| Holloway: It's not about formations on 13:53 - Mar 2 with 2129 views | daveB |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 13:33 - Mar 2 by WestbourneR |
Dave that's a moot point - because it's his job to get the players performing.
Yes the players aren't performing but it's Ollie's job to make sure they are - otherwise he shouldn't be our manager. |
Of course he needs to get them motivated etc and he has the power on a match day to make changes to the shape or make subs etc but if they are not doing the basics right then not really much a manager can do about that other than shout at them |  | |  |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 13:54 - Mar 2 with 2129 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 13:30 - Mar 2 by WestbourneR |
That was me Brian - and yeah - I don't think he's the sharpest tool. I'd be very happy to be shown a quote from Ollie that demonstrates his sharp thinking. Or a testimony from single player saying his insight into the game helped them. I haven't seen it. |
Four promotions is enough for me cheers.
If you want clever quotes I think you should try and get Stephen Fry in as our manager, although I hear he favours a Christmas tree formation which would make our wingers even more redundant.
He deserves more respect that what you and a lot on this message board are giving him.
He he leaves here the with the same level as irrational dislike that JFH and CR got them quite frankly we need to have a long hard look at exactly what it is we contribute to the club after our time and money, which makes us entitled to question someone’s intelligence in a industry we only know up to playing Championship Manager 2003 in our underpants.
It’s right Olly is questioned, but his intelligence? Out of order in my opinion. |  | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 13:54 - Mar 2 with 2128 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 13:30 - Mar 2 by WestbourneR |
That was me Brian - and yeah - I don't think he's the sharpest tool. I'd be very happy to be shown a quote from Ollie that demonstrates his sharp thinking. Or a testimony from single player saying his insight into the game helped them. I haven't seen it. |
I don't think it's just you, Westy, or just one person. I think it's becoming a cliché among our fanbase.
I found the above interview, and find most of his interviews to be as lucid or no less lucid, as clear or no less clear, and as clever or no less clever than any of the other manager interviews I've heard from LR.
Gerry Francis's interviews were incredibly boring and repetitive, for example.
What's more, I don't really believe that we were any poorer tactically under Holloway than the average Rangers team of the last twenty years. I think we lack in certain areas, and I think our players sometimes play poorly, but when we lose I normally think it's because we haven't the players, or because we've missed chances, or we've not tracked our men. Rarely do I (honestly) think it's because their manager has outsmarted ours. |  |
| |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 13:55 - Mar 2 with 2124 views | daveB |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 12:54 - Mar 2 by 1JD |
I have no problem in drilling a system into the players, but surely that system has to be a good fit for the players you have available. I personally like the 3-5-2, as a system, but believe it to be the hardest one to pull off. You are effectively asking the wing backs to do the job of 2 players. A tough ask, even if you are highly talented with a diversified skill set.
The problem for me is we don’t have the players to make this system work effectively, hence bumpy results, and generally dire football. It is our Plan A, but how often to we revert to Plan B (a different system), upon going 2 behind. Where we actually start to believe and play a bit |
I think it's a good fit for some of our better players and allows us to play with 2 strikers. Far from perfect and would agree the wing backs are not playing well or really suited to whats being asked of them.
I just don't think it's as easy as switch the formation and all will be well. It will still the pretty much the same players and when they played in different formations last season they didn't look any better | | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:01 - Mar 2 with 2109 views | Northernr |
The formation isn't great, lots of problems, but every formation we play with this squad is going to have problems. I'd like him to change it, I've had thoughts on what I'd like to see the same as everybody. But I do think we're very prone to always believing we're on quick fix away if only the idiot manager/DOF/chairman could see it. If we're playing 3-5-2 we think we'd be vastly improved in 4-4-2 and if we're playing 4-4-2 we'd be vastly improved in 4-2-3-1. If Manning isn't playing then he's the answer, if Sylla isn't playing then he's the answer. If this manager isn't working then we must change and the next one definitely will, for some reason.
And as the managers and players and formations change so the results remain the same, and we move onto the next signing, the next youth team player, the next big idea.
You look at what Nigel Clough does at Burton on a League Two budget and you can't tell me that tactics, thought, formations etc don't make a difference. But at the same time I look at our squad, with centre backs like Lynch and Baptiste, and strikers like Smith and Washington, and think it's a bit of a stretch to think the formation is the main problem and changing it will send us shooting up the league. |  | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:02 - Mar 2 with 2104 views | headhoops |
Holloway wasn't employed for his tactical genius. He got the job because of his passion for the club ( which should never be in question), he was available, willing and cheap. However, as part of being a manager on rare occasions you do need to have some sort of tactic/shape/style of play. IH has placed all his bets on 3-5-2 which has hardly been successful - In that system the two full backs are key and Bidwell just isnt up to the job. Would be happy with him in a back 4. On the right side, well its just been tombola time.
Our best 3 players have been scowamango, build a 4-5-1 around them and just tell them to play.
Smithies
Furlong Onouha Hall Bidwell
Pawel/smythe Luongo Scowen Freeman eze/manning
Smith
And tell Smith to kick big racist John all game long.
and if that don't work lump a few ££ on scott hogan to score anytime and double your money. |  |
| |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:02 - Mar 2 with 2102 views | PunteR |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 13:54 - Mar 2 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Four promotions is enough for me cheers.
If you want clever quotes I think you should try and get Stephen Fry in as our manager, although I hear he favours a Christmas tree formation which would make our wingers even more redundant.
He deserves more respect that what you and a lot on this message board are giving him.
He he leaves here the with the same level as irrational dislike that JFH and CR got them quite frankly we need to have a long hard look at exactly what it is we contribute to the club after our time and money, which makes us entitled to question someone’s intelligence in a industry we only know up to playing Championship Manager 2003 in our underpants.
It’s right Olly is questioned, but his intelligence? Out of order in my opinion. |
I dont think he's unintelligent ,I just think he lets his heart rule his head sometimes . I guess the same could be applied to TF. |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:04 - Mar 2 with 2101 views | Mick_S |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 13:54 - Mar 2 by BrianMcCarthy |
I don't think it's just you, Westy, or just one person. I think it's becoming a cliché among our fanbase.
I found the above interview, and find most of his interviews to be as lucid or no less lucid, as clear or no less clear, and as clever or no less clever than any of the other manager interviews I've heard from LR.
Gerry Francis's interviews were incredibly boring and repetitive, for example.
What's more, I don't really believe that we were any poorer tactically under Holloway than the average Rangers team of the last twenty years. I think we lack in certain areas, and I think our players sometimes play poorly, but when we lose I normally think it's because we haven't the players, or because we've missed chances, or we've not tracked our men. Rarely do I (honestly) think it's because their manager has outsmarted ours. |
Shape and desire, Brian, that's what it is for me. You can also get done because the opposition are just that much better - ie Arsenal getting taken apart last night. |  |
| Did I ever mention that I was in Minder? |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:24 - Mar 2 with 2068 views | PinnerPaul |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 12:33 - Mar 2 by 1JD |
Sure I read the whole thing. He talks about having gaps, but it’s not about the formation. Very Redknapp-esque “it’s not about systems, it’s about players”.
So the gaps are nothing to do with having wing backs who can’t actually play wing back?
The complete lack of defensive to attacking transition is nothing to do with having Bidwell as a key man?
The nullified directness and willingness to take a man on by Pav is nothing to do with the fact he has no one behind him?
The complete lack of creativity in our passing game is nothing to do with having 3 centre mids sitting on top of one another, with zero movement?
Of course it’s about systems and formations. To suggest otherwise shows a complete disregard for the role of strategy, game plan, and tactics in the name of winning football matches.
Holloway is in denial. Not a good sign. |
Actually agree with most of that except the about the midfield - Scowen plays in front of back 4, Freeman is further forward with Mass in between. |  | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:32 - Mar 2 with 2042 views | WestbourneR |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 13:54 - Mar 2 by BrianMcCarthy |
I don't think it's just you, Westy, or just one person. I think it's becoming a cliché among our fanbase.
I found the above interview, and find most of his interviews to be as lucid or no less lucid, as clear or no less clear, and as clever or no less clever than any of the other manager interviews I've heard from LR.
Gerry Francis's interviews were incredibly boring and repetitive, for example.
What's more, I don't really believe that we were any poorer tactically under Holloway than the average Rangers team of the last twenty years. I think we lack in certain areas, and I think our players sometimes play poorly, but when we lose I normally think it's because we haven't the players, or because we've missed chances, or we've not tracked our men. Rarely do I (honestly) think it's because their manager has outsmarted ours. |
Yeah, I was kinda holding my hands up there, it's not the nicest thing to say.
I agree I don't think the tactics were any better under JFH.
But I do think they're bad now too and Ollie has no idea how to improve us. [Post edited 2 Mar 2018 14:42]
|  |
| |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:42 - Mar 2 with 2010 views | WestbourneR |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 13:54 - Mar 2 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Four promotions is enough for me cheers.
If you want clever quotes I think you should try and get Stephen Fry in as our manager, although I hear he favours a Christmas tree formation which would make our wingers even more redundant.
He deserves more respect that what you and a lot on this message board are giving him.
He he leaves here the with the same level as irrational dislike that JFH and CR got them quite frankly we need to have a long hard look at exactly what it is we contribute to the club after our time and money, which makes us entitled to question someone’s intelligence in a industry we only know up to playing Championship Manager 2003 in our underpants.
It’s right Olly is questioned, but his intelligence? Out of order in my opinion. |
I make it three promotions. I was hugely impressed with Blackpool (they played us the first day of that season and looked woeful) - but he more than blotted his copy book with Millwall. He was busted flush doing media work when we pulled back into the game.
I'm interested to know Baz - is questioning someone's intelligence flat wrong or is it just with Ollie that you think is out of order?
I don't want clever Stephen Fry quotes I just want coherence and sound reasoning. Not rambling jumbled thoughts that contradict each other. I'm guessing the players might like the same. | |
| |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:44 - Mar 2 with 2004 views | WestbourneR |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:01 - Mar 2 by Northernr |
The formation isn't great, lots of problems, but every formation we play with this squad is going to have problems. I'd like him to change it, I've had thoughts on what I'd like to see the same as everybody. But I do think we're very prone to always believing we're on quick fix away if only the idiot manager/DOF/chairman could see it. If we're playing 3-5-2 we think we'd be vastly improved in 4-4-2 and if we're playing 4-4-2 we'd be vastly improved in 4-2-3-1. If Manning isn't playing then he's the answer, if Sylla isn't playing then he's the answer. If this manager isn't working then we must change and the next one definitely will, for some reason.
And as the managers and players and formations change so the results remain the same, and we move onto the next signing, the next youth team player, the next big idea.
You look at what Nigel Clough does at Burton on a League Two budget and you can't tell me that tactics, thought, formations etc don't make a difference. But at the same time I look at our squad, with centre backs like Lynch and Baptiste, and strikers like Smith and Washington, and think it's a bit of a stretch to think the formation is the main problem and changing it will send us shooting up the league. |
North I agree there is a lot of the next great hope - and the new formation won't make us win every game - but getting wide and putting crosses onto Smith's head will score us a lot more goals. Same when Sylla was playing. | |
| |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:45 - Mar 2 with 1999 views | Dando |
Weve won 2 games away all season. The formation has nothing to do with it? Why do we always improve when we change it later in the game? Find myself asking the same question, every bloody game | | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:49 - Mar 2 with 1989 views | 1JD |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 13:55 - Mar 2 by daveB |
I think it's a good fit for some of our better players and allows us to play with 2 strikers. Far from perfect and would agree the wing backs are not playing well or really suited to whats being asked of them.
I just don't think it's as easy as switch the formation and all will be well. It will still the pretty much the same players and when they played in different formations last season they didn't look any better |
Agree It’s a good fit for some of our players, and herein lies the problem in my opinion. It’s good for some, but not for others. The big question is, does it have an overall positive impact on the team or an overall negative one? Or does it just cancel itself out, and we are neither good, nor bad, and just damn right average at best? Probably the latter to be fair.
But we can then take it one step further and ask if we believe there is a better system that would yield a better return on assets?. Those that don’t believe in strategy (“guiding principles”) and organisation design (“formations”) as a core platform for vision, team unity and team performance, only need to take a look at how our world works and why it works. And what separates the wheat from the chaff.
Here is the context, and back to football- if you are in a league of great similarity (the championship), how do you plan to be better than the rest? In a league where players and assets are of similar quality, what differentiates? What gives you the incremental margins that are the difference between mid-table mediocrity and top 6 contenders?
It is about getting the maximum out of the cards you are dealt. Are we getting the maximum out of the players at our disposal? I don’t believe this to be so, and think a change of system would suit our personnel better, yield a better performance, and see an uptick in results | | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:56 - Mar 2 with 1974 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:45 - Mar 2 by Dando |
Weve won 2 games away all season. The formation has nothing to do with it? Why do we always improve when we change it later in the game? Find myself asking the same question, every bloody game |
Not just with Rangers, but I always find myself asking that question.
Three possible, and I mean possible, reasons:-
1) What works against a home team defending a lead may not work against a home team looking for a lead. 442 against a home team throwing everything at us might leave us overrun in midfield, for instance, but not when they're protecting a lead and/or inclined to sit back
2) It's not the formation, it's the attitude. Maybe it's that when we fall behind it's that we push up and the oppo fall back, regardless of the formations involved. That often gives you momentum, and the pattern of the game then changes.
3) It's the psychology. Falling behind can often change the mentality of the away team and/or the underdog. You can go from a state of nervously protecting a clean sheet to having absolutely nothing to lose. For teams like us - financial trouble, selling players, young bench, poor away record - nerves often disappear when subconsciously you feel the game's gone anyway so, well, what's the worst that can happen now? So, free of psychological shackles, the team starts to play.
Just my ramblings. | |
| |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:57 - Mar 2 with 1968 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:32 - Mar 2 by WestbourneR |
Yeah, I was kinda holding my hands up there, it's not the nicest thing to say.
I agree I don't think the tactics were any better under JFH.
But I do think they're bad now too and Ollie has no idea how to improve us. [Post edited 2 Mar 2018 14:42]
|
I understand that, Westy.
I have a higher opinion of Holloway's performance than you do, but that's ok. I do understand your point re tactics, naturally. | |
| |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:57 - Mar 2 with 1964 views | daveB |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:44 - Mar 2 by WestbourneR |
North I agree there is a lot of the next great hope - and the new formation won't make us win every game - but getting wide and putting crosses onto Smith's head will score us a lot more goals. Same when Sylla was playing. |
I agree we need to get more crosses into the box but who are the wingers we have who can do this? I don't see any in this squad | | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 15:01 - Mar 2 with 1953 views | WestbourneR |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:57 - Mar 2 by daveB |
I agree we need to get more crosses into the box but who are the wingers we have who can do this? I don't see any in this squad |
Pavel and Smyth would be my first choices. BOS and (before he was injured Wheeler) Shodipo. | |
| |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 15:02 - Mar 2 with 1951 views | daveB |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:49 - Mar 2 by 1JD |
Agree It’s a good fit for some of our players, and herein lies the problem in my opinion. It’s good for some, but not for others. The big question is, does it have an overall positive impact on the team or an overall negative one? Or does it just cancel itself out, and we are neither good, nor bad, and just damn right average at best? Probably the latter to be fair.
But we can then take it one step further and ask if we believe there is a better system that would yield a better return on assets?. Those that don’t believe in strategy (“guiding principles”) and organisation design (“formations”) as a core platform for vision, team unity and team performance, only need to take a look at how our world works and why it works. And what separates the wheat from the chaff.
Here is the context, and back to football- if you are in a league of great similarity (the championship), how do you plan to be better than the rest? In a league where players and assets are of similar quality, what differentiates? What gives you the incremental margins that are the difference between mid-table mediocrity and top 6 contenders?
It is about getting the maximum out of the cards you are dealt. Are we getting the maximum out of the players at our disposal? I don’t believe this to be so, and think a change of system would suit our personnel better, yield a better performance, and see an uptick in results |
That would be the case if we switched formation, some players would benefit, others wouldn't. IMO the ones who would benefit are not as good as the ones the current system suits so would rather stick than twist at this stage of the season.
I think we should be doing better this season but not massively, i expected us to be 3/4 places higher in the league but overall this squad is a lower mid table one which is where we are | | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 15:05 - Mar 2 with 1941 views | daveB |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 15:01 - Mar 2 by WestbourneR |
Pavel and Smyth would be my first choices. BOS and (before he was injured Wheeler) Shodipo. |
Pawel hasn't put a cross in for months despite getting played into good positions every week. he usually hits the first man or cuts it back. I don't think BOS is one to put crosses in either, he looks more like someone who wants to cut inside.
Quite like Smyth but he's in the side anyway at the moment with freedom to go wide and get crosses in
I just don't think the wide players are as good as you seem to | | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 15:06 - Mar 2 with 1938 views | Dando |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:56 - Mar 2 by BrianMcCarthy |
Not just with Rangers, but I always find myself asking that question.
Three possible, and I mean possible, reasons:-
1) What works against a home team defending a lead may not work against a home team looking for a lead. 442 against a home team throwing everything at us might leave us overrun in midfield, for instance, but not when they're protecting a lead and/or inclined to sit back
2) It's not the formation, it's the attitude. Maybe it's that when we fall behind it's that we push up and the oppo fall back, regardless of the formations involved. That often gives you momentum, and the pattern of the game then changes.
3) It's the psychology. Falling behind can often change the mentality of the away team and/or the underdog. You can go from a state of nervously protecting a clean sheet to having absolutely nothing to lose. For teams like us - financial trouble, selling players, young bench, poor away record - nerves often disappear when subconsciously you feel the game's gone anyway so, well, what's the worst that can happen now? So, free of psychological shackles, the team starts to play.
Just my ramblings. |
I think even at home, we could do even better than we are. That might sound harsh, but I am actually convinced we could do slightly better than are. We have options on the left wing, we have options for the right. We have a perfectly good left back, so why not just play him there instead of asking him to do a job hes not suited to? Pavel was one of our best players last year, got a new contract - impressing at right wing, so why are we also not playing him there?
I get that we need the squad to try their best, work hard etc - but I don't think any of us really think theres any issue with their efforts do we? SOmetiems hard work can only get you so far. But if players are not suited to certain positions, it is going to affect the whole team as we end up having obvious weak areas. When do we ever threat down the left hand side? | | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 15:29 - Mar 2 with 1914 views | vegasranger |
Seems to me Holloway plans for stopping other teams play. more than setting us up to play. He never talks about transition for example. | | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 15:47 - Mar 2 with 1893 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 14:42 - Mar 2 by WestbourneR |
I make it three promotions. I was hugely impressed with Blackpool (they played us the first day of that season and looked woeful) - but he more than blotted his copy book with Millwall. He was busted flush doing media work when we pulled back into the game.
I'm interested to know Baz - is questioning someone's intelligence flat wrong or is it just with Ollie that you think is out of order?
I don't want clever Stephen Fry quotes I just want coherence and sound reasoning. Not rambling jumbled thoughts that contradict each other. I'm guessing the players might like the same. |
Flat wrong.
I'm guessing you don't know the guy personally, but he has achieved in his career something that 90% of other manager and footballers haven't done, playing and managing in the top league and winning trophies.
I'm no fan of Holloway particularly, just feel he deserves better than snipe about his intelligence. I'll also back him as long as he respects the club and wears our crest.
Do you think that his relationship with the players is the same as it is with you? I would imagine he saves the Taxi stories and fist banging for us, and the technical coaching for his players. | | | |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 16:01 - Mar 2 with 1864 views | WestbourneR |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 15:05 - Mar 2 by daveB |
Pawel hasn't put a cross in for months despite getting played into good positions every week. he usually hits the first man or cuts it back. I don't think BOS is one to put crosses in either, he looks more like someone who wants to cut inside.
Quite like Smyth but he's in the side anyway at the moment with freedom to go wide and get crosses in
I just don't think the wide players are as good as you seem to |
I don't think you can judge them properly until they've actually played as wingers. I thinl Pavel was very good when he did play on the wing - crossing from deep as a wing back is much more difficult. Even Freeman could play out wide.
You're also admitting that Ollie buying three wingers in the summer was all for absolutely no purpose.
You're bending over backwards to defend indefensible errors of judgement by the management. | |
| |
| Holloway: It's not about formations on 16:20 - Mar 2 with 1839 views | hubble |
I reckon we've seen enough of Holloway in his two tenures at this club to know a bit about him. Personally, I think he talks a load of bollocks some of the time, and his tactics - whether he rates them as important or not - are sometimes spot on and sometimes completely wrong. Sometimes he works it out during the game and changes it for the better, sometimes he doesn't. He plays players out of position a lot, it seems to be one of his trademarks. What this all says to me is that he is infuriatingly inconsistent. Why that is, I don't know - but it seems to be part of his make up.
My view on the 3 at the back system he's stuck to throughout the season is that we don't have the players for it. And infuriatingly (again), it's the one thing he seems to stick to consistently (at least in the first half). He also sticks with players who just aren't performing - Mackie earlier in the season, Washington after that. And at the same time he seems to take a dislike to players who are performing well, because they don't fit his ideal psychological profile or something. Of course that's just my view, but like I say, having watched his teams since 2001, I do have some idea of how he goes about the job of managing. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
