bonny78's Content - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

bonny78

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,375

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Tartan Army Message Board News

Media Demo

Posts posted by bonny78

    Formations and a much needed reality check

    in TA specific

    Posted

    2 hours ago, AndyDD said:

    Nah, It's not that people have more opinions or share them more, it's just that they have a wider reach than ever before. It goes beyond their front room or their workplace or their local. 

    I don't really watch any other sports much, but I do find many of the Wimbledon and boxing punts annoying. I've never felt that they don't have qualification to offer opinions or analysis, I’m just not really interested in it and find many of them boring at best, irritating at worst. They are overly-reliant on cliches and offer little to no value in my view. Show me more football and less folk talking about football. I get enough of that with my friends and things like this. I'll rely on a cliche in their honour and say to each their own. 

    I do think several players for Scotland are at times expected to do more than is fair based on their club form especially when they are playing alongside higher quality players for their clubs or in a more dominant club side (Old firm players). But I also think this is too often an easy out for those players. I let out a sound of frustration during the Russia home game when Robbo got up the side and... hit his cross straight out of play over the top of the goal. 'That's shite Robbo' was more utterance, to which a lad behind me opined 'aye well it's no like he's got Salah or Mane to give it to'. His ability to keep the ball in play and cross it into the box is entirely unaffected by the calibre of player in the area he is trying to get it to. If they make a tit of it, aye, that's because they are Mcburnie or Burke or Phillips or Shankland rather than Salah or Firmino or Mane, but Robbo's cross was shite in that instance and people are right to expect better from a player of his obvious quality and ability. 

    No. I’ll categorically state that there is zero percent chance that we’ll qualify for the Euros via the Play-offs. Technically, there is a chance and it’s possible, since the results aren’t in yet, but for anyone to think that we do stand a chance of qualify is quite frankly, living in a fantasy-land, and is a real-life threat to himself/herself and their community. It’s not impossible, but it is improbable. I literally know nothing of the play-offs, the format, who we might play, etc. As it just doesn’t interest me. 

    Well, this paragraph is a silly smorgasbord of contradictions and outright daftness. Zero chance followed swiftly by there is a chance and it is possible. It’s when you suggest that Scotland beating Bulgaria and Norway or Serbia, quite possibly both at home, is a fantasy land that folk are liable to think you’re either deeply flawed in your analysis or are baiting for equally foolish remarks attacking you.

    Because make no bones about it, that is a foolish remark. It is also self-evidently silly to claim you know ‘nothing’ of the playoffs. You clearly follow Scotland and have watched the games, you know Scotland are in the play-offs and you know that if they win two matches, at least one at Hampden, they are through to the Euros.

    As for the laughable suggestion that it doesn’t interest you… weren’t you earlier on wondering if people on here are even football fans, and Scotland fans? And yet, you are now claiming you have no interest in Scotland having a two game path to a tournament?

    We shall see. I fully expect to see you posting predictions of us getting pumped in March 😜  

    As I say, I've never seen this refusal to discuss the possibility of change. I've seen some folk say they feel they have talked it to death and have nothing new to add, but that's a natural part of any discussion. As for documented evidence, as we both agree on there is no way that a back four is the sole reason we have failed. You have 17 years of documented evidence that we have not found a way to maximise our ability enough to manage to qualify. That's about all you have. It's about all any of us have, when it comes to evidence. That is an intellectually lazy reply to get but, not to repeat myself but this is not an argument i've made or am making, so it's not really relevant. Nor am I saying Robertson can't play in midfield because he doesn't for his club. However, you have no evidence that he will be effective there, and the argument would perhaps be that his strengths at least as far as we have seen have yet to look like they are in the areas you'd want a central defensive midfielder to be strong in. Robertson's strengths, the arguments goes, are most evident when he motors down the side of the park. You can't prove a negative, so you cannot prove he would be bad as a central midfielder, but i'm not sure what it is that marks him out as being suited to that position. Just being a good player in general? There's also a line of thinking amongst coaches that happy players play well. Would Robbo, or other players, play to their best if unhappy in what they are being asked to do? He doesn't seem the type to spit the dummy, for sure, but if he is unsure, over thinking or wishing he were out on the left, we might not see the best of our best player. 

    Let me be clear; none of this is necessarily my personal view on it, but I dispute the idea that anyone who does not think playing him there is a good idea is some sort of unthinking knuckledragger. 

    Sure, Willie Miller was miles better than any defender we have available to us now, but as you sort of accept, the analogy fits. The concept of sticking to what your players are already well accustomed to is not some tactical naivety by default and is a principle highly successful football coaches have employed in illustrious careers. Besides, Mckenna and Findlay are ALSO the guys who have been at the heart of the defence for sides that have second and third in their league, in those cases punching well above their weight. Focusing on their most calamitous results ever is rather akin to focusing on isreal away, intellectually speaking... 😜 

    Besides, Mckenna has played back 3 at Aberdeen a lot. And when they do, Aberdeen invariably fail unless and until they switch again. McInnes has tried it several times and has often lost points or adjusted back to a flat four during the match to rescue the situation. 

    I wouldn't want a scotland manager to stick slavishly to any formation, actually. I don't think we should stick to a back 4 just because and be unwilling to switch it up. I think the exact same principle applies to a back three. What I want is a manager who will make a judgement call based on hat he thinks will maximise the performance and results of the players available to him in each game, regardless of what that means for the way they are set out. If we went back 3 for a full campaign and got battered each and every game, I'd not begrudge the manager for going to a four or a five at some point. So whilst I can totally understand your frustration that, outside Strachan and Mcleish, no manager in recent times has seemed willing to experiment with the back line formation, I would suggest demanding that a manager stick to a back 3 is as equally ill advised as demanding they stick to a back four. 

    Well, okay, fair enough. To be fair Kamara plays in a Rangers team that dominates the ball most weeks. Understandably, what he is asked to do for Finland could well be very different than what he is asked to do for Rangers, but at least thus far in their European games he has not been deployed as a sitter or holder, either. That might change tonight, when they go to Porto. Given you don't watch Scottish football, your opinion that Kamara is better than the players you've listed and is likely to end up in epl and is a little akin to Patrick Viera is based on... watching him play a few times for Finland? He's a tidy enough player, but he doesn't stand out in a league in which many of those players do, nor has he been as good in european games as many of the celtic midfielders you draw direct comparison to. He'd get in the squad no problem, were he Scottish. The 11? Maybe. 

    Yeah of course we would all drop anyone if it meant qualification, but I think the argument against dropping midfielders to play centre halves that some will employ is that the centre halves that you'd be putting in are highly likely to be less good at passing, controlling, keeping and moving the ball than the sacrificed midfielders. The concern would be inviting teams on to us only to face them up with players who are poor and prone to errors, rather than trying to play midfielders who can keep the ball a bit better. I think the vast majority are error prone but we actually have some decent pace, I think. The central defensive options are, I think, even more prone to errors (and slower, outwith McKenna) than our other players. All things are relative. 

    I seem glimpses of them on Match of the day and have watched them in full exactly once. They are a hard working unit with some decent players that are highly likely to go back down again this year (I expect many of the teams currently beneath them to improve and finish ahead of them when it'a all said and done) or, at best, next. But I agree with your general point; you can be tricky and ordinate if you keep things simple. 

    When it comes to Smith, actually, no, I think we would have fared worse in that group had he stayed on than we ended up doing. I don't see him playing Faddy in Paris, nor asking Hutton to get up the park as much which often took pressure off the defence for a breather. I also doubt he'd have gone after the Ukrainians with as much aggression as Mcleish did and I think that was crucial to winning that game. If we invited them on by sitting deep I think they'd have caught us on the hop. Certainly that group felt bonded together but it was under Strachan that the players seemed most together in the post-Brown era, for my money. The mentality of the squad, particularly in the last campaign, the lack of pull-outs (Smith and Mcleish even suffered more with that) the level of camaraderie was probably at it's highest amongst the players. Smith was a good manager, for sure. 

    Not even close to qualifying? We were fairly close to qualifying for Euro 2008. We were a home win away from qualifying for the playoff's under Burley, despite it all. A last minute penalty conceded to Czech Republic is why Levein never took us to the playoffs, we were very close tho the playoffs for 2016 and we were a goal away from the world cup 2018 playoffs, to boot. Granted, getting to the playoffs is not by any stretch the same as actually winning them when you get there, as Vogts showed, but I do think you are acting like we were miles and miles and miles off it, rather than narrowly 3rd (or narrowly 4th the one time 3rd was enough). 

    Often being the 3rd seeds, we tend to perform to our seeding. and there is often a small margin between our total and the total of the team directly above us. 

    Heh, I know what you mean by that, but Clarke's remit is to get us qualified via the playoffs. Organised, disorganised, it doesn't matter. By hook or by crook. 

    'A back-line of “right back”, Souttar, McKenna and Robertson won’t qualify for anything. ' Given that this back line has never, ever played together, I don't know on what basis you make this categorical claim. It could be that Porteous beside Mckenna would be better than Souttar, but as a 3, yeah, the ideal set from our current eligible players would be Souttar-McKenna-Tierney. Not having Souttar available again makes me quite hesitant to go with a 3 in the next two games. It's worth remembering that Clarke has never been able to call up Souttar or Tierney, two of our best defensive options. Must be so frustrating. 

    Hah, well good, but to be honest for someone who doesn't mind it, you sure like to bring it up a lot. When I don't mind something, I tend to pay it no mind. 

    Ahaha I hope it happens, if nothing else than to see you predict a Scotland win :P 

    That’s the reason I’d play Robertson as the anchorman, that and he has more defensive capabilities that all of our midfielders combined. Another reason is that when a player is playing in the middle he’ll have the potential to have more influence. I watched the Bayern Munich match last night. Alaba is usually at left back for Munich and anchorman for Austria, but last night he played anchorman and he was flawless. I see no reason why Robertson (or/and Tierney) couldn’t play that role.

    Hm. Maybe. I'm not convinced he has as many defensive attributes as you think he does. 

    Looking at the available players for these two games, if we were to go with a back three, who would you put in it? Bear in mind Souttar is injured and not expected back until the New Year. 

     

     

     

    T. L. D. R. 

    Prediction for next round of matches:

    in TA specific

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, PASTA Mick said:

    I think the Cyprus match is huge for us.  If we win, we have the chance to go into the play-offs on the back of 3 wins by beating Kazakhstan at home.

    If we play poorly we only have one match to prepare for the play-offs, and it will be against a side we should beat at home.  

    Cyprus will want to finish third in the group so forget the "they have nothing to play for" chat.

    November and March will have no relevance to each other. 

     

    Having said that, be good to win the games comfortably. 

    Reflections/Projections.

    in TA specific

    Posted

    8 hours ago, andyD said:

    Bit of a surprising question imo, but ok.

    Just because it's San Marino doesn't mean it can't be useful. It's not the only game we're going to be on top in, so there are things we could work on that could be put to use in other games. Cyprus and Kazakhstan are games we should be on top in as well, so to work on things here made lots of sense.

    #1 Against an opponent that sits back you need some plan as to how to break them down. Overloading the fullback to outnumber them out wide. Playing 1-2s thru the middle in what space there might be. Thru balls to forward runners. Or putting the ball into the box to a dominant aerial threat. We did none of these, so when we come up against a better organised and better able team parking the bus we'll find things a great deal harder as 'just have a pop from outside' or 'hope forrest can beat his man' won't work as well.

    #2 Have a shape to our side. It seemed like we kept our entire back 4 back most of the time, I can only think we were scared of San Marino's blistering counter-attack? Our midfield lacked any real roles for anyone. McGinn just seemed to play as a number 10 most of the time, which is fine, but McTominay and McGregor just seemed to be attacking mids as well. Surely one should have some defensive responsibility? That would allow our fullbacks to go forward (1 man back for 2 forward is a good trade imo) and given we have arguably the best left back in the world, that seems like something we'd want. That the center mids just charged on up and the back 4 sat right back was strange.. and doesn't seem like it'd be helpful in any game ever. It seemed more like a lack of discipline from our players at center mid than anything. I can't believe Clarke thought that was the best plan.. and if he did I'm starting to worry.

    #3 Work on partnerships on the field. We saw very little in terms on players linking up, making runs for each other, playing 1-2s etc. Just players developing an understanding with each other. Palmer made a couple of runs outside Christie, but I don't think Christie used him even once. Robertson didn't really go past Forrest at all. McGinn barely looked at Shankland, much less passed him the ball. To me these are things we should be looking to develop in games like this. Some players like a ball to feet some like it a little ahead, some like to run onto it. Some like shooting for certain angles. We had 90 minutes to put understanding in plae among the players on the pitch and we didn't. So when we come up against better opposition and need to be sharper and more concise and can't just rely on sheer weight of chances to result in goals, we'll have the groundwork there.

    #4 Set plays, set plays, set plays. Armstrong's free kick was lovely. Hit the side netting and most keepers would have trouble stopping it. But it was an individual skill. The rest of our set plays were pretty random, and didn't seem to follow any pattern or plan. 18 corners, 2 goals, 2 very different goals. 1st was towards the edge of the area, and Findlay seemed to be desperately back-peddling to get to it. Suggests it wasn't intentional, and that's not what "right arm raised" means for where the cross is going. The 2nd was into the 6 yard box, which any decent keeper should field, and if we're honest, Findlay's a bit lucky not to have had it ruled out as a foul since he has his arm over the defenders shoulder. So it seems like both the ones we scored had more than a little luck about them. and the 16 we missed.. didn't really have any common thread and we didn't look like scoring from the vast majority of them. We just crossed and hoped something happened. That's frankly not good enough. And i don't care if it's San Marino, we can work on set plays, as they're about how we set up and execute, regardless of the opposition.

    So there's lots we could work on despite the quality of the opposition.

    It comes down to discipline, again. Do we have enough discipline to play as if San Marino could pose a threat, do we treat them as if they could break one top corner it at any minute. Is our system set up to cope with that, are our players switched on and focussed. Or are they just running up the pitch hoping to luck one from distance to get their name in lights. We can have the right level of discipline and focus, the lack of which has cost us in this very campaign, regardless of the opposition. It's entirely on us.

    T. L. D.R.

    Reflections/Projections.

    in TA specific

    Posted · Edited by bonny78

    3 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

    You play in a formation that prepares you for the next level of team that you should be beating ie Georgia.

    Playing with out any formation  will only work against San Marino and prepare you for nothing.

    Playing San Marino does not help this cause you speak of. 

     

    If you had said getting players that rarely score a run out then that would be better. 

×
×
  • Create New...