Michael Beale’s first Rangers match is now over, the home side comfortable 3-0 winners against a Leverkusen who barely showed up in all honesty.
Ibrox Noise takes you through our ratings for Beale’s debut, despite it being a friendly.
McGregor:
Didn’t have much to do, little threat from the visitors, but did get involved in a bizarre tug incident. 6
Tavernier:
Lively. Two assists, and some excellent last-ditch defending. Plus a missed penalty! He stood out. 8
Sands:
Not a lot to do against Bayer’s subdued attack, but comfortable enough. 6
King:
About the same as Sands really. 6
Devine:
Can be pleased – got forward a lot, even if it was on his unfavoured side, and was using his right foot throughout, but attacked with gusto. The best he’s played as a Rangers player. 7
Jack:
Quiet from Jack, but then the new him post-injury has kind of been like that for a while. 6
Kamara:
For the big player Beale wants to build around, this was a non-existent display from Kamara. A bit of jogging off the ball, but we barely counted a touch from him. 4
Tillman:
By a distance the MOTM, Tillman was lively and looked like the start of the season incarnation of himself. Two goals, dangerous, and clever, this was exactly the form months ago which had fans begging to sign him full time. If he can keep this up and not fade away, everyone would be happy. 9
Kent:
Worked hard to get in good positions but wasn’t getting a lot of the ball – some good movement but generally ineffective. 5
Matondo:
Oh dear. Still completely non-existent and barely figured, he still looks a fish out of water and not even the new manager was able to get more from him. 4
Colak:
Can’t say we saw much of him at all. Quiet from Colak. 4
Subs:
This was a raft of subs so we’ll cover them as we would the starters:
McLaughlin:
No idea why he was on rather than McCrorie being given the second half. Nothing of note. 4
Davis:
Tidy, some good runs forward and looked like he’d benefited from a rest. 6
Lundstram:
Always know what you get – plenty of the ball, good passing and solid. Not needed defensively. 6
Arfield:
Could have scored two – a brilliant cameo and a surprise he didn’t start. Superbly taken goal. The most effective sub. 7
Lowry:
Looked decent, and made a couple of good runs – good use of the ball, but does lack physical presence. 6
Morelos:
Good assist for Arfield, and won a penalty. Still generally looked disinterested though, one lazy pass late on rather summed it up. His two sides in a nutshell! 6
Sakala:
Hooked off after 25 minutes, was way off fitness. 4
Wright:
Didn’t make much impact in this one. 4
McCann and Fraser: N/A
Manager:
Well, can we really rate Beale on this, a friendly in which we used most of our available squad? He will be delighted with the workrate from the majority, but a few of his players didn’t step up and he will be aware a little more of what is needed. You learn nothing in victory in a friendly, Leverkusen just wanted the fitness, and the best for Rangers is the boost in confidence it will give the team. But Beale now has a bit of a picture of what he wants on Thursday. 7
Tend to disagree with you there, IN, thought that Jack, Kamala and Kent were intrinsic to the new style. It looked like the new manager had imposed a 2-touches maximum on each player and, as a result, the ball was played much more quickly through the lines. These three, with Tillman, were central to that approach
I also thought, the players in the second half did well to copy the same style – Davis and Lundstram looked like they could work together. Lowry (not mentioned above) looked at home in this approach, also.
The new rotation of Matondo/Kent/Colac and Tillman (with Morelos/Wright/Sakala and Arfield, 2nd half) allowed both fullbacks more space and made a huge difference to Tav, in particular. Finally, I thought the FBs and CHs were closer together (particularly first half), which prevented balls coming into our box and also dealt well with the BL runners.
Very encouraging after just a fortnight training.
Dave, this wasn’t an analysis of the system at all? You’re disagreeing with an article we’ve not published.
I meant that the players implemented a new system pretty well and I thought your marks were too low, not giving sufficient credit for that. I know you think Kamara has checked out and I don’t disagree on past performances but I thought he worked the system really well today. So my point was that the players I mentioned all deserved higher marks, but it is such a subjective thing 😉
No one agreed with you, apart from one guy on social media channels about Kamara. We stand by the ratings though…
Comments are closed.