Advocating Iain Dowie Should "Stick To His Guns"

-
Interesting and in depth analysis of Iain Dowie's approach from journalist David McIntyre

Dave McIntyre BBC 606 - Dowie should stick to his guns
Iain Dowie was spot-on this week when he said “there’s an obsession with 4-4-2 in this country.”
I’ve been known to utter those exact words myself – often after watching QPR.
And that obsession was evident on Tuesday night, when the atmosphere for the game against Blackpool was poisonous at times.
It wasn’t just angry Rangers fans who believed Dowie’s approach was negative and he ought to have started with 4-4-2.
That view was shared by several in the press box and afterwards I watched Dowie defend himself in the face of some harsh questions. Many fans will since have seen footage of this on QPR World.
In nine years of covering QPR, I have never seen a Rangers manager taken to task at a post-match press conference like Dowie was in midweek.
That’s strange given the mess the club has been in and what total codswallop has sometimes been said by managers in recent years - almost all of it swallowed unquestioned.
Some who’ve now seen footage of Tuesday’s exchange reckon Dowie seemed uncomfortable and defensive.
I didn’t see it like that. I thought he was frustrated and bewildered at the criticism because it was so ludicrous.
The accusation is that he has been playing with one up front, and this is negative and less attacking than 4-4-2.
For a start, Rangers do not play with one up front. It’s three and often four up front.
The 4-2-3-1 system is also one that encourages full-backs to attack as much as possible.
It’s not a negative formation or less attacking than 4-4-2.
Dowie, like any manager worth his salt, has looked to play to his side’s strengths and account for its weaknesses.
The strength lies in attacking midfield players, which is handy because they’re the type of players defenders absolutely hate.
A short-term alteration, purely based on circumstances, is now likely
There’s nothing negative about encouraging the likes of Ledesma, Parejo, Cook and Buzsaky to rotate, play on instinct and pick up space wherever they can.
Wanting 4-4-2, with everything in straight lines and one less flair player simply to accommodate an extra body up front; now that is negative.
In fact, it doesn’t get much more negative than that.
And this for a club that was decades ahead of its time with its style of play in the 1970s and 80s, were pioneers of the sweeper system in this country and used to be characterised by progressive football and fans who wanted to see it.
Sure, there are times when Rangers have looked short up front. But that happens with any formation. Nothing always goes according to plan.
Mahon offers the defensive protection that has allowed Stewart to use his athleticism without other aspects of his game being exposed. It’s no coincidence that Stewart is flavour of the month while Dowie and his formation aren’t.
But Mahon doesn’t have the mobility and dynamism of Leigertwood, who has been left out recently.
The likes of Rowlands have therefore often had to step in to stop Rangers being swamped in midfield. Then, when the ball goes forward again, you have Blackstock isolated and people on their feet baying for 4-4-2.
But there have been many more cases of Rangers being left two versus two - or worse - at the back. Yet you don’t hear people claiming that the manager set out to play one or two at the back, because he plainly hasn’t.
Things go wrong. It happens. As Dowie and numerous other managers have said, it’s not about systems it’s about players performing.
Gigi De Canio was also accused of being negative. He supposedly looked to sit back and protect leads.
Like Dowie, he is actually a very attack-minded manager. In De Canio’s case his back four wasn’t good enough to cope with his attacking ambitions, so it looked like they were being encouraged to sit deep when the opposite was true.
Any manager will tell you that tactics and systems are nowhere near as important as the confidence of the players.
That’s why I think the most persuasive argument for Rangers switching to 4-4-2, especially at home, is simply to avoid the kind of nasty atmosphere that developed on Tuesday.
The impetus the half-time switch gave Rangers didn’t come from the change of formation. It came from the change of atmosphere when the crowd, buoyed by the return of their beloved 4-4-2, cranked the volume up and the team were helped by that.
Apart from that, there is no good reason for Dowie to switch to 4-4-2. It would make no sense.
Rangers are well stocked for attacking players but not out-and-out strikers and they have a dodgy defence and a dodgy keeper, so opening out into a flat midfield as well as a flat back four would expose them defensively as well halve their attacking threat. Double trouble.
You’d struggle to find another side less suited to 4-4-2.
But Dowie, like De Canio before him, faces pressure from within as well as from the stands to change his favoured formation.
Unlike De Canio, Dowie will stand firm. But a short-term alteration, purely based on circumstances, is now likely, with Parejo and Ledesma set to make way for the kind of changes many have wanted to see.
Whether Parejo really wants to be at QPR is a question that will probably be answered in the next couple of months.
He has found the going tough of late and Ledesma has had a lot asked of him so far this season and will benefit from a rest.
But in the longer term, Dowie must and will stick to his guns - especially as Buzsaky, a key player in his plans, should finally be match-fit after the international break. BBC606