BryanBlessed

It wasn't really about how they play football.

As soon as he had a longish camp with them, where they could work on patterns of play etc., he came up short. It's hard to understand why as Clarke is an experienced coach.

I'm not sure what Tuchel was thinking takîng off any pace and leaving England to clear the ball directly to Argentina. I know England were sitting deep before that but it's the coaches job to fix that. I'm not really in the ABE camp but Argentina were deserved winners. The problem is that the Argentina team are a really unlikeable bunch in general. When they're not singing racist songs they're going on about the Falklands (obviously used by successive governments to distract from dire domestic politics). It's funny because when I was there you can see all the British influence and I was definitely made more welcome there than în Spain.

Apparently a poor man manager so choice of assistant would be important. Would he have the time with the players to really coach them?

Of course it's credentialism. We're not talking about non-scientist having crazy theories, it's a football match. If you don't agree with the video, tell us why. If we were so well coached why were we playing out from the back with no plan as to how we were going to get the ball forward?

Surely John McGlynn is the obvious choice? He's at the right stage in his career, Falkirk have lost their best players, it would be a big pay increase (I imagine) and he has a strong coaching background.

That's just credentialism. Did you actually watch the video? Do you think Scotland look like a well-coached team?

Imagine if watching videos and analysing the performances was a real position that almost every top club and country had.

I don't know if this has already been posted but it's pretty damning of Clarke and his coaching. Adam Clery explains the difference between managing qualification (where you don't have so much time to work on patterns of play) and at the actual tournaments. I always thought it was a bit silly for people to suggest Clarke for qualification but a different manager for tournaments. It turns out they might have been right. Open Goal also made the point the Naismith is not really an experience coach. You could definitely see the frustration from players like McTominay but I think some of the players also got far too comfortable.

I quite like the Clarke method of giving a player one campaign to sort out their form before dropping them. At least that's what I thought it was until he kept picking certain players.

Hendry is also 31. You'd hope a decent couple of CB's will come through. I think there also might be an argument for Miller instead of Gilmour eventually. Bowie should also be considered as he's been playing at a higher level than Ure and doing relatively well. Will Hickey ever be the same player again? Doig, for me, is a pretty weak option at LB so I hope someone else comes through.

I think we'd been more convincing against Haiti and tried but failed againg Morocco,nobody would have complained about a defensive performance against Brazil.

I think so, too. Players like Dykes really had no business being there. It was clearly the right time to go with a lot if players nearing the end of their international careers.

I actually think it might be that the players were too comfortable and too complacent.

Fullbacks, especially those high energy ones who really on athleticism peak quite early. Robertson is not good enough on the ball to adapt his game and he's not as good a defender as Tierney. And ge The signs have been there for a while. He made two goal-costing errors in qualifying (Belarus and Denmark) and his bad pass, which was never on, heavily contributed to Brazil's second goal. I'm not saying he shouldn't be in contention but he shouldn't be an automatic first choice.