Tuesday, 28 August 2018

Steven Gerrard makes admission which may surprise Rangers fans


Following Rangers’ draw at Motherwell last weekend manager Steven Gerrard could have been forgiven for suggesting the formation he deployed had been a mistake, given how uncomfortable Connor Goldson especially had appeared to be in it.

However, in a surprising admission, the manager contradicted this by claiming the formation worked well in general play, and appeared to imply it could be his preferred choice going forward.

He said:

“It worked in general play, I think the thing that didn’t work was us defending set plays – we’ve been done twice so that’s what we need to learn from. I think if you take those two set pieces away I thought the formation and the way we played was good enough to get a result here. But if you concede two from set plays it’s always going to be tough.”

We’ve been highly impressed by Steven Gerrard to date, doing little but praising ever since the slightly underwhelming displays v Shkupi, but we must say we’re a little puzzled by this admission.

Not only was it evident the formation didn’t work, and was 90% of the reason at least three defenders struggled (Goldson, Tavernier and Flanagan) but there was absolutely no reason to set the team out that way in the first place given how productive 4-3-3 had been.

We assume the reasoning behind it was to cope with Motherwell’s physical threat, but equally it was not tried and tested and it was a heck of a fixture to experiment with.

If Gerrard does think that formation is good enough or indeed suits the players we currently have we’d be a tad concerned.

We sincerely hope the 4-3-3 is back come Thursday.

13 comments:

  1. He’s right I. What he said. The 1st goal was a fluke, the other two were both set pieces.... I don’t think the formation does any difference when we were closing down like we have been the last month or so

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gerrard mind tricks for FC Ufa, it will be a 4-3-3

    ReplyDelete
  3. FFS, No matter what formation we play we will not make Tavernier a better defender, end off

    Listen to the manager and believe, Lets go !

    ReplyDelete
  4. In an attacking sense it worked really well first half. Bar the slip it would have been 3-1. Second half I thought we should have reverted to a 4-3-3 and steadied the formation with the introduction of Wallace at LB. Motherwell thought it was a rugby match and the second half was awful.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tbh. I see some positives from this formation. Both wing backs were putting in some cracking crosses. If we get another couple of solid CBs this formation could work. I don't expect to see Flanagan play there again if we do.

    we do need to have a plan B. Didn't work on this occasion due to poor defending. And the middle of the park not being as strong as it could. But with some proper CBs playing at the back. Some work on the training ground and coulibaly or arfield starting this could be a dangerous formation and is probably the key to playing with 2 up front and not losing a body in the middle of the park. I'm sure we all criticised the bread man for lack of plan b.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's twice we've played with three at the back and Goldston has looked isolated and uncomfortable in each. If we're to perservere i'd move Katic into the central slot, Goldston on his right and hopefully the new left footed centre back on the other side. I do think it's worth perservering but not at tricky away venues. The big plus is it allows for big Lafferty to join Morelos in a front two.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. simple solution harry,as regards sunday. play back four of wallace goldson katic flanagan, midfeild four of barisic arfield jack and tav, wth morelos and laffety. this gives protection at the back while borna and tav can get at their back line and deliver for the front 2. it should help to stop teirney bombing forward and the likes of forrest.ps. could pontentially have some bench if change s needed, coulibaly, candieas, middleton, halliday, mc Crorie and the proposed albanian.

      Delete
  7. You can see his point if you think about it. We scored 3 goals in one half. Tav and borna going forward were good and offered great width. Flanagan struggled at CB but if we bring a CB in then maybe it could work. Add Jack and Couibally with Arfield through the middle and that is a solid midfield. Give Laff and Morelos a few games together for it to click and that looks like a great starting 11. I thought 1st half we showed great bottle to come back twice and eventually lead. Not got a clue how the second half went so bad but the formation could work. I think Gerrard will change formation depending on the opposition rather than sticking with one fulltime formation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm not in the least bit surprised by Gerrards comments. We were seconds away from a great result and but for Taverniers defensive errors could've won comfortably. Indeed, I would argue that we, Tavernier aside, defended very well. Motherwell threw everything at us and we held firm until the closing seconds. Our problems lay elsewhere. The quality of the ball from defence detoriated in the second half and our midfield disappeared. Had we got those things right we could've got more ball up to the front 2 and taken the pressure off our hard pressed defence.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree that Goldson didn't have the best game but he didn't slip because we played a back 3. And Tavernier didn't cost us 2 goals because we played with a back 3. Maybe Goldson got a bit unsettled because of his early slip or maybe he was just due a bad game.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sunday was just a blip, roll on Thursday and Sunday

    LestGo55

    ReplyDelete
  11. I Appreciate That Stevie G tried something Different...
    But Motherwell Away was not the time to go 3-At-The-Back

    Also I Hope He Doesn't Try
    3-At-The-Back against UFA or 'Them Lot' on Sunday 🤔

    ReplyDelete
  12. for 3 seasons Tav has been costing us points with his embarassing half hearted excuse for defending! - Goldson didn't have a good game granted, but our centre halves never have a good game whilst Tav is running around clueless dragging his own team mates all over the place to cover him. If we play a back 3 Tav cannot be used as a wingback..Winger yes, anything that requires him to have a bit of scruples when it comes to defending the simplest of crosses, keeping a shape, set pieces or otherwise..no! Defensively he is one of the worst fullbacks to ever come through our club and he will always cost us points!

    ReplyDelete

By commenting on this article on Ibroxnoise.co.uk, you confirm you have read and understood the site terms, conditions, and moderation parameters (provided on the home page) of doing so.