The problem at Ibrox

[houstonhibbee]

I may be in the minority here but for me the problem wasn’t the formation or tactics it was the players inability to carry out instructions.
too many poor passes, giving the ball away too easily, poor control in dangerous positions, poor decision making and poor goalkeeeping

[Wilson]

Asking players to carry out instructions that they are incapable of doing... sounds like a tactical problem to me.

[Allant1981]

Asking players to carry out instructions that they are incapable of doing... sounds like a tactical problem to me.

What like pass a ball or mark a player

[Forza Fred]

The basic cause of the problem is that whether we like to admit it or not, their players are better than our players.

[Kato]

I may be in the minority here but for me the problem wasn’t the formation or tactics it was the players inability to carry out instructions.
too many poor passes, giving the ball away too easily, poor control in dangerous positions, poor decision making and poor goalkeeeping

Tactics are about 25% of the way a match will pan out. The rest is performance and managing how the match plays out.

If perform badly, pass the ball poorly and mark up poorly tactics have very little to do with that.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

Asking players to carry out instructions that they are incapable of doing... sounds like a tactical problem to me.So if we change formation the players pass the ball better?

Does this make sense to you?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Broken Gnome]

So if we change formation the players pass the ball better?

Does this make sense to you?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Would give you a better platform to have available players to pass to?

[Kato]

Would give you a better platform to have available players to pass to?I don't understand what that means.

If you perform poorly and make poor passes and lose your man what has that got to do with the formation?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[B.H.F.C]

Would give you a better platform to have available players to pass to?

First half we passed the ball out from the back well. We worked it in to good positions then the final pass was crap. It wasn’t the shape that caused us to over hit a pass either out the park or through to Butland 3 or 4 times in the space of about 15 minutes when in good areas.

[Broken Gnome]

Basically, I don't think we've done too badly passing out from the back - St Mirren cup game we were better than I thought we would be, and first half on Saturday was alright.

Second half we got swamped, and that can be an amalgamation of things - loss of confidence, lack of ability (not receiving the perfect pass, under pressure or otherwise) but also that whoever's receiving the ball can feel outnumbered and overwhelmed by the opposition. Having an extra man in the midfield as a quick transition pass could conceivably help with that, no?

Genuinely fed by reading the numbers 442 on here, we've not half all become amateur tactic nerds over the weekend.

[Frazerbob]

The problem is simple, even a relatively poor Rangers team has significantly better players in every position.

[BobbyT1875]

The problem is simple, even a relatively poor Rangers team has significantly better players in every position.

Agree . Not one Hibs player would get in the weedgie teams squad. They are miles ahead of every team in the league. Yes, they will lose the odd game

[LaMotta]

The pass the ball out from the back thing on Saturday was like a flash back to the Maloney days. I understand the thinking but not sure it works that well in practice against the likes of Rangers. They were quick at putting pressure on us and we inevitably just gave the ball away more often than not. Maybe the plan was to draw Rangers out and then use pace of Boyle and Youan to get in behind. Didn't pan out anything like that though.

Couple of times we did in get in decent positions around the half way line with the ball we chose the wrong decision too often - Obita and Youan missed some good opportunities early on to get us up the left as they weren't on the same page.

Surprised Doidge didn't start as his physicality might have been more useful to us in this game over some of the others he has started in.

[Gatecrasher]

I think the way the new manager wants us to play we are always going to have bad days, it's inevitable imo. I cant remember a time when we play out the back that's been successful. There's going to have to be a change of personnel to make this work. Even then when playing rangers or celtic, it's going to be a huge challenge. Hopefully Montgomery and the players learn from this because it's going to be tougher this week.

[BonnieFitbaTeam]

The problem is simple, even a relatively poor Rangers team has significantly better players in every position.


Indeed. So would probably be a good idea when we have the ball to try to keep it, not just give it to them time after time.

[flash]

Indeed. So would probably be a good idea when we have the ball to try to keep it, not just give it to them time after time.

Not sure that was deliberate.

[Winston Ingram]

Asking players to carry out instructions that they are incapable of doing... sounds like a tactical problem to me.

...add to that, they performed like any other team that decides to play a 442 these days. Utterly dominated in midfield with 2 boys sat up front starved of possession.

[Shrekko]

I've yet to see a game - ever, when an inferior team beats a superior team using this playing out from the back stuff and far better teams than Hibs have been caught out trying to play it.

The players didn't have the confidence, skill or bravery to make it work and Rangers (under a new management team) knew exactly how to deal with it. Even when the midfielder (normally Newell) was able to feed the ball out to the full-back it was invariably just blasted up the park.

Any system that is not getting the best out of your best players- Newell, Boyle, Youan and Vente isn't the right one.

The key to managing in the SPFL is being able to adapt to many different kinds of challenges.

[The Tubs]

The problem is simple, even a relatively poor Rangers team has significantly better players in every position.

Monty's challenge is make players believe they are better and make them play like that. I'd say the question is whether this can be done overnight or gradually.

[flash]

...add to that, they performed like any other team that decides to play a 442 these days. Utterly dominated in midfield with 2 boys sat up front starved of possession.

Le Fondre was dropping deep and out wide in the first half to good effect.
Vente was also moving around a lot.
We were let down too often by poor execution but the amount of people just barefaced lying about what happened to suit their viewpoint is utterly ridiculous.

[Hibees1973]

We just don't have very good defensive players in the squad.

I'm not going down this formations narrative, or even pointing the blame at individual players.

Away to Hearts & Rangers are difficult fixtures and we lost 6 goals. It could have been more, that is not in any doubt.

We need to give Montgomery & McDermott time to get better players in. Not just defenders, but midfield players as well.

The only worry I have is that Montgomery has been quoted a few times saying 'Im not going to change the way we play'. After a defeat I hope this is just him taking into account it was Ibrox and he is limited by the choice of player he has available. Every manager changes the way their team plays, you are not going to have the same 11 available every week.

Montgomery may need to just tweak his language a wee bit. He doesn't want to be labelled as a predictable manager who cannot alter/vary team formations.

[Spudster]

The pass the ball out from the back thing on Saturday was like a flash back to the Maloney days. I understand the thinking but not sure it works that well in practice against the likes of Rangers. They were quick at putting pressure on us and we inevitably just gave the ball away more often than not. Maybe the plan was to draw Rangers out and then use pace of Boyle and Youan to get in behind. Didn't pan out anything like that though.


The tactic was never going to work with the Squad Maloney had. Normally it was 3 at the back, a defensive midfielder and two full backs playing wide mid. Add the GK and that's 7 of the 11 essentially being defenders. Required miracles from the attacking players (which was normally a combo of Euan Henderson, James Scott, Melkerson, Mueller, JDH, Newell, Hauge and Campbell). Not saying it's the answer now but it's not comparable to Maloney's tactics.

[B.H.F.C]

...add to that, they performed like any other team that decides to play a 442 these days. Utterly dominated in midfield with 2 boys sat up front starved of possession.

But that’s no really how it always pans out when you play a 442 is it…..

[Pretty Boy]

We can discuss tactics and formations all day but individual sloppiness played a part as well. Struggling to retain possession is harder than many would have you believe when you are up against far better players and we weren't good enough in that regard for long spells. The goals were all just sloppy rather than out and out howlers, arguably the kind of goals you concede when your are having to defend for long spells and the discipline goes a wee bit.

The 1st goal sees Fish get himself caught out of position winning a header he doesn't need to go for, they get a break off the ball, Miller is then totally outpaced and Hanlon can't go across to cover as that leaves a man totally unmarked in the middle.

The 2nd starts with a poor touch from Newell that sees him mugged not once but twice, Jeggo is slow to get out and close down the shot and I think Marshall is still trying to get down for the shot now, he fell in stages. A cheap goal that all but kills the game before half time.

The 3rd neither Hanlon or Fish take responsibility for the runner, Fish is the man who can see him so he needs to take charge there and either deal with it himself or tell Hanlon, he sems to half step up, Hanlon doesn't and it's just too simple, the striker walks between them.

The 4th is a neat reverse pass but Rocky has absolutely no idea where the striker is, he keeps moving left about 10 minutes after the striker checks his run and moves right, the definition of ball watching, and Fish is never getting across to cover.

There isn't much a manager can do about that regardless of how you set up. Rangers moved the ball well for each goal but they were all fairly cheap in their own way, none of them really out and out howlers but all just a culmination of little errors that made it easier than it needed to be.

[B.H.F.C]

I've yet to see a game - ever, when an inferior team beats a superior team using this playing out from the back stuff and far better teams than Hibs have been caught out trying to play it.

The players didn't have the confidence, skill or bravery to make it work and Rangers (under a new management team) knew exactly how to deal with it. Even when the midfielder (normally Newell) was able to feed the ball out to the full-back it was invariably just blasted up the park.

Any system that is not getting the best out of your best players- Newell, Boyle, Youan and Vente isn't the right one.

The key to managing in the SPFL is being able to adapt to many different kinds of challenges.

I didn’t think the players were lacking confidence to play the ball out from the back. In fact, in the first half I thought it was the opposite, they were almost over confident and tried to do it too often. Definitely wasn’t a lack of bravery in trying to do it that cost us. Lack of quality aye, but no the rest.

[Iain G]

I didn’t think the players were lacking confidence to play the ball out from the back. In fact, in the first half I thought it was the opposite, they were almost over confident and tried to do it too often. Definitely wasn’t a lack of bravery in trying to do it that cost us. Lack of quality aye, but no the rest.

We need the players who can make a call when to pass it out and keep possession and when to get it forward more quickly and then the opposition, especially with the pace we have from Boyle and Youan. Need to be able to mix it up so we don't become predictable to play against.

A boozy or McGeough sitting in front of that defence would help, maybe that will work with Levitt?

[BoomtownHibees]

All the talk about playing out from the back and ironically the first goal came from us not doing it

[HarpOnHibee]

The problem is that we're determined to play exactly the same style in every single game, even games where it's blatantly obvious that such a style will fall apart when the opposition are playing with a high press. This style of football only works when the opposition are prepared to give us enough time on the ball to formulate a complex passing move. In games where we're not given enough time, we need to be more direct with our passing and movement. This means getting the ball into the opposition area with as few passes as possible. This doesn't necessarily mean hoofing the ball up into the air, it can still be played on the deck. But each pass has to serve the purpose of getting us up the field as quickly as possible, otherwise the opposition attack will simply close the defenders down when they want too much time to pass it around the back.

[LaMotta]

The tactic was never going to work with the Squad Maloney had. Normally it was 3 at the back, a defensive midfielder and two full backs playing wide mid. Add the GK and that's 7 of the 11 essentially being defenders. Required miracles from the attacking players (which was normally a combo of Euan Henderson, James Scott, Melkerson, Mueller, JDH, Newell, Hauge and Campbell). Not saying it's the answer now but it's not comparable to Maloney's tactics.

Well funnily enough when Maloney went to Ibrox and tried it we only lost 2-0 rather than 4-0. Doesnt matter how good a Hibs team we have - usually risky to go to Ibrox or Celtic park and try that against multi million pound squads.

[LaMotta]

All the talk about playing out from the back and ironically the first goal came from us not doing it

A lump up the pitch from Marshall shouldnt be problematic for us defensively. Problem was Marshall lumped it straight down the middle and he lumped it to the smallest man on the pitch Le Fondre. Ball comes straight back through the middle as a result then Miller and Hanlon get themselves in a guddle (and Huns get a bit of luck with the break of the ball).

[ancient hibee]

The problem is that we're determined to play exactly the same style in every single game, even games where it's blatantly obvious that such a style will fall apart when the opposition are playing with a high press. This style of football only works when the opposition are prepared to give us enough time on the ball to formulate a complex passing move. In games where we're not given enough time, we need to be more direct with our passing and movement. This means getting the ball into the opposition area with as few passes as possible. This doesn't necessarily mean hoofing the ball up into the air, it can still be played on the deck. But each pass has to serve the purpose of getting us up the field as quickly as possible, otherwise the opposition attack will simply close the defenders down when they want too much time to pass it around the back.

Very old story-supposedly true. Bill Shankly came into Liverpool one day with a new fangled tactics board. Set it up for the players to look at. Tommy Smith kicked it up in the air.”What are you doing Tommy?” “Other team just came onto the park boss.”

[hibeerealist]

We can discuss tactics and formations all day but individual sloppiness played a part as well. Struggling to retain possession is harder than many would have you believe when you are up against far better players and we weren't good enough in that regard for long spells. The goals were all just sloppy rather than out and out howlers, arguably the kind of goals you concede when your are having to defend for long spells and the discipline goes a wee bit.

The 1st goal sees Fish get himself caught out of position winning a header he doesn't need to go for, they get a break off the ball, Miller is then totally outpaced and Hanlon can't go across to cover as that leaves a man totally unmarked in the middle.

The 2nd starts with a poor touch from Newell that sees him mugged not once but twice, Jeggo is slow to get out and close down the shot and I think Marshall is still trying to get down for the shot now, he fell in stages. A cheap goal that all but kills the game before half time.

The 3rd neither Hanlon or Fish take responsibility for the runner, Fish is the man who can see him so he needs to take charge there and either deal with it himself or tell Hanlon, he sems to half step up, Hanlon doesn't and it's just too simple, the striker walks between them.

The 4th is a neat reverse pass but Rocky has absolutely no idea where the striker is, he keeps moving left about 10 minutes after the striker checks his run and moves right, the definition of ball watching, and Fish is never getting across to cover.

There isn't much a manager can do about that regardless of how you set up. Rangers moved the ball well for each goal but they were all fairly cheap in their own way, none of them really out and out howlers but all just a culmination of little errors that made it easier than it needed to be.

Great summary PB I agree with your points all the way through.

The reference to Marshall - he went down in instalments is a better description!!!:wink: