Why driving wingers could be Rangers' next tactical variation that Steven Gerrard is 'working on'

It was a small adaption, not immediately evident to the watching eye – but responsible for the scoreline being flipped by the break.

Beale, venturing from the dugout, conversed with his manager before both demanded the attention of John Lundstram. ‘Stick tight’ to Steven Davis was the message communicated.

That allowed the visitors to outnumber and bypass a three-man press, and destabilise St Mirren’s game-plan. The knock-on effect saw Ianis Hagi and Joe Aribo move higher to play on the same line – both would play big parts from these areas in each goal. The initial game plan from St Mirren had been successful, but they had no answers to the tactical switch.

The notion that Gerrard’s side always do the same thing system-wise is unfounded. There is, however, still some variation arrows that need to be added to their tactical bow.

The Rangers Review asked him about this very topic at yesterday’s press conference.

“In certain parts. From an attacking point of view, we need to have more variety and give opposition teams different issues and problems to think about,” he said, referencing in-game changes particularly.

“We have certain principles of play and certain non-negotiables that don’t change whatever your system, whatever your personnel.

“So when I’m alluding to our identity, it’s more getting back into that. Once you get your principles right, I believe we’ve got the variety and the personnel to throw different issues and problems at teams.

READ MORE: How Rangers’ double-pivot 'dismarking' allowed champions to turn the tide in-game against St Mirren

“It is something we are working on and working towards, but these things don’t happen overnight. That’s the challenge and opportunity, especially when there are certain things to address and fix.”

There’s a multitude of topics to unpack here. The Rangers Review has already written about the team’s tactical variation and philosophy – both of which provide key context to this discussion.

Furthermore, a large element of the variation saga is answered by ‘individualism’ – for example, Joe Aribo and Kemar Roofe will play the right inside forward role differently, and thus pose varying challenges to the opposition.

But more widely, within the principles Gerrard alludes to, it’s clear his team must develop different structural ‘issues and problems’ to pose opponents – individuals aside.

Again – it’s important to determine the difference between ‘principles that don’t change’ and the accusation of ‘doing the same thing’.

The team play within a style that has patterns of play, specific role functions and clear identifiers. Notably how they play without the ball.

But as seen against St Mirren – all it takes is small tweaks here or there to impact proceedings. That doesn’t mean the rulebook needs to be ripped in the process.

To return to the example of last weekend, Jim Goodwin’s side built their game plan around pressing Davis and both centre-backs man-for-man.

When Lundstram came down a line to form a double-pivot, they were reluctant to ask a midfielder to follow him. This allowed the visiting side to easily bypass the first line of pressure. A simple tweak is more profitable than a ‘Plan B’ – whatever that even relates to.

As we can learn from Gerrard’s response, the midfield doesn’t appear to be the area that needs work. It was the forward areas, which came to ahead against Aberdeen, that needed altering. Stephen Glass' side arrived at Ibrox with a well-structured plan. They overloaded space and relied on Rangers not being able to exploit the gaps they left fully.

Arguably – they knew that there was little chance the home side's width would not come from full-backs. A lack of ‘options and problems’ to counteract this worked in the visitor’s favour.

Let’s take a 1-1 draw with Motherwell at Fir Park last season as another template. Graeme Alexander instructed his team to stand off of James Tavernier and Borna Barisic.

Gerrard’s team made 49 crosses on the day and while Kent drifted from side to side, Aribo pushed gradually higher and Cedric Itten arrived from the bench – the role of Barisic and Tavernier hardly altered.

Like in midweek, in the area where the most space was afforded and gambles taken from the opposition, Rangers arguably didn’t vary their approach enough.

Of course, in reacting to your opposition's game plan, there is a risk of softening your best assets. The eventual equaliser that day in Lanarkshire came from one of those 49 crossed balls.

READ MORE: Rangers keeper Allan McGregor's European vulnerability and the credentials that could make Robby McCrorie the new number one

Contrastingly, variation could be viewed as an intelligent way to protect such assets. If against Motherwell, Gerrard had hypothetically put Kent and Aribo wide in possession, tasking either full-back with defending them one-on-one – could there have been a different outcome? Would it have stretched the opposition more? Forced them to change their approach and protect dangerous spaces?

Inverted wingers immediately improved Rangers at the tail end of 2018/19. The reason? The spaces they occupy.

As football writer Ryan O’Hanlon explains: “The most important area of the field became the rectangle that sat atop the penalty area. Multiple studies found that the teams who won most often were the teams that played the most passes in and from this zone."

However, if they could fleetingly be deployed as ‘driving wingers’ – hugging the touchline, inserting pace into the attack from wide areas, stretching the defence and crucially doing something different – it makes the space teams often surrender against Rangers in expectation of crosses a lot more dangerous to hand over.

Pep Guardiola has often used wingers to provide width. His title-winning side of 2018 featured Leroy Sane and Raheem Sterling as more ‘traditional’ wingers – hugging the touchline and maintaining width. As referenced by Grace Robertson in her piece on the subject.

Or as detailed in an earlier piece on tactical variation – Liverpool’s evolution has coincided with greater positional freedom for Trent Alexander-Arnold. On occasion his inside run will be ‘covered’ by Jordan Henderson, at other times it will be ‘supported’ by Mo Salah – who can isolate his one-on-one skillset if the centre is congested.

The long and short of it is, sometimes the team can reverse their rotation. To use the left as an example – why not have Barisic come towards the ball and allow Kent to spin in behind. Or the right, as has been seen in moments recently, task Aribo with momentarily providing width out wide and give Tavernier freedom to venture inside.

Look at the position from which the Rangers captain crosses for the penalty award on Wednesday.

He can impact the game from these positions. Imagine for a second if in midweek, the home side had isolated Nathan Patterson’s pace on one side and Scott Wright’s on the other. Would Aberdeen really have been able to keep so many bodies in central areas?

Against St Mirren, Gerrard acknowledged a single-pivot wasn’t working. His flexibility in midfield allowed that problem to be fixed. If opponents know that the width in this team will always and only be provided by either full-back, it makes their life easier. They don’t need to cater for alternative threats.

If the potential is there to deploy driving wingers at points, more ‘issues and problems’ are posed.

As Gerrard concedes, the principle and identity of this side is still in need of some rediscovery. Driving wingers and other tactical ploys of that ilk will make his squad, already brimming with threats, that bit more difficult too face.