bazmidd
-
Posts
654 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Tartan Army Message Board News
Media Demo
Posts posted by bazmidd
-
-
4 hours ago, Whelky75 said:
And what sense would they make in the context you quoted them in?
Holy fuck, sorry pal, I'm nae Rabbie Burns change it to whatever you want! 🤣 But for context, to the English he is an emotional anguish, a 'Heartache' caused by the loss they suffered when he turned them down for the one he truly loves, The Tartan Army
-
8 hours ago, Whelky75 said:
I don’t think ‘nothin (sic) but a heartache’ are the correct lyrics, are they?
No sure to be honest, those lyrics are in the Bonnie Tyler song though
-
McTominay song is decent just needs to follow on from the song and end on a better note tbh
Scott McTominay, nothin but a heartache, loves the Tartan Army, he turned the English dooooown
Scott McTominay, nothin but a heartache, loves the Tartan Army, he turned the English dooooown
And we don't want to share, because McTominay doesn't care, about yooooouu!
Repeat
-
2 x Tickets seated next to each other available in Section right next to TA. Bought for £140 will sell for £70 for both
-
27 minutes ago, Taylor1996 said:
Games 24 (As captain)
Goals 8
Assists 6
Motm 9 (2 of them were v Benfica & Braga)
(For a team that will probably get relegated)
That is impressive stats, and important stats. On who scored he is also ranked 9th best player in the league, playing for the team second bottom! Every other player in the top ten plays for either Benfica, Porto, Sporting or Braga
-
8 hours ago, Malcolm said:
Tuchel has done a brilliant job at Chelsea. It’s not his worry if gilmour is ready for Scotland games. He’s not good enough for Chelsea at the moment.
You can separate some of that though. Yes Tuchel has done a brilliant job at Chelsea on the whole, but that does not mean he has been perfect, he isn't exempt from criticism as this situation proves he hasn't got everything right. He is a manager, and he hasn't managed this situation brilliantly Whether this was Gilmour or anyone else in the squad it is clear as day that situation has not been managed well. And I completely disagree that he is not good enough for Chelsea as he has already proved he can play in that team every single time he has been given a chance in the past, the problem right now is he is not being given that chance by Tuchel.
ETA Chelsea played out a drab draw and probably should have been beaten last night and Gilmour was still left kicking his heels on the bench. He just needs a chance
-
50 minutes ago, SWMM82 said:
Aye and Tuchel is now opting for Mount in central midfield with Jorginho. So that makes him what fifth choice midfielder now?
That is shocking from Tuchel. He claimed Gilmour was 4th choice Midfielder but clearly not. Gilmour needs to get some balls and be banging his door in the morning, I'm pissed off at such blatant bullshit from Tuchel god knows how Gilmour must feel
-
1 hour ago, Taylor1996 said:
Phil Foden has now played 150 matches. 20 years old. Now he's scored in the European Cup quarter finals.
Billy Gilmour. 19 matches. He'll be 20 in two months.
Chelsea are an absolute shambles of a club, lead by their trigger happy Russian owner.
The sooner Billy Gilmour leaves, on a permanent basis, the better.
That shambles of a club are in the semi finals of the Champions League....
-
15 minutes ago, Taylor1996 said:
And no one is going to mention that Che Adams has been dropped by one of the most out of form teams in English football.. for the 2nd match in a row.
Can't wait to hear what people here have to say when Adams eventually drops into the Championship and Dykes gets bought by an EPL club.
I don't get why as a Scotland fan you would seem to revel in this.... I for one would much rather they were both starring in the EPL
-
It is very frustrating as a Scotland fan and even more so for Billy Gilmour. He was on the cusp of starting games in the Premier League under Lampard. There is an argument though he is now learning from a better manager, and if he was to eventually get a proper chance under Tuchel it would be arguably a bigger statement playing under a proven Champions League standard manager. He still isn't far away, he is 4th choice Midfielder as it stands and all he needs is one chance
-
16 minutes ago, saintsparky said:
Is Gilmour injured?
Tuechel has named 2 x GK on the bench and no Gilmour....
No dropped from Champions League squad
-
2 hours ago, Tartan blood said:
I think the consensus on here is that he should be in the squad, not necessarily as a starter. Same goes for Turnbull, Gilmour and Patterson. All well worth a squad place in the friendlies at least.
I'd be extremely surprised if none of them became first team regulars though.
I actually think, certainly in some games, that Gilmour, Patterson and Gauld or Turnbull should all be starters. The amount of creativity in those players there is something we are crying out for
-
3 hours ago, Third Lanark said:
I don't need to be convinced about Gauld now but if we consider that our formation is 3-5-2 and our first choice middle 3 is McTom., Jack and McGinn, then I don't see who we leave out for him. Unless he plays as a 10 behind Dykes/Adams?
Number 10 behind Dykes or Adams is his position. He should essentially be vying with Ryan Christie or Ryan Fraser for that position. He is a number 10 all day long.
-
Highlights from the match last night, Gauld looked lively, one chance he created second half was outstanding, we don't have many if any players that can pick out crosses like that one
-
7 hours ago, ceudmilefailte said:
Clear MoM on who scored despite being on losing side (only MBurnie does that)
5 attempts on goal 3 on target (i'll take your word he created most of these himself)
Created 4 chances
3 successful dribbles.
And Important to me and any team that isn't that great,(like us) 2 tackles and 4 interceptions.
Any one who follows stats will know that is a massive contribution for one player.
I do wonder why he didn't get a move in the January transfer window
According to the Scots Abroad podcast he didn't want to leave Farense mid way through a relegation battle, he is their captain and does owe them a bit for helping him get his career back on track. His contracts up in the summer anyway so he will get his move then. If he played that well against Braga last night they may be first in line again
-
8 hours ago, Taylor1996 said:
I suggest you re-read my post and not allow the red mist to cloud your view.
My point was both defensively as well as offensively.
And the fact that we had the ball either side of the park would suggest that the midfield three simply cannot control play and dictate tempo.
And the ball watching from midfield, if we do that against Austria and Denmark, not to mention Euro 2020. We will lose. We're playing with three center backs, there is no reason at all for our midfielders not to press high up.
Deary me
Firstly, I take both your points if you actually take the time to read my post you will read I acknowledge both points and agree with one not the other.
Secondly, and again just to reiterate, the fact we had the ball either side of the park instead of the middle, and wait for this one because it will genuinely blow your mind... Is a thing called tactics. So just to explain tactics are something that exist in football and other sports to exploit vulnerabilities in the opposition.. It was Clarke's plan to play down the flanks and exploit the opposition down there all along.. genius eh
Thirdly... You are correct we did play with 3 centre backs.. until such times as we actually didn't.. Again, that little word I used before, Tactics. Tierney was allowed to bomb forward and create overloads on the Left Wing position to set up two goals and McTominay was creating overloads in Midfield to create new passing lanes. See when these 2 centre backs step out of position and we are left with 1 centre back do you think it is still advisable for all our Midfielders to press high up the park? Honestly man you don't have to agree with the tactics we used but at least understand them.
-
1 hour ago, Taylor1996 said:
"The Faroe Islands had two glories chances to score (one because Gordon fumbled). What would the mood be if it endes 4-2?
We keep saying that we're strong in midfield. I don't see it. Umpteen times none of the midfielders dropped off to give the defenders a passing option. Several times our midfielders backed off them, allowing them to shoot or cross."
Why do you pick and choose your quotes, everyone has read the full opening post, you don't need to cut and paste parts of it to suit an argument. The post was aimed primarily at your worry surrounding all our creativity coming from wide and centre halves stepping out from the back and a lack of creativity from Midfield. To me that just lacks a basic understanding of football. The basic understanding that playing through Midfield is not the tactics we deployed, making it impossible to criticise the Midfield for a lack of creativity. The tactics v the Faroes were not to play through Midfield it was to play it wide get overlaps get it in the box and score. It worked brilliantly. We will aslo never go through a whole game and concede no chances whatsoever but still.. it never ended 4-2.. it was 4 nil. And what exactly were these glorious chances? A couple of long range efforts, in most games you take them all day long. If Marshall had been up to it v Austria and Israe lhe would have done better on both long range efforts we conceded from as well. Could the Midfield have done better at times at the job they had been given, cover defensively and close the space.. yeah the could have, they can be criticised for that. But what they can't be criticised for is not getting on the ball at every opportunity and creating chances, as this was not their job, so your opening post regarding Midfield creativity is nonsense
-
1 hour ago, Taylor1996 said:
I only read the part that I highlighted. Ususally, when a post begins with an insult, all won't bode well. 😛
Yes. The midfield are supposed to protect the back 3/5, like he said, but the very fact that they didn't last might or against Austria or Israel only solidifies my point.
My point was the midfield, in general, not just the one match.
I thought your point was the Midfield wasn't creative....
-
34 minutes ago, Taylor1996 said:
Sarcasm?
As this part was fun to read "The role of the two central midfielders wasn't to create, it was to protect"
Yes. The midfield was at fault for all of our three goals and yet their main job was to protect. That cemented my point.
You and I were both specifically talking about the tactics for the Faroes game last night. So don't jump around your idiotic post
-
And also by Adams and Dykes being in the box it occupies defenders allowing space for others. I honestly don't know how you can't see what we were doing last night and that what we were doing worked! What a ridiculous post regarding the midfield not being creative and getting on the ball last night, it wasn't their job to thread balls through to Adams and Dykes so they could score, that was never the plan
-
27 minutes ago, Taylor1996 said:
(If you're the kind of person that hates freedom of speech or people that are opposed by different opinions, not not comment, as it'll just show you up as a snowflake. So, if you want to disagree then fine, but be constructive about the points that I'm making. Personal insults are neither constructive or smart)
Scoring 4 was great, but its the stuff that happened in the middle that put me in a mood. It's good that we collected 3 points, but I'm still not happy with the flow of the match.
When your overlapping center backs (Tierney and McTominay) are are the most creative parts of the team, and the most influential (Tierney: 3 MOTM performances in a row), there's problems.
Dykes and Adams only had two shots in the entire match. One of them Adams just blasted from outside the box, and the one was when he scored a half chance.
I looked at Austria's stats against the Faroes. Austria created 7 "big chances", to our 1. Austria got 20 shots from inside the box. We got 7.
The Faroe Islamds had two glories chances to score (one because Gordon fumbled). Would would the mood be if it endes 4-2?
We keep saying that we're strong in midfield. I don't see it. Umpteen times none of the midfielders dropped off to give the defenders a passing option. Several times our midfielders backed off them, allowing them to shoot or cross.
According to the heat mat, we had the ball down the left channel more often, then the right, and we had the ball in the middle seldom. We have 3 central midfielders and yet we don't dominate the middle? Even against two Faroe Islands midfielders.
That's an indictment on McGinn, McGregor and McLean. And since those three are our best trio (replace Jack with McLean)
Against Faroe Islands we should be dictating the tempo from midfield.
If it wasn't for Tierney's hat trick of assists, it would have only been 1-0. That scenario would've added even more credence to this post.
We ARE making progress. We are harder to beat and score against, and that's down to playing with a trio at the back, but there is a long way to go. The defence has been sorted. Now onto the midfield.
(Trolls will be ignored. If you (Trolls) must, leave an emoji.. not that you (Trolls) need an invitation. 2nd most popular TAMBer! Yay!)
This is actually laughable. You do know the reason the ball went down the flanks and not through the middle is because that is exactly the tactics Steve Clarke used. It was by design to play this way. We adopted these tactics and we won 4 nil!! Have you ever seen Sheffield United play? We have basically adopted their tactics on our left hand side. We create overloads on that side to create chances. The role of the two central midfielders wasn't to create, it was to protect and recycle possession. They were there, McLean mainly as defensive cover to allow Tierney to bomb on. The other two, McGregors job was to provide defensive cover but also just keep the ball ticking over when in possession, recycle it, so others can spread the play. McGinns job was never to be involved in the play, his job was to get on the end of the build up play and arrive in the box when the crosses came in. Honestly open your eyes. Adams and Dykes never got as many shots because others got on the end of the crosses instead of them!
-
46 minutes ago, Scot1 said:
And if I was Steve Clarke I’d give Hendry a tape of McTominays games for Scotland at right-centre half and tell him that’s this is what we want from you
Little bit harsh on Hendry because he is good with the ball at his feet but McTominay is another level up which is why he plays for Man Utd and not Oostende. Hendry has also been playing in the middle of the back three at Oostende and I think this is actually his best position. In time I would like to try a back 3 of Tierney Hendry and McTominay as they all have great pace which would allow us to play higher up the pitch
-
Marshall
McTominay. Hanley. Tierney
Fraser. Jack Robertson
Gilmour. McGinn
Turnbull
Adams
-
31 minutes ago, PASTA Mick said:
It doesn't look too bad...
Marshall
McTominay Cooper Tierney
Fraser Jack Gilmour Robertson
McGinn
Adams Dykes
Bench to change it: Forrest, Armstrong, McGregor, Christie, McLean, Turnbull, Gauld, McBurnie, Nisbet, Griffiths?
I like everything about that apart from the partnership up front. I know it was the first game together but it just didn't work for me. Dykes looked to be completely off Adams wavelength. Dykes will be useful as an out ball at times but I still think we need another partner for Adams
McTominay Song?
in TA specific
Posted
I like that, go with that