andyD

Didn't not his distribution to be particularly bad. Marshall stood out on that front. Mostly we tried to play out from the back, tho there were a few hoofs to nowhere, but that's not surprising given the pressure we were under and it's also sometimes the best thing to do.. get rid.. avoid the current risk and give us a moment to reorganise.

Thought he'd only had 2 bookings? It's 3 for a suspension, isn't it?

3-0. Happy with that. Most important thing is that Gordon wasn't in goals! Instead, we have that fella who just kicks it into touch from goal kicks. Top notch!

The Russians are still massive favourites to finish 2nd. They're scored 15, we've scored 4. They've conceded 3, we've conceded 7. They can trade wins with us and lose no sleep. While we both beat Cyprus by 1 goal at home.. we had an even split of possession, they had 65-35 Cyprus had more shots on target than us, but only managed 1 to Russia's 5 . There's no way to paint it that makes us favourites with a home win against Russia. They've looked super consistent, so you have to assume they'll take maximum points from the other sides below them, but lose to Belgium. That would leave them on 18, with the two games against us yet to be figured in. We've struggled against Cyprus and lost to the Khazaks, but even if we take 9 points from them and San Marino, we're on 15. Simply put, a win and a draw against Russia is not enough. We need to win home and away.

No. No it doesn't.

Well.. first thing for me was the starting line up. Kind of bewildering that both Fraser and Forrest were absent, given that our best hope was going to be catching them on the counter.. yet we left our pacey wide men on the bench. I like Clarke and want him to do well, but this was a very strange decision, no two ways about it. No surprise that our best opportunity came when Fraser, Forrest and Burke all broke at pace (and McKenna!?) and involved all three of them. Marshall - What you'd expect from him. Horrible distribution and made the saves you'd expect him to make. Did spill a few I think he should have held, but not at fault for any of the goals. O'Donnell - Looked a bit overly frightened of Hazard for the first hour or so. A bit too far away from him, which mean he got left for dead a couple of times. Overall did ok tho. Mulgrew - Did well enough. Don't remember anything particularly poor from him. Did ok. McKenna - Couldn't really handle Lukaku. For me this the difference between playing in the Scottish Prem and the English Prem. In the English Prem you play against these type of players most weeks, where as for McKenna it's a bit of a shock and a culture change to meet someone with the strength and ability of Lukaku. Hopefully a good learning exercise for him. Taylor - A good debut. Offered forwards a couple of times, but mostly stuck to his defensive task and did reasonably well at it. Didn't look like a young Killie player making his debut at all. Did get the ball thrown at him in a couple of situations he wont have been grateful for tho. McLean - Difficult one. Did some great things, some great tackles and interceptions. But also lacked awareness, letting Hazard and De Bruyne slip into the gap behind him, instead of dropping onto them. And was busy appealing for the corner when he was the closest man to close down Hazard for the opener. Also seemed overly intent on playing out of trouble every single time, meaning he put a few people in crappy situations (notably Taylor twice) by giving them the ball on the edge of our box under heavy pressure. So, a very mixed bag for me. McTominay - Worked hard, hassled, kept the ball reasonably well. Not the finished article yet, and can't have any complaints about his booking. McGregor - Seemed to just be tasked with defending in front of Taylor to start with and did ok at that. But didn't really contribute anything else, even when he moved centrally. Certainly not his best game. Armstrong - Looked lively until his early exit. Linked up well a couple of times, was a shame to lose him. Russell - Very anonymous. Seemed lax defensively when he was wide, then disappeared completely when moved into the 2nd striker role. Really don't see what he brings to the starting line up at the moment. Burke - Did well. Ran a lot, put himself about, won headers. Had very little support from McGregor and Russell, especially when Russell moved centrally, I'm not sure they even linked up once. Good at getting back in shape as well, was the first line of defense. Fraser - Lively, conscientious, why he didn't start is beyond me. Forrest - An improvement on Russell on the right, and his pace did make a difference. Not sure why he didn't just try and side foot it in instead of taking a touch, but oh well. 1st goal was poor and preventable. Everyone (most notably McLean) switched off and just gave Hazard all the time he wanted. 2nd goal was offside. 3rd goal was probably just tiredness. McGregor should have tracked De Bruyne. McLean should have got out to him quicker. Overall, the starting line up felt like we hamstrung ourselves a bit. Our best weapons were on the bench, and we all know it. Didn't really answer any selection questions for me either. Marshall still doesn't feel like the guy we should be playing as he has very obvious flaws. But I think his handling is better than Bain's and do you throw in Kelly against Russia? Seems risky. Taylor did well, but is still probably 4th choice in his position. O'Donnell was good enough. McKenna's as good as we have. McLean was hit and miss, but in extremes. He's similar to McGinn in this respect (tho different midfield role ofc). Some great, some awful. At the moment I'm feeling like I want someone who is just reliable in the middle of the park as the slip-ups tend to lose goals. It's so obvious who the wide men should be that it's painful to think that Clarke needed this game to work it out. But oh well.. Burke did ok up front. Hard working and probably perfect for this type of fixture, or if we're defending a lead. Worthy member of the squad. A tough game to have so early in Clarke's reign.. and a very questionable lineup. But we were disciplined, worked hard. There are good things to take from the game, we certainly weren't embarrassed and there was no sign of a collapse. I guess the worry going into Russia is we've seen very little in terms of attacking intent so far.. I wouldn't want to be playing backs to the wall and hoping to counter against the Russians, but I guess if it gets a result that's what matters.

I think this is a good part of what he offers. Where I think decent defenders will take one look at Brophy and figure that they can keep him in their pocket all day long, very few look at Burke with his attributes and will be confident of handling him. While his end product might be a little questionable, he's scary and will draw players to cover him. That opens space for others and Forrest and Fraser should be able to exploit that.

This is the thing that makes me worry that Fraser will be stuck at Bournemouth. Hazard's a 130-150 million player. Fraser's 2nd in assists, one behind him for a much worse club. His value's got to be at least 40 million in that market, and I don't see anyone actually paying that for him. The only upside is that is contract is up next summer. but it does mean he's unlikely to get his big move this window.

Aye, part of me thought to put Marshall in just because it doesn't matter if Marshall takes 5 goals. He is what he is, and he's well used to it at Hull having picked it out the net 60 times this season for them. But, I don't rate Bain and I want us to take something from the game, even if it's just a good performance from a keeper. I'd put faith in Kelly. If he ships goals, that's fine as we all expect that to happen anyway. But he might make some solid saves and that'll give him confidence. Obviously it depends on the type of guy Kelly is, and I don't know enough about him as a person to say whether it's a good idea or not. But playing Marshall or Bain seems like a waste of time to me.

I thought McLean was really poor defensively against Cyprus. He ignores his man letting them clean thru once, followed by him turning around and complaining that someone wasn't marking his man (!?). Then he just jogged to pressure the ball carrier, leaving the central defenders 2v2 when he could (and should) have got there, again resulting in a chance they should have done better with. That's not good enough. I can forgive Fraser being caught once by his man getting a run on him round the outside, but if you're the 6 and that's 100% of your job, then you can't have that lack of effort and awareness, and give away several chances. Shinnie had a bad game at left back, sure. He's looked good when he's had cameos in the middle tho, and he's got the discipline to do that job. I kind of expect McLean to play, given that he got the full 90 at the weekend, but it seems like he's just not good enough to me. I hope to be surprised, but i expect us to ship goals because of him. As for Marshall.. As he does in the league for Hull, his distribution put us in trouble. Sending that ball to McGinn that he then foolishly tried to pirouette out of. That ball should never go there, but Marshall often seems like he just wants to get the ball out as soon as possible, and does so even it it's the wrong ball. Marshall seems to just think whether he can get the ball to the player, not what will happen when it get there. McGinn should have done better with it, but the ball shouldn't have gone to him in the first place. Maybe I'm being harsh, but I want him to come for the cross at the goal. It's pretty central on the edge of the 6 yard box. From that range you're not going to stop anything being on your line, you don't have time to react, you should be able to come and punch it away tho. If their 5'10" guy can head it while standing on the edge of the 6 yard box, then I dread to imagine the joy Lukaku will have in the air.

Kelly O'Donnell - Mulgrew - McKenna - Robertson McTominay - Shinnie - Armstrong Forrest - Burke - Fraser Might as well give Kelly a game for me. Marshall didn't particularly impress me against Cyprus. Same back 4 as they did ok and consistency will help. 3 center mids with more defensive capability than Saturday. Pace on the break with the front 3, Forrest and Fraser have defensive duties obviously.

So, first and foremost. Obviously not a great performance, but no real criticism of Clarke. He's had barely any time and I wasn't expecting an instant revolution. Got the result, and we showing him some bad things, which will be useful for him to see. Quick run thru of the performances: Marshall - Didn't have anything really testing to do. Showed some poor distribution and for me, he should be coming to claim for the goal. It's a header by a guy standing on the edge of the 6 yard box. Not impressed. O'Donnell - Did well enough. Great engine and wish that wee chip had gone in. Robertson - Good goal, but undone by his marking at the corner. Mulgrew & McKenna - Did very little wrong all game. McLean - Added very little, but gave up 2 good chances that a better team would have punished. If it's a choice between him and McTominay as a 6, I don't know why anyone would take McLean. McGregor - Mostly ok. Felt a bit slow in possession, wanting too many touches. Still fancy Christie more. McGinn - Exactly the performance I expect from McGinn. Energy, won the ball a few times. But also a bombscare, and completely unnecessarily gave two really good chances to the opposition that should have been punished. Just not reliable enough. Fraser - Linked up well enough with Robertson, good assist, unlucky not to score. Forrest - Did well for me. Busy, took people on, Brophy and McGregor should probably have scored from chances he made. Brophy - Got a bit lost. Height disadvantage was one issue, but he had 2 good chances and didn't get close with either. The subs all didn't have much time to do anything, but the midfield pair moved the ball on well enough and Burke obviously made a difference with the goal. Would start him up top against Belgium. So for me, goalkeeper's still open, and hopefully Clarke got a view of what that midfield 3 is good at and what it's not good at. Belgium is unlikely to be useful, as I can't see anything happening other than us losing by 3-4. Going straight into the Russia game after that is a bit harsh, given how vital that fixture is and how well they seem to be playing right now. Can just hope for the best. As long as we see some improvement over the course I'm fine, even if we ultimately don't qualify this campaign.

You almost had me believing i'd written that. But turn out you're just a child. aww well. Enjoy the game.

Urgh.. Last post on this cos i'm utterly bored. I don't know why Fletch is absent. But he's talked with Clarke, and he seems happy enough with the situation. If Clarke leaves him out in future, then ok. If he calls him up for the next double header, then cool. The manager knows the details, he'll make the decision and I'll go with him on it. You are railing against Fletch's inclusion, because you've decided in your own head what the reason for his absence is. Despite you being clueless as to the reason for his absence, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and explained that assuming you're right. it makes 100% sense for him to miss these two games. I'm explaining YOUR made up position to yourself. I'm not being an apologist for anyone except perhaps you, as you insist on pretending to know something that you don't, and i'm enabling that by letting you. End of the day.. your own argument (which isn't based in reality) falls down when it's repeated back to you. You can get pissy about it and start accusing me of being an apologist, but i'm just repeated YOUR position back to you. As such, it's an utter waste of my time carrying on talking to you about it. I'm basically just being a proxy so that you can have an argument with yourself that you don't seem wquite bright enough to have on your own. So good luck. At least I can step out of the 'conversation' and you can carry on ignoring the world and believing you're right with no evidence to that effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g64DM-QAKoo Good to hear him say "players suitable for this game might not be the players suitable for the next game". It did feel like McLeish was just trying to find an 11, but Clarke seems to be actually wanting to use the squad in the best way for each match. It's only a little thing, but good to hear none the less.

Go back to the last page. I said neither of us know why he's not in the squad. You said he wasn't in it because he's managing an injury. So, IF you're right, i gave you the astoundingly obvious reason why it's 100% logical for him to miss these games. This is like arguing with a goldfish!

Oh aye, we're cracking against 10 men.

No one gets sacked for one game, do they? It's a cumulative thing. Lack of wins. No coherent strategy. Unsettled players and fans. Scraping thru an easy Nations League group. Losing to the Khazaks and playing poorly against San Marino. It all added up.

I'm repeating your own argument back to you and explaining the logic of it.. and you're disagreeing, you daftie!

Aye, cos I haven't watched any of our games.. ever! Do you read your posts? Agreed, McTominay should help and hopefully will start every game he's available for. As for McGregor, he's good at that for Celtic, where he's better than everyone he's playing against. At international level it's a different question tho. He HAS to put in the defensive shift, we can't play a double 6 where one of the 6s can't be bothered with the defensive work and just wants to play the ball. Looks like McTominay can do both, which is fantastic. McGregor has been lax defensively so far and needs to improve. McGinn has looked suspect, and is not a 6 for his club (probably for a reason). Armstrong's an option, tho I do feel like his talents are better suited to playing further forward. McDonald seems an obvious choice. He's certainly not as bad as he's seemed in his handful of caps so far. Shinnie is actually a player I like in the middle of the park. He's got energy and he leads by example. McCrorie is hopefully one for the future, but might need a move unless Gerrard decides that Scottish players are allowed to play for gers. So against Cyprus we can probably afford a McTominay / McGregor double 6. Against Belgium I'd probably go McTominay / Shinnie, as we need players in that position who first and foremost can do the defensive work, while we try and counter with 3-4 guys with pace. It's all about using the tool you have in the best way for the situation. And right now we've got a lot of tools in midfield.

Umm.. one disastrous result in a qualifier. There were other pathetic results, like losing to israel, and I'm not sure we actually put in a genuinely good performance under him even once. So to say the above seems.. a little bit of a misrepresentation at best.

You seem to be wildly missing the point, whether intentionally or otherwise. You've bored me either way, so i'll say it one last time. You say "we need our players available", and the Fletch situation is most likely "rest him now, so he can get properly fit and he's 100% for the 6 (more important) games later". It is exactly what you're asking for: "we need our players available". if you can't get that.. then... ok.

'Have them' ? Thi sis the thing. You're assuming it was just Fletch saying "i'm not playing, cya." rather than a discussion between him and Clarke about how fit he was and how to manage that injury and whether he'd be fully fit for the Russia games if he played these two. This is what i've been saying all along, you're just deciding what reality is, when you don't actually know. Stop doing it, you look daft. As for the Khazak game.. Not sure I buy "we were under-strength" as an excuse for the result. We were only really 2 players off our best 11, right? Fraser and Robertson. No one was up for it and that's down to the manager. Don't think it much matters which players were or weren't there if not a single one performs at the required level.

What what? Which players am i discarding? And what's Bannan got to do with it? He wouldn't be in any squad I would pick.