Chripper
-
Posts
1,717 -
Joined
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Tartan Army Message Board News
Media Demo
Posts posted by Chripper
-
-
It was a case of Men vs Boys.
We aren't even proficient enough to cross the halfway like with the ball.
At under 21 level the last time that we got anything from England was 1982, which says all you need to know about the way that out football association and how our clubs and coaches bring through our youngsters. Root and branch the aforementioned have ignored their duty to impart some sort of ideology onto our kids. We lack identity. We have lacked any sort of a plan for decades and we are so far behind the majority of countries that I'm embarrassed for us.
People can talk about Jack Harper or Burke or Gilmour but it's nothing more than papering over the cracks. We need to stop pinning hopes on this player and that player as it only brings us false hope. Personally, I'm sick of seeing false dawns.
-
1 hour ago, Texas Pete said:
This may be the most clueless thing I have ever seen posted on here and I’ve seen some pish on this forum in my time (a lot of it posted by myself to be fair).
Hendry is in a perpetual daze, his concentration levels are shocking. McKenna has potential, but he's not there yet. I don't rate Mulgrew as I get the impression that he thinks that he's Bechabaeuer. Souttar is getting there, but he has the odd lapse from time to time.
The aforementioned couldn't lace the boots of Hansen, Miller, McLeish, Hendry, etc.
Our central defenders are average, if you disagree then I respect your opinion.
-
2 hours ago, stevenmcn said:
But that "extra body back there" leaves us light in midfield because let's be honest we play a 5-3-2 not 3-5-2. Plus as someone said we don't really have anyone who plays wing back apart from possibly Ryan Fraser. Right now, in my humble opinion, we need to play some variation of a 4-5-1, and building the midfield around McGinn, Armstrong, McGregor and possibly Cairney and Fraser.
Truth is, we're lightweight all over the park, we're akin to a jigsaw puzzle with a missing piece; no matter where we move the pieces there's almost an area that looks sparse. I agree about the midfielders, but I do wish we had an anchorman, I have hopes for McTominay, but I think he's a work in progress. He certainly has the frame and the stature that we haven't had in midfield for a long while.
-
4 minutes ago, bazmidd said:
This has been a strange campaign in that the players in the squad have slowly changed over the course. A few of the earlier games that you mentioned we didn't play well. Andorra away was horrible. But since Mikey Johnston, Fraser Hornby and Billy Gilmour were introduced at Toulon tournament they have slowly started to play the same way these guys have been playing for the U19s. The performances have been much better. It is a big miss being without Johnston and Hornby tonight and will also be interesting to see how Gilmour does up against an older more experienced England midfield.
All three are definitely decent players.
I agree, though, it's been a strange campaign. Weirdly enough when we do have a bizarre campaign with our Under 21s it usually involves Holland. I remember us beating them twice a few campaigns ago, in one of the games Rhodes scores a hat-trick... I think we still failed to qualify as we tripped up against the minnows. I think it's a pattern with us at all levels, we're fine against teams who attack us, but we struggle against teams that sit deep. We're always lacking a creative spark. I do have high hopes for Lewis Morgan, too bad he went to Celtic, as he won't get much game time.
I remember seeing him rip the Holland right-back to shreds a year or so ago. Why do we always play Holland?
-
17 minutes ago, BraveheartGordon said:
That bottom bit is garbage. We couldn’t get out because Ukraine were pressing us well and making it hard to play through the lines. Some of the football this 21’s and and the age groups below have played has been outstanding in recent times.
The Scottish mantra through the development squads now is play out from the gk through the thirds through interchanges and quick movements. Having a physical striker means if we can’t break a unit we can mix it up by hitting the striker and playing off him, that’s not “launch it up” that’s playing an adaptable style.
Huh. Well, I suppose football is a game of opinions. I've watched every Under 21 match through this campaign, to say that I'm not Impressed is a bit of an understatement. Three of the matches that I remember vividly is scraping a draw at home to Latvia via a penalty three minutes into injury time. Scraping a draw at to Andorra, again scoring in injury time. And the previous match against Holland, yes, we won, but call me weird but I'd rather win by playing possession football, rather than a backs-to-the-wall win, thanks to their goalkeepers going walkabouts and a penalty.
We played Ukraine at home, there's no excuse for that performance. Our players, throughout the age groups, simply cannot keep calm whilst pressed, even by a team of the standard of Ukraine.
If you think my opinion is garbage then fair enough, I hope to holy crap turns out to be! I just want to see progress, we all do.
-
The greater population = the greater at football myth has been debunked years ago.
Uruguay are half our size and yet they produce top players. No one can cite them having better weather as being the catalyst. We should have dozens of indoor facilities dotted around the country in order to combat the snow and ice. We don't.
Plus our basic football attitude is atrocious, it's along the lines of "Punt the ball as far up the park as you can, because the more you knock the ball aimlessly into the box, the more chances of scoring a goal". If we were the size of Brazil we'd still be abysmal.
-
57 minutes ago, bazmidd said:
Bottling it? We are Scotland, we don't have a divine right to win every game, and when we don't win a game it doesn't automatically mean we bottled it. Ukraine are a good team, like Holland are a good team and we are a good team. Anyone of those 3 could have finished Second in that group, we are all much the same and all had differing results over the course of qualifying. On the night Ukraine were marginally better and got a couple of breaks. We never bottled that game, we were never overwhelming favourites in the first place. England will be favourites in this game as they are by far the best team in the group.
Fair points, but did you actually watch the match?
I don't think we strung four passes together in the entire match. It's the Scottish mantra of "Launch it up the field as soon as possible!"
-
1 hour ago, Third Lanark said:
I don't think we would have lost the first goal v Portugal if we had had 3 central defenders; with a back 4 one gets dragged out (Hendry) then only one to defend.
And someone gets it! Thank you!
Our defenders aren't intelligent, so playing with a three would literally just give us an extra body back there to be in the way.
-
If you haven't suffered enough.... the match is on BBC connected TV (Iplayer)/BBC Website.
We can't qualify, thanks to bottling it against Ukraine, so we'll probably win.
-
1 minute ago, BremnerLorimerGray said:
Had similar messages from those who were there saying McRae was giving it big licks to the fans. Cupping his ears, laughing, waving and clapping with glee when the blazers were getting it tight. Classy stuff from a reprehensible cunt.
Seriously?
Huh....
If a mutiny is in anyone else's head, sign me up.
-
Don't know if "It's always sunny in Philadelphia" has ben mentioned.
I wouldn't recommend It to anyone who is easily offended, though, as it's pretty extreme. It was labelled "Seinfeld on crack" a while back.
-
2 hours ago, Lairdyfaeinverclyde said:
Watching it and after our performance on Thursday i'm phoning the Samaritans.
I'm currently on line 2...
-
This is thread epitomizes just how far we've fallen.
We used to produce players like Souness, Hansen, Dalglish, Johnstone, Cooper, Law, McQueen, Mackay, Baxter, etc. A virtual conveyer belt of superstars.
And now? Some of our fans are crying over the possibility of whether or not we've lost out on a 16 year old who may or may not have a professional career in football.
We really are at the bottom of the barrel, and there's not enough will for anything to change... ever.
-
5 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:
Tell us some more about your 3-5-2.
OK. Fine. You talk about a child (that might not even make it in professional football) and leave the less important stuff to everyone else: the SFA/SPFL, lack of a basic infrastructure, lack of unity between clubs and football associations, the lack of clear vision for Scottish football, etc.
-
RE: Jensen Weir
I could not care less. He's a kid. If he wants to play for England then the best of luck to him.
A kid choosing England over us isn't even an issue worthy of mention.
-
9 minutes ago, Mox said:
When in times of crisis, people will quite literally focus on anything that they deem acceptable even if it is of zero consequence to the national team. A more embarrassing thread I cannot imagine.
Agreed.
Forget about the fat cats of the SFA, the incompetence of everyone in Scottish football, from top to bottom... forget about the fact that our players lack basic footballing skills. Nah, let's diss the commentator.
-
1 minute ago, Texas Pete said:
That’s the spirit. Let’s not try to qualify because we won’t do very well when we get there.
Do you go to Scotland games or are you an armchair fan? Not that I think supporters are any better than armchair fans but I would be interested to know.
Most supporters, particularly ones that travel would give their right haw maw for us to get to a major finals again, regardless of how we would do when we get there.
You also have no idea how we would do. We could get into the knock out stages as that isn’t very difficult in the Euros these days. We would also have at least 2 games at home.
If I didn't know any better I would think that we haven't tried to qualify for anything since 98.
Both, I can't really make every match, so it's very much sporadic.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I've give pretty much anything for us to qualify for a World Cup of a European Championships, but it's time that we tried something different. Don't get me wrong, if we qualify for the next Euro Championships via ANY method, I'd be over the moon, but the way things are going, I can't see it.
I know, but I did say "in our current predicament". If we can't beat a team that's 94th in the world then I wouldn't really fancy our chances against decent/good/great teams.
-
1 minute ago, ceudmilefailte said:
Lets forget about us and look at the teams that have qualified in the last 20 years playing 3 at the back,I would suggest that the ones that play three at the back have had far superior players to us and would have qualified playing any formation.
Find the teams that play a back three at club level and the majority return to a back four against equal or superior level teams, having said that hardly any one plays 3 at the back there either
What worked in the 90's might not work now just like what worked in the 50's wont.
Mind you if PASTA MICK can get Provan and Doyle out of retirement we could try 4-2-4, which I always found as a highly entertaining formation
That's the thing, though, we have tried every formation that has 4 at the back, why are people so hesitant to at least give a back 3 a chance? I'd rather try something different and fail than keep failing with the same old routine.
Football hasn't really changed since.. ever.. not fundamentally. I'm not suggesting that McLeish is the man to lead us, as it appears that he's just confused and he looks like a dead man walking, but a good manager would definitely get us gelling with a 3. I don't believe that we've ever been equipped for a 4 at the back, at least not since I've been alive.
-
To be honest, we should be focussing on the players and the manager and the SFA and the Scottish domestic clubs and the SPFL, etc, for letting us down.
I couldn't care less who commentates on Scotland matches and it should be the last thing to complain about.
-
59 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:
Friendlies are the time to experiment. Not important Nations League matches.
If we had played a 4-5-1 against Israel we would have had a more solid midfield and wouldn’t have had 2 players out of position. I’m not saying we wouldn’t still have lost for certain but we would have had a better chance.
We should be letting Robertson do what he has been doing for Liverpool for the last year. That’s what he’s excellent at.
McLeish didn’t really have an option to play 3 at the back last night. Souttar and Tierney had both withdrawn.
If I was the manager I would write off the Nations League (Let's face it, in our current predicament, if we did qualify for the next European Championship via the back door, we'll get stuffed) and focus on the formation issue, as nothing that we've tried under the previous 5 managers have worked.
People seem to think that 3 at the back is an Alien tactic that can only be perfected by football geniuses.
-
1 hour ago, stevenmcn said:
Yeah, but apart from that lol. 3 at the back is crazy. We've barely enough decent cbs for 2 positions let alone 3.
That makes no sense.
So, we have awful central defenders, so the solution is to play less? Why not just play with one, or none.
-
1 hour ago, kumnio said:
Maybe the fact that they play it every week, maybe that’s too logical.
Yes, all of our defenders in the past 20 years have played in a flat back four with their clubs, and yes, they look decent against lesser teams, but when they come up against International teams that are akin to European Cup teams they fall flat on their faces.
There's a good reason why none of our central defenders play regularly in the top leagues or the latter stages of European competitions.
-
22 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:
I really meant persisting with it for most of the Israel match.
I don’t necessarily have a problem with playing 3 at the back but playing Tierney as a CB and Robertson as a WB isn’t working. Do you seriously think we haven’t qualified for 20 years because we weren’t playing with wing backs? If your players suit 4 at the back then that’s what you should play. Robertson is one of the best LBs in Europe. As a wing back he’s fairly average so far.
Against Israel we were being overrun in midfield and our 2 wing backs were ineffective. We might as well have went to a 4-5-1 with Tierney playing at left mid. Or even Robertson playing there and Tierney at LB.
4 at the back worked pretty well for most of the match last night. Particularly with 2 inexperienced centre backs.
Why do people think our players suit playing 4 at the back? Evidence would suggest that we're absolutely hopeless at it. I hate harping back to the 90s, but back then we had structure, we were compact and we were hard to beat. Did we have better defenders back then? Take out Colin Hendry and I would say no, that being the case, there's no reason why it couldn't suit us. We should at least give it a chance before reverting to a tried and failed formation/tactics. Fine, we had a far superior midfield back then, but with a good manager he can mould a three out of either McTominay, McGinn, Armstrong, etc.
It'll take the players time to get used to the formation, and that will only happen if McLeish stops flip-flopping and stick with the 3.
You can't really gauge the match last night as Portugal were dropping back and letting us have the ball in our own half.
-
12 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:
I’ll back him until next month at least.
He hasn’t done a great deal wrong in my opinion. We were always going to lose to Peru, Mexico, Belgium and Portugal so people slating his recent record should remember he had no say in these fixtures.
The main things I would call him on was failing to change things earlier against Israel and for persisting with his 3-5-2 formation. His solution for playing Tierney and Robertson in the same team isn’t working and if he doesn’t change it for Albania we will be in trouble. The 4-4-2 he played last night looked pretty solid. In the first half anyway.
If we win our Nation’s League group and secure a playoff then McLeish will have done a good job, regardless of the result/performance in Haifa.
What an odd thing to say.
"Persisting"? You mean, for two matches?
As opposed to genuinely persisting with 4 at the back (for 20 years) and continuously being humiliated?
We should be playing with 3 at the back for the next couple of campaigns, at the very least.
Back McLeish
in TA specific
Posted
If you look at the Italian defenders of the bygone era, their intelligence, their movement off the ball and their honed instincts of movement set them apart from every other nation. Baresi, for example, wasn't the biggest or the beefiest, but the way that he saw things before they happened, it was almost mystical. If you look at players like Jack Hendry or Liam Cooper, the amount of times that they are caught off guard, out of position or simply switching off, I'm amazed that they're professionals. I'm using those two as examples, the majority of our defenders are lacking in football IQ.
Oh, I know, the only reason McLeish is even thinking of 3 at the back because of he has Tierney and Robertson, I think we all know that. It still doesn't mean that I don't think that its the way we should go forward, as it is. I'm adamant that we should at least try to preserve with 3 at the back, and by this I mean one dedicate one qualification campaign to it. I'm not saying it's the magic bullet, but if there's a potential that it could help matters, even by 1% we should try.
I know. Unfortunately we are in a position where we have to play both of them.