Massimo Luongo - Lge 1 level footballer? - Signs new contract until 2020

[Shania]

I certainly don't think he's a combative central midfielder. He ain't tough enough for that, particularly in this league. Yet I feel at times that is what Ollie expects of him. It was actually quite embarrassing to watch him try and mix it this weekend!

That was what I thought Cousins was.

[Stanley]

Burton was the only glaring tactical error for me....just can't see why he changed a side with momentum.

His formation in the first half on Sat was a glaring tactical error too Mush IMO. He got it hopelessly wrong, didn't do his homework on the oppo and before we know it we're 0-2 down.

[Ginger Ninja]

His formation in the first half on Sat was a glaring tactical error too Mush IMO. He got it hopelessly wrong, didn't do his homework on the oppo and before we know it we're 0-2 down.

I agree. 2nd half was much much better because he had learned from his mistakes made in the first half but unfortunately by then it was too late.

[Shepherds Mush]

His formation in the first half on Sat was a glaring tactical error too Mush IMO. He got it hopelessly wrong, didn't do his homework on the oppo and before we know it we're 0-2 down.

Yeah, you are probably right. I'd be more inclined to put it down to simple poor defending as we had chances to stop both goals before a shot was fired.

How their bloke wriggled through Luongo AND Manning in the lead up to the first was inexcusable.

[Tarbie]

His formation in the first half on Sat was a glaring tactical error too Mush IMO. He got it hopelessly wrong, didn't do his homework on the oppo and before we know it we're 0-2 down.

I was about to say the same.

Had the personnel for a very solid looking 4-4-2. Selected a 3-5-2 with makeshift wing backs. Then after going 2 goals down switches back to the starting 11 that everyone else in the ground but him saw when they read the team sheet.

Literally the dictionary definition of a glaring tactical error!

[Hove Ranger]

Good news him signing a new contract

[knocker]

Young player in inconsistent performances shock....

He's 24 for fu ck sake.

[Tarbie]

He's 24 for fu ck sake.

Halfway through your career these days!

[Stanley]

Yeah, you are probably right. I'd be more inclined to put it down to simple poor defending as we had chances to stop both goals before a shot was fired.

When you play 3-5-2 you're reliant on good communication between the 3 defenders over who's marking who. You play a system which the players aren't completely familiar with then they're far more likely to make those errors you refer to.

Maybe they'd worked on it in training but it really didn't show. Either you play a flat back four, or the system with Hall playing a dual role. That's what the team are used to. Changing it once again was a recipe for disaster against a team like Huddersfield.

How their bloke wriggled through Luongo AND Manning in the lead up to the first was inexcusable.

Agreed.

[1973 ranger]

Not sure why he is trying to be clever with the teams he is putting out.

[Stanley]

TBH this was the first time Ollie's starting selection/formation really pee'd me orf.

His games up until Saturday the teams kind of made sense even if it didn't always succeed.

[Rangers77]

TBH this was the first time Ollie's starting selection/formation really pee'd me orf.

His games up until Saturday the teams kind of made sense even if it didn't always succeed.

Funnily enough, Stan, I think if we'd got one in the first fifteen minutes when we were pressing and had then weathered their storm (a BIG if and an and) we might have been OK..... The trouble with that three/ five at the back is us being so open in the middle. Two lightweights like Luongo and Manning doesn't provide the cover needed when the opposition press quickly and we're tracking back. And neither, especially, Luongo provide the necessary offensive play needed to press up, play the ball forward, and occasionally get in front of the front two. So... We haven't the players in the middle, so probalably ought stick to 442/ 451 or 4231 with Morrison in the hole. A decent defensive midfielder, mind, and three at the back could work for us. PAwel can play wing back. But Bidwell probably not.

[Stanley]

Funnily enough, Stan, I think if we'd got one in the first fifteen minutes when we were pressing and had then weathered their storm (a BIG if and an and) we might have been OK.....

Fair point. If their keeper hadn't pulled off that worldy from Conor we'd have been 1-0 up and could have been a different story. He made another outstanding save 2nd half from Smith's point blank header.

The trouble with that three/ five at the back is us being so open in the middle. Two lightweights like Luongo and Manning doesn't provide the cover needed when the opposition press quickly and we're tracking back. And neither, especially, Luongo provide the necessary offensive play needed to press up, play the ball forward, and occasionally get in front of the front two. So... We haven't the players in the middle, so probalably ought stick to 442/ 451 or 4231 with Morrison in the hole. A decent defensive midfielder, mind, and three at the back could work for us. PAwel can play wing back. But Bidwell probably not.

Hmm, can he defend though? It's certainly not his strong point. Agree on all your other points.

[1973 ranger]

What about the selection for the Burton game Stan, Did that not pee you off?

[Pinkie]

Not being funny 73 but ffs youre like a stuck record with about the burton game, its long gone and history, ollie made a big mistake and he admitted it, now we have to move on!