Steven Davis called it a “couple of minutes of madness” and Steven Gerrard lamented that his side “lost our way” for a short period of time.

However categorised, Rangers could easily have sold their Champions League hopes down the river soon after half-time in Sweden.

Having gone in level at the break, they had conceded twice by the time the clock struck 48:04.

Reflecting on the issues Malmo caused his team, Gerrard said: “We prepared for what came our way, we just didn’t handle it in our best way. We didn’t put in a performance that was Rangers level today."

For a team championed for their defensive solidity last season, the events baffled supporters.

This isn’t an entirely new pattern, goals have been conceded in quick-fire fashion before in European ties. But the standards of both were disappointing and perhaps preventable.

The Rangers Review takes a deep dive into each strike to ask what caused such defensive disarray.

Goal 1: Soren Rieks, 46:43

The first goal came to be through aggressive, high-energy play by the hosts, mixed in with intelligent exploitation of Rangers’ shape.

As mentioned by Gerrard post-match, Malmo were expected to play on the front foot at home. In our preview, we outlined that they averaged a relatively high PPDA of 5.52 in their previous two Champions League qualifiers played at home.

After an even opening 45, the hosts attacked right from kick-off and saw a ball across the face of goal scrambled away by Connor Goldson before a corner was also cleared to safety.

What they did well in the lead up to their opening goal was retain pressure. It’s something Rangers themselves draw prosperity from domestically.

Just before the passage of play below, Fil Helander clears a ball that is not pressurised by any of his teammates. Instead of gaining an opportunity to change course and attack themselves, or even just relieve pressure through possession, Rangers allow Malmo to set up for another attack.

That in itself is not necessarily a mistake, but what followed proved costly.

Rangers Review:

With Niklas Moislander in possession, look at the zones picked up by the home outfit as Rangers protect the centre of the pitch in their custom shape.

Only Bonke Innocent occupies a central area and it’s clear that their intention is to progress the ball around Rangers, instead of through them. Again, this in itself is not a mistake. It’s where Rangers want to manipulate possession towards, away from their goal.

Rangers Review:

The extent to which Malmo overload either flank is striking. Oscar Lewicki, playing on the right of a midfield three, has drifted to the right wing-back position and allowed Jo Inge Bernet to push higher.

Lewicki knows Scott Arfield, his opposite number, will only pressurise him once the ball has been switched, allowing him time to initiate a move.

After the pre-season win over Real Madrid, Gerrard spoke of how happy he was with his side’s speed across the grass when shuttling in a defensive shape. In this instance, both Arfield and Barisic are slow to Lewicki and Berget and allow their opponents to progress to a dangerous zone.

Rangers Review:

Colak and Birmancevic have pinned back Goldson and Helander and make vertical runs to exploit the space vacated by Barisic who has tried to engage Berget, but also to drag James Tavernier across as the left central midfielder Anders Christiansen has drifted into the forward line.

Rangers Review:

You can see John Lundstram pointing at Tavernier as Christiansen runs off of his shoulder and Berget looks to find the space Barisic has vacated.

Rangers Review:

Although the initial ball does not send Birmancevic through on goal, he remains in a dangerous area with a specific area of the box to target, knowing his side have pulled the Rangers defence out of shape.

Rangers Review:

Having passed Christiansen onto Tavernier, Lundstram needs to get out to the eventual goal scorer Soren Rieks quicker and provide defensive width on the right side of the pitch.

Rangers Review:

But he is arguably a little slow in doing so and by retaining width on the left, Rieks is able to score.

Rangers Review:

This move appeared to be something the Swedish Champions worked on.

They knew if they could gamble on their opponents not being quick enough to close down the initial ball switched wide, they would be able to drag the backline out of shape through vertical runs and if needed, exploit the space created on the opposite flank.

While this works, if Arfield is quicker to prevent the initial ball, Barisic is stronger on Berget or Lundstram wiser in his defensive positioning, this goal doesn’t happen.

In our long-read piece on Rangers first-team coach Michael Beale’s defensive philosophy, we wrote at length about the positives he sees of playing a narrow and compact 4-3-3 mid-block.

READ MORE: Michael Beale's Rangers tactical philosophy explained

By allowing attackers to stay in advantageous areas, and asking midfielders to cover the width of the pitch, the Ibrox side can defend as they want to attack.

Beale also explained that overloading either half of the field was a viable risk due to the fact that, if central areas are properly blocked and the defensive shape is aggressive and fast, the defence can recover a switch of play.

This system has borne such success for Rangers in Europe and Malmo must be credited for an excellent passage of play. However, the goal does point to another comment made by Gerrard in pre-season, reflecting on the need for tactical variety.

He said: “I have to have the variety because some teams and some managers will try and stop this system. They’ve seen it for some years now.”

This isn’t the first time an opposing team has attempted to hurt Rangers in this way, but it’s one of few goals that has been successful in doing so.

Goal 2: Veljko Birmancevic, 48:02

Veljko Birmancevic’s goal was again partly due to the aggressive intent Malmo displayed, but it was an avoidable strike.

From kick-off, the visitors try to move forward. As the ball falls to Tavernier, he attempts to find Steven Davis as a pivot to progress the ball, but his pass is misplaced and Christiansen intercepts.

Rangers Review:

By the time Malmo’s captain is beyond Davis, the home side is three vs two.

Rangers Review:

Rangers Review:

The initial movement from both forwards means Christiansen can carry the ball into space before reversing possession to Birmancevic. Who, courtesy of Goldson missing the ball, finishes cleverly back across Allan McGregor.

Rangers Review:

Rangers Review:

There is much about this goal that is avoidable. Goldson’s failed clearance, Tavernier not making up ground quick enough to prevent the final shot, the wayward pass in the first instance.

In the initial phase, Rangers are in an attacking transition which means neither Arfield nor Lundstram are protecting space but trying to make offensive inroads.

Perhaps if Glen Kamara was available, he would have been more defensive-minded and balanced out that midfield trio.

Ultimately it’s a mistake – they happen! The disappointing nature was when and how it occurred.

Gerrard said in his press conference: “When we conceded the first it’s important that the leaders in the team get control and stay calm, but we lost our way twice in a short space of time.”

Ultimately, Davis’ last-minute strike changes everything in regards to the tie. Malmo have proven to be weaker away from home when protecting a lead this season, and the reaction of their players after they conceded to me suggested they knew the differentiating significance of travelling to Glasgow with only a single-goal lead.

As mentioned above, Gerrard said his side didn’t put in a performance that was “Rangers level”, to which both goals can be attributed.

His side had an off day but have been thrown a lifeline. If they play to the standard expected on Tuesday, they will be confident of progression.