Diamond Scot
-
Posts
1,920 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Tartan Army Message Board News
Media Demo
Posts posted by Diamond Scot
-
-
1 minute ago, slasher said:
Yesterday was probably as good as we’ve been since the Athletico Madrid game so it does appear as though we are coming together at just the right time. However we’re still giving teams too many chances imo and I wouldn’t be taking anything for granted just yet!
Thought Hearts were the better team up until the 1st goal. Celtic do have a knack of hanging on in and then getting the goal against run of play to an extent.
Rangers are almost the opposite. Have all the ball and then have a knack of losing the 1st goal. There style of play hasnt changed for years. Its slow passing, get it out wide, pass it around and then either try and cross into a packed box or feed a pass into a packed box.
I think Rangers could do with a formation change. Im not sure the 1 striker suits them. I think they could go with a 352 with only 1 proper centre back sitting and the other 2 taking turns to take ball into midfield. Would mean they could play 3 more creative midfielders instead of water carriers like Lundstrum and then have 2 up top to occupy the defence.
-
1 hour ago, Toepoke said:
Sounded like he missed a sitter in the first minute, played Kyogo onside for the first goal, then gave the penalty away for the third. Not a great day in the office for him.
1st minute he was involved in a good move, ball got cut back to him and he hit the target. CCV blocked the shot but he was one of maybe 3 celtic defenders and the GK to try and beat so was more like a half chance than a sitter.
He was on the post for the Celtic goal so hardly to blame for playing somebody onside.
Penalty was a bad one. Think he threw his hand up to protect his face but ball actually wasnt hitting it.
Clark made lots of good saves but imo was to blame for Celtics 2nd goal. Long ball forward, was always going to land inside his box but he stayed on 6 yard box and was in no mans land when the shot was made.
-
Clarke has been pretty consistent in only dropoing a squad regular when somebody obviously better comes along.
Managers in the past have been guilty of bringing in the flash in the pan form player and the squad then changes loads from one game to the next.
Clarke has shown that he isnt afraid to make the changes when the time is right and it has defo made us stronger as a unit and also you just dont see the calls off that we were plauged with for years. Part of that has to be the squad atmosphere but also the fear of not getting back in.
As others have said, its not so much that Clarke has his favourites who he will pick even when out of form, its more that nobody else has staked enough of a claim to replace them. Take Dykes for example. If any Scottish striker was pulling up trees then im sure Clarke would have been happy to bring them in but nobody has been.
-
10 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:
Sounds like we could end up with a few rusty players in terms of being match sharp.
Also you didn't specify which dembele. I assume you meant karamoko but he's playing league 1 whereas his brother has been playing a higher level for a good few years now. Not sure I am keen on a league1 player getting a chance over guys like gauld or Morgan or even Forrest.
I did mean Karamoko Dembele. I think it depends what you are looking for from the 26th pick.
If you are looking for somebody to come off the bench in a couple of the games and know what you are going to get from them then probably Forrest would be that person.
If you are looking for people who are performing at a slightly higher level then Gauld and Morgan would fall into that category.
For me if all our players were fit then I would be taking the 26 very best players who have been part of the squad. Given the injuries its opened up a couple of spaces for guys who havent previously been involved and most likely wont get much if any gametime. If thats the criteria id rather take a promising youngster with a view to the world cup qualifying. Id say Doak and Dembele fall into that catergory more than Gauld or Morgan.
Realistically once Ferguson is fit again he moves back ahead of the likes of Gauld and Morgan for the next campaign anyway. None of our other attacking mids are likely to retire after the Euros.
-
3 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:
I thought Armstrong was injured?
Also if mctominay is injured then that's 2 extra guys you need.
I take it you are talking about karamoko rather than siriki dembele?
Not sure doaks ready. He's not exactly done much in the limited gametime he has gotten at Liverpool.
Saying that if we are desperate then I don't see why doak shouldn't be considered.
McTominay isnt injured seriously. He has said so himself. He will be back in a couole of weeks.
Armstrong hasnt been ruled in or out yet. I suspect he will be another one who might not play (or maybe the odd playoff game) but will be medically fit by the Euros.
We only need 4 or 5 attacking mids. Christie, McGinn, McTominay and Fraser will likely be 4 of them. So Armstrong if fit. If not then one of the others I mentioned as I think the 5th will be more like a wildcard pick for the future anyway.
-
48 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:
Lol that's 1. Also Fraser could easily have been picked anyways, especially now there 26 man squads.
We need another 2 or 3 attacking midfielders or wingers.
Who else you suggesting?
I think Gauld should have had a chance before now. Im not convinced on Morgan. I think if he is to get a look in he probably needs to move back to Europe. I wouldnt put Morgan any higher than somebody like Armstrong at Kille.
Attacking mids id take McGinn, McTom, Armstrong, (Christie), Fraser, and either Dembele or Doak. Doak if he can get any short of fitness.
I dont think Doak has earned a call up and wouldnt be near the squad if it was 23 or if we didnt have some injuries but he will be a big player going forward and the experience will do him good. Its unlikely any of the 24 to 26 players will get much if any gametime.
-
1 minute ago, GilmourFan said:
Let's look at reality here. Andy Robertson is an EPL and a European Cup winner. If you are actually saying that players like Jack and McLean are better football and more adoptable then it's an interesting take.
I'm not going to belittle it as everyone has their own opinion.
My opening post was "People confuse football with table football."
In football matches, players move. The left side of a pitch has the same surface as the middle. It's not like they've playing a different sport.
Would moving Andy Robertson deep in midfield be akin yo watching the Scottish to Beckenbauer? No. But he would be far better in that position than McTominay or McLean.
If you disagree. Fine. It's not my job to convince you, nor do I particularly care if you agree or not.
I think it's worth a go.
Ultimately, I want to see Hickey playing there. Barron, too.
I'm done here.
You are one of the best on here for completely ignoring what people say and going off on a tangent to reiterate your point. Robertson is a world class left back. Why dont we just play him up front then. The grass is the same according to you. Problem being he has no strikers attributes the same as he has no holding midfield ones. As others have said you are literally taking away his strengths and playing to his weaknesses playing him in holding mid.
Its probably just aswell you arent trying to persuade people as you wouldnt persuade anybody as your points are all over the place.
Most importantly we will never get to see if you are right or wrong because no manager in the world is playing Robertson in centre midfield.
-
7 minutes ago, GilmourFan said:
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/heres-what-aston-villas-john-15927395
“Ten years ago I was 14 playing with St Mirren, I was a tricky left winger so I was enjoying myself,” he said.
I actually went “from left wing as I got older about 17 or 18, I went to left back. I couldn’t get a game at left back."
Might be at youth level, but my point remains.
You have actually defeated your own argument. Your point rested on McGinn playing left back and then suddenly becoming a top midfielder when the fact is he played midfield and was good at it to not being able to get a game at left back.
So basically he wasnt able to adapt from playing midfield to playing defence.
-
14 minutes ago, GilmourFan said:
John McGinn doesn't find moving from left back into a central position.. if he does, he certainly hides it well.
Jack was about 25 when he switched. McLean did it, too.
Essentially, people are saying that Jack and McLean are better players than Andy Robertson.
Fair enough. Game of opinions, etc.
Football is won and lost in the middle. There's a reason teams like Austra play Alaba in the middle.
No they arent. People are saying some players are more adaptable than others. McLean can play in a couple of positions. Probably about 6/10 for CM and 5/10 for centre back. Robertson can play left back and left wing back about 9/10. How is that people saying that McLean is better than Robertson.
Your points are all over the place.
To make it very clear what I am and am not saying. I am not saying some full backs cant play centre mid. Ive already said I think Hickey could play there. I am saying full backs with no attributes to play centre mid cant play centre mid.
-
3 minutes ago, GilmourFan said:
Robertson plays left back/left mid/left wing for Liverpool. So that's two midfield spots ticked off.
I've also seem him fill in for Endo on a few occasions.
Robertson doesn't have to be Kante of Rodri, etc. He just has to be Robertson.
Nobody would deny that Jack would be in the anchorman position if he was fit. Jack was a right back for several years. I certainly say that he's a better tackler than Robertson. I wouldn't say he's a better passer or more technically gifted.
Would Andy Robertson be the complete anchorman? No. But he certainly has a deeper skillet than Jack.
It appears that football fans find it difficult to imagine scenarios that haven't happened. Can you imagine any St Mirren fan imagining the left back John McGinn being Scotland's no 8/10 and a goal machine in the future? Doubt it.
Robertson has played left back for Liverpool and left wing back for Scotland. Both essentially the same position but crucially both left sided positions with all the game inside of you. Robertson started football as a left winger and moved back to left back over time. All on the wing, he is that type of player. No shame in it.
If you cant see thats theres a world of difference between playing on the touchline and playing in the centre of the park then I would respectfully suggest you have never played the game.
Again if you think Robertson has more attributes to be a holding mid than Jack who has done it for the majority if his career then I cant help you. Even when Jack was playing full back he didnt play it like a winger. He played it like a more central player.
-
3 hours ago, GilmourFan said:
In an ideal world we'd have three top center backs. That would allow Tierney to play left wing back.
Robertson could play anywhere in midfield and defence. There was even a period when he was at Hull that fans compared him to Bale.
Hickey should end up in midfield.
McGregor and Gilmour are brilliant deeply lying playmakers. But as I said, they can't tackle.
McLean is a champion player. He shouldn't be in the first XI.
I'm not sure why people are saying that Christie is playing deep. He isn't. Has anyone actually watched Bournemouth? He's playing in a box-to-box role with Lewis Cook playing the holding role.
Here's Christie's EPL heatmap:
Robertson cant play anywhere in midfield though. Thats the point. He has none of the atttibutes to play a holding midfielder.
You are saying we need a holding midfielder and not deep lying playmakers but then you are saying Roberton can play there because of his energy and tackling. Robertson isnt particuarly good at tackling (Tierney is) and a holding midfielder needs discipline way more than energy. The only holdind mid in recent years with energy as their main strength was Kante.
Holding mids are players like Rodri who have the discpline to sit, dictate play and cut out attacks / cover gaps. Robertson would be one of the last players in the squad who fits that mould.
Other than Hickey the only other defender who might be able to play there is Hendry amd thats a total guess.
Theres a difference between being resistent to change / trying out new things and just throwing things at the wall hoping something sticks.
-
1 hour ago, GilmourFan said:
I'm not denying any of that. I actually agree with all of it. But I didn't say that TAA was exactly like Robertson.
For one, Robertson is double the defender that TAA is.
However, Rino Gattuso was hardly Pirlo and yet he did OK.
We need energy in the engine room and Robertson brings it. The same way that Stones brought defensive solidity to Manchester City when Rodri was out.
Beggars can't be choosers.
Energy is not a replacement for quality.
You would be taking one of our best players out of his natural position to put him in a position that not only has he never played, by your own admission he has none of the attributes to play.
TAA and Stones can play there because they have the attributes.
Hickey would be much better suited to midfield if we are really pushed. But we arent really pushed. We have McGreggor, Gilmour and McLean who all play there for us and Christie who plays there for his club side. If you want energy then Christie is the answer.
-
15 hours ago, GilmourFan said:
Either introduce Barron into the squad or try Andy Robertson in the double pivot with Gilmour.
He has the aggression, the engine and the defensive awareness.
If Liverpool and England can play Trent in midfield, so can we.
Unless it's too much of a creative idea for some stuck-in-the-mud fans.
The concept of 3 at the back was too much for some fans to get their head around. Look how that turned out. 2 successful qualifiers and 1 playoff in 3 campaigns.
Nice.
Robertson and TAA couldnt be more different in terms of technique / ability.
Robertsons strengths are fitness / energy in getting up and down the line. Defensively he is good at reading the game and making interceptions and he is good at crossing / cut backs.
All of the above he is good at because he can concentrate on one side of the pitch. Ie everything is inside of him. He is quite one dimensional in that sence which isnt a bad thing as such and is probably why he plays left back.
Robertson doesnt have good close control, isnt two footed, doesnt have good 360 degrees awareness (compare to Gilmour), doesnt have skill / quick feet to move away from players in tight spaces, doesnt have the range of passing TAA does, is horrible at shooting, isnt particuarly physical.
Its a running joke at Liverpool that Robertson is literally horrible at the Ronda. He basically has no attributes that you would associate with a central midfield player.
Some players can be amazing in one position and one position only. Thats not a bad thing.
-
13 hours ago, GHfaeGTA said:
A couple of weeks ago I think most would agree with that view but with Ferguson out and the real possibility of Armstrong and McTominay also being out, he will come back into contention, especially with it now being a 26 man squad.
You may be correct in terms of Clarkes thinking but id rather have a look at some of the attacking mids that have done better at club level and havent really been involved in previous squads.
Mainly for the reason that I feel you know what you are going to get from Turnbull and that his level generally isnt good enough.
-
4 hours ago, Bobby Russell's Lovechild said:
Cardiff getting battered but Turnbull still decent. Says he's created the most chances in the match (3)
Turnbull is miles out the picture as far as im concerned. Not totally writing him off but imo he needs at least half a season of real top performances at club level befofe he should even be considered again.
-
The possible good news with McTominay is that he gets up and starts hobbiling. Normally with a bad knee injury its a stretcher or the player doesnt even want to stand up without assistance.
Personally I think McTominay is our most important midfielder.
-
1 hour ago, BryanBlessed said:
He made two bad mistakes today. The first one was especially bad. He let himself get robbed by Vargas and a better team would have punished him.
I suppose it would be Souttar, Gordon and Shankland thar Clarke was watching. Gordon had no chance really with either goal and Shankland put a header into the side netting. He actually played quite deep the first half and put in an outstanding ball at one point.
Thats kind of my point. A few of our defenders are about the same level. Hendry and Porteous have a mistake or 2 in them but have more recently put in good performances for Scotland than Souttar has. If its a straight 2 out of the 3 then Souttar misses out for me.
Thought Shankland played pretty well today. Had no real service but did the other bits of the game.
Im a big fan of Gordon but thought he looked abit shakey today.
-
50 minutes ago, BryanBlessed said:
Souttar currently doing his best to play himself out of the squad in front of Clarke. Shankland has done OK so far.
Souttar has never been better than average in terms of Scotland standard in my opinion.
Theres not alot of difference between him and some of our other centre backs like Hendry or Porteous however these guys currently have the jersey and imo Souttar hasnt done enough to displace them.
-
27 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:
I felt a pitch invasion was OTT for a club of uniteds stature. I didn't say not to celebrate.
I tend to agree with this. Pitch invasions should be reserved for historic achievements. Winning a league that you shouldnt even be in in the 1st place is not that.
Celebrate a job well done but no need to go mad. Actually makes the club look smaller than it is imo.
-
46 minutes ago, Tartan blood said:
I was going to say exactly this. In my opinion, we currently have 6 undroppable players that will start regardless of game time at their clubs - McTominay, McGinn, Tierney, Robertson, Gilmour and Hickey. Gilmour and Hickey are new to this list, but I genuinely think they are that good. These are the 6 that will make me sick if we lose more than one of them.
McGregor, although a great player, is slightly behind. I'd actually put him in the same bracket as Christie. A probable starter, but we'd manage without.
The problem we now have is that it would have been unlikely for all the 6 players you mention to play the full 90 for all 3 games. Subbing off McTominay or McGinn for Armstrong or Ferguson is alot stronger than doing it for the likes of Turnbull.
Even though the guys we have lost werent starters, they were solid experienced subs, more than capable of maintaining the standard of the starting players. We are now looking at the real possibility of a huge drop off in quality if we need to make subs or injury replacements during the tournament. For example if Hickey doesnt make it then its probable Ralston will start. That in itself is a massive drop off but if Ralston gets injured / tired / picks up a booking during one of the games then we are probably then looking at giving Max Johnstone his international debut or playing somebody out of position.
-
If we need a few players to pad out the squad id much rather take our best youngsters rather than guys who we know arent at the required level.
For example as a back up id rather take Doig over Taylor.
Doak over Turnbull
Barron over Cairney
The only exception to me is id be tempted to take Gauld purely because he hasnt ever really been given a chance and sometimes a wildcard with abit to prove just shines at the right time.
-
10 hours ago, slasher said:
I’ve seen a different angle on the challenge on AJ and it looks like a foul to me although I can see both sides of it. I’m not so clear on the delay but he clearly points at where the foul occurred and then signals a free kick for the defending team. AJ would normally spring to his feet to defend the box but stayed down throughout the whole incident.
Maybe you can tell me this DS, is it standard procedure for the var to ask the ref what Aberdeen players were complaining about at Celtic’s 2nd goal ? This was clearly indicated by TNT commentators at the time and it seems strange to me given that every goal is checked anyway.
Ive not seen the different angle on the Johnston foul. Dont think they showed it on the TV. If its a foul then I suppose the ref could have been waiting to see if Aberdeen scored and then VAR could have intervened to say it was a foul but that would seem abit backward and not what it looked like happened at the time. The ref did point straight to the foul amd indicate the free kick straight after the penalty challenge. It was the fact he didnt do it straight after the "foul" that seems out of the norm.
I heard that on the TV aswell. No idea if it it normal or not but I suppose if the VAR is meant to consider everything in the final phase b4 a goal its only natural to ask the ref for all the info which would include what the Aberdeen players were complaining about.
-
11 minutes ago, dandydunn said:
Yeah, it hurt, a lot. I was almost in tears at 2-2, 3-3 and at pens, with my loon alongside me. I’ve hugged the wee fucker a lot, but those moments, if you don’t know fitba, can never be understood, his first reaction today was to jump to me, nowhere else, it’s fucking wonderful, but heartbreaking at the same time.
10 years since his first semi (final)🙈 and he’s seen us win a couple and lose a few, everytime we step through the gates, he’s told this is our time, but it’s yet to have the ending we both want.
It’ll come though.
In a way, we need a standard ahite performance thrown in too now, just so the new gaffer can see who is arsed on a day to day basis and who isn’t.
We’re gonna be down Miovski for millions and Barron for buttons will be two massive losses for him.
Whats the story with Barron. Did Aberdeen go big to try and get him to sign a new contract?
Think he is a player with really good potential. If he leaves I hope he goes abroad.
-
Aberdeen shouldnt get drawn into debating whether it was a foul on Johnston or not. (It wasnt)
What they need to concentrate on and demand answers on is why if the ref thought it was a foul, he didnt blow at the time. The game continues for a decent amount of time, the ref watches the play continue and only then the penatly foul is commited by CCV does the ref blow for a foul.
There is no provision for this in the ref rulebook. He cant possibly be playing advantage as Celtic are defending their own box.
Regardless of whether they win or not. Answers should be sought.
Season 23/24
in Football related - Discussion of non TA football
Posted
Agreed. I actually thought Rangers had started to answer some of the bottle questions at the turn of the year but it reared it head with vengence yet again.
Personally id give Taviner a pass as he contributes much more than he takes away. He is and has been far and away the best RB in the country for years. Goldson on the other hand is 6/10 most weeks. You rarely see him putting in a really top performance. Theres an argument that he is Rangers best CB however I would imagine he is also their best paid by a distance. The crucial thing is, ability wise he is nowhere near CCV which should be the standard for an OF centre back. If Clement could move him on and reuse the wages (maybe with a little bit for a transfer fee) then I reckon he would bite your hand off.
As you say though Celtic are also pretty poor. Id say they have 3 top players (CCV, McGregor & Oreilly) and then 4 good players in Hart, Johnston, Hatate and Meiada.
Outside of that their others players wouldnt stand out lots if they played for Hearts.