Jump to content
PASTA Mick

Scottish Players in Action 18/19

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Chripper said:

No, you're wrong. We played 3-5-2 in all 6 of the matches we played at 96 and 98. I still have them on VHS. Craig Brown played 3-5-2 every single match he was in charge. He said that he got the idea from Germany and he was staunch in his convictions that he was going to play with it no matter what.

The opening match at the World cup against Brazil we played with a three - Hendry, Boyd and Calderwood - Burley and Dailly were wingbacks -  https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x542gtp

Also against Norway we played with the same three at the back, John Motson confirms it - They were Hendry, Calderwood and Boyd - https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5v0c3c - with Burley and Dailly as wingbacks.

I honestly don't know why people seem to think three at the back is complicated. Who is it complicated for? The fans or the players? If it wasn't complicated for Hendry, Boyd and Calderwood then why should it be complicated for our current crop of center backs? Blackburn played with a 4-4-2, as did Spurs and as for Boyd, he was left back for Celtic. I flatly refuse to believe that our current players haven't got the adaptability of the players who played 20 years ago.

Just this weekend three (weirdly enough) teams played with three at the back in the SPL, so I have no idea why some people seem so adamant that it's some sort of medieval formation that no one uses anymore. Livingston aren't doing too badly, just off beating Hearts 5:0 and having the third best defensive record in the SPL.  

Any formation including the variants you’re discussing can work if it suits your personnel.

Scotlands 2 most dangerous players at the moment though are wingers, so it would be illogical to me to play a system that prevents us from getting them on the park in their natural positions.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BraveheartGordon said:

Any formation including the variants you’re discussing can work if it suits your personnel.

Scotlands 2 most dangerous players at the moment though are wingers, so it would be illogical to me to play a system that prevents us from getting them on the park in their natural positions.

Fraser and Forrest are not wingers, neither of them hug the touchline, skin fullbacks and whip in crosses.

They both do their damage in the middle. All 5 goals from Forrest came when he was attacking centrally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BraveheartGordon said:

And what are you basing this on? Our top clubs all have modern set-ups and have made brave managerial  appointments in the last few years to do the exact opposite of the nonsense you’re spouting.

if you’re talking about clubs like Livingston or Hamilton then you’ll find these types of small clubs in every league in the world trying to punch above their weight by doing the basics well.

Oh dear christ almighty, "everythings fine, smashing, dandy":rollsmile:

Aye mate, sure over in Spain and Belgium they are saying "fucking hell we could learn something from the Scots, their doing a cracking job with their players".

Our whole negative football philosophy is rotten. It needs destroyed and built up again. And hundreds of the old guard of coaches need chased out the game. Only a gullible idiot would argue that we are moving forward with the rest of Europe..

 
Edited by ErsatzThistle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Fraser and Forrest are not wingers, neither of them hug the touchline, skin fullbacks and whip in crosses.

They both do their damage in the middle. All 5 goals from Forrest came when he was attacking centrally.

Where would you play.our most dangerous attacking players in your all conquering 352? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Chripper said:

2007 when he had the potential of a Fletcher, Brown and Ferguson midfield, Hutton as right wing back and a certain McFadden. But no, we ruined it by thinking that Weir and McManus could fire us to Euro 2008.

Get what exactly? Perpetual garbage and repetition in failure? Oh, I get it.

 

You've overplayed your hand with that one.

Messi could excel in any outfield position.

No you don't get it, if you did you would be regurgitating the same shite day in day out.

Everyone gets it, you prefer 3 at the back, that's fine, you're entitled to an opinion but there comes a point when you end up coming across like a broken record. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chripper said:

Fraser and Forrest are not wingers, neither of them hug the touchline, skin fullbacks and whip in crosses.

They both do their damage in the middle. All 5 goals from Forrest came when he was attacking centrally.

They play wide, they attack from wide positions. They make runs from wide positions to central positions thus making it harder for defenders to track them as apposed to just standing about in a central position waiting on the ball. There is far more variation to their play when they are out wide as they have the option of making central runs to get in the box or take the ball wide and get crosses in. The 4-2-3-1 formation suits Fraser and Forrest it is blindingly obvious and was actually very successful in our recent games.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Chripper said:

No, you're wrong. We played 3-5-2 in all 6 of the matches we played at 96 and 98. I still have them on VHS. Craig Brown played 3-5-2 every single match he was in charge. He said that he got the idea from Germany and he was staunch in his convictions that he was going to play with it no matter what.

The opening match at the World cup against Brazil we played with a three - Hendry, Boyd and Calderwood - Burley and Dailly were wingbacks -  https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x542gtp

Also against Norway we played with the same three at the back, John Motson confirms it - They were Hendry, Calderwood and Boyd - https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5v0c3c - with Burley and Dailly as wingbacks.

I honestly don't know why people seem to think three at the back is complicated. Who is it complicated for? The fans or the players? If it wasn't complicated for Hendry, Boyd and Calderwood then why should it be complicated for our current crop of center backs? Blackburn played with a 4-4-2, as did Spurs and as for Boyd, he was left back for Celtic. I flatly refuse to believe that our current players haven't got the adaptability of the players who played 20 years ago.

Just this weekend three (weirdly enough) teams played with three at the back in the SPL, so I have no idea why some people seem so adamant that it's some sort of medieval formation that no one uses anymore. Livingston aren't doing too badly, just off beating Hearts 5:0 and having the third best defensive record in the SPL.  

My apologies. I remember the matches but I admit I had to look up the formations on Wikipedia. I suppose they must be wrong on there. 

To clarify, I don't think that 3-5-2 is an archaic or unreasonable formation, I just think that on recent evidence it's not the right one for our team. I could also cite the numbers of teams in the top European leagues not playing with 3 at the back, but that wouldn't be a reasonable argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Chripper said:

Since I was checking La Liga I might as well check Serie A and the Bundesliga.

8 teams played with 3 at the back in the German Bundesliga

5 Teams in Serie A

But yeah, apparently no one plays it. Only 18 teams played with three at the back this past weekend in La Liga, the Bundesliga and Serie A.

Hands up, it was me that kept saying that every one was playing four at the back and honestly they were. I have also noticed the change in the last couple of weeks. No idea why it's happened but all of a sudden it's fashionable again to play three at the back.

Will of course continue to say that our better players play better when in teams that play with four at the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

Where would you play.our most dangerous attacking players in your all conquering 352? 

 

6 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

No you don't get it, if you did you would be regurgitating the same shite day in day out.

Everyone gets it, you prefer 3 at the back, that's fine, you're entitled to an opinion but there comes a point when you end up coming across like a broken record. 

So, you're sick of my "regurgitating shite" day in and day out and yet you want me to do it about our most attacking players?

I see you're conflicted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bazmidd said:

They play wide, they attack from wide positions. They make runs from wide positions to central positions thus making it harder for defenders to track them as apposed to just standing about in a central position waiting on the ball. There is far more variation to their play when they are out wide as they have the option of making central runs to get in the box or take the ball wide and get crosses in. The 4-2-3-1 formation suits Fraser and Forrest it is blindingly obvious and was actually very successful in our recent games.

Yes, but there is no way that I would refer to either of them as "wingers". If they spend the entire 90 minutes hugging the touchline and relying on skinning players, they wouldn't get anywhere, as it's not what they do. Fraser and Forrest are best when you give them freedom, as McLeish did in the previous two matches.

 

1 hour ago, mrniaboc said:

My apologies. I remember the matches but I admit I had to look up the formations on Wikipedia. I suppose they must be wrong on there. 

To clarify, I don't think that 3-5-2 is an archaic or unreasonable formation, I just think that on recent evidence it's not the right one for our team. I could also cite the numbers of teams in the top European leagues not playing with 3 at the back, but that wouldn't be a reasonable argument. 

Ah. No worries.

Barcelona used three at the weekend. ;)

9 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Hands up, it was me that kept saying that every one was playing four at the back and honestly they were. I have also noticed the change in the last couple of weeks. No idea why it's happened but all of a sudden it's fashionable again to play three at the back.

Will of course continue to say that our better players play better when in teams that play with four at the back.

I think it goes in waves. I've been nattering on about it since I joined TAMB (and for the past 18 or so years). If you can get it right then you can cause real carnage.

I respectfully disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chripper said:

Yes, but there is no way that I would refer to either of them as "wingers". If they spend the entire 90 minutes hugging the touchline and relying on skinning players, they wouldn't get anywhere, as it's not what they do. Fraser and Forrest are best when you give them freedom, as McLeish did in the previous two matches

Agreed, and the 4-2-3-1 coming in from wide positions gives them that freedom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bazmidd said:

Agreed, and the 4-2-3-1 coming in from wide positions gives them that freedom

In football you need a foundation, and that comes from the back. With all this talk of Fraser and Forrest and where to play them, its akin to a builder talking about building the roof first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chripper said:

In football you need a foundation, and that comes from the back. With all this talk of Fraser and Forrest and where to play them, its akin to a builder talking about building the roof first.

Did we not just get ripped to shreds playing 3 at the back away in Israel? Not the greatest if foundations laid there... And by the way I am not against the 3 at the back, I was actually an advocate for trying it but we have.... And it clearly doesn't suit our players as well as a 4. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bazmidd said:

Did we not just get ripped to shreds playing 3 at the back away in Israel? Not the greatest if foundations laid there... And by the way I am not against the 3 at the back, I was actually an advocate for trying it but we have.... And it clearly doesn't suit our players as well as a 4. 

This is my point, people are talking about one defeat and yet we've played with 4 for the past 18 or so years with god knows how many defeats, yet people are fine to stick with the 4.

It's all about timing. We played with a three at home to Albania and away to Israel, but if it was at home to Israel and away to Albania then we would've probably have gained 6 points.

Edited by Chripper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chripper said:

 

So, you're sick of my "regurgitating shite" day in and day out and yet you want me to do it about our most attacking players?

I see you're conflicted.

Ok, let's see it, who's your starting 11 with 352?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chripper said:

This is my point, people are talking about one defeat and yet we've played with 4 for the past 18 or so years with god knows how many defeats, yet people are fine to stick with the 4.

It's all about timing. We played with a three at home to Albania and away to Israel, but if it was at home to Israel and away to Albania then we would've probably have gained 6 points.

I know what your point is but talking about playing a back four 18 years ago is completely irrelevant. If a back 4 didn't work 4 years ago, 10 years ago or 18 years ago it does not mean a back 4 will not work with the group of players we have now. In much the same manner just because playing a back 3 got us to World Cup 98, it does not automatically mean playing a back 3 will get us to Euro 2020. We have have different players to what we had then. A system really has to suit the players you have at your disposal, and a back 3 just does not get the best out of our best players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robbo looked really out of sorts in the 3 at the back system so it's a non starter for me. I don't mind it as a system but if it's hindering your best player then what's the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, csinclair said:

Robbo looked really out of sorts in the 3 at the back system so it's a non starter for me. I don't mind it as a system but if it's hindering your best player then what's the point?

I'm actually surprised Robertson looked out of sorts playing there as I thought it would have suited him, but you are right he did not look at his best at all playing at left wing back. I'm sure he admitted himself he felt uncomfortable when facing up to a defender with the ball at his feet instead of making runs beyond someone in front of him.

 

ETA.. Tierney is actually better at facing up defenders than Robertson is, maybe we should have swapped them around 

Edited by bazmidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, bazmidd said:

I know what your point is but talking about playing a back four 18 years ago is completely irrelevant. If a back 4 didn't work 4 years ago, 10 years ago or 18 years ago it does not mean a back 4 will not work with the group of players we have now. In much the same manner just because playing a back 3 got us to World Cup 98, it does not automatically mean playing a back 3 will get us to Euro 2020. We have have different players to what we had then. A system really has to suit the players you have at your disposal, and a back 3 just does not get the best out of our best players. 

A back 4 hasn't really been successful for the past 18 years, so why are people so obsessed with it? Serious question.

Well, I disagree. With the emergence of Bates, McKenna and Souttar, it might be the time to try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

Ok, let's see it, who's your starting 11 with 352?

See my "Livingston" thread.

 

21 minutes ago, csinclair said:

Robbo looked really out of sorts in the 3 at the back system so it's a non starter for me. I don't mind it as a system but if it's hindering your best player then what's the point?

I'd play Robertson as an anchorman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chripper said:

A back 4 hasn't really been successful for the past 18 years, so why are people so obsessed with it? Serious question.

Well, I disagree. With the emergence of Bates, McKenna and Souttar, it might be the time to try.

IIRC, didn't we generally play four at the back in the Euro 2008 campaign (4-5-1/4-4-2)? I think, as others have said, that it depends on the players that are available as to what formation/system you play. In the last couple of matches, Forrest and Fraser have been very good for us and they would be wasted in a 3-5-2. That's not to say that it couldn't work for us, but I'm not sure that it's the best formation with the players that we've currently got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Clyde1998 said:

IIRC, didn't we generally play four at the back in the Euro 2008 campaign (4-5-1/4-4-2)? I think, as others have said, that it depends on the players that are available as to what formation/system you play. In the last couple of matches, Forrest and Fraser have been very good for us and they would be wasted in a 3-5-2. That's not to say that it couldn't work for us, but I'm not sure that it's the best formation with the players that we've currently got.

Yes. When Berti came in (2000?) he ripped up Craig Brown's successful formula and reverted to four at the back, we've been playing with 4 ever since.

I'd actually play a midfield 3 of Armstrong, Robertson and Fraser, with Forrest and Fletcher up front, or even giving Forrest and Fraser freedom to roam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

No you don't get it, if you did you would be regurgitating the same shite day in day out.

Everyone gets it, you prefer 3 at the back, that's fine, you're entitled to an opinion but there comes a point when you end up coming across like a broken record. 

And the reason that I "regurgitate the same shite" is because every single day people keep asking me the same questions.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Chripper said:

Since I was checking La Liga I might as well check Serie A and the Bundesliga.

8 teams played with 3 at the back in the German Bundesliga

5 Teams in Serie A

But yeah, apparently no one plays it. Only 18 teams played with three at the back this past weekend in La Liga, the Bundesliga and Serie A.

7 teams played with a 3 in the EPL over the weekend, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×