2 number 10s is the wrong tactic.

Keepbelieving

New Member
When will Gerard be questioned on this. We have changed players numerous times to try and make it work but outwith 30 minutes at Pittodrie and the game against the beggars it’s been absolutely honking to watch and has suffocated our midfield. We have no outball when the midfied are under pressure and it relies on the fullbacks crossing the ball from deep as we barely have an over lap. We signed 4 wingers in the summer yet we don’t play with any width up front. We don’t even change it when it’s clear the opposition have worked out how to play against it. Slow build up and deep crosses into a packed area isn’t going to win us games.
 

MtV blue

Member
Last season Kent took dangerous free kicks and corners. Halliday, tav and Hagi on corners/crosses/freekicks woefull
 

cooprfc

Well-Known Member
There's been many more games than that where it's looked good mate. We've literally played it for almost a year now.

However, it has been sussed and I agree it's time for a change.
 

Speminalium8

Well-Known Member
Got to play 3 at back and minimum of 2 up front on a high press. My personal preference is a 3-4-3. Anything but 4-3-3 which could work but we don’t have the players carrying it out properly as they did before the turn of the year.
 

Livibear

Well-Known Member
As with Warburton’s 433, the opposition have figured out exactly how to counter it

He stumbled on a 4312 formation which changed the games against Livingston and Braga.

He changed to this today again, and we got ourselves in front.

So...

He changes fucking back and kills all momentum.

Brilliant.
 

Graemeh89

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
We play far too narrow , it’s easy to defend against for teams who sit in , which unfortunately is most teams in our league. We then get frustrated and go out side to Tav and BB ( or Halliday today ) who whip balls into the box , 6 ft 3 centre backs are happy with that and 9/10 times Will win it against Morelos or Defoe. Aberdeen know it and set up for it against us every single time they play us , and it works a worrying amount of times.
 

buc11

Well-Known Member
I was watching Kent during the Livingston game and the huge amount of space behind the right back and the unoccupied byline.

He seemed to be anywhere but those mentioned, he looked like he didn't have a clue where he was to go.
 

Keepbelieving

New Member
I’m one of the people who didn’t want Kent but I can’t blame him for what you have highlighted. He’s playing as a number 10 and not a winger. He’s not getting behind and hitting the byeline as it’s not the tactics we have applied. To maximise Kent’s strengths we’d need to play him as a winger.
 
Last edited:

Keepbelieving

New Member
As with Warburton’s 433, the opposition have figured out exactly how to counter it

He stumbled on a 4312 formation which changed the games against Livingston and Braga.

He changed to this today again, and we got ourselves in front.

So...

He changes fucking back and kills all momentum.

Brilliant.
I think the difference with Warburtons 4-3-3 was down to lack of quality. We have the quality and the work rate but our insistence in playing narrow is key to the slow attacks and the crowded areas.
 

Keepbelieving

New Member
Got to play 3 at back and minimum of 2 up front on a high press. My personal preference is a 3-4-3. Anything but 4-3-3 which could work but we don’t have the players carrying it out properly as they did before the turn of the year.
I’ve no issue with 4-3-3 as it allows so many options throughout a game as we can change quickly depending on the period of the game. My problem is why sign 4 wingers and not play with wingers. We need to play 4-3-3 wide and look to hit the byline.
 
Last edited:

Keepbelieving

New Member
There's been many more games than that where it's looked good mate. We've literally played it for almost a year now.

However, it has been sussed and I agree it's time for a change.
I’d disagree, I think we looked far better with candieas and Kent playing wider. I’d hoped he’d signed a better quality in Jones, Barker Hastie and Ojo but they haven’t had a chance to play as wingers very often and none of them have built the understanding that Candieas, Jack, Tav and Morelos had last season. I’ve been moaning about this formation for a while and the first st mirren away game showed us the difference when you go wide. Jones coming on and hugging the touch line and running at full backs saved the game. We have barely done it since.
 

Keepbelieving

New Member
We play far too narrow , it’s easy to defend against for teams who sit in , which unfortunately is most teams in our league. We then get frustrated and go out side to Tav and BB ( or Halliday today ) who whip balls into the box , 6 ft 3 centre backs are happy with that and 9/10 times Will win it against Morelos or Defoe. Aberdeen know it and set up for it against us every single time they play us , and it works a worrying amount of times.
Mccinnes moved Ferguson and the other boy 5 yards and stifled Kent and Aribo in December and Gerard was lost.
 

Keepbelieving

New Member
Got to play 3 at back and minimum of 2 up front on a high press. My personal preference is a 3-4-3. Anything but 4-3-3 which could work but we don’t have the players carrying it out properly as they did before the turn of the year.
I’d say the players are following it to a T. The opposition are just wise to it. Moving the narrow 3 to a wide 3 would prevent the opposition from killing the closing the space as they would have far more ground to cover.
 

ronadamus_prime

Well-Known Member
I remember last season, 1 number 10 was what we were missing. Now we've got 2 number 10s and we are still waffling the same levels of shite about the tactics on here. It's okay to say something doesn't work but to make silly assertions for the sake of it is just pointless.
 

brain

Well-Known Member
We were the best team in the leaugue before New Year with this formation. However sometimes you just have to change it up to bring freshness to your play.
 

TinyRick

Well-Known Member
I remember last season, 1 number 10 was what we were missing. Now we've got 2 number 10s and we are still waffling the same levels of shite about the tactics on here. It's okay to say something doesn't work but to make silly assertions for the sake of it is just pointless.
Not even last season. Right up until a few weeks ago when Michael Beale said we played with 2 number 10s we had people moaning that we needed a number 10, and that the wingers weren't working.

Some people just parrot whatever the popular line of the month is with no understanding. Others only appear when it's not going our way and were oddly silent up til Xmas (outwith the couple of dropped points)
 

Super Ally Does It Again

Well-Known Member
Kent is most affected by this formation he needs to start really wide imo with the freedom to come in and influence but he is picking the ball up deeper and at least 10 yards further in and it’s allowing opposing fullbacks to herd him into traffic. Look what he did one on one vs Hamilton roasted the RB.
 

HandsomeHead

Well-Known Member
As with Warburton’s 433, the opposition have figured out exactly how to counter it

He stumbled on a 4312 formation which changed the games against Livingston and Braga.

He changed to this today again, and we got ourselves in front.

So...

He changes fucking back and kills all momentum.

Brilliant.
To be fair, Morelos was having a stinker and bringing on Davis to help us control possession when in the lead was a reasonable move. He isn’t to blame for the defence having another disaster at the back.

However I was more concerned that after the obvious lift Kamberi gave us against both Livingston and Braga he was back in the bench and we were back to 4-3-3 for the start yesterday.

That suggests Gerrard is unhealthily wedded to his system and possibly too over cautious.

I hope he’s finally learned from yesterday.

His changes at half time were bold and offer us a clear and positive path for the way ahead, at least in games like that.
 

ronadamus_prime

Well-Known Member
Kent is most affected by this formation he needs to start really wide imo with the freedom to come in and influence but he is picking the ball up deeper and at least 10 yards further in and it’s allowing opposing fullbacks to herd him into traffic. Look what he did one one vs Hamilton roasted the RB.
Kent is bang out of form and if you think simply moving him a few metres into another position is going to fix that then I don't know what to tell you. Nothing in our system prevents Kent from opting to drift out wide when he needs to find space to operate in. The fact he charges infield into a sea of bodies is something he is opting to do. Admittedly he's being targeted by the opposition a lot more than he was in his first season with us. Aribo when he play on the right of the front 3 often drifted wide to occupy the fullback to allow Tav to get in behind or cut inside. Kent is making bad decisions when he's both off and on the ball. Changing where he plays isn't going to resolve the base level mistakes from him.
 

JCDarcheville

Well-Known Member
I think the point on Kent is a valid one. He is as close to a natural winger as you get in modern day football, why spend £7 million on a player then play a formation that doesn't allow for him to play in his preferred role?
 

Jaws II

Well-Known Member
Our wider players in the 433 are not good enough.

Neither score and neither make assists.

The Celtic CH has more goals and assists than Kent.

We then have to take account that for three years running Morelos’s form has collapsed after Xmas.
 

kingstonbear

Well-Known Member
I think the point on Kent is a valid one. He is as close to a natural winger as you get in modern day football, why spend £7 million on a player then play a formation that doesn't allow for him to play in his preferred role?
Maybe the same answer will cover why we brought Aribo as an attacking MF and have played him almost everywhere else except there. And the actual No10 that we seem destined to waste by pushing him out right.

The formation ONLY works if there is space, it doesn't matter who plays in which position and how much freedom they have to interchange if there isn't any space in which to play. We pass the ball about a lot of the time without actually working the opposition.
 

skorn

Well-Known Member
Just going back to the OP title: I think most of us agree that in the domestic game, of packed defences and unmittigated cloggers, having two "Number 10s" is one too many.

Unless both are in absolutely blistering form of course, and then it can be spectacular.

But generally, at least one of them ends up being a complete luxury.

I'm not a great fan of the phrase "it's like playing with as man down", but it's maybe appropriate in this case.
Have ONE "Number 10" and the other place can be taken by a winger, or a hard-working midfield digger, or indeed a forward -- whatever is appropriate to the game.
 

Keepbelieving

New Member
I remember last season, 1 number 10 was what we were missing. Now we've got 2 number 10s and we are still waffling the same levels of shite about the tactics on here. It's okay to say something doesn't work but to make silly assertions for the sake of it is just pointless.
So what is your take on the situation? Should we not discuss tactics on a football forum?
 
Last edited:

Keepbelieving

New Member
Not even last season. Right up until a few weeks ago when Michael Beale said we played with 2 number 10s we had people moaning that we needed a number 10, and that the wingers weren't working.

Some people just parrot whatever the popular line of the month is with no understanding. Others only appear when it's not going our way and were oddly silent up til Xmas (outwith the couple of dropped points)
2 number 10s, inverted wingers or inside forwards I don’t really care what they are called. My point is I don’t think they work against teams who will defend in numbers as Aberdeen, livi, St Mirren, Hearts and Killie have done. My reasons for this are only what i see when I’m at the games. We struggle to get the ball to them quickly as they are too close to defenders, when we get the ball to them a lot of the time it’s held up awaiting our fullbacks, passed back putting more pressure on our midfield (hearts and killie pressed us any time this happened). If we wait for our fullbacks each time then It gives the opposition more time to get players behind the ball in numbers.
What is your view on the formation? Where do you think we are going wrong?
 

SJwatp

Member
I was watching Kent during the Livingston game and the huge amount of space behind the right back and the unoccupied byline.

He seemed to be anywhere but those mentioned, he looked like he didn't have a clue where he was to go.
As you say, Kent is always 20-30 yards back from where he needs to be when receiving the ball. The time he gets up the park he's burnt out and closed down. Someone is needing to tell him to stay forward rather than coming back to the half way line to pick the ball up.
 

TinyRick

Well-Known Member
2 number 10s, inverted wingers or inside forwards I don’t really care what they are called. My point is I don’t think they work against teams who will defend in numbers as Aberdeen, livi, St Mirren, Hearts and Killie have done. My reasons for this are only what i see when I’m at the games. We struggle to get the ball to them quickly as they are too close to defenders, when we get the ball to them a lot of the time it’s held up awaiting our fullbacks, passed back putting more pressure on our midfield (hearts and killie pressed us any time this happened). If we wait for our fullbacks each time then It gives the opposition more time to get players behind the ball in numbers.
What is your view on the formation? Where do you think we are going wrong?
I don't have a problem with the formation. We were flying til the break playing that very formation.

Where we're going wrong is that too many players are out of form at the same time. Is that symptomatic of them having emptied the tank between the cup final and the 29th?i don't know, but that's got to be a consideration.

You're right that we don't move the ball quickly enough now. That's not the formation at fault though, that's the individual decision making, and ties into that loss of form.

We're still creating a shit load of chances too, decent ones, and we've seen the goals that have been disallowed for who knows what, the team cannot continue to have to score 5 in order to secure a 2-1 win. That's where the officiating needs called out, along with the industrial football played by the rest of the spfl.

The entire game plan of the teams we've struggled against revolves around serial fouling to break up any tempo while sitting in a bank of 4 and a bank of 5 in their own half. Against us, that fouling goes unpunished for twice as long as it does against the beasts - we can show that with evidence. Our players absolutely are routinely booked and sent off for stuff that others get away with. How many players outwith Rangers have been sent off for a celebration where they didn't leave the park, didn't cross the barrier? We've had 3 in recent years - Halliday, Candeias and Alfie.
 

Keepbelieving

New Member
I don't have a problem with the formation. We were flying til the break playing that very formation.

Where we're going wrong is that too many players are out of form at the same time. Is that symptomatic of them having emptied the tank between the cup final and the 29th?i don't know, but that's got to be a consideration.

You're right that we don't move the ball quickly enough now. That's not the formation at fault though, that's the individual decision making, and ties into that loss of form.

We're still creating a shit load of chances too, decent ones, and we've seen the goals that have been disallowed for who knows what, the team cannot continue to have to score 5 in order to secure a 2-1 win. That's where the officiating needs called out, along with the industrial football played by the rest of the spfl.

The entire game plan of the teams we've struggled against revolves around serial fouling to break up any tempo while sitting in a bank of 4 and a bank of 5 in their own half. Against us, that fouling goes unpunished for twice as long as it does against the beasts - we can show that with evidence. Our players absolutely are routinely booked and sent off for stuff that others get away with. How many players outwith Rangers have been sent off for a celebration where they didn't leave the park, didn't cross the barrier? We've had 3 in recent years - Halliday, Candeias and Alfie.
I absolutely agree in terms of the decisions and that we have been poor in terms of finishing but I can’t see how the narrow forwards allow us to ge the ball quickly as they are being stifled for space. I don’t see him changing it so I hope it’s down to form and not tactics but really think we are limiting our players by continuing with the shape of the front 3.
 

Resident_hammy_bear

Well-Known Member
Two number 10s is a lot of shite let's be serious it's clearly just 2 wingers who can drift in from time to time, the whole point in a number 10 is to play just in behind the striker which they never do
 
Top