The three at the back Rangers system that could fit James Tavernier and Nathan Patterson

It’s a question to which Steven Gerrard and his coaching team are exploring answers.

In part one of this article released yesterday, The Rangers Review put Gerrard’s comments following Saturday’s match with Arsenal into focus.

Having admitted that he wants to fit both of his right-backs in the same starting 11, the Rangers manager suggested two different shapes that could achieve this.

He told RangersTV: “If we use this system it will maybe be in more of a back three or in a 4-1-4-1, where James is more out wide where he is more used to being and where he is when he is playing right-back.”

READ MORE: Part one: How will Rangers fit James Tavernier and Nathan Patterson in the starting XI?

While we have seen plenty of right-footed left-backs, Leonardo Spinazzola was arguably the player of the tournament until his injury at EURO 2020, it seems unlikely Gerrard will model something similar.

If Tavernier were to be fielded on the left side, he would likely drift infield and attempt to impact the game as an inverted full-back. But Rangers are totally reliant on their width from left and right-back and boast excellent options already in Borna Barisic and Calvin Bassey.

The two systems mentioned by Gerrard would see both Tavernier and Patterson fielded from their natural right side.

With that being said, let’s explore specifically how Rangers could model the three at the back utilised by Scotland to cater for both of their attacking left-backs.

Three at the back 

Scotland’s efforts to get the best out of Liverpool’s Andy Robertson and Arsenal’s Kieran Tierney are well documented. Both could argue their case to being Scotland’s best player and both are left-backs. Scotland’s 3-5-2 formation is tailored to allow each player to best use the qualities they possess from the left flank.

Robertson starts as the higher of the two at left wing-back, often making surging runs and helping to lead the press. Tierney lines up on the left of a back three, where he can drive out from the backline and into midfield.

Here’s an example of the type of attacking positions both Tierney and Robertson pick up in this formation, taken from Scotland’s 2-2 draw with the Netherlands prior to EURO 2020.

The first frame sees both players in the opposition final third. Robertson is hugging the touchline, providing width on the left, while Tierney looks to bring the ball out from defence in the half-space.

Robertson is being watched by Denzel Dumfries as Tierney carries the ball into the Dutch half unopposed, opening up space for the Arsenal defender to exploit.

Davy Klaassen engages Tierney and tries to show him wide, but Tierney possesses excellent attacking qualities which allow him to drive infield past the Ajax midfielder and eventually win a corner having worked his way into a dangerous crossing position.

Here is another example of the Tierney-Robertson partnership from Scotland’s 4-0 win over the Faroe Islands.

This match is a useful comparison as the game state is similar to that which Rangers often face domestically. In which the opposition come away from home, restrict space and sit in a low and compact block. While the example featured above was a more end-to-end encounter.

Scotland had 66% possession in this match and their opponents’ xG was only 0.2, meaning they dominated heavily. The Faroes only registered two attempts before the 74-minute mark, by which point Scotland were 4-0 in front and the game was dead, thereafter clocking three more efforts on Craig Gordon’s goal.

Both Tierney and Robertson enjoyed success in this encounter. The former made two assists, six successful dribbles, won six offensive duels and made five progressive runs. The latter also clocked an assist, made two progressive runs and five accurate crosses.

Robertson receives a pass from the centre of the pitch, at which point Tierney’s overlapping movement is triggered. Notice, the opposition are well covered defensively but are protecting the central areas, they are concerning themselves with ensuring that Tierney does not hurt them by breaking through the middle as we saw in the above examples. This means Tierney can overlap unaccompanied.

Rolantsson, who is playing on the right of defence for the visitors, shifts across to close down Robertson. Tierney’s run is awkward to mark. If Rolantsson moves across and follows the run, Scotland’s captain Robertson could put in a dangerous delivery. 

Robertson doesn’t play in Tierney first but exchanges a one-two with Che Adams. By the time he has done so, Tierney is in an excellent position. He beats his man one-on-one, aided by the fact that Rolantsson has to make up ground on him, before assisting a John McGinn header.

This demonstrates how difficult a run similar to Tierney’s is to defend against for sides sitting deep. In the same way that a third man run from midfield can upset a backline, or a forward dropping into the midfield to create a numerical overload can help progress the ball.

Teams in a compact shape are far more content when sides pass the ball in front of them or try go through the congested centre of the pitch.

All this shows that an asymmetrical system, designed to maximise the performance of two players who play in the same position and are at their best going forward, can work. 

So, could Rangers trial something similar?

Neither Tavernier or Patterson are accustomed to playing in a back three, while Tierney has done so on numerous occasions for Arsenal. However, in a match where Rangers dominate the ball, it is not an improbability they fit both players into a similar formation.

This system could be effective for Rangers because of the type of defensive structures they will come up against next season. Teams are increasingly focused on blocking central areas of the pitch, as Rangers do so successfully in Europe, as opposed to matching teams man for man.

So, what this means is that often the space available to hurt and stretch teams is found out wide. It was a tactic Slavia Prague used well at Ibrox last season. Here is a couple of further examples from matches in 20/21 which demonstrate how teams often defend against Rangers.

It’s worth mentioning that the Ibrox side do often face opponents who try to nullify them out wide. In the cup defeat to St Mirren last year, Jim Goodwin’s side managed to keep Tavernier quiet by deploying Richard Tait and Brandon Mason on Rangers' right flank (however, they were helped by the fact that Calvin Bassey lined up on the left instead of Borna Barisic).

It is also true that we have seen examples of the complete opposite, like in the 1-1 draw away at Motherwell last season. Graham Alexander instructed his full-backs to stand off Tavernier and Barisic and allow them to cross the ball. Motherwell instead focused entirely on defending central areas and trusting their centre-backs in the air. See in the below image how much room Stephen O'Donnell gives Barisic on the ball.

Barisic attempted 19 crosses that day and Tavernier 16. Far higher than their respective league averages of 6.72 and 5.84.

Some of these frames come in moments of transition, but the point of showing them is to exemplify how busy central areas can be compared to wide areas when Rangers play domestically.

Here, Steven Davis is in possession of the ball. Kilmarnock, with nine of their ten outfield players in shot, leave a huge amount of space out wide, most likely to dampen the threat of being played through. Tavernier and Barisic are in so much room, they’re out of camera shot.

Here is another example in the same match, Tavernier has almost half of the pitch to himself. These examples show that if teams choose to remain very compact, there is space in other areas of the field to exploit.

This is a calculated risk as teams would, generally, rather defend crosses from out wide and remain compact as opposed to defending wide and risk gaps opening up centrally.

A final example can be found in the 3-1 home win against Motherwell. This game was an exception of a defensive performance, with the visitors playing a strikerless 5-5-0 formation. Nonetheless, look again at the emphasis on staying compact and restricting space centrally, and the room that gifts to the Rangers captain late on in the match.

While Tavernier and Patterson only played together for 15 minutes yesterday, there were flashes of how the two could utilise similar space in transition as referenced. Due to a sun-drenched Ibrox, the shadows make these images hard to interpret.

Patterson finds Tavernier centrally and makes an overlapping run.

Tavernier opts to try and switch play instead of utilising Patterson's run, which would have been a better option given the space available.

The below shots exemplify why playing with an underlapping or overlapping centre-back could aid Rangers when trying to break down a defence.

In this example, Aribo does not underlap Tavernier who instead sends a looping ball into the box. But look at the space which is afforded for either the under or overlap.

Similarly in this home clash with Aberdeen, Tavernier receives no support run. He is more than capable of going past his man, however, the proposed formula would offer Rangers another string to their bow when breaking teams down.

It would also pull an opposition player out of their position in the low block, which will allow gaps to open centrally, or see the opposition remain compact as shown in the Motherwell example above and therefore give Tavernier or Patterson time to deliver.

Crucially, it shows the space is available to play Tavernier and Patterson. Whether in a 3-5-2, 3-4-3 or 4-1-4-1, they could interlink to good effect.

Tavernier would likely be better placed to form part of a back three than Patterson as he is more comfortable infield, here demonstrated by his heat map from last season (left) compared to Patterson’s (right).

Further, as mentioned in yesterday's piece, Gerrard’s comments seem to suggest he is likely to field Patterson in a more conventional full-back role, whether that be as a wing-back, or behind Tavernier in a 4-1-4-1. This is likely due to Patterson being 19 and requiring time to develop as a right-back, as well as Tavernier's experience. However, they’re similar players and could likely interchange.

Tavernier’s higher xGbuildup and deep progressions metrics, on the caveat he played significantly more minutes in the Scottish Premiership than Patterson last season, perhaps make him more suited to playing in the back three in a more central role.

It would also be interesting to see what type of crosses Tavernier could provide from the half-space, with Patterson providing width and occupying the opposition full-back.

So, how could Rangers line up in an asymmetrical 3-5-2?

This starting 11 caters for the predicted front three next season of Ryan Kent, Alfredo Morelos and Kemar Roofe. This would not be possible if Tavernier played right midfield in a 4-1-4-1.

READ MORE: Alfredo Morelos' Rangers tactical evolution analysed

There are also arguments to suggest this shape wouldn’t work. Rangers aren’t exactly struggling with their output from either flank, in fact Tavernier and Barisic clocked 23 assists between them last term. Furthermore, it was a move away from conventional wingers to two number 10s that helped significantly change the fortunes of Rangers in domestic football. Perhaps further populating the wide areas is not the answer.

However, as Michael Beale said recently in a Rangers TV interview: "We are evolving and adapting. The good news for us is that the Rangers you see today is only just the start. Winning the league was just the start. It wasn't the end point it was just the start of us going on a dominant run”.

This suggests that Rangers will evolve while they’re on top tactically, to in Beale's words, remain “dominant”.

Add that to Gerrard's comments and it seems likely this system may be the one which allows him to play both of his right-backs.