GHfaeGTA Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 Don't think Martin has scored a club goal all season. What does Strachan see in him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mox Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 Chris Martin. FFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillinger Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 I'd make a change or two but we can't be too unhappy keeping the same team that won 1-5 away from home. Guaranteed if we had lost after he had made changes you'd have all the experts on here laying into him for changing a winning 11. The team he's picked should have enough to beat Lithuania at home. If we don't then the players need to have a look at themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighlandScot Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 I normally follow this board and hardly ever post. But I am so p***ed off with Strachan selecting Chris Martin. He is far too slow for international football. We might get away with it today but Griffiths and Fletcher are miles ahead in ability. Griffiths has to start on Tuesday and against England. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bzzzz Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 It's pretty impressive that we are picking a striker whi has an even worse goal scoring record thanumber Steven Fletcher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParisInAKilt Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 22 minutes ago, Bzzzz said: It's pretty impressive that we are picking a striker whi has an even worse goal scoring record thanumber Steven Fletcher. Probably drop Martin if he starts scoring again, the Strachan way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 On 10/8/2016 at 5:12 PM, Clyde1998 said: That would be good news, IMO. We played very well in Malta, and I don't see the need to change it. Eh? You're joking, right? We were completely Tom Kite until we had a man advantage. We done well to press home that man advantage though. If you really think that "we played very well" then i'm lost for words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 7 minutes ago, Parklife said: Eh? You're joking, right? We were completely Tom Kite until we had a man advantage. We done well to press home that man advantage though. If you really think that "we played very well" then i'm lost for words. That's not really 100% accurate though is it. We started the game well and got a very good goal from Snodgrass. Then they got an equaliser due to a defensive bombscare, the heads went down and we weren't at it for the rest of the half. Came out playing at a much higher tempo in the second half, scored another good goal from Martin and the came the penalty. It was 3-1 before we had a man advantage but we were very much in the ascendency and would have gone on to win the game comfortably even without the man advantage and the second sending off was in stoppage time do had no real impact You have to take the quality of the opposition when assessing the performance but IMHO, you're being very harsh and are completely wrong to suggest that we only started playing *after* the sending off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProudScot Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, aaid said: That's not really 100% accurate though is it. We started the game well and got a very good goal from Snodgrass. Then they got an equaliser due to a defensive bombscare, the heads went down and we weren't at it for the rest of the half. Came out playing at a much higher tempo in the second half, scored another good goal from Martin and the came the penalty. It was 3-1 before we had a man advantage but we were very much in the ascendency and would have gone on to win the game comfortably even without the man advantage and the second sending off was in stoppage time do had no real impact You have to take the quality of the opposition when assessing the performance but IMHO, you're being very harsh and are completely wrong to suggest that we only started playing *after* the sending off. Most of the above, is p*sh. The sending off gave us the penalty and the second sending off was with about 20 to go. That's not even taking into account the Snodgrass "very good goal" which was completely lucky... Edited October 11, 2016 by ProudScot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 Just now, aaid said: That's not really 100% accurate though is it. You've got a cheek claiming my post wasn't accurate... Just now, aaid said: We started the game well and got a very good goal from Snodgrass. We did start well, i agree. Snodgrass' goal was a complete fluke though. To claim it was "good" or a symptom of a good start is misleading IMO. Just now, aaid said: Then they got an equaliser due to a defensive bombscare, the heads went down and we weren't at it for the rest of the half. They had several chances. It wasn't one "defensive bombscare". It's being unable to work as a team to be a solid unit. In every game we play, our shape is all over the place and the backline gets no protection from midfield. Malta also missed a bit of a sitter to blow the chance of going in leading at half time (although we did also miss a great chance with a Snodgrass header). Just now, aaid said: It was 3-1 before we had a man advantage Nope, that completely wrong. it was 2-1 when they got a man sent off for absolutely nothing and we were gifted a penalty. Just now, aaid said: You have to take the quality of the opposition when assessing the performance but IMHO, you're being very harsh and are completely wrong to suggest that we only started playing *after* the sending off. If one of us is completely wrong about hings in this thread, it's not me, bud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMcD Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 23 minutes ago, ProudScot said: Most of the above, is p*sh. The sending off gave us the penalty and the second sending off was with about 20 to go. That's not even taking into account the Snodgrass "very good goal" which was completely lucky... 20 to go for 2nd sending off! Take it you mean seconds. http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/37207612 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 1 hour ago, ProudScot said: Most of the above, is p*sh. The sending off gave us the penalty and the second sending off was with about 20 to go. That's not even taking into account the Snodgrass "very good goal" which was completely lucky... If most of what I said is pish, 100% of what you are saying is total bollocks. The second sending off was on 91 minutes. As for Snodgrass being lucky, he meant it. Look back at the footage closely. When he cuts inside, he has a quick look up and spots the keeper off his line and then opens up his body so that he can wrap his foot around the ball to curl it into the top corner. No luck, just good vision and skill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 1 hour ago, Parklife said: You've got a cheek claiming my post wasn't accurate... We did start well, i agree. Snodgrass' goal was a complete fluke though. To claim it was "good" or a symptom of a good start is misleading IMO. They had several chances. It wasn't one "defensive bombscare". It's being unable to work as a team to be a solid unit. In every game we play, our shape is all over the place and the backline gets no protection from midfield. Malta also missed a bit of a sitter to blow the chance of going in leading at half time (although we did also miss a great chance with a Snodgrass header). Nope, that completely wrong. it was 2-1 when they got a man sent off for absolutely nothing and we were gifted a penalty. If one of us is completely wrong about hings in this thread, it's not me, bud. 1. See my previous post about Snodgrass's first goal and watch the footage 2. I never said it was a single defensive error. I said we played poorly following the equaliser up to half time. I totally agree with you about the defence. 3. Read what I said. It was 3-1 before we had a man advantage. That is unless you think having an outfield player sent off gives you an advantage when you're taking a penalty. When play restarted at 3-1 that was the point when we had the advantage. Whether or not the penalty and sending off was fair is irrelevant insofar as the performance is concerned. I would suggest that had the penalty not been given we would still have gone on to score at least another goal as we were in the ascendency at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 4 minutes ago, aaid said: 3. Read what I said. It was 3-1 before we had a man advantage. That is unless you think having an outfield player sent off gives you an advantage when you're taking a penalty. When play restarted at 3-1 that was the point when we had the advantage. Whether or not the penalty and sending off was fair is irrelevant insofar as the performance is concerned. I would suggest that had the penalty not been given we would still have gone on to score at least another goal as we were in the ascendency at that point. I'm out. When someone is going to these bizarre lengths to deliberately mislead the debate, then i don't see the point in continuing. Malta got a man sent off at 2-1 and were gifted a penalty. These are facts, spin it however you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.