Fashion Sakala in advanced Rangers signing talks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Baz said:
I understand your sentiment and don't want to derail thread on Tony Vidmar, but he was an international fullback who was content to be understudy to an expensive, world class team-mate and was a very reliable back-up in domestic and even European fixtures.
In my opinion that is the perfect way to utilise the Bosman market and Vidmar should be held up as a great example rather than someone to criticise.
Click to expand...

One thing though, Numan was often injured, so Vidmar got a lot of game time due to that. If Numan had been ever present Vidmar would likely have left to play more minutes.

Interesting to compare their Wikis. Numan only played about a dozen more league games than Vidmar over the same number of seasons.
 
55 and counting said:
He's obviously came on a bit since he manged him. He left that club in 2019. Going on his managerial record he's not going to be considered a great manger. Not had a job since. I will go with Gerrad and our DOF over a failed manager albeit a good player in his day.
Click to expand...
This . Look what everyone thought of big Sadique two years ago , and look now . I think this big looks good . He’s Zambian as well , rapid .
 
Strickland Banks said:
Looks like a replacement for Defoe, and to act as competition for centre forward role.

Free deal, wages won’t be crazy, and may help us adapt our style of play.

Get him, 2 x midfielders, and a right attacker and squad looks very good:

Out shall go:

Katic / Edmondson (probably loans depending on Goldson contract situation)
Defoe
Jones
Barker
Zungu
Barjonas
Stewart
Hastie
Middleton
Mayo
Click to expand...
We already have Hagi, Aribo, Wright plus Stewart/Barker/Jones who can all play there. I'd like to think we shift some if not most of these who won't get meaningful game time.
 
Truffle Shuffle said:
Sounds like Michael O Halloran to me, definitely not a glowing report.
Click to expand...
Taking a review off some third rate ex coach done by the rhebel isn't exactly something to go on.

Sakala can scores goals, has good movement and can play on either flank and has something about him definitely potential there to improve further and bring something to our forward line.

I don't think we are getting the finished article but having some much needed pace will be refreshing to see it's been badly needed at times.
 
Bulletproof said:
He is following few of our guys.
Screenshot-20210427-210524-Chrome.jpg
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, that's as good as confirmation in the modern world.
 
Ubik said:
We already have Hagi, Aribo, Wright plus Stewart/Barker/Jones who can all play there. I'd like to think we shift some if not most of these who won't get meaningful game time.
Click to expand...
I think Wright will back up Kent more on the left, and I’m not convinced Hagi can fulfil that role properly in the big games.

It’s certainly Aribo’s best position now, but I’d also like to see a leftie with real pace who can play on the side. I keep bangin the drum about the lad Skov Olsen, I think he’s be a great addition, but would cost about £6m
 
Seems to be happening then doesn’t it.

Player at a good age who has started to hit a bit of consistency. Looks an interesting option for across the front 3.
 
cooprfc said:
3 at the back would be more defensive than the two we currently play. It would also only accommodate two of Tavernier, Barisic, Kent, Wright with the latter two completely stifled and unsuited to the wide roles in that formation.

People just don't think these things through.

Why would we go from two centrebacks with high full backs and three up front to 3 centrebacks with 2 up front?
Click to expand...


The thing is, we are so accustomed to having Borna and Tav playing the winger role that we ignore the possibility that "true" wingers or attacking players may do a similar if not better (yeah, I think that is possible) job against tight defenses.

Having "nominally" three at the back means we spare the "nominal" fullbacks and possibly one deep playing midfielders as well.

As we see now, Goldson very much plays someone hitting long balls and cross balls of ever increasing quality. He does that alongside Davis, who also drops deep and tracks back a lot.

Most teams sit deep against us, which allows all but our CHs to move forward (creating the odd bout of panic when the other side grabs the ball and 3 or four chaps race into our half, while our fullbacks are caught up field), while Jack and Kamara usually check the spaces left by our fullbacks, who joined the attack. So we essentially play "2 at the back" with the rest in front of them.

Now, take in the 3-4-3 scenario against teams that sit deep, AND NOT FOR every match. Say ...

Balogun - Goldson - Simpson

Davis

Wright - Aribo/Hagi - Kent

Roofe - Itten - Morelos​

As opposed to one striker, two supporting attackers (Kent/Hagi), two makeshift attackers (Borna/Tav) and whatever comes from midfield every now and then ... we would have three dynamic strikers, two supportive attackers plus Aribo, i.e. far more potent attack force within their half. Perfect for a high-press too. Should one of the three CHs venture forward, the other two would provide the same defense that we see now - though I would expect that the attacking midfielders track back too, if need be. The three strikers would all cause problems in their half still and this binds players there. We can switch back to other, e.g. more counter-attacking line-ups if we are ahead by a few goals, and obviously would not play like that against better and more open sides.

As it stands now, we play the same line-up, nominally 4-3-3 but really, from the personal, 4-2-3-1 against anyone everywhere, and that this is not really working should have been clear for anyone by now. In the Premiership, 8 out of 11 teams sit deep, close the spaces, and rely on counter-attacks and corners, free-kicks and the like to grab a goal or two. Obviously, I have to accept that people say: look at the results this season, the goals we have conceeded, and scored. Phenomenal! Yes, but when you cast your mind back (and not only to this season), you note that we have had loads of possession (mostly amongst our defenders and midfielders), looked "comfortable" (termed "sluggish" in 18/19 and 19/20) in the build up and quite a few games we won by but one or two goals (35 league games, 18 by one or two goals / 6 draws). Unbeaten, yes. But more often than not also not exactly pleasing to the eye. Then again, against brick-wall teams and football-destroyers, what can you do?! Above is an option we might consider. What irks me is that we got the people in, or already had them, but rarely go beyond a certain core of player and change very little in a game.
 
Der Berliner said:
The thing is, we are so accustomed to having Borna and Tav playing the winger role that we ignore the possibility that "true" wingers or attacking players may do a similar if not better (yeah, I think that is possible) job against tight defenses.

Having "nominally" three at the back means we spare the "nominal" fullbacks and possibly one deep playing midfielders as well.

As we see now, Goldson very much plays someone hitting long balls and cross balls of ever increasing quality. He does that alongside Davis, who also drops deep and tracks back a lot.

Most teams sit deep against us, which allows all but our CHs to move forward (creating the odd bout of panic when the other side grabs the ball and 3 or four chaps race into our half, while our fullbacks are caught up field), while Jack and Kamara usually check the spaces left by our fullbacks, who joined the attack. So we essentially play "2 at the back" with the rest in front of them.

Now, take in the 3-4-3 scenario against teams that sit deep, AND NOT FOR every match. Say ...

Balogun - Goldson - Simpson

Davis

Wright - Aribo/Hagi - Kent

Roofe - Itten - Morelos​

As opposed to one striker, two supporting attackers (Kent/Hagi), two makeshift attackers (Borna/Tav) and whatever comes from midfield every now and then ... we would have three dynamic strikers, two supportive attackers plus Aribo, i.e. far more potent attack force within their half. Perfect for a high-press too. Should one of the three CHs venture forward, the other two would provide the same defense that we see now - though I would expect that the attacking midfielders track back too, if need be. The three strikers would all cause problems in their half still and this binds players there. We can switch back to other, e.g. more counter-attacking line-ups if we are ahead by a few goals, and obviously would not play like that against better and more open sides.

As it stands now, we play the same line-up, nominally 4-3-3 but really, from the personal, 4-2-3-1 against anyone everywhere, and that this is not really working should have been clear for anyone by now. In the Premiership, 8 out of 11 teams sit deep, close the spaces, and rely on counter-attacks and corners, free-kicks and the like to grab a goal or two. Obviously, I have to accept that people say: look at the results this season, the goals we have conceeded, and scored. Phenomenal! Yes, but when you cast your mind back (and not only to this season), you note that we have had loads of possession (mostly amongst our defenders and midfielders), looked "comfortable" (termed "sluggish" in 18/19 and 19/20) in the build up and quite a few games we won by but one or two goals (35 league games, 18 by one or two goals / 6 draws). Unbeaten, yes. But more often than not also not exactly pleasing to the eye. Then again, against brick-wall teams and football-destroyers, what can you do?! Above is an option we might consider. What irks me is that we got the people in, or already had them, but rarely go beyond a certain core of player and change very little in a game.
Click to expand...
Isn't the argument to that that we defend against those teams with 2 defenders, and occasionally a midfielder. This system has 3 defenders all the time.
This means there are less attackers against the defensive teams, how can that help break them down?
It also takes away the natural width, which has often caused teams more problems than anything else we have. The wingers you talk about don't have the delivery of our full backs, and prefer to go central.
On top of that it takes away 2 of our best players every time we play the system, and replaces one of them with a centre half who will never create chances.
3 at the back might be better for periods in games where we are struggling to defend against physical teams. We saw it at Rugby Park in a storm for 10 minutes. It worked then because of the added physical presence of Balogun that day.
 
Strickland Banks said:
I think Wright will back up Kent more on the left, and I’m not convinced Hagi can fulfil that role properly in the big games.

It’s certainly Aribo’s best position now, but I’d also like to see a leftie with real pace who can play on the side. I keep bangin the drum about the lad Skov Olsen, I think he’s be a great addition, but would cost about £6m
Click to expand...
Yep difficult to not be impressed with this lad. Great technical ability and bags of confidence. If we're going to float the boat even at £6m he's of the quality we should be aspiring to now.
 
Bluethruandthru said:
Yep difficult to not be impressed with this lad. Great technical ability and bags of confidence. If we're going to float the boat even at £6m he's of the quality we should be aspiring to now.
Click to expand...

Did he not sign for Bologna for about 5.5m? He is playing reasonably regularly is he not? I doubt we will get him for £6m if that is the case.
 
Has anyone listened to the Record Podcast (I know, I'm not getting into a discussion about that) they have an interview with the manager who signed him for the Belgium team, its really quite insightful and he comes across as honest in his assessment of Fashion, who is fast as hell and great at being reactive but is clueless when it comes to tactics and following orders, and if I'm being honest, I cant get excited about this signing but will reserve judgement if he signs.
 
Der Berliner said:
The thing is, we are so accustomed to having Borna and Tav playing the winger role that we ignore the possibility that "true" wingers or attacking players may do a similar if not better (yeah, I think that is possible) job against tight defenses.

Having "nominally" three at the back means we spare the "nominal" fullbacks and possibly one deep playing midfielders as well.

As we see now, Goldson very much plays someone hitting long balls and cross balls of ever increasing quality. He does that alongside Davis, who also drops deep and tracks back a lot.

Most teams sit deep against us, which allows all but our CHs to move forward (creating the odd bout of panic when the other side grabs the ball and 3 or four chaps race into our half, while our fullbacks are caught up field), while Jack and Kamara usually check the spaces left by our fullbacks, who joined the attack. So we essentially play "2 at the back" with the rest in front of them.

Now, take in the 3-4-3 scenario against teams that sit deep, AND NOT FOR every match. Say ...

Balogun - Goldson - Simpson

Davis

Wright - Aribo/Hagi - Kent

Roofe - Itten - Morelos​

As opposed to one striker, two supporting attackers (Kent/Hagi), two makeshift attackers (Borna/Tav) and whatever comes from midfield every now and then ... we would have three dynamic strikers, two supportive attackers plus Aribo, i.e. far more potent attack force within their half. Perfect for a high-press too. Should one of the three CHs venture forward, the other two would provide the same defense that we see now - though I would expect that the attacking midfielders track back too, if need be. The three strikers would all cause problems in their half still and this binds players there. We can switch back to other, e.g. more counter-attacking line-ups if we are ahead by a few goals, and obviously would not play like that against better and more open sides.

As it stands now, we play the same line-up, nominally 4-3-3 but really, from the personal, 4-2-3-1 against anyone everywhere, and that this is not really working should have been clear for anyone by now. In the Premiership, 8 out of 11 teams sit deep, close the spaces, and rely on counter-attacks and corners, free-kicks and the like to grab a goal or two. Obviously, I have to accept that people say: look at the results this season, the goals we have conceeded, and scored. Phenomenal! Yes, but when you cast your mind back (and not only to this season), you note that we have had loads of possession (mostly amongst our defenders and midfielders), looked "comfortable" (termed "sluggish" in 18/19 and 19/20) in the build up and quite a few games we won by but one or two goals (35 league games, 18 by one or two goals / 6 draws). Unbeaten, yes. But more often than not also not exactly pleasing to the eye. Then again, against brick-wall teams and football-destroyers, what can you do?! Above is an option we might consider. What irks me is that we got the people in, or already had them, but rarely go beyond a certain core of player and change very little in a game.
Click to expand...
It’s defintley good to have options . In the most recent football manager I was having draw after draw until I changed formation to 4-1-2-3 with my main players being two old fashioned “ inside forwards “ who stay out wide but cut in and support the striker all of a sudden draws turned to wins with the exact same players . It shows what can be done , you can’t be rigid and stick to one strict formation and Gerrard himself has alluded to that .
 
russianboatcommander said:
Has anyone listened to the Record Podcast (I know, I'm not getting into a discussion about that) they have an interview with the manager who signed him for the Belgium team, its really quite insightful and he comes across as honest in his assessment of Fashion, who is fast as hell and great at being reactive but is clueless when it comes to tactics and following orders, and if I'm being honest, I cant get excited about this signing but will reserve judgement if he signs.
Click to expand...
The guy managed him back in 2019 mate and no longer works at that club. Not exactly up to date info on the player.
 
SSJack said:
It’s defintley good to have options . In the most recent football manager I was having draw after draw until I changed formation to 4-1-2-3 with my main players being two old fashioned “ inside forwards “ who stay out wide but cut in and support the striker all of a sudden draws turned to wins with the exact same players . It shows what can be done , you can’t be rigid and stick to one strict formation and Gerrard himself has alluded to that .
Click to expand...
Can we get a dislike button please mods?
 
SSJack said:
It’s defintley good to have options . In the most recent football manager I was having draw after draw until I changed formation to 4-1-2-3 with my main players being two old fashioned “ inside forwards “ who stay out wide but cut in and support the striker all of a sudden draws turned to wins with the exact same players . It shows what can be done , you can’t be rigid and stick to one strict formation and Gerrard himself has alluded to that .
Click to expand...

On your computer game? hahahahahaha Shurrup man.
 
SSJack said:
It’s defintley good to have options . In the most recent football manager I was having draw after draw until I changed formation to 4-1-2-3 with my main players being two old fashioned “ inside forwards “ who stay out wide but cut in and support the striker all of a sudden draws turned to wins with the exact same players . It shows what can be done , you can’t be rigid and stick to one strict formation and Gerrard himself has alluded to that .
Click to expand...
Not sure if serious
 
linthousebear1981 said:
If he is a sub most of the time then maybe they might just want to recoup a good portion of their money on him. So potentially but I thought he had started something like 20 games this season.
Click to expand...
Don’t even think he started double figures to be honest, he was injured for a bit but has came off the bench quite a lot and sometimes not even got off the bench.
 
Ted Rangers said:
Isn't the argument to that that we defend against those teams with 2 defenders, and occasionally a midfielder. This system has 3 defenders all the time.
This means there are less attackers against the defensive teams, how can that help break them down?
It also takes away the natural width, which has often caused teams more problems than anything else we have. The wingers you talk about don't have the delivery of our full backs, and prefer to go central.
On top of that it takes away 2 of our best players every time we play the system, and replaces one of them with a centre half who will never create chances.
3 at the back might be better for periods in games where we are struggling to defend against physical teams. We saw it at Rugby Park in a storm for 10 minutes. It worked then because of the added physical presence of Balogun that day.
Click to expand...

The CHs won`t go forward that much as they do not need to be. They are charged with keeping the opposition at bay. Goldson might venture forward every now and then, Balogun might overlap on the right ever now and then.

"Two of our best players" are fullbacks who play as wingbacks/auxiliary wingers, one of which has popped up as a "striker" in recent weeks (mainly because we lack a second striker or people running / filling that space - you note the problem?). There is no denying of their input, but for the love of the game, you won`t try to tell me that real attacking players, who might be wingers, left/right sided attacking midfielders or even strikers who can play along the top will not be able to fulfill the role we utilize our fullbacks for? We hardly ever tried e.g. Jones, Stewart, Murphy, or now Wright as real wingers with two strikers through the middle? I have no doubt that in the line-up I mentioned above, those in there will be able to provide enough wingplay to cover for any loss of Borna or Tav`s crosses in such a game.
 
NDC bear forever said:
4-4-2 isn’t really dead. You see top teams change to it for certain games (of course no one uses it week in week out a top level atm). But its a decent formation, just not in the big guy little guy way someone perceive it as lol.
Click to expand...
We actually benefited from a 4-4-2 diamond against Slavia to be honest, I don’t think it would be a beneficial system for us to use regularly though.
 
SSJack said:
It’s defintley good to have options . In the most recent football manager I was having draw after draw until I changed formation to 4-1-2-3 with my main players being two old fashioned “ inside forwards “ who stay out wide but cut in and support the striker all of a sudden draws turned to wins with the exact same players . It shows what can be done , you can’t be rigid and stick to one strict formation and Gerrard himself has alluded to that .
Click to expand...
This has to be a bam up
 
To be honest, I don’t think he looks great in the small snapshots from the youtube videos but full trust is in the recruitment team and rightly so. Wonder if we are monitoring the boy at Morecambe who was linked a few weeks back he looked a cracker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top