Caledonian Craig

Certainly would not have gone with three at the back but glad to see he has gone with two up top.

Spot on. That is how I see it.

Of the six withdrawals:- Armstrong - unlikely to have started the match. Tierney- definite starter but would have meant shitty three at the back again so it may benefit us in an odd way. Christie - probable starter and on last year's form a loss but on recent form for us then no big loss. Palmer - going by several posters on here - no loss. McKenna - not been rock solid for us. Maybe a loss maybe not.

Good point. Yes it will be settled tonight and may end up going down to penalties. Now there's a thought.

Another thought. If we cannot win tonight we don't deserve to qualify and Norway/Serbia would have chewed us up and spat us out anyway next month. The three players out due to COVID-19 you cannot call game changing players. Armstrong I don't think would have started anyway, Tierney is not a goal-getter and him missing out may help as in forcing us to go back to four at the back which we look more comfortable with. Christie in form of a year ago is a loss but on recent performances is not too big a loss.

Of course he is. Brain dead moment.....meant McGregor.

I think the defensive make-up is not so ultra-critical as I think Israel attack pretty infrequently but are potent on the counter-attack. Our philosophy should be to score more goals than them. To do that we have to have an attacking look to the side - two up front with McGinn tucked in behind....something like this:- Marshall Patterson.......................................Cooper.................................Porteous........................................Robertson ......................Fraser.............................Armstrong........................................McTominey.......................... ............................................................McGinn............................................................................................ ......................................Dykes........................................Shankland

Agreed. Israel attack with pace on the counter so midfield is not such a key area for them so I see no need for us to pack that area with say five midfielders. Israel will sit back and allow us to play lateral balls between us where we can do them no damage. We need to go front-loaded.

Defence looks fine. I'd worry about creativity in midfield and would sooner see Fraser in there for Fleck or Jack.

To add - the three at the back was a mere concoction to make a system that allowed us to play Robertson and Tierney in the same side. Well Tierney is now out so there is no need to try to shoe-horn us into a system we have nowhere near mastered in such a crucial game.

I sincerely hope not. We have played Israel twice now. Once with four at the back and once with three at the back and I know which one the players looked more comfortable with and made us look more of an attacking force and it was not with three at the back.

We have to start with a more attacking line-up tonight. Surely, we have played them enough by now to know their tactics. They park the bus and pack their defence and look to hit on swift counters so we are going to get no joy playing a lone striker. Our defence is notoriously shaky so its imperative we score goals tonight. Get in their faces and play two up front with McGinn right in behind them. Go down fighting not wondering.

Others who could do well would be Angus McNeill. A great orater is Maire Black but she is still a little too young.

If NS stood down I'd like to have seen Angus Robertson take over.

And the match will be about goalscoring. We need goals and our best goal threat is John McGinn who will no doubt start and midfield to partner him could be made up of McGregor, McTominay and Fraser. That is not too shabby at all.

Well anyway the rest of the squad have been tested twice now and got an all clear.

The biggest losses will be the three out due to self-isolating. Armstrong though probably would not have started - I think McGregor would start in that slot. Tierney would have started most probably in a back three so that may see that formation binned which would be a plus point. Christie would have started but of late for us has been a bit meh. Its a blow but not a fatal one.

Armstrong may not have started in any case. McGregor will play there. Tierney would have started probably the left of three central defenders so hopefully that crap formation will now be binned so that will work in our favour. Christie would have started and will be a miss but there again in recent games he has been a bit meh. All is not lost.

A big blow as I would have had all three in my starting line-up. However, we are pretty well covered in those areas. I would say that would rule out three at the back for me.

Okay but this point still stands. Strachan left the job three years ago. I find it impossible to believe that three managers since then have both not explored the possibility of getting Bardsley into the side and I keep coming back to the only logical solution - he is not interested.

Spot on. That is my take on it. A very throwaway term 'too much water passed under the bridge'. That says too me, for whatever reason, he is not interested. Obviously, not too old as he's still playing in the EPL.

His version is Strachan had something against him and so wasn't picked - fair enough. Lets presume that version is true. Strachan left in October 2017 and a couple of months later McLeish took over. A new manager with his own ideas etc so any footballer would think hey I am in with a shout of international football again and make it known in whatever avenues you could that you are still available. But no....nothing. For all McLeish was to know Bardsley may have retired from international football or some other mis-communication. After all it wasn't a Duncan Ferguson situation where he had something against the SFA. This was just a personal issue with Strachan.

Well I have seen plenty of our players prostitute themselves in the press for a Scotland call-up so it is certainly not unheard of. If you want something badly enough you'd do that. Bardsley hasn't.

Hmmn 'too much water has passed under the bridge' could be translated quite easily into: 'I don't want to play anymore.' I mean come on Strachan left the post a few years ago and not once in the papers or online have I seen Bardsley touting himself for a recall when McLeish took over - a new man new ideas and all that.

I'd say their 'injuries' cannot be serious ones or serious enough to rule them out of all three games otherwise I am sure replacements would have been brought in by now.