3-5-2?

I genuinely believe 4-2-3-1 is our best formation, we need a goalscoring RW though, 4-1-4-1 could work also with a goalscoring RW. It’s a key position and one I’d be addressing ASAP, hopefully something up the gaffers sleave for this.
 
It looks to me like we already do play a variant of three at the back in possession.

- Both centre halves split, the 6 drops between the centre halves forming a 3.
- Full backs go high and wide, usually about in line with the 8s or even 10s.
- Both 10s move with freedom to find space between the lines.
- The 9 leads the line, dropping and pressing when required to drag defenders out of position and create space.

It's basically a fluid 3-4-2-1 with the ball. The problem - and when it doesn't work - is due to players' inability to seek out spaces to receive the ball, or failing to move the ball into those spaces frequently / quickly enough. This is often a product of the 'baby-sitting' that one of the 8s (often Kamara) tends to do. Both of our 8s need to be dynamic, forward-thinking players. We already have one in Aribo, but need the other one to do the same on the other side.
 
The problem isn’t the formation but having the quality of players to execute them. Given time and money we may get there but unfortunately we don’t have unlimited resources.
 
For us to do this without compromising our attacking threat, it would require something similar to Chris Wilders overlapping CB’s at Sheffield United.

I can’t really see big Helander rampaging down the left wing tbh
 
Yes we won, but Joe Lewis will rarely have a quieter game this season than yesterday.

Our final third is still a big problem area and massive concern to me.
 
Last edited:
Not sure re this.

Not dismissing the formation as it can work.

3 4 3 also might work for some teams but do we have players to suit these?

Not convinced we do
 
By playing 4 at the back - we only ever habe 2 players constantly playing defensive (the CB’s) as the two full backs are generally attacking.

By playing 3 at the back - we’ll pretty much have three players playing defensive. So ironically it’ll be more of a defensive formation.
Agree, unless you drop one of jack/kamara
 
With 5 subs allowed, the only reason I would have expected a formation change is
a) if we are chasing it
B) we are cruising and boys/youths need game time

Neither of them applied to the Aberdeen game. They've shown before they can hit us from set pieces, and have the ability to turn games. Gerrard kept with his most rigid and well drilled formation. He did the right thing
 
Have said it for ages that we should try it again

IMO we have the players for it. Two wing backs that love getting forward.

3 centre halves good enough to play every week.

Hagi can play off Morelos with even Kent dropping in or wide as well. Almost a free role
 
What you on about? Just because he has coaching badges and been at a few clubs doesnt mean that he knows more than the average guy. This formation has won the grand sum of nothing and needs changed. Ive got my coaching badges and coached in the states for 6 years as well as a few other countries but i wouldnt diss a supporters knowledge just because they havent done any coaching...this isnt rocket science...
Comedy gold
 
Armchair fans are far too obsessed with the simple numbers in a formation lineup.

"433 doesn't work ... I hate 352 etc etc"

Two teams can play 433 and play it vastly different.

You can be a very defensive 352 or a very attacking 352.

It's more to do with the individuals in the side, their specific and team roles and sub systems within the shape (that change when in and out of possession, in transition, dependent on area or what side of pitch ball is on etc etc)

Same applies to all formations, they ALL work (and they all fail) depending on many many more variables than the simple numbers attributed to 3 general areas on the pitch at kick off.

Wow>

This reads like like someone who never actually played a real game of football in their life.
 
Might we revisit this?

We have three good centre halves. We have wing backs....best in the league.

We have a #10 now.

Motherwell game was unlucky and not so bad...no need to panic IMHO. I felt idea was thrown out too quickly.

Might also help create more in certain games against teams in SPL that are 'the other ten'
A 3-5-2 reverts to 5-3-2 when defending, so 5 at the back? No thanks. He has tweaked the 4-3-3. Hagi and Kent more central so allows Tav and Barasic the space to bomb forward. It has worked so far in friendlies and Aberdeen, why change up?
 
Whatever formation we use we don’t need jack and kamara protecting the back 4 domestically
 
4-2-3-1 works perfectly and it can be altered at anytime into a 4-3-3

McGregor / JM

Tav / NP - LB/FH - CG/GE - BB/CB

RJ/GK - Zunga/SD

IH/Another - JA/SA - RK/Barker

2 new forwardsDefoe​

We need 2 first team pics for every position and we’re not far off it now, 4 players short which will be bought when Morelos eventually leaves
 
4-2-3-1 works perfectly and it can be altered at anytime into a 4-3-3

McGregor / JM

Tav / NP - LB/FH - CG/GE - BB/CB

RJ/GK - Zunga/SD

IH/Another - JA/SA - RK/Barker

2 new forwardsDefoe​

We need 2 first team pics for every position and we’re not far off it now, 4 players short which will be bought when Morelos eventually leaves

:D
 
Formations are only as good as the players that a team has at their disposal and the coaches instructions in how to play the formation.

Last year we learned we werent exactly 4 3 3 as such as we wanted to play with two 10s.

It didn't work all the time. We struggled against packed midfields and 10 men behind the ball teams and it is that we need to improve on.
 
Unless you’ve got centre halves that are already well versed in playing in a back three then you’d need an entire pre-season at least to allow them to get used to the system without it costing us. Our big problem at the moment is the midfield needing upgraded as well as resolving the Morelos situation, both of which appear to being progressed.
 
I love a 3-5-2 formation, especially with the attack-minded fullbacks that we have at Ibrox right now.
I don’t think tinkering with the formation makes much difference unless we find some way of injecting a lot more urgency throughout the match.

On Saturday Rangers were in control for long periods but quite pedestrian with it and didn’t turn the screw to get another goal or two. It leaves you vulnerable to a moment of genius or a mistake leading to the opposition scoring a late equaliser and you are struggling for time to get back on top after that.

Attitude & approach needs a bit of tweaking - then we can look at different formations.
 
Nah.....
Our CB's (particularly Goldson) already see far to much of the ball. Adding another CB would see us fanny about with the ball at the back even more. It would give us more options to pass back.
 
What you on about? Just because he has coaching badges and been at a few clubs doesnt mean that he knows more than the average guy. This formation has won the grand sum of nothing and needs changed. Ive got my coaching badges and coached in the states for 6 years as well as a few other countries but i wouldnt diss a supporters knowledge just because they havent done any coaching...this isnt rocket science...

I expected a few wee bites but you’ve excelled :D
 
Another formation is something I had hoped we would have worked on in pre season. Even if it’s not for starting with but to change to in games where we need something different. I feel as though teams like Kilmarnock and Aberdeen has our 4-3-3 worked out after Xmas last season.

People make good points about having to leave either Hagi, Aribo,or Kent out if starting with a 3-5-2
 
I sincerely hope we use it sometimes to give us options and unpredictability. Worked a treat for them last season when they got stale. I also think it helps get some of our best talent on the park at the same time.

McGregor
Goldson Balo Helander
Tav BB
Jack/Kamara/Davis Aribo/Arfield
Hagi/Aribo
Roofe Itten
 
I sincerely hope we use it sometimes to give us options and unpredictability. Worked a treat for them last season when they got stale. I also think it helps get some of our best talent on the park at the same time.

McGregor
Goldson Balo Helander
Tav BB
Jack/Kamara/Davis Aribo/Arfield
Hagi/Aribo
Roofe Itten

Nae Kent, nae party.
 
Games like yesterday will see him sacked. Third season of technical skills leading to 70/30 possession but hardly any shots at goal. It can't go on.
He's gotta find the keys to unlock all that.

TBF Stewart clever around the box, but there has to be better. Hopefully Hagi can be the man...2 footed etc
 
Most play 1 up against us and so no need for 3 at the back. But the last few years we have seen some leave 2 up and defend with 8, hoping to break and get a 2 on 2. We should spend some time working on 3 at the back so we have the option, but I think we would be better suited as a 343 with our full backs in the 4
 
Lots of teams who play 3 at the back use a full-back in the back 3. Which allows you to play a winger (Kent for example) on one side and the other full-back on the other. So a 3-4-1-2. But for us that would mean losing either Borna or Tav's attacking ability.
 
I think you go three at the back when you are fantastic and have the fittest wing backs in the world. I'd just like to see our best CBs and take it from there.
 
Might we revisit this?

We have three good centre halves. We have wing backs....best in the league.

We have a #10 now.

Motherwell game was unlucky and not so bad...no need to panic IMHO. I felt idea was thrown out too quickly.

Might also help create more in certain games against teams in SPL that are 'the other ten'

We need an alternative formation, that much is for sure. Whether it’s 3-5-2, 3-4-3 or 4-4-2 is up for debate.

To be going into a season in 2020 with one single formation is almost negligent on Gerrard’s behalf IMO.
 
Back
Top