What Looks Different For Röhl's Rangers (so far)

It’s only been three weeks.

It probably feels like longer - like everything when Rangers are involved - but it is still less than a month since the Danny Röhl era started at Rangers. That is of course waaaay too early to make any grand proclamations, but equally there have been some fairly noticeable changes that may be the first steps on the new path.

I’m going to focus on the three league games Rangers have played under the new manager so far. In my opinion, how a manager approaches these games tell you what type of manager they really are and therefore usually give the best insight into how successful they will be longer term.

First of all you have to realise that I am not a coach who puts the shape over everything. For me it is about how we play, this is important, and the shape is something that is just a tool to have good control in the game.

Danny Röhl

Given Röhl’s early comments about adaptability and flexibility, this article will look at the changes he’s tried to make to the teams defensive shape and structure first and foremost. Building strong foundations that you can enhance and tweak as you go is key to any consistent success. Coaching a team to attack well consistently takes a lot longer as there are lots of additional factors to take into account.

It’s probably no surprise to read that the early games have been less about revolution and more about trying to tidy up the small, boring things that lose you football matches. That’s not a complaint. There are plenty of managers who overlook key aspects of football like being able to organise a team at set pieces or not let any and all teams drive a bus through your defence.

Following the admittedly atrocious 3-0 defeat away to SK Brann on only his second full day in the job, Danny Röhl has favoured a base 3-4-3 tactical shape when the opposition plays two strikers and more of a 4-2-3-1 if not. The formation always gets used as a shorthand to talk about team’s overarching style of play and it isn’t always the case. Where the players stand on the pitch can have an impact, but not as much as the behaviours, principles and most importantly player quality.

The most obvious change from Russell Martin’s spell in charge is the way Rangers try to aggressively dominate first and second balls. Whether it’s winning the ball back up high, or defending one vs one. Habits and behaviours matter in football, and Röhl seems to be someone who places a lot of focus on those both from a technical and mental aspect. Even more so when you consider one of the first appointments to his coaching staff was Sascha Lense as Mens Performance Manager, a German coach who worked at both Sheffield Wednesday with Röhl and Manchester United as a sports psychologist.

Before Röhl, too many attacking opportunities were wasted waiting on a team allowing Rangers to play one perfect pass; it appears to be more pragmatic now.

Butland still plays short, the centre-backs still have the highest passing numbers, but the direction has changed. Under Martin, there were lots of sideways passes between defenders, but now those passes are going forwards quicker and more often into midfield and longer if needed.

Utilising a back three really helps with that bravery in possession. We haven’t seen anywhere near enough of it yet, but Butland and the centre-backs being able to step out and either play passes or advance into space would be something I’d hope to see much more often. In the example above, the back three provide a decent amount of security which lets Butland play a fairly risky pass into Mikey Moore. He quickly funnels it out wide to Meghoma for a one vs one against Cadden who fouls him and earns a yellow card.

We knew the opponent would be building up very direct with a lot of long balls. We knew the opponent is looking to build up sometimes with three and I wanted to make it easy for my players. I want to see a team with smart, short passes, forward not backwards.

Danny Röhl

It’s not route one and it’s not sterile, boring possession; the main difference defensively is the organisation around the ball. Moving to a back three has helped calm everything down.

Attacking with five or six players is the norm for a club like Rangers who have so much of the ball. Attacking with lots of numbers but still managing to balance that with defending counter attacks is the bit where they have struggled.

Things look a little more consistent here so far. Here are the main patterns we’ve seen in the early games.

Split centre-backs in build uP

When Butland has the ball in possession, the centrebacks will split wide on either side of him with one or both of the full-backs taking a high starting position. This does two things; stretches the opposition across the pitch but also gives necessary bodies behind the ball should a quick turnover happen.

The three behind

Whether it’s a back four or back five, the shape on the ball tends to be three behind the ball for protection against counters, plus a narrow double pivot screen when the situation demands it.

Stay compact and show the ball wide
Without the ball, the default is to restrict space in the middle, defend roughly around the halfway line, and funnel attacks out wide. It’s less about defending deep, more about a mid block that gives Rangers the best chance to press and win the ball back quickly.

When the ball is on one side, there are almost always three behind it: a centre-back ready to step across, the six (or the deeper eight) screening, and the spare centre-back prepared to deal with any switches of play. Three at the back often gets derided as being overly defensive but the early shape looks promising. It buys you the time and space to commit numbers ahead without wobbling every time the attack breaks down

Given the start to the season - and the less than stellar player recruitment - it’s becoming ever more unrealistic to ask any manager to wave a magic wand and implement a philosophy over a short period of time.

As said above, tactics and coaching are one thing but player quality (good or bad) is often the difference maker. The number of individual mistakes made by Rangers over the last few years is completely unsustainable. Is it possible though to mitigate those through coaching more than we have? Yes of course.

You can remove the situations that invite them: don’t ask players to do things they aren’t capable of, don’t hang them out to dry tactically and don’t play into the opposition’s hands. That’s coaching. There’s a gap between what Röhl (and Martin before him) want the game to look like and what certain players can actually do.

Will it be perfect with this squad? Probably not, but it can be a lot better than it is.

If teams in this league play lots of long balls and regularly dominate Rangers defenders, then it just makes sense to try and mitigate that as best as possible.

How many times have we watched Rangers defenders being beaten one vs one by opposition strikers following a long ball? If this league is direct and physical, meet it halfway. The recent goal conceded against St Mirren is a perfect example of this. One long ball takes out the midfield and leaves one or two centre-backs dealing with two attackers.

Compare that to the positioning and shape of a back three when defending against Hibs, and it’s clear that there are benefits to this. It won’t be perfect anytime soon, but having an insurance policy is sensible.

The fact Rangers are also now using wingbacks to create a lopsided 3-4-3 formation at times again gives that adaptability and flexibility Röhl craves. At times in the recent 2-0 defeat to AS Roma, Max Aarons - playing as right wing back - was the furthest Rangers player forward when Rangers had possession. There are so many variations and tweaks that can be made to formations in games to try and find the tiniest weakness or space to exploit.

Jayden Meghoma’s strengths look to be more aligned to ball carrying and linking up on the left side of Rangers attack. His defensive work is not as strong - as you might expect for a teenager with less than a season of games behind him - so rather than hanging him out to dry as a full back in a back four, Röhl has given him the defensive security of playing as a wingback and giving him an experienced left sided centre-back to support him and help mitigate any weaknesses.

Maybe it was not clear if it’s a back three or back four, and I think this gives me and my team always the opportunity to switch the formation very quick during the game and it is what I like. I call it always a bit hybrid players, but if you have players on your pitch they can play both positions, then it’s perfect because then you can switch the shape without subs.

Danny Röhl

Derek Cornelius so far seems a good candidate to play as one of the hybrid defenders Röhl mentions above. Primarily a centre-back, he seems just as happy in a back three or a back four and appears to even be able to fill in at left back should the in game situation demand it. This flexibility allows Rangers to switch between the back three and back four at will. Equally, on the other flank Rangers do have some options to do similar with James Tavernier, Nasser Djiga and Max Aarons. The imminent return of Dujon Sterling should also add some much needed aggression and ability to dominate one vs ones (provided he can stay fit.)

It’s almost exactly a year to the day since Philippe Clement stated the following when asked whether he would consider changing his formation or how his Rangers team played.

Changing a formation in this moment, I think it will only create more doubts. Also, how are you going to change the formation if you can train on that one time?

How you’re going to train on that in how you build, how you create chances, how you defend. Everything in a session of one hour.

If you have some foundations, if you have something solid, you can build on the next step. We’re not that far yet with the group to do that in this moment. So it’s a difficult one to turn that around in one day with one training.

It may not work longer term or to the extent that Rangers need, but Röhl clearly believes football can be more flexible than at least the last two previous Rangers managers did.

Miracles are always unrealistic; but early signs look like Danny Röhl is building a team that can change gear without changing parts. Where Rangers often needed a double sub to try to change anything, we are already seeing shape and intent changing frequently in-game: Raskin in the number six role can drop to make a temporary back three against long balls, the far side wing-back can push up to help pin a full-back, and a forward like Mikey Moore can drop to form a box midfield when the opponent tries to swamp the middle. It’s the same players, new responsibilities, and a bit more flexibility.

None of that requires a substitution. It just requires clear roles, coached triggers, and confidence.

Will that solve everything by itself? No. It won’t turn average one vs one defenders into top players and none of this will solve Rangers lack of quality in the final third. But this flexibility can help to mitigate mistakes, gives the team more ways to find a free man, and just calm everything down a bit.

Which would be very welcome!