Israel Match Thread (11/10/2018)

[RenfrewBlue]

4 hours ago, bigfingers said:

Last night was nowhere near our best 11 or best formation. Mcleish is now keeping our best players on the bench to fit other players into this ridiculous formation. He needs to ditch the 3 at the back otherwise there is no way we will top the group. To have forrest and Armstrong on the bench and o donnell and macdonald on the pitch is complete insanity. We were playing against a team ranked 90 odd, we shouldn't need 2 holding midfielders.

That's the big decision for McLeish now. Formation or form players? 

Either way Armstrong won't be getting a game, rightly, as he isn't playing for a crap Southampton team. 

If we played a different formation we could have included Forrest and also maybe got more out of Tierney and Robertson. 

[Chripper]

Without a shadow of a doubt we should be playing 3-5-2, and we should have been doing so for the past 20 years. In my time I can only remember Scotland qualifying for two tournaments (Euro 96 and France 98), with both we played with a three at the back system. Why? Because we haven't had a solid pairing of central defenders since the 80's. Scotland have produced decent defenders in the past twenty years, but nothing top drawer, with the obvious exception of Colin Hendry. 

 

Football is a simple game that's complicated by idiots. Rule of thumb is if you're weak in a position then you must lean towards the "strength in numbers" philosophy. Craig Brown saw this when he took charge and he took us to two tournaments, and it could/should've been three, as we battered England at Wembley in the '99 play-off. Brown saw that we were weak at the back so his solution was to play with three, and it worked.

 

When Berti Vogts took the reins he wasted no time in ripping up the successful template left by Brown and reverted to the  four at the back system - every subsequent Scotland manager has done likewise - and we have achieved nothing but failure.

 

What puzzles me is that in sporadic times that we actually have played with a three at the back, and lost, the vast majority of fans come out and say that we should forget about using the three at the back system. Which means that the fans are as clueless as our previous five managers. The masses want to play with a flat back four even though we have systematically failed with that system for 19 years. 

 

I love the argument that "Our defenders don't play as a three at their clubs, so they probably couldn't do it playing for Scotland". Look back at '96, we had Calderwood, Boyd and Hendry as the three, none of them played with a three at their clubs. In '98 we had Boyd, Calderwood/Weir and Hendry, again, none of whom played in a three at the back system with their clubs.

 

Three at the back is the only change we have of qualifying, simply because we are weak at the back, and if our defenders aren't intelligent enough to plug the gaps then another body will fill if simply by being there.

 

The common consensus is that we are strong in midfield, which is baffling. How many of our midfielder are competing for trophies in top footballing nations? Just because we had about a dozen or so decent midfielders in no means that our midfield is strong. In 96/98 we had the likes of McAllister, Collins and Lambert. Those three were great players. In actual fact, those three were better players than all of our current midfielders combined. So to say that we are "strong" in midfield is just plain wrong.

 

Same with in attack, I'd take one of Durie, Gallacher and McCoist over all of our strikers. And while I'm comparing, Goram and Leighton were top-drawer goalkeepers and were far better than Gordon and McGregor.

 

It's not all doom and gloom, we have the foundation of McKenna, Robertson, Tierney and McGinn to build on, and with kids like Johnstone, Middleton, Bates, Morgan, Gilmour and Porteous coming through, things do look a little bit sunnier.

 

The main strength we had under Craig Brown's leadership is that we were organized, we were compact, we were like a club side, in that they worked tirelessly for one another. With the 3-5-2 we had eight players down the middle of the park which made it difficult for teams to tear us apart. Like I said, strength in numbers.

 

Those fans who are old enough to remember the aforementioned qualification successes and are adamant that we're better with four at the back should be embarrassed.

As for last night's debacle, it wasn't about formation, it was about 10 out of 11 players who were simply pathetic. If 10 players play badly in the same team then 99 out of 100 times that team will be beaten.

We have to stick with 3-5-2. We've stuck with a variation of 4 at the back for 20 years and we've had nothing but abject failure.

[er yir macaroon]

5 hours ago, romanticscot said:

Last night result and performance was dire, and clearly the formation was not working and neither was the manager's awareness during the match to protect our narrow 1 goal lead or make the changes to extend it. So let me just say this, I am reading comments about him having an issue with alcohol or having some kind of senile episodes - neither are a laughing matter - if there is genuine concern with those around the guy then his employer needs to look into that sensitively.  If there is truth in these then sadly for the man, he needs to look after his health and possibly not fit enough for employment.  I can't recall in I think 17 years I have been coming to this site of any of our managers having people comment n their mental health and with the exception of G Burley none have had any gossip about issues with drink.

So lets talk about the team - 3 -5- 1 is not the answer- we tried it, it failed now lets move on.  Albania at home we won but they were not an attacking threat other than when we made an error and they tried a pot shot.  So let we play a poor Israel team last night and not anything like the near of Portugal,  Argentina or France and they showed how fragile we are in that formation.  Israel to their credit were up for it, or became aware how garbage we were on the night and their confidence rose.  I said in the first half, if there is anyone to let them get over their current abysmal form - its us. Israel - your welcome.

So formation wise we have to play 4 at the back and the only two viable options in my view are 4 2 3 1 or 4 1 4 1 or both during a game depending on the need.

Robertson and Tierney both excellent left backs - in my mind I have to start with 1 - well the Manager has given Robertson the armband - not a wise move in terms of implications for man management. 

If I play Tierney at right back - then we are sacrificing the attacking tools of T, and it we play Robertson at left mid then we have again we have probably done the same thing so as much as we want the answer settled I think there are a few.

If Ryan Fraser is fit, he is my left midfield. if he is not then I going to atleast try Robertson in left midfield and look to try 

T at right back, R at left back and I am going to try and swap them intermittently throughout the game. 

If that doesn't work and T is improving at a right back then if both are bit then I would do what Strachan did. 

And what about SOD - well we truly are a fickle bunch, a month ago after one good game MANY on here were singing his praises not for the game but saying we have found our right back, and now after the game yesterday MANY are saying he should be nowhere near the squad. Regarding him yesterday our formation was not working so SOD did not have a great game and the answer is either his experience or he is not good enough, many things were not working and his application was affected - atleast he was in position more familiar to him.  In my mind I need 3-4 consistent performances before I am considering something settled.

Starting with Portugal I have two objectives

Look at Robertson in left midfield and I am trying Robertson and Tierney alternating - We dont have any other windows to try something so it could fail miserably if it does then I put a line through something else which doesn't work.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suggest again Tierney as DM in place of Macdonald in a 4-5-1.  Forest right wing, Fraser left.

Edited October 12, 2018 by er yir macaroon

[Ian_86]

Alan McGregor was good. Kevin McDonald was good. Callum McGregor was good but should of scored, or at least hit the target at the end. Golden chance to snatch an undeserved draw. Everyone else was struggling but I feel for them...

Firstly, why are the players flying out the day before the game, on a more or less long haul flight, to a middle east style climate. Was it cheaper to fly then or something? I just dont get it. An extra day over here and train over here.

Secondly, it was so obvious the 3 at the back wasn't working. It was non stop passes beyond the wing back from Israel. Why is there no plan B? Mcleish is to blame for this. Dont want to slag any player for this shambles.

[er yir macaroon]

16 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Without a shadow of a doubt we should be playing 3-5-2, and we should have been doing so for the past 20 years. In my time I can only remember Scotland qualifying for two tournaments (Euro 96 and France 98), with both we played with a three at the back system. Why? Because we haven't had a solid pairing of central defenders since the 80's. Scotland have produced decent defenders in the past twenty years, but nothing top drawer, with the obvious exception of Colin Hendry. 

 

Football is a simple game that's complicated by idiots. Rule of thumb is if you're weak in a position then you must lean towards the "strength in numbers" philosophy. Craig Brown saw this when he took charge and he took us to two tournaments, and it could/should've been three, as we battered England at Wembley in the '99 play-off. Brown saw that we were weak at the back so his solution was to play with three, and it worked.

 

When Berti Vogts took the reins he wasted no time in ripping up the successful template left by Brown and reverted to the  four at the back system - every subsequent Scotland manager has done likewise - and we have achieved nothing but failure.

 

What puzzles me is that in sporadic times that we actually have played with a three at the back, and lost, the vast majority of fans come out and say that we should forget about using the three at the back system. Which means that the fans are as clueless as our previous five managers. The masses want to play with a flat back four even though we have systematically failed with that system for 19 years. 

 

I love the argument that "Our defenders don't play as a three at their clubs, so they probably couldn't do it playing for Scotland". Look back at '96, we had Calderwood, Boyd and Hendry as the three, none of them played with a three at their clubs. In '98 we had Boyd, Calderwood/Weir and Hendry, again, none of whom played in a three at the back system with their clubs.

 

Three at the back is the only change we have of qualifying, simply because we are weak at the back, and if our defenders aren't intelligent enough to plug the gaps then another body will fill if simply by being there.

 

The common consensus is that we are strong in midfield, which is baffling. How many of our midfielder are competing for trophies in top footballing nations? Just because we had about a dozen or so decent midfielders in no means that our midfield is strong. In 96/98 we had the likes of McAllister, Collins and Lambert. Those three were great players. In actual fact, those three were better players than all of our current midfielders combined. So to say that we are "strong" in midfield is just plain wrong.

 

Same with in attack, I'd take one of Durie, Gallacher and McCoist over all of our strikers. And while I'm comparing, Goram and Leighton were top-drawer goalkeepers and were far better than Gordon and McGregor.

 

It's not all doom and gloom, we have the foundation of McKenna, Robertson, Tierney and McGinn to build on, and with kids like Johnstone, Middleton, Bates, Morgan, Gilmour and Porteous coming through, things do look a little bit sunnier.

 

The main strength we had under Craig Brown's leadership is that we were organized, we were compact, we were like a club side, in that they worked tirelessly for one another. With the 3-5-2 we had eight players down the middle of the park which made it difficult for teams to tear us apart. Like I said, strength in numbers.

 

Those fans who are old enough to remember the aforementioned qualification successes and are adamant that we're better with four at the back should be embarrassed.

As for last night's debacle, it wasn't about formation, it was about 10 out of 11 players who were simply pathetic. If 10 players play badly in the same team then 99 out of 100 times that team will be beaten.

We have to stick with 3-5-2. We've stuck with a variation of 4 at the back for 20 years and we've had nothing but abject failure.

We had Duncan Shearer, Darren Jackson and Billy Dodds up front for much of those campaigns. That may have been an incentive to play fewer strikers and more defenders. In one of those campaigns we had a very easy group.  

[Ormond]

8 minutes ago, Ian_86 said:

Alan McGregor was good. Kevin McDonald was good. Callum McGregor was good but should of scored, or at least hit the target at the end. 

I’ll have some of what you’re smoking. 

McDonald was pish. Also, he looks to be overweight. 

[losinkiltpins]

13 minutes ago, Ian_86 said:

Alan McGregor was good. Kevin McDonald was good. Callum McGregor was good but should of scored, or at least hit the target at the end. Golden chance to snatch an undeserved draw. Everyone else was struggling but I feel for them...

Firstly, why are the players flying out the day before the game, on a more or less long haul flight, to a middle east style climate. Was it cheaper to fly then or something? I just dont get it. An extra day over here and train over here.

Secondly, it was so obvious the 3 at the back wasn't working. It was non stop passes beyond the wing back from Israel. Why is there no plan B? Mcleish is to blame for this. Dont want to slag any player for this shambles.

McDonald's is one of the worst players ever to wear a Scotland jersey. Total waste of space.

[exile]

29 minutes ago, Chripper said:

 

As for last night's debacle, it wasn't about formation, it was about 10 out of 11 players who were simply pathetic. If 10 players play badly in the same team then 99 out of 100 times that team will be beaten.

We have to stick with 3-5-2. We've stuck with a variation of 4 at the back for 20 years and we've had nothing but abject failure.

Hi, just wondering can you explain why those 10 players were so pathetic in Israel, when they seemed to do OK against Albania? 

[Chripper]

29 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

We had Duncan Shearer, Darren Jackson and Billy Dodds up front for much of those campaigns. That may have been an incentive to play fewer strikers and more defenders. In one of those campaigns we had a very easy group.  

Shearer, Jackson and Dodds would walk into this current Scotland team.

But no, the main striker in that area were Durie, McCoist/Gallacher, and yes, those three could also walk into our first team.

[Chripper]

22 minutes ago, exile said:

Hi, just wondering can you explain why those 10 players were so pathetic in Israel, when they seemed to do OK against Albania? 

Hey,

Why? It's nothing to do with formation/tactics, it's to do with the players not being very good. It's that simple. The defence done OK, on the main, but the midfield were so below average that it simply was not acceptable. The strikers ran around a lot but they didn't have any service.

I reiterate, people say that we are strong in midfield, but it simply isn't true. Our strongest midfield has a player with a struggling Villa team, a player who plays for a poor Fulham team and a player who coasts it with Celtic.

[exile]

11 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Hey,

Why? It's nothing to do with formation/tactics, it's to do with the players not being very good. It's that simple. The defence done OK, on the main, but the midfield were so below average that it simply was not acceptable. The strikers ran around a lot but they didn't have any service.

I reiterate, people say that we are strong in midfield, but it simply isn't true. Our strongest midfield has a player with a struggling Villa team, a player who plays for a poor Fulham team and a player who coasts it with Celtic.

I am just asking a question. Why those 10 players were so pathetic in Israel, when they seemed to do OK against Albania? 

[Chripper]

1 minute ago, exile said:

I am just asking a question. Why those 10 players were so pathetic in Israel, when they seemed to do OK against Albania? 

"it's to do with the players not being very good."

[er yir macaroon]

16 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Shearer, Jackson and Dodds would walk into this current Scotland team.

But no, the main striker in that area were Durie, McCoist/Gallacher, and yes, those three could also walk into our first team.

The first three no, second three, yes. Durie was a work horse and good away from home, especially appearing at the back post, even if limited technically. Gallacher was invariably injured but also good on the counter attack. I won't be going misty eyed over that period, we were distinctly average.

 

[exile]

1 minute ago, Chripper said:

"it's to do with the players not being very good."

OK but you are then implying that more or less all the players are simply rubbish. If so, how come that same set of players seemed to do just fine in beating Albania? 

[Ormond]

2 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

The first three no, second three, yes. Durie was a work horse and good away from home, especially appearing at the back post, even if limited technically. Gallacher was invariably injured but also good on the counter attack. I won't be going misty eyed over that period, we were distinctly average.

 

You are not seriously suggesting that Naismith and Russell are better than Shearer and Dodds were in their day? 😲

[er yir macaroon]

Just now, Ormond said:

You are not seriously suggesting that Naismith and Russell are better than Shearer and Dodds were in their day? 😲

I assume you’re taking the piss?

[Redz]

Wasn't even raging leaving the ground last night - That's what it's come to sadly.

Thankfully there's plenty to do and see - A truly fascinating place to visit.

My money will be diverted elsewhere for the foreseeable......

 

 

[Malcolm]

11 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

The first three no, second three, yes. Durie was a work horse and good away from home, especially appearing at the back post, even if limited technically. Gallacher was invariably injured but also good on the counter attack. I won't be going misty eyed over that period, we were distinctly average.

 

You are absolutely right... we were distinctly average which is about two levels above where we are now.  Pot 4/5 is our level 

[Ormond]

5 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

I assume you’re taking the piss?

I’m assuming you are taking the piss. You stated that Dodds, Jackson and Shearer would not walk into our team. By that reckoning you are saying Naismith, Russell and McBurnie are better than the afore mentioned were. You have to be at the wind up with that?

[er yir macaroon]

4 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I’m assuming you are taking the piss. You stated that Dodds, Jackson and Shearer would not walk into our team. By that reckoning you are saying Naismith, Russell and McBurnie are better than the afore mentioned were. You have to be at the wind up with that?

Naismith and Russell were EPL standard players and McBurnie will be. They’re not world beaters but the others were fairly average SPL players (when it was flooded with foreigners). 

[Ormond]

6 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

Naismith and Russell were EPL standard players and McBurnie will be. They’re not world beaters but the others were fairly average SPL players (when it was flooded with foreigners). 

The earlier trio would’ve played in today’s English top flight no bother.

[Chripper]

26 minutes ago, exile said:

OK but you are then implying that more or less all the players are simply rubbish. If so, how come that same set of players seemed to do just fine in beating Albania? 

The thing with rubbish players is that they are inconsistent, meaning that one week they win, the other they don't.

Albania and Israel are awful, so the fact that our players can't beat both teams equates to our players being simply average.

[PASTA Mick]

12 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

Naismith and Russell were EPL standard players and McBurnie will be. They’re not world beaters but the others were fairly average SPL players (when it was flooded with foreigners). 

When was Russell ever a EPL standard player? 

[Chripper]

26 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

I assume you’re taking the piss?

Why do opinions usually equate to the "taking the piss/on the wind-up" in this place?

Shearer and Dodds were miles better than both Naismith and Russel.

Not like this opinion? Fair enough, just don't accuse me on being on the wind up, as that's just the lazy reaction.

[mccaughey85]

13 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

Naismith and Russell were EPL standard players and McBurnie will be. They’re not world beaters but the others were fairly average SPL players (when it was flooded with foreigners). 

Naismith was EPL standard, Russell isn't and never has been, mcburnie is a decent striker but I don't think he will quite make it at EPL level.