Scottish Players in Action 18/19

[Chripper]

1 hour ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Fed up saying this, but you cant base what formation to use in such a simplistic manner as what has happened over the last 20 years.

We have a core of players just now at a young enough age to build a side that should/could be the main stay of our team for the next five/six years Playing them out of position is far too much of a gamble.

Regarding Robertson, your more than likely right that he could play in midfield, but should Scotland experiment with the possibility when we know exactly what he can do at left back. We need to have what few international class players we have playing in their usual positions. 

Can you remember the last time we had a squad as strong as this? We should show some self belief. 

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.

1 hour ago, vanderark14 said:

That's a longer way of saying what I said, the guy jist doesn't get it.

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

 

1 hour ago, vanderark14 said:

I wonder if barcelona have thought about Messi for the anchor man role

You've overplayed your hand with that one.

Messi could excel in any outfield position.

[ceudmilefailte]

7 minutes 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.

 

 

 

Like the look of that but not sure who the back three would be and was that not the only decent campaign we have had in the last 18 years?

[Chripper]

1 minute ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Like the look of that but not sure who the back three would be and was that not the only decent campaign we have had in the last 18 years?

With all due respect to our midfield, those three would've ran rings about current midfield.

The back three would've probably have been Gary Caldwell, Weir and McManus. And yes, that was pretty much our only decent campaign in the last 18 years.

It's been so bad that the SFA brought out a DVD charting that (failed) campaign.

                              Gordon,

                   Weir,   McManus, Caldwell

Hutton                                                Naysmith

                  Brown, Fletcher, Ferguson

                           Boyd, McFadden

It's hypothetical, but that team would've taken up to a European Championships or a World Cup.

People just don't get it, we are not good enough to play with four at the back. Presently we have potential with McKenna, Bates, Portuous (sp?), etc, but none of them play at the really top level. But it's the stubbornness of "our players play with four at the back with their club" mentality that enables our lack of change.

                  

[mrniaboc]

1 minute ago, Chripper said:

With all due respect to our midfield, those three would've ran rings about current midfield.

The back three would've probably have been Gary Caldwell, Weir and McManus. And yes, that was pretty much our only decent campaign in the last 18 years.

It's been so bad that the SFA brought out a DVD charting that (failed) campaign.

                              Gordon,

                   Weir,   McManus, Caldwell

Hutton                                                Naysmith

                  Brown, Fletcher, Ferguson

                           Boyd, McFadden

It's hypothetical, but that team would've taken up to a European Championships or a World Cup.

People just don't get it, we are not good enough to play with four at the back. Presently we have potential with McKenna, Bates, Portuous (sp?), etc, but none of them play at the really top level. But it's the stubbornness of "our players play with four at the back with their club" mentality that enables our lack of change.

                  

If we're not good enough to play four at the back, what makes you think we're good enough to play everyone out of their usual positions and adapt? 

[Chripper]

Just now, mrniaboc said:

If we're not good enough to play four at the back, what makes you think we're good enough to play everyone out of their usual positions and adapt? 

Everyone out of their usual? What do you mean?

We'll be playing three center backs, all three will be playing in their usual positions. We'll be playing three central midfielders, two of them will be central midfielders and one will be Robertson, and we'll play two upfront, with one proper striker and one false 9.

The only players out of their natural positions would be the wingbacks, Robertson and the false 9. That's only 4 players.

People keep saying that we have a strong squad, a good defence and a strong midfield. We don't, we don't and we don't. We have a fine squad, we have potential at the back and all our midfielders are decent. 

[ErsatzThistle]

2 minutes ago, Chripper said:

But it's the stubbornness of "our players play with four at the back with their club" mentality that enables our lack of change.

It's sad, really quite pathetic but the truth is that Scotland is one of the most conservative minded footballing nations in Europe.

The last few years have seen the tide perhaps begin to turn but we still have far, far too many managers and coaches here in Scotland who are completely resistant to change, don't like "foreign ideas" and just like things as they are "cause that's how we've always done it".

There is still a deep rooted opposition to adopting radical new ways of training, fitness, diet right to the match-day tactics and strategy. It's appalling.

Don't anyone dare give me any of that shite about how "Scotland taught the world how to play football you know" or "Denis Law and Jim Baxter never needed any of that." What can you do with people who think like that ? I don't know.

[ceudmilefailte]

11 minutes ago, Chripper said:

With all due respect to our midfield, those three would've ran rings about current midfield.

The back three would've probably have been Gary Caldwell, Weir and McManus. And yes, that was pretty much our only decent campaign in the last 18 years.

It's been so bad that the SFA brought out a DVD charting that (failed) campaign.

                              Gordon,

                   Weir,   McManus, Caldwell

Hutton                                                Naysmith

                  Brown, Fletcher, Ferguson

                           Boyd, McFadden

It's hypothetical, but that team would've taken up to a European Championships or a World Cup.

People just don't get it, we are not good enough to play with four at the back. Presently we have potential with McKenna, Bates, Portuous (sp?), etc, but none of them play at the really top level. But it's the stubbornness of "our players play with four at the back with their club" mentality that enables our lack of change.

                  

Not sure what stages of their careers they were all at then , but with the exception of Boyd that's a pretty good side

Probably wouldn't have got lucky against France twice though😉

[mrniaboc]

10 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Everyone out of their usual? What do you mean?

We'll be playing three center backs, all three will be playing in their usual positions. We'll be playing three central midfielders, two of them will be central midfielders and one will be Robertson, and we'll play two upfront, with one proper striker and one false 9.

The only players out of their natural positions would be the wingbacks, Robertson and the false 9. That's only 4 players.

People keep saying that we have a strong squad, a good defence and a strong midfield. We don't, we don't and we don't. We have a fine squad, we have potential at the back and all our midfielders are decent. 

You can't consider a player in isolation. They are part of a unit. A centre half who normally plays in a back two playing in a back three is out of position. 

[Chripper]

5 minutes ago, ErsatzThistle said:

It's sad, really quite pathetic but the truth is that Scotland is one of the most conservative minded footballing nations in Europe.

The last few years have seen the tide perhaps begin to turn but we still have far, far too many managers and coaches here in Scotland who are completely resistant to change, don't like "foreign ideas" and just like things as they are "cause that's how we've always done it".

There is still a deep rooted opposition to adopting radical new ways of training, fitness, diet right to the match-day tactics and strategy. It's appalling.

Don't anyone dare give me any of that shite about how "Scotland taught the world how to play football you know" or "Denis Law and Jim Baxter never needed any of that." What can you do with people who think like that ? I don't know.

Jesus Christ... a voice of reason! Am I still awake?!?!

Agree with all of that. 

And what happens when a manager enters Scottish football who is progressive and actually knows what he's doing (Steve Clarke)? Top of the league, with little or nothing spent on players. This just shows where coaching players the right way can take you. In Scottish football pre-season usually consists of a repletion of running up and down mountains and hills, as opposed to ya know... learning how to pass and control and movement, working on shape, working on diets, etc. Nah, scrap all that... just RUN!

I'm not claiming that changing to three at the back will cure all of our ailments, as it's an absolute minute detail in the grand landscape, but when people are reluctant to give something so small a chance, we're fucked.

[Chripper]

11 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Not sure what stages of their careers they were all at then , but with the exception of Boyd that's a pretty good side

Probably wouldn't have got lucky against France twice though😉

Swap Boyd for Miller. 

I know, but we would've probably have done better against Ukraine. 

4 minutes ago, mrniaboc said:

You can't consider a player in isolation. They are part of a unit. A centre half who normally plays in a back two playing in a back three is out of position. 

Okay. When we did well (and actually qualified for tournaments) in Euro 96 and France 98 playing with a three, how many of our defenders played with three at their clubs? Hendry? No. Weir? No. Calderwood? No. None of them played with three at their clubs and yet they managed to adapt with Scotland.

[ceudmilefailte]

20 minutes ago, ErsatzThistle said:

It's sad, really quite pathetic but the truth is that Scotland is one of the most conservative minded footballing nations in Europe.

The last few years have seen the tide perhaps begin to turn but we still have far, far too many managers and coaches here in Scotland who are completely resistant to change, don't like "foreign ideas" and just like things as they are "cause that's how we've always done it".

There is still a deep rooted opposition to adopting radical new ways of training, fitness, diet right to the match-day tactics and strategy. It's appalling.

Don't anyone dare give me any of that shite about how "Scotland taught the world how to play football you know" or "Denis Law and Jim Baxter never needed any of that." What can you do with people who think like that ? I don't know.

Spot on. 

Like women's football or not, they have kept up with radical new ways of training, fitness, diet right to the match-day tactics and strategy  and is why they are at a major final's.

excuse not citing you with my copy and paste

 

 

Edited December 16, 2018 by ceudmilefailte

[exile]

Just wondering, didn't McLeish try 3 at the back but was he hailed as progressive, or a dinosaur? 

[ceudmilefailte]

1 hour ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Alright then who are we dropping then for Snodgrass to get in the starting XI ? Ryan Christie or Stuart Armstrong ? No way in hell does either of those two deserve to be dropped.

If we're going to call up Snodgrass because of his experience, because he tried hard when playing for us and because he's a nice guy and all that then why not just bring back Darrren Fletcher and Kenny Miller too whilst we're at it ? See that's how silly this can get. Only Alan McGregor and Jon McLaughlin would be an exception to this.

On your point about Johnny Russell and Graeme Shinnie, they will never be regular starters but they can both play a couple of different positions and are good options for the bench. Whilst GMS would be the first to admit that he's only in there because of a large injury crisis.

Whilst we are at it, we need to call time on Craig Gordon's international career. Yes, we all love him and appreciate some heroic performances of his in the past but he is in alarming decline. I don't have confidence in him anymore to play for us in a big game without making a costly mistake. There are other promising alternatives to him such as Liam Kelly, Zander Clark and Craig MacGillivray.

We should always have a couple of young un's in the senior team and never be sentimental about ditching the old guard. 

Scotland must never again end up a Dad's Army international team that's hurriedly having to blood a dozen or so new young players ahead of a qualification campaign.

Sorry I wasn't very clear but I am never suggesting starting Snodgrass, just that I think he a good bench option.

Sorry again I did say one over 25 that was worth considering I meant the only one.

Regards Russell  is he really adaptable?

Never really got the Shinnie love fest but I would sooner re shuffle what I have on the pitch and let a better player on. To me he is no more than a pool member and an ageing one at that

[mccaughey85]

The three at centreback isn't a bad idea but the last two results and performances were encouraging. Do we want to risk that momentum by experimenting with a back 5 again? Personally I dont. Also I think McKenna or someone came out and said they prefer the back four. 

Edited December 16, 2018 by mccaughey85

[ErsatzThistle]

1 minute ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Sorry I wasn't very clear but I am never suggesting starting Snodgrass, just that I think he a good bench option.

Sorry again I did say one over 25 that was worth considering I meant the only one.

Regards Russell  is he really adaptable?

Never really got the Shinnie love fest but I would sooner re shuffle what I have on the pitch and let a better player on. To me he is no more than a pool member and an ageing one at that

Nae danger 

[Chripper]

22 minutes ago, exile said:

Just wondering, didn't McLeish try 3 at the back but was he hailed as progressive, or a dinosaur? 

He played three at the back for 2 matches (Beat Albania at home and lost to Israel away) and then switched it to 4 for 2 matches (Beat Israel at home and Albania away). 

I don't think he was called either, people just dismissed it before we even tried 3 at the back.

3 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

The three at the back isn't a bad idea but the last two results and performances were encouraging. Do we want to risk that momentum by experimenting with a back 5 again? Personally I dont. Also I think McKenna or someone came out and said they prefer the back four. 

I'd play 3 at the back for 2 years and see where it takes us. But in reality, we've just given it two matches.

Yes, it was McKenna, but he only said that because we haven't given it a fair crack.

[ceudmilefailte]

2 minutes ago, Chripper said:

He played three at the back for 2 matches (Beat Albania at home and lost to Israel away) and then switched it to 4 for 2 matches (Beat Israel at home and Albania away). 

I don't think he was called either, people just dismissed it before we even tried 3 at the back.

I'd play 3 at the back for 2 years and see where it takes us. But in reality, we've just given it two matches.

Yes, it was McKenna, but he only said that because we haven't given it a fair crack.

Think he played all the friendlies with three at the back and most of us wanted him sacked by then

[Chripper]

2 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Think he played all the friendlies with three at the back and most of us wanted him sacked by then

I think so, or it might've just been the Belgium match... I can't remember.

It might've been Belgium, Albania and then Israel. Then we ditched it for the Portugal friendly. And that's all she wrote.

[ceudmilefailte]

6 minutes ago, Chripper said:

I think so, or it might've just been the Belgium match... I can't remember.

It might've been Belgium, Albania and then Israel. Then we ditched it for the Portugal friendly. And that's all she wrote.

Mexico,Peru, Costa Rica ?

[Chripper]

5 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Mexico,Peru, Costa Rica ?

I've just checked (I have all three recorded on TiVi), all three of those we played with 4.

Against Hungary we played with a 3, though.

See what I mean? It's so fragmented that the players have no chance of getting used to it.

[mrniaboc]

3 hours ago, Chripper said:

Okay. When we did well (and actually qualified for tournaments) in Euro 96 and France 98 playing with a three, how many of our defenders played with three at their clubs? Hendry? No. Weir? No. Calderwood? No. None of them played with three at their clubs and yet they managed to adapt with Scotland.

Weir didn't play for us until '97 and the only start he had at the World Cup was the 3-0 demolition by Morocco. Interestingly that was the only one of the matches in which we played with three centre halves. 

I really wish we could do an A/B split and have the team play both formations to investigate which one is most effective. But I'm a huge proponent of keeping things as simple as possible, and switching to three at the back with Robbo as an anchorman seems like an unnecessary overcomplication and risk in the face of two decent wins with a 4-3-3.

[Chripper]

37 minutes ago, mrniaboc said:

Weir didn't play for us until '97 and the only start he had at the World Cup was the 3-0 demolition by Morocco. Interestingly that was the only one of the matches in which we played with three centre halves. 

I really wish we could do an A/B split and have the team play both formations to investigate which one is most effective. But I'm a huge proponent of keeping things as simple as possible, and switching to three at the back with Robbo as an anchorman seems like an unnecessary overcomplication and risk in the face of two decent wins with a 4-3-3.

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.  

Edited December 17, 2018 by Chripper

[Chripper]

And five teams in La Liga played with 3 at the back this weekend.

But yes, the formation is out of date and no one uses it... says no one but the tamb.

[Chripper]

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.

[BraveheartGordon]

5 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

It's sad, really quite pathetic but the truth is that Scotland is one of the most conservative minded footballing nations in Europe.

The last few years have seen the tide perhaps begin to turn but we still have far, far too many managers and coaches here in Scotland who are completely resistant to change, don't like "foreign ideas" and just like things as they are "cause that's how we've always done it".

There is still a deep rooted opposition to adopting radical new ways of training, fitness, diet right to the match-day tactics and strategy. It's appalling.

Don't anyone dare give me any of that shite about how "Scotland taught the world how to play football you know" or "Denis Law and Jim Baxter never needed any of that." What can you do with people who think like that ? I don't know.

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.