Gio flexibility and Lundstram's evolving role

AriseSirWalter

AriseSirWalter

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Find Gio's line ups fascinating, in particular how he sets out our defenders when were attacking, allowing us to get players forward while still having cover if it gets turnedover.

Ever since Tav's arrival we've had our full backs bomb forward, it was Wallace on the left under Warburton then eventually Borna. Warburton never made too many changes in midfield to cover Tav and Wallace which left us exposed. Gerrard came in and used two sitting/flat midfield 3 which made us much more solid but struggled creating from midfield at times as a result.

In the euro run last season gio started dropping Lundstram into defence to ensure we had cover when the full backs attacked. When Tav went Lundstram would drop to RB, when Borna went Bassey would move to LB and Lundstram would cover Bassey's position. If both went he'd go to the right of a back 3 with Goldson and Bassey. Effectively giving us 3 'systems' to allow us to attack on the left, right or both.

It's changed slightly (twice already) this season with Bassey gone. In Belgium we played a diamond in defence where Goldson was deepest Lundstram right, Sands left and Jack in front of them. Effectively a back 3 but Goldson deeper gave us passing triangles making it easier to progress the ball. This week we had Lundstram sitting in front of Goldson and Sands, still giving us passing triangles but I'd say Goldson and Sands both looked more comfortable and meaning Lundstram was still central and in the thick of it.

I can see us still having Lundstram on the right of a back 3, or filling for Tav when he attacks. I'm not sure what we'll do on the left as we've lost the option of Bassey going to LB.

I think we'll see a lot more of Tuesday's formation where JL will sit in front of the two CHs and the FBs will push on, effectively giving us a 2143 formation.

We won't win every game and when we don't Gio will get it like last week but think there's a strong foundation there for creating overloads in attack.

McLaughlin
Tav Goldson Davies Borna
Lundstram
Tillman Lawrence
Matondo Morelos Kent
​
Turns into......

McLaughlin
Goldson Davies
Lundstram
Tav Tillman Lawrence Borna
Matondo Morelos Kent
​
It'll be one of many different systems Gio uses but find it fascinating especially when compared to Gerrard and Warburton who both used attacking full backs. Warburton didn't seem to tweak anything to provide cover. I'd argue Gerrard over-compensated (domestically) and it resulted in a lack of creativity from midfield. Hopefully Gio has found a balance which allows us to get the FBs forward and have cover and creativity from midfield.

To think it probably all came from Lundstram being brought on to make a back 5 to help us see out the last 10/15 mins at Easter Rd!
​
 
We don't really though we are very fluid we start 433 and depending on situation switch to different formations depending on the situation

Jl a lot of the time was dropping into the middle of the cb when full backs pushed up but the reason is is we go right goldson would go long to Kent or into lundstrum and start to transition into attack through the middle
.
I actualy don't think gio wants us to play like that but two of our strongest assets are our fb so he has adapted to suit the team and it works
 

frazz said:
We don't really though we are very fluid we start 433 and depending on situation switch to different formations depending on the situation

Jl a lot of the time was dropping into the middle of the cb when full backs pushed up but the reason is is we go right goldson would go long to Kent or into lundstrum and start to transition into attack through the middle
.
I actualy don't think gio wants us to play like that but two of our strongest assets are our fb so he has adapted to suit the team and it works
Click to expand...

We don't really what?

I agree that Gio would rather use wingers than FBs but has tinkered because of our personnel.
 
AriseSirWalter said:
Find Gio's line ups fascinating, in particular how he sets out our defenders when were attacking, allowing us to get players forward while still having cover if it gets turnedover.

Ever since Tav's arrival we've had our full backs bomb forward, it was Wallace on the left under Warburton then eventually Borna. Warburton never made too many changes in midfield to cover Tav and Wallace which left us exposed. Gerrard came in and used two sitting/flat midfield 3 which made us much more solid but struggled creating from midfield at times as a result.

In the euro run last season gio started dropping Lundstram into defence to ensure we had cover when the full backs attacked. When Tav went Lundstram would drop to RB, when Borna went Bassey would move to LB and Lundstram would cover Bassey's position. If both went he'd go to the right of a back 3 with Goldson and Bassey. Effectively giving us 3 'systems' to allow us to attack on the left, right or both.

It's changed slightly (twice already) this season with Bassey gone. In Belgium we played a diamond in defence where Goldson was deepest Lundstram right, Sands left and Jack in front of them. Effectively a back 3 but Goldson deeper gave us passing triangles making it easier to progress the ball. This week we had Lundstram sitting in front of Goldson and Sands, still giving us passing triangles but I'd say Goldson and Sands both looked more comfortable and meaning Lundstram was still central and in the thick of it.

I can see us still having Lundstram on the right of a back 3, or filling for Tav when he attacks. I'm not sure what we'll do on the left as we've lost the option of Bassey going to LB.

I think we'll see a lot more of Tuesday's formation where JL will sit in front of the two CHs and the FBs will push on, effectively giving us a 2143 formation.

We won't win every game and when we don't Gio will get it like last week but think there's a strong foundation there for creating overloads in attack.

McLaughlin
Tav Goldson Davies Borna
Lundstram
Tillman Lawrence
Matondo Morelos Kent
​
Turns into......

McLaughlin
Goldson Davies
Lundstram
Tav Tillman Lawrence Borna
Matondo Morelos Kent
​
It'll be one of many different systems Gio uses but find it fascinating especially when compared to Gerrard and Warburton who both used attacking full backs. Warburton didn't seem to tweak anything to provide cover. I'd argue Gerrard over-compensated (domestically) and it resulted in a lack of creativity from midfield. Hopefully Gio has found a balance which allows us to get the FBs forward and have cover and creativity from midfield.

To think it probably all came from Lundstram being brought on to make a back 5 to help us see out the last 10/15 mins at Easter Rd!
​
Click to expand...


When teams are sitting deep, like Tuesday and likely this Saturday, I think Arfield is more likely to start than Matondo.

Craft, game intelligence and good movement around the box, are far more effective than pace, against deep lying defensive set ups.

Next Tuesday could be better suited to Matondo, as PSV will be more attacking and there will be space where he could exploit his pace on the counter.
 
AriseSirWalter said:
Find Gio's line ups fascinating, in particular how he sets out our defenders when were attacking, allowing us to get players forward while still having cover if it gets turnedover.

Ever since Tav's arrival we've had our full backs bomb forward, it was Wallace on the left under Warburton then eventually Borna. Warburton never made too many changes in midfield to cover Tav and Wallace which left us exposed. Gerrard came in and used two sitting/flat midfield 3 which made us much more solid but struggled creating from midfield at times as a result.

In the euro run last season gio started dropping Lundstram into defence to ensure we had cover when the full backs attacked. When Tav went Lundstram would drop to RB, when Borna went Bassey would move to LB and Lundstram would cover Bassey's position. If both went he'd go to the right of a back 3 with Goldson and Bassey. Effectively giving us 3 'systems' to allow us to attack on the left, right or both.

It's changed slightly (twice already) this season with Bassey gone. In Belgium we played a diamond in defence where Goldson was deepest Lundstram right, Sands left and Jack in front of them. Effectively a back 3 but Goldson deeper gave us passing triangles making it easier to progress the ball. This week we had Lundstram sitting in front of Goldson and Sands, still giving us passing triangles but I'd say Goldson and Sands both looked more comfortable and meaning Lundstram was still central and in the thick of it.

I can see us still having Lundstram on the right of a back 3, or filling for Tav when he attacks. I'm not sure what we'll do on the left as we've lost the option of Bassey going to LB.

I think we'll see a lot more of Tuesday's formation where JL will sit in front of the two CHs and the FBs will push on, effectively giving us a 2143 formation.

We won't win every game and when we don't Gio will get it like last week but think there's a strong foundation there for creating overloads in attack.

McLaughlin
Tav Goldson Davies Borna
Lundstram
Tillman Lawrence
Matondo Morelos Kent
​
Turns into......

McLaughlin
Goldson Davies
Lundstram
Tav Tillman Lawrence Borna
Matondo Morelos Kent
​
It'll be one of many different systems Gio uses but find it fascinating especially when compared to Gerrard and Warburton who both used attacking full backs. Warburton didn't seem to tweak anything to provide cover. I'd argue Gerrard over-compensated (domestically) and it resulted in a lack of creativity from midfield. Hopefully Gio has found a balance which allows us to get the FBs forward and have cover and creativity from midfield.

To think it probably all came from Lundstram being brought on to make a back 5 to help us see out the last 10/15 mins at Easter Rd!
​
Click to expand...
Good observations and frankly better analysis than any of the pundits we suffer on tv
 
Highway Star said:
When teams are sitting deep, like Tuesday and likely this Saturday, I think Arfield is more likely to start than Matondo.

Craft, game intelligence and good movement around the box, are far more effective than pace, against deep lying defensive set ups.

Next Tuesday could be better suited to Matondo, as PSV will be more attacking and there will be space where he could exploit his pace on the counter.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I think Arfields guild is better than pace against deep sitting defences. Just have those line ups as an example of the defensive shape when attacking.
 
AriseSirWalter said:
Find Gio's line ups fascinating, in particular how he sets out our defenders when were attacking, allowing us to get players forward while still having cover if it gets turnedover.

Ever since Tav's arrival we've had our full backs bomb forward, it was Wallace on the left under Warburton then eventually Borna. Warburton never made too many changes in midfield to cover Tav and Wallace which left us exposed. Gerrard came in and used two sitting/flat midfield 3 which made us much more solid but struggled creating from midfield at times as a result.

In the euro run last season gio started dropping Lundstram into defence to ensure we had cover when the full backs attacked. When Tav went Lundstram would drop to RB, when Borna went Bassey would move to LB and Lundstram would cover Bassey's position. If both went he'd go to the right of a back 3 with Goldson and Bassey. Effectively giving us 3 'systems' to allow us to attack on the left, right or both.

It's changed slightly (twice already) this season with Bassey gone. In Belgium we played a diamond in defence where Goldson was deepest Lundstram right, Sands left and Jack in front of them. Effectively a back 3 but Goldson deeper gave us passing triangles making it easier to progress the ball. This week we had Lundstram sitting in front of Goldson and Sands, still giving us passing triangles but I'd say Goldson and Sands both looked more comfortable and meaning Lundstram was still central and in the thick of it.

I can see us still having Lundstram on the right of a back 3, or filling for Tav when he attacks. I'm not sure what we'll do on the left as we've lost the option of Bassey going to LB.

I think we'll see a lot more of Tuesday's formation where JL will sit in front of the two CHs and the FBs will push on, effectively giving us a 2143 formation.

We won't win every game and when we don't Gio will get it like last week but think there's a strong foundation there for creating overloads in attack.

McLaughlin
Tav Goldson Davies Borna
Lundstram
Tillman Lawrence
Matondo Morelos Kent
​
Turns into......

McLaughlin
Goldson Davies
Lundstram
Tav Tillman Lawrence Borna
Matondo Morelos Kent
​
It'll be one of many different systems Gio uses but find it fascinating especially when compared to Gerrard and Warburton who both used attacking full backs. Warburton didn't seem to tweak anything to provide cover. I'd argue Gerrard over-compensated (domestically) and it resulted in a lack of creativity from midfield. Hopefully Gio has found a balance which allows us to get the FBs forward and have cover and creativity from midfield.

To think it probably all came from Lundstram being brought on to make a back 5 to help us see out the last 10/15 mins at Easter Rd!
​
Click to expand...
So he brought in Colak who scores goals consistently and Yilmaz who cost a fair whack not to play?
 
I love posts like these as it’s fascinating as I’m a ball watcher and what’s happening in vicinity of the player with the ball when watching the game rather than what’s happening on the rest of the pitch.
 
Highway Star said:
When teams are sitting deep, like Tuesday and likely this Saturday, I think Arfield is more likely to start than Matondo.

Craft, game intelligence and good movement around the box, are far more effective than pace, against deep lying defensive set ups.

Next Tuesday could be better suited to Matondo, as PSV will be more attacking and there will be space where he could exploit his pace on the counter.
Click to expand...
Arfield was quiet on Tuesday night mate, imo.
 
Highway Star said:
When teams are sitting deep, like Tuesday and likely this Saturday, I think Arfield is more likely to start than Matondo.

Craft, game intelligence and good movement around the box, are far more effective than pace, against deep lying defensive set ups.

Next Tuesday could be better suited to Matondo, as PSV will be more attacking and there will be space where he could exploit his pace on the counter.
Click to expand...
He’s more likely to break into the box but he did this, at least, five times on Tuesday without anybody trying to find him or maybe not even noticing him.
Im not suggesting it’s an easy pass to deliver but, to my eyes, nobody was even looking for him.
 
SmileyBear said:
I hope not as Colak certainly figures before Matondo who's still to earn his place, yet you have him in both teams.
Click to expand...

Matondo and Cloak play in different positions so if Matondo starts it's not at the expense of Colak!

What do you mean 'both teams' I've shown the same team in a defensive shape and an attacking one. It was to show the team shape not a prediction of starting XI.
 
Tav only reverted to being fully attacking under Gio after the loss at the Piggery.
Gio up until that point was showing strategy that was more negative than under SG. It had stabilised and worked post Hibs debacle but ultimately ran out of steam.

I am not sure what we are looking like or going to look like under him and this season we've seen quite a lot of changes already.

I'm really not sure what to expect but obviously it takes time to put your stamp fully on a team. In some ways like the OP I find it fascinating some of the variety we see but in other ways we've seen some peculiar decisions.

It's a brave Bear who can honestly say Gio has a style -it appears to be developing. Which again can be seen as a positive but could also indicate something of a negative.

It's very interesting times.
 
AriseSirWalter said:
Matondo and Cloak play in different positions so if Matondo starts it's not at the expense of Colak!

What do you mean 'both teams' I've shown the same team in a defensive shape and an attacking one. It was to show the team shape not a prediction of starting XI.
Click to expand...
Yes, they do, I just thought anyone making two teams up would include a player who's scoring in Europe and in the league plus our biggest signing off the summer.
It's not a criticism its an opinion.
 
top_cat said:
Arfield was quiet on Tuesday night mate, imo.
Click to expand...
tazzabear said:
He’s more likely to break into the box but he did this, at least, five times on Tuesday without anybody trying to find him or maybe not even noticing him.
Im not suggesting it’s an easy pass to deliver but, to my eyes, nobody was even looking for him.
Click to expand...

Arfield was on to get close to Colak but we didn't stretch them enough in the first half to make space for balls through to him. I said to my brother around 30 mins that we should switch Tillman with Arfield for 15 mins to try move them about a bit more by Tillman beating opponents then once we unsettled them Arfield would get more not.

Gio selection proved right though when Arfield got space for our second.
 
DylanGer said:
Tav only reverted to being fully attacking under Gio after the loss at the Piggery.
Gio up until that point was showing strategy that was more negative than under SG. It had stabilised and worked post Hibs debacle but ultimately ran out of steam.

I am not sure what we are looking like or going to look like under him and this season we've seen quite a lot of changes already.

I'm really not sure what to expect but obviously it takes time to put your stamp fully on a team. In some ways like the OP I find it fascinating some of the variety we see but in other ways we've seen some peculiar decisions.

It's a brave Bear who can honestly say Gio has a style -it appears to be developing. Which again can be seen as a positive but could also indicate something of a negative.

It's very interesting times.
Click to expand...
I think we changed for the better when it was forced upon him with Hagi out and Morelos injured this is not a criticism of Gio just pointing it out, we went more direct with quicker players and that got us to a Euro Final and won a Cup.
 
SmileyBear said:
Yes, they do, I just thought anyone making two teams up would include a player who's scoring in Europe and in the league plus our biggest signing off the summer.
It's not a criticism its an opinion.
Click to expand...

It was only one team that I posted and with the formation it would be Morelos that would make way for Colak. I'm a fan of Colak, I'd have him playing lots as he looks a better finished than Morelos IMO.
 
AriseSirWalter said:
It was only one team that I posted and with the formation it would be Morelos that would make way for Colak. I'm a fan of Colak, I'd have him playing lots as he looks a better finished than Morelos IMO.
Click to expand...
Morelos does have other qualities as well both completely different players I hope they both keep on scoring as that's what we need.
Yes, Colak is more of a natural striker.
 
DylanGer said:
Tav only reverted to being fully attacking under Gio after the loss at the Piggery.
Gio up until that point was showing strategy that was more negative than under SG. It had stabilised and worked post Hibs debacle but ultimately ran out of steam.

I am not sure what we are looking like or going to look like under him and this season we've seen quite a lot of changes already.

I'm really not sure what to expect but obviously it takes time to put your stamp fully on a team. In some ways like the OP I find it fascinating some of the variety we see but in other ways we've seen some peculiar decisions.

It's a brave Bear who can honestly say Gio has a style -it appears to be developing. Which again can be seen as a positive but could also indicate something of a negative.

It's very interesting times.
Click to expand...

I agree that Tav was initially told to sit but disagree that was negative. He wanted the wingers to play high and wide, in theory allowing them to be more creative and also provide more space for Morelos and attacking midfielder, Aribo at the time.

I think some games (parkhead, DU at Ibrox when he had to bring Aribo on when risking suspension) showed the midfield wasn't suited to playing so open so he played two of Lundstram, Jack, Kamara when possible meaning the FBs went back to previous role.

I think Gio is probably too flexible for us to see too much of a style which is unsettling but agree with the principle of horses for courses.
 
AriseSirWalter said:
Find Gio's line ups fascinating, in particular how he sets out our defenders when were attacking, allowing us to get players forward while still having cover if it gets turnedover.

Ever since Tav's arrival we've had our full backs bomb forward, it was Wallace on the left under Warburton then eventually Borna. Warburton never made too many changes in midfield to cover Tav and Wallace which left us exposed. Gerrard came in and used two sitting/flat midfield 3 which made us much more solid but struggled creating from midfield at times as a result.

In the euro run last season gio started dropping Lundstram into defence to ensure we had cover when the full backs attacked. When Tav went Lundstram would drop to RB, when Borna went Bassey would move to LB and Lundstram would cover Bassey's position. If both went he'd go to the right of a back 3 with Goldson and Bassey. Effectively giving us 3 'systems' to allow us to attack on the left, right or both.

It's changed slightly (twice already) this season with Bassey gone. In Belgium we played a diamond in defence where Goldson was deepest Lundstram right, Sands left and Jack in front of them. Effectively a back 3 but Goldson deeper gave us passing triangles making it easier to progress the ball. This week we had Lundstram sitting in front of Goldson and Sands, still giving us passing triangles but I'd say Goldson and Sands both looked more comfortable and meaning Lundstram was still central and in the thick of it.

I can see us still having Lundstram on the right of a back 3, or filling for Tav when he attacks. I'm not sure what we'll do on the left as we've lost the option of Bassey going to LB.

I think we'll see a lot more of Tuesday's formation where JL will sit in front of the two CHs and the FBs will push on, effectively giving us a 2143 formation.

We won't win every game and when we don't Gio will get it like last week but think there's a strong foundation there for creating overloads in attack.

McLaughlin
Tav Goldson Davies Borna
Lundstram
Tillman Lawrence
Matondo Morelos Kent
​
Turns into......

McLaughlin
Goldson Davies
Lundstram
Tav Tillman Lawrence Borna
Matondo Morelos Kent
​
It'll be one of many different systems Gio uses but find it fascinating especially when compared to Gerrard and Warburton who both used attacking full backs. Warburton didn't seem to tweak anything to provide cover. I'd argue Gerrard over-compensated (domestically) and it resulted in a lack of creativity from midfield. Hopefully Gio has found a balance which allows us to get the FBs forward and have cover and creativity from midfield.

To think it probably all came from Lundstram being brought on to make a back 5 to help us see out the last 10/15 mins at Easter Rd!
​
Click to expand...


Brilliant mare, thanks.
 
AriseSirWalter said:
I agree that Tav was initially told to sit but disagree that was negative. He wanted the wingers to play high and wide, in theory allowing them to be more creative and also provide more space for Morelos and attacking midfielder, Aribo at the time.

I think some games (parkhead, DU at Ibrox when he had to bring Aribo on when risking suspension) showed the midfield wasn't suited to playing so open so he played two of Lundstram, Jack, Kamara when possible meaning the FBs went back to previous role.

I think Gio is probably too flexible for us to see too much of a style which is unsettling but agree with the principle of horses for courses.
Click to expand...
I think what makes it hard is Gerrard's style seemed easier to read, while Gio changes it quite a bit which is good.
 
Bluemail said:
I love posts like these as it’s fascinating as I’m a ball watcher and what’s happening in vicinity of the player with the ball when watching the game rather than what’s happening on the rest of the pitch.
Click to expand...

I’m the exact same. Thought it may have something to do with sitting in the west enclosure but I had my dads ticket for Sparta last season and even then I was just following the ball.
 
DylanGer said:
Tav only reverted to being fully attacking under Gio after the loss at the Piggery.
Gio up until that point was showing strategy that was more negative than under SG. It had stabilised and worked post Hibs debacle but ultimately ran out of steam.

I am not sure what we are looking like or going to look like under him and this season we've seen quite a lot of changes already.

I'm really not sure what to expect but obviously it takes time to put your stamp fully on a team. In some ways like the OP I find it fascinating some of the variety we see but in other ways we've seen some peculiar decisions.

It's a brave Bear who can honestly say Gio has a style -it appears to be developing. Which again can be seen as a positive but could also indicate something of a negative.

It's very interesting times.
Click to expand...
I think he found it eventually after a poor start from the winter break but now he's brought a few players in he's trying to see what works again.
I think he's bought some variety to be fair, it's just getting them settled and up to speed with the rest of the team now.
 
Really interesting OP. I think we wont really see what Gio's ideal set up will be until after maybe the world cup when weve got all the new players bedded in. He's probably got 2 or 3 different things in mind as well.
I have to say even though he wont always get it right, I like the fact that he's ballsy and not afraid to mix it up. And I like that he's pragmatic enough to accomodate the core of good experienced players we have rather than be married to a set system and style.
 
DylanGer said:
Tav only reverted to being fully attacking under Gio after the loss at the Piggery.
Gio up until that point was showing strategy that was more negative than under SG. It had stabilised and worked post Hibs debacle but ultimately ran out of steam.

I am not sure what we are looking like or going to look like under him and this season we've seen quite a lot of changes already.

I'm really not sure what to expect but obviously it takes time to put your stamp fully on a team. In some ways like the OP I find it fascinating some of the variety we see but in other ways we've seen some peculiar decisions.

It's a brave Bear who can honestly say Gio has a style -it appears to be developing. Which again can be seen as a positive but could also indicate something of a negative.

It's very interesting times.
Click to expand...
Why would a manager, or a player, need to have a distinctive style?
Would that not make him predictable?
If you were the opposition player, or manager, would you not more fear an opponent who you couldn’t second guess?
 
tazzabear said:
Why would a manager, or a player, need to have a distinctive style?
Would that not make him predictable?
If you were the opposition player, or manager, would you not more fear an opponent who you couldn’t second guess?
Click to expand...
Most managers have a style though usually only subject to change when the opposition poses an unique threat or are better. And of course you need to be able to change during games.

Gio came with a defensive style pre-Piggery whether that was due to the fact we required to get back to basics or his preference we will probably never know.
Anyone saying we didn’t wasn’t paying attention to the detail -full backs stayed back we knocked it forward more than our previous passing style -it worked for a while then fell apart. The players looked lost.
Since the Piggery game it looked like they had all sat down and discussed a way forward-it’s been miles better and more possession/passing football based.

Bottom line at Rangers Gio will be defined by results irrespective of style. In Scotland the challenge we face most weeks is pretty similar -Europe obviously is different.
In my view it’s irrelevant how he progresses he just needs to do it-the point I was making no one can be sure of his footballing approach-you seldom see the massive style change backwards and forwards last season
 
DylanGer said:
Most managers have a style though usually only subject to change when the opposition poses an unique threat or are better. And of course you need to be able to change during games.

Gio came with a defensive style pre-Piggery whether that was due to the fact we required to get back to basics or his preference we will probably never know.
Anyone saying we didn’t wasn’t paying attention to the detail -full backs stayed back we knocked it forward more than our previous passing style -it worked for a while then fell apart. The players looked lost.
Since the Piggery game it looked like they had all sat down and discussed a way forward-it’s been miles better and more possession/passing football based.

Bottom line at Rangers Gio will be defined by results irrespective of style. In Scotland the challenge we face most weeks is pretty similar -Europe obviously is different.
In my view it’s irrelevant how he progresses he just needs to do it-the point I was making no one can be sure of his footballing approach-you seldom see the massive style change backwards and forwards last season
Click to expand...

Mentioned this above but just because the full backs were told to sit doesn't mean that Gio was more defensive minded.

When Gerrard got the fullbacks to attack he used a flat midfield three and two #10s that were played centrally and significant defensive duties. Gio got the fullbacks to sit when he first came in but released the wingers to play high and wide with little defensive duties. As a result there was more space for Morelos and Aribo as attacking midfielder. So by asking the fullbacks to sit a bit it allowed the RW/LW/AM to attack more.

We can debate how much joy we got out of it but just because two fullbacks were asked to sit it doesn't necessarily mean he was more defensive - he just chose to attack in a different way.
 
AriseSirWalter said:
Mentioned this above but just because the full backs were told to sit doesn't mean that Gio was more defensive minded.

When Gerrard got the fullbacks to attack he used a flat midfield three and two #10s that were played centrally and significant defensive duties. Gio got the fullbacks to sit when he first came in but released the wingers to play high and wide with little defensive duties. As a result there was more space for Morelos and Aribo as attacking midfielder. So by asking the fullbacks to sit a bit it allowed the RW/LW/AM to attack more.

We can debate how much joy we got out of it but just because two fullbacks were asked to sit it doesn't necessarily mean he was more defensive - he just chose to attack in a different way.
Click to expand...

You can use whatever description you want-we played more long balls and sat back a bit more -it was less controlled but in a way less open also. It ran aground teams got used to it-it appeared the players didn't like it. And he abandoned it.

So that's the thing about Gio he tried something for a reasonable period up until the piggery when the league momentum had fully swung.
 
AriseSirWalter said:
Find Gio's line ups fascinating, in particular how he sets out our defenders when were attacking, allowing us to get players forward while still having cover if it gets turnedover.

Ever since Tav's arrival we've had our full backs bomb forward, it was Wallace on the left under Warburton then eventually Borna. Warburton never made too many changes in midfield to cover Tav and Wallace which left us exposed. Gerrard came in and used two sitting/flat midfield 3 which made us much more solid but struggled creating from midfield at times as a result.

In the euro run last season gio started dropping Lundstram into defence to ensure we had cover when the full backs attacked. When Tav went Lundstram would drop to RB, when Borna went Bassey would move to LB and Lundstram would cover Bassey's position. If both went he'd go to the right of a back 3 with Goldson and Bassey. Effectively giving us 3 'systems' to allow us to attack on the left, right or both.

It's changed slightly (twice already) this season with Bassey gone. In Belgium we played a diamond in defence where Goldson was deepest Lundstram right, Sands left and Jack in front of them. Effectively a back 3 but Goldson deeper gave us passing triangles making it easier to progress the ball. This week we had Lundstram sitting in front of Goldson and Sands, still giving us passing triangles but I'd say Goldson and Sands both looked more comfortable and meaning Lundstram was still central and in the thick of it.

I can see us still having Lundstram on the right of a back 3, or filling for Tav when he attacks. I'm not sure what we'll do on the left as we've lost the option of Bassey going to LB.

I think we'll see a lot more of Tuesday's formation where JL will sit in front of the two CHs and the FBs will push on, effectively giving us a 2143 formation.

We won't win every game and when we don't Gio will get it like last week but think there's a strong foundation there for creating overloads in attack.

McLaughlin
Tav Goldson Davies Borna
Lundstram
Tillman Lawrence
Matondo Morelos Kent
​
Turns into......

McLaughlin
Goldson Davies
Lundstram
Tav Tillman Lawrence Borna
Matondo Morelos Kent
​
It'll be one of many different systems Gio uses but find it fascinating especially when compared to Gerrard and Warburton who both used attacking full backs. Warburton didn't seem to tweak anything to provide cover. I'd argue Gerrard over-compensated (domestically) and it resulted in a lack of creativity from midfield. Hopefully Gio has found a balance which allows us to get the FBs forward and have cover and creativity from midfield.

To think it probably all came from Lundstram being brought on to make a back 5 to help us see out the last 10/15 mins at Easter Rd!
​
Click to expand...
interesting insight
 
DylanGer said:
You can use whatever description you want-we played more long balls and sat back a bit more -it was less controlled but in a way less open also. It ran aground teams got used to it-it appeared the players didn't like it. And he abandoned it.

So that's the thing about Gio he tried something for a reasonable period up until the piggery when the league momentum had fully swung.
Click to expand...

I agree we had less control in Gio's early games (despite the 'protect the zero') disagree we were less open. We got the ball forward more quickly and stretched the game, there was more space for Aribo, morelos, Kent etc.

We changed because we were too open, not because we were too defensive. Gio pulled the wingers in a bit and was less expansive in midfield. The FBs were then given more license again as creativity from midfield didn't outweigh the risks.
 
Good post OP. I enjoyed reading your thought.

However, part of me still pines for the old WM formations of yesteryear. I’m guessing that would be 3-4-3 in todays language
 
AriseSirWalter said:
I agree we had less control in Gio's early games (despite the 'protect the zero') disagree we were less open. We got the ball forward more quickly and stretched the game, there was more space for Aribo, morelos, Kent etc.

We changed because we were too open, not because we were too defensive. Gio pulled the wingers in a bit and was less expansive in midfield. The FBs were then given more license again as creativity from midfield didn't outweigh the risks.
Click to expand...

Any system where your back four is sat further back is more open in my opinion-I get you can defend from front to back and if you are not doing that then....but imo that's not what we were doing.

I never understood once we regained some confidence/results he thought why that would suit us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top