner for example to pick one of the players. A load of people are under the opinion he's much more suited to a 4-4-2 formation because he plays like a Mark Hateley esque type player. I can see the reasoning to that and it would suit his style of play to have a second striker role in a 4-4-2.

 

But, here's my question. These players are professional footballers, paid X thousand per week, with the best available coaching and resources in the country. Surely they should be able to adapt/change their style to suit different formations and systems and still be capable of putting in a performance worthy of their price tags/valuations/expectations?

Joe Garner honest pro that he is nothing like Hately who was class.

 

[AllyJ92 0]

19 hours ago, rangerslion said:

I see this a lot on here for loads of different players. Take Joey Garner for example to pick one of the players. A load of people are under the opinion he's much more suited to a 4-4-2 formation because he plays like a Mark Hateley esque type player. I can see the reasoning to that and it would suit his style of play to have a second striker role in a 4-4-2.

 

But, here's my question. These players are professional footballers, paid X thousand per week, with the best available coaching and resources in the country. Surely they should be able to adapt/change their style to suit different formations and systems and still be capable of putting in a performance worthy of their price tags/valuations/expectations?

I couldn't agree more. A player who is valued at roughly 1.7m scores 3 goals in what is in all honesty a mediocre league. It's not as if he hadn't had chances in the team or even the supply I have lost count the amount of times he has missed the target from within the 18yd box and for a striker at rangers that just isn't good enough. And Wether he plays in a 4-3-3 or a 4-4-2 these chances are all the same.