Diamond Scot

Its all about opinions but would be interested to hear on what basis? He has played well for the best team in a very poor league where he is very rarely tested and any mistakes are almost never punished. Do you think Taylor could star for Bologna in Italy or Brentford in the EPL? What attributes do you think he has that are better than Hickey? Pace, tackling, shooting, crossing, tactical etc?

Not saying he should be. Only that imo in the event of Robertson not playing that Hickey should be next in line?

During the commentary, it was pointed out how Ajax bring through and play youngsters regardless of age, often as direct replacements for the star player who has just been sold. Whoever the "football pundit commentator" then says that the Old Firm have the pressure of must win games etc etc. Why is it never highlighted that teams like Ajax also need to win pretty much every week aswell.

Should Taylor be ahead of Hickey at left back assuming Patterson starts at right back? Imo Hickey has played at a higher level, currently plays at a higher level and pretty much every single one of his attributes is higher than Taylor. Added that in the event of there being no clear "winner" id always opt for the player with more potential. Again Hickey is that player hands down.

Forest dont play the back 3 the same way we do though. He is much more of a defender for Forest. I think Hickey could play the position but my only fear is that he still favours his left foot, albeit very good on his right. Thats why im surprised that he ia playing RB for Brentford. No doubt a very imprrssive young player though. The debate is much more complicated than many on here make out. Its not just a case of 4 or 5, or wingers / diamond etc. Its about having the players to play these systems and every system or style of play has a possible benefit but also an inherent weakness.

I totally get where you are coming from however Rangers have 2 possible starters in McLaughlin and Wright*. Celtic have 2 likely starters in McGreggor and Taylor. If it was any of the English teams we would be delightled for 2 Scots to be playing Champions League football. Its only disappointing as we would hope with the old firm being Scottish teams there would be more however 2 is better than nothing. Put it another way. This week we could have 4 Scottish players playing in the Champions League who played in Europa last season. Thats an improvement and a benefit to the national team. *I think Wright is rotten and shouldnt be anywhere near Scotland team.

I posted after the Ukraine game that whatever system we use that it needs to suit the players on the pitch. By that I mean that the reason we play back 3 is because of what Tierney brings to the LCB role and what McTomminay brings to RCB. To an extent we can play the same way with either Souttar or Hendry playing RCB however we dont currently have a replacement for Tierney. We try and showhorn in McKenna or Cooper in LCB when they dont offer any of the attributes Tierney does. I suggested at the time that we either need to find somebody who plays the same (but perhaps might not be as good a player as McKenna / Cooper), such as Kingsley at Hearts or we need to scrap the back 3 when Tierneys not available.

A big problem with 4 at the back for us was that our CBs arent good enough on the ball and therefore everything ended up going long. Doesnt matter how many ballplayers you have in midfield if they either dont get the ball (like Ukraine at home) or if they need to come and collect it from the CBs. One of the main reasons why we look more comfortable as a team playing 3 CBs is that 2 of them arent really CBs and are very comfortable on the ball and offer different things. Tierney breaks out of defence and overlaps Robertson. Something teams really struggle to setup against. McTomminay breaks out of defence but more central, allowing space for Patterson to stay wide but also McTomminay is brilliant at the "shaping to spray a pass wide right but then firing it hard and low through the centre, normally to either Gilmour or McGinn. Again teams find it difficult to setup against as they cant play narrow due to Patterson but cant play wide due to leaving pockets of space where McGinn and Gilmour operate. Another good thing with the 3 is the 3rd CB could just be an old school defender. Ball winner etc. Thats why "limited" defenders have looked so good there. Play the same players, ie Gallacher, Halkett, Considine in a back 4 at International level and we are back to being a laughing stock.

Tuchel just made a point about the weakness of the bench in responce to a question about needing new signings before the deadline. If Gilmour isnt demanding a move 1st thing tomorrow then something wrong with him.

I actually dont think it is. Its clear he isnt rated by Tuchel. He is only on the bench because Chelsea have injuries and suspensions. Id rather he was well out in the cold to force a move rather than getting false hope or being kept around for emergencies.

I believe you are thinking of the 1st goal where Kyogo is in an offside position when the initial ball is played through (not to him) but then he gets himself back onside for the next pass. This isnt offside however the 3rd goal he is ahead of the ball when the pass is cut to him so therefore offside. The 4th is blatant. Jota is a good 2 yards ahead of the ball when its played. Go have a look at the goals again on Sportscene.

Im not sure what would be involved in turning the refs pro as its not as simple as just giving them a wage. Are refs in England given a contract length etc? Ie if you become a full time ref and then dont perform well then you cant just be sacked but equally I cant see many people giving up a secure career to be a full time ref if its on a 1 year rolling contract. The standard of refs should be something that the other clubs take a stance on. Will be interesting what happens when VAR comes in because decisions like Sands would either have to be overturned at the time to a sending off or their will be real questions asked. Would the 10 other clubs take a stance though? I cant see it to be honest.

Just watched the weekends highlights. Surprised more hasnt been made of the Sands incident. One of the worst ref decisions in recent memory. How thats not given as a foul is beyond me. Ref, linesman and 4th official will all have a clear view. The only possible reason is that the ref didnt want to give it as a foul as it would have been a certain 2nd yellow if not a straight red. Not much is made of it because Rangers went onto win 4 nil however that shouldnt matter. Same with Celtic game. 3rd and 4th goals were offside. 4th is blatant, 2 yards at least. 5th is a possible offside aswell but would need VAR to clear up with the lines however from cut of pitch it looks offside. Im not generally one to suggest bias however the exposure for a wrong decision against the Old Firm is much higher than for so its probably natural for refs to sub consciously err on the side of the Old Firm. What we should be doing is making refs full time though. Its a joke that we have part time refs in this day and age.

Totally agree and maybe a conversation for another thread. I dont neccesarily think Aberdeen should have won more trophys and defo dont think they should have won the league but they should have been able to get themselves into a position where there was a gap between them and the rest. Thats why im saying Euro group stage football could be key as a club gets from more money from that than finishing 2nd in Scotland at the time. I really hope Hearts do manage to finish 3rd again and build properly. A really strong 3rd team in Scotland would be a good thing imo (would at least be different from the last 30 years). Id love Aberdeen to get in on the act and be a really strong 4th team aswell. Thought it might happen with the new stadium but momentum seems to have been lost on that front.

Agreed, its not easy but it is an opportunity. Imo Aberdeen totally wasted an opportunity when Ranger were in the lower leagues. They seemed content to just keep the seat warm until Rangers returned. Didnt change the voting structure and never seemed to make any longer term strides. I understand alot of that will have been financial. Looking at Hearts they will make around half a million per home game in Europe this season as a bear minimum so thats 2 million to start. Then they have the TV money and money per point. Im sure I read that they are estimated to make around 6 million from the Europa and around 4.5 from conference. So if you took that over 4 years thats around 20 million more than the rest of the league. Thats a huge advantage to try and open a gap. The main difficulty comes with balancing actually playing in Europe with still picking up wins in the league. However of it can be done then having guarenteed group football is huge compared to just being in the qualifiers as it allows the financial outlay early doors. Ie going out and getting Forrest and Shankland. Bringing in 2 or 3 better players on actual contracts per year makes it alot easier to build going forward.

I dont think Hearts (or any repetitve 3rd place team) would close the gap to the Old Firm in terms of head to head. My point being that say Hearts currently get beat 2 nil everytime they play the Old Firm. With both OF clubs getting Champs League football that might go to 3 or 4 nil over next few years so on one hand the gap widens. On the other though Hearts reguarly drop points to non OF teams and therefore the gap in the league table is large. However with 4 years of consecutive group stage money Hearts could reduce the number of times they drop points to Non OF teams so in turn reduce the points gap to the OF even if in the head to head games they get beat by more goals. Effectively having a top 2 then clrar 3rd rather than just having a top 2 like we have had for 30 years.

Theres an argument that the gap between the Old Firm and the rest is already beyond massive and extra millions isnt likely to make it any bigger in the sence that the types of players the Old Firm can attract has a ceiling that isnt determined by money. Ie neither could get a 20 million pound player to sign for them even if they could afford it. If the above is true then having a 3rd place team creating and extending the gap to the rest could be a good thing. Ie if Hearts got Euro group stage football 3 or 4 years in a row and could then cement that position then they would be able to consistenly beat the rest and in terms of league points close the gap to the old firm even if on a head to head the gap to Hearts actually got bigger.

He is coming from behind but he doesnt go through the back. The actual contact is more akin to a flick from the side. Ie he hits the side of the hibs players foot rather than coming in via the heel. Id be amazed if it isnt overturned. Whether he has a chance of winning the ball or not doesnt factor into whether its a red or not. (He has zero chance of winning the ball). If that was a factor then every pull of the jersey from behind would be a red card as you cant win the ball with a shirt pull. Its a cynical foul but by the rules it can only be a yellow. Rangers dont deserve to win these games though which is why they wont win the league. They are far to much possession based. Great for Europe. Risky in Scotland.

Standard of punditry from Sky was shocking again yesterday. The Hibs "penalty" they kept showing was never a penalty. They analysed it about 10 times at never at any stage pointed out that the hibs player was also pulling Taviner's shirt. Not even close to being a penalty. Likewise the Rangers penalty wasnt a penalty imo but the defender gives the ref a decision to make but not enough in it for me. Lundstrum tackle isnt a red under any interpretation of the rules. In fairness to the ref I think he though Lundstrum had either come through the back or swiped through. Understandable from the angle he was at but in reality he slide alongside and flicked to ensure the hibs player defo went down. Cynical but happens all the time and only a yellow. Moreles one was without question a red. How Andy Walker said otherwise about 10 times is beyond me. An argument cant even be made for anything else. Rangers would have won with 10 men. Moreles a total liability yet again. Was surprised to hear on clyde 1 that its his first red card in 3 years?

Wasnt me but remember reading it. The injuries thing is a load on nonsence given most clubs train on them. For me, a good grass pitch is always preferable however id much rather have a good artificial than an average or poor grass. There should however be rules about maintaining them etc though. How often they are watered etc

Posted at the time. I thought Utd were really brave and went toe to toe with a really good outfit. It was so refreshing to see the way they played. Very measured but also with intensity and purpose. I believe that if they try and protect what they have then they will be on the end of a doing however if they go about it in the same way as last week they have a chance. Much the same as most teams when they play the old firm. Frustrates me when all of a sudden they play for a smash and grab when all season they have been playing well against other teams.

Whilst nobody knows what the situation will be like in 2 years time, my view is that we dont currently have an established number 2 should Gordon be unavailable. Of the 3 most commonly mentioned, Clarke, Kelly and McLaughlin. McLaughlin is the front runner for me. Whilst the club somebody plays for isnt the only factor, as a general rule of thumb, better players play for better clubs. That to an extent wouldnt apply to McLaughlin previously as he was himself a back up but that no longer seems to be the case. McLaughlin will benefit from playing in big european games. Playing against different teams / playing styles etc. He will benefit from handling the occasion. Something that Kelly in particular seemed unable to do in Motherwells qualifier. We could really do with somebody breaking through soon though.

Carragher seemed to have a hard on for McTominay yesterday due to a tackle where he won the ball and then his foot skipped over the top and connected with the defender just above the ankle. Could have been a nasty injury but McTominay stayed on his feet, wasnt lunging or anything. Was a yellow at best as confirmed by VAR but because pundits dont know the rules they talk nonsence. McTominay was ok yesterday. He wasnt responsible for any goal or indeed any other major chances. The 1st 20 mins when Utd looked good, he did also. After that nobody in a red shirt looked good and the likes of Fred, Fernandes, Sancho etc were all far worse.

Why would it be a given? On the day that Scotland became independent it decides what facilities remain on its land. Now the sensible thing would be a negotiated solution which allows England to relocate over time however that only exists if England dont play "hard ball".

Whilst we can and have played a 532, I think our best formation in recent years has been 5221. In this formation players like McGinn, Armstrong and Christie (Gauld) can play in their natural positon of an advanced CM. I agree that means that natural wingers such as Fraser and Forrest (Middleton) cant play in their natural position but both Fraser and Forrest have shown that they can offer something off the striker aswell so doesnt preclude them from the squad.