Jump to content

How Should Walter set up the team?


Columbo

What formation should be used at Parkhead?  

136 members have voted

  1. 1. 4-4-2? 4-5-1? 4-3-3?

    • 4-5-1
      44
    • 4-4-2
      66
    • 4-3-3
      26
    • other
      0


Recommended Posts

i think lafferty will play upfront, on his own

personally i do not know what he has done to justify his selection

but if he is replacing boyd or miller - that will be good enough for some on here

i hope he does well , because we need a result

Lafferty's got 5 goals in 8 starts, and I'd be willing to bet if you counted his time played as a striker he'd have more goals per minute than Boyd. He rescued a point for us at Tannadice with a great composed finish. As recently as last weekend we were struggling to get through Dundee Utd's defence, Lafferty replaces Boyd and scores 2 (even if one was wrongly disallowed).

Nah, he's done nothing to justify his selection at all :rolleyes:

you supply stats to back your argument

but 23 goals in 24 games against 5 goals in 8 games , there is no arguement who should start, based on goals

but lafferty must play?

as i said as long as he is replacing boyd , people like you are happy

i hope it works out for us , because for me the most important thing is , rangers winning

not that boyd must not play

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

you supply stats to back your argument

but 23 goals in 24 games against 5 goals in 8 games , there is no arguement who should start, based on goals

but lafferty must play?

as i said as long as he is replacing boyd , people like you are happy

i hope it works out for us , because for me the most important thing is , rangers winning

not that boyd must not play

Boyd's form (goal scoring or otherwise) has been pretty awful for the past few games, whereas Lafferty has played well whenever he's been given a chance up front. On current form Lafferty should be selected over Boyd.

If we're going to pick based on number of goals instead of current form then let's have McCoist up front on Sunday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you supply stats to back your argument

but 23 goals in 24 games against 5 goals in 8 games , there is no arguement who should start, based on goals

but lafferty must play?

as i said as long as he is replacing boyd , people like you are happy

i hope it works out for us , because for me the most important thing is , rangers winning

not that boyd must not play

Boyd's form (goal scoring or otherwise) has been pretty awful for the past few games, whereas Lafferty has played well whenever he's been given a chance up front. On current form Lafferty should be selected over Boyd.

If we're going to pick based on number of goals instead of current form then let's have McCoist up front on Sunday.

ha ha , great point , really adds to your credibility on your arguement, lafferty has played well , when was that? in a training game against milan , what is his current form? as i am not aware he has played very often recently

as i said as long as he replaces boyd , people like you are happy

i have no problems with him playing , but too suggest he is playing well and deserves to play before boyd because of his form is laughable in my opinion

if he plays good luck to him , every rangers player gets my support when they play

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe you're suggesting I'd be happy as long as Boyd doesn't play. Don't even know where to begin with that.

On a related note, I'm looking forward to Sunday so I can wear my Rangers top with a picture of Lafferty celebrating on the front and Boyd sitting on the bench crying on the back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe you're suggesting I'd be happy as long as Boyd doesn't play. Don't even know where to begin with that.

On a related note, I'm looking forward to wearing my Rangers top with a picture of Lafferty celebrating on the front and Boyd crying on the back on Sunday.

excellent , i hope you enjoy it , i must try and get one , if they ever catch on

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm dismayed by the amount of posters saying 4-5-1. Who would be the 1? Miller? FFS! :2gunsfiring_v1:

4-4-2 all the way (as for it being out of date, well, thats just pish).

No, it'd be Lafferty given that's his natural position and his pretty impressive goals/minutes ratio.

Ok then, go and show me a successful team at the moment that play a basic 4-4-2.

Man Utd? No.

Liverpool? No.

AC? No.

Inter? No.

Barca? No.

Lyon? No.

If you think the 4-4-2 is still the 'fashionable formation' then you're so, so wrong and I can only assume you don't watch anything but the SPL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm dismayed by the amount of posters saying 4-5-1. Who would be the 1? Miller? FFS! :2gunsfiring_v1:

4-4-2 all the way (as for it being out of date, well, thats just pish).

No, it'd be Lafferty given that's his natural position and his pretty impressive goals/minutes ratio.

Ok then, go and show me a successful team at the moment that play a basic 4-4-2.

Man Utd? No.

Liverpool? No.

AC? No.

Inter? No.

Barca? No.

Lyon? No.

If you think the 4-4-2 is still the 'fashionable formation' then you're so, so wrong and I can only assume you don't watch anything but the SPL.

are you an expert because you watch football on TV in different countries

the difference between us and all of these teams is they have the personnel to play that formation, we do not

but in fantasy football anything is possible

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm dismayed by the amount of posters saying 4-5-1. Who would be the 1? Miller? FFS! :2gunsfiring_v1:

4-4-2 all the way (as for it being out of date, well, thats just pish).

No, it'd be Lafferty given that's his natural position and his pretty impressive goals/minutes ratio.

Ok then, go and show me a successful team at the moment that play a basic 4-4-2.

Man Utd? No.

Liverpool? No.

AC? No.

Inter? No.

Barca? No.

Lyon? No.

If you think the 4-4-2 is still the 'fashionable formation' then you're so, so wrong and I can only assume you don't watch anything but the SPL.

are you an expert because you watch football on TV in different countries

the difference between us and all of these teams is they have the personnel to play that formation, we do not

but in fantasy football anything is possible

Yeah, I do watch a lot of football (tu)

That's a myth about the personnel. We've not got a decent pairing up front (Miller and Boyd are totally off the boil) but we've got a good target man in Lafferty.

Along with that, in Fleck, Aaron and Naismith we have the suitable wide players to flank a Lafferty or a Boyd.

Then, look at midfield - Ferguson's been fucking awful recently so with him, Davis, Mendes and Edu, we have a great pool of four from which we should pick three central midfielders.

It's far better than persisting with the failing Boyd/Miller partership and it gets rid of Walter having to shoehorn Fleck in a right mid and McCulloch in at defensive mid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it'd be Lafferty given that's his natural position and his pretty impressive goals/minutes ratio.

Ok then, go and show me a successful team at the moment that play a basic 4-4-2.

Man Utd? No.

Liverpool? No.

AC? No.

Inter? No.

Barca? No.

Lyon? No.

If you think the 4-4-2 is still the 'fashionable formation' then you're so, so wrong and I can only assume you don't watch anything but the SPL.

Who gives a shit what these teams do, or whats 'fashionable'? :lol:

We play different teams then they do, give those teams a 442 against Dundee United, im pretty sure they'd win.

The 442 worked for us fine most games, even against the tims, it was just an unlucky match, we couldn't score and then McSkippy scored a lucky goal against our pish defence, that aberdeen game, imo was dire, watching Miller then Boyd up front alone :anguish:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we go to snake mountain 4-4-2 with Boyd and Miller up front we won't win, they will run all over our midfield, and we wont be full blown attacking them so both would end up being anonymous, Boyd getting nowhere near the ball, Miller chasing shadows and both will have their confidence knocked, again.

If we out-number them in the middle of the park (personally i'd play Edu, but Walter will play McCulloch) and have Fleck to run at that diddy hinkel and pile crosses into the target man (Lafferty) we will get more joy IMO.

My only worry is set plays. We have defended woefully lately from them, and McCulloch is prone to give away silly free kicks, i suspect the reason may be he is NOT a DMF, just a guess though. And as we all know, even though he is rank rotten, that wee jap is lethal from set pieces.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We were awful in the last Old Firm.

McDonald's goal lucky? Shite defending and a great finish. McDonald forced Broadfoot into a mistake.

Like it's been said on here many times, the 4-5-1 worked up at Pittodrie. Had we played 4-4-2, Aberdeen would have torn us apart. It stopped Aluko, Miller, McDonald, Kerr and Mulgrew form having more time and space - it was the personnel that was wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm dismayed by the amount of posters saying 4-5-1. Who would be the 1? Miller? FFS! :2gunsfiring_v1:

4-4-2 all the way (as for it being out of date, well, thats just pish).

No, it'd be Lafferty given that's his natural position and his pretty impressive goals/minutes ratio.

Ok then, go and show me a successful team at the moment that play a basic 4-4-2.

Man Utd? No.

Liverpool? No.

AC? No.

Inter? No.

Barca? No.

Lyon? No.

If you think the 4-4-2 is still the 'fashionable formation' then you're so, so wrong and I can only assume you don't watch anything but the SPL.

are you an expert because you watch football on TV in different countries

the difference between us and all of these teams is they have the personnel to play that formation, we do not

but in fantasy football anything is possible

Yeah, I do watch a lot of football (tu)

That's a myth about the personnel. We've not got a decent pairing up front (Miller and Boyd are totally off the boil) but we've got a good target man in Lafferty.

Along with that, in Fleck, Aaron and Naismith we have the suitable wide players to flank a Lafferty or a Boyd.

Then, look at midfield - Ferguson's been fucking awful recently so with him, Davis, Mendes and Edu, we have a great pool of four from which we should pick three central midfielders.

It's far better than persisting with the failing Boyd/Miller partership and it gets rid of Walter having to shoehorn Fleck in a right mid and McCulloch in at defensive mid.

whilst i agree with Davis,Mendes,Edu being good in midfield, we will never play 2 wide players like Aaron,Naismith or Fleck , we have been told all of these guys are not natural wide players, 4-5-1 will have McCulloch in the side, which nobody wants and Fergie also has to play, so we would have no width

this season we should play 4-4-2 with Boyd and Lafferty given a run in the team - as Novo is injured

i am not convinced Lafferty is any better a target man than Boyd - i agree he moves about more , but is that enough to justify him playing ahead of Boyd( who has not been in the best of form recently) in an old firm game

If Lafferty plays I hope he performs well because we need a result

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boyd, Broadfoot and Ferguson don't work in a 4-4-2.

Seem to be working fine most games.

Ferguson is off yes, but still, just play edu instead.

In what ways, scrapping the barrels to beat SPL fodder?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boyd, Broadfoot and Ferguson don't work in a 4-4-2.

Seem to be working fine most games.

Ferguson is off yes, but still, just play edu instead.

This isn't most games though.

I'm the first to say the likes of Boyd should start at home v the Falkirks and Hamiltons of this world, as he more often than not will grab a couple...but in an old firm game, Boyd struggles.

Ferguson has been poor also but i dunno, i just have a feeling he will finally turn up on Sunday, he is OVERDUE a performance v these cunts. He was different class in the 3-0 game last season, he taught Brown a lesson..we need more of that on Sunday.

And as for Broadfoot? Well its either him or Whittaker..and Whittaker is like bambi on ice, so IMO Broadfoot is the best of a bad bunch there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In what ways, scrapping the barrels to beat SPL fodder?

Its been a while since we've walked around teams with ease in the SPL.

The team we play now is far better than the capucho, ostenstad, jeffers days :anguish:

Deflection! :D

Its true though :lol:

I'd much much rather this team, and go forbid, even Charlie Adam over those players! Haha

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...