Israel Match Thread (11/10/2018)

[daviebee]

5 minutes ago, Chripper said:

So, if we played with a 4-4-2, with the players being simply shocking, we would've gotten something from the match?

Explain how.

That doesn't make any sense.  Are you seriously saying all 10 players went off-form on the same night?!

The fact they played like headless chickens - actually make that COLOUR-BLIND headless chickens - was down to the fact that they hadn't the remotest idea what they were supposed to be doing and there were no instructions given on how to adapt to the unfolding disaster.  Only one man to blame for that.

[daviebee]

1 minute ago, kumnio said:

We should be beating Israel home and away, they are ranked 60ish places below us in the world rankings, they had only won something like 1 out of their last 10 home games. Its not arrogance, ignorance, or anything else, but the game should not have been in question. While we not be very good, we are significantly better than Israel.

We have hired an absolute disaster of a manager, people describing him as a winner etc are out of touch, he has been an abject utter failure since 2010, he has almost a decade of being terrible, he speaks like a fucking moron, he talks in idiotic soundbites, and rolls out every dumbass cliche known to the footballing man.

The fact that the SFA appointed him without even looking for anyone else was a pathetic shambles. We went from Michael O'Neill to Alex McLeish, the first name I can understand, although by no means did I support it, the second name is beyond belief. We may not have had the finances to attract the worlds best, but we didnt even try, we settled for him, really!!

This. x 1,000,000.

[Malcolm]

You can go on about systems all you like....  we just don’t have very good players.  When you are greeting cos our best striker is a Celtic reserve player and doesn’t show up, you know you have problems.  To be in a position to qualify we need strikers playing at top teams in the premiership, both Scotland and England.  Our midfield is very very average, and our defence weak, with the exception of left back.

[kumnio]

I wasnt in Israel, first away game Ive missed for years, maybe I had a better view of the game than McLeish, but it was apparent what was happening in the first few minutes, and he did nothing.

A good manager is proactive, a bad manager is reactive, our manager did absolutely nothing. It was staggeringly inept management from him.

[kumnio]

1 minute ago, Malcolm said:

You can go on about systems all you like....  we just don’t have very good players.  When you are greeting cos our best striker is a Celtic reserve player and doesn’t show up, you know you have problems.  To be in a position to qualify we need strikers playing at top teams in the premiership, both Scotland and England.  Our midfield is very very average, and our defence weak, with the exception of left back.

The thing is, this is absolute utter bollocks. Its a sad trait that this shite is spouted.

Very few teams are brilliant, there were very average teams at The World Cup, and will be at The Euro Championships.

[Chripper]

6 minutes ago, daviebee said:

That doesn't make any sense.  Are you seriously saying all 10 players went off-form on the same night?!

The fact they played like headless chickens - actually make that COLOUR-BLIND headless chickens - was down to the fact that they hadn't the remotest idea what they were supposed to be doing and there were no instructions given on how to adapt to the unfolding disaster.  Only one man to blame for that.

How many players do you think deserved more than a 5 on Thursday? One? I'm no maths whizz, but I think that means that 10 players were off-form on Thursday.

So, it's acceptable for our players to run around like headless chickens in a 4 at the back system?

[Malcolm]

Just now, kumnio said:

The thing is, this is absolute utter bollocks. Its a sad trait that this shite is spouted.

Very few teams are brilliant, there were very average teams at The World Cup, and will be at The Euro Championships.

 

Most of the European teams there would have beaten us comfortably.   

[Chripper]

5 minutes ago, kumnio said:

I wasnt in Israel, first away game Ive missed for years, maybe I had a better view of the game than McLeish, but it was apparent what was happening in the first few minutes, and he did nothing.

A good manager is proactive, a bad manager is reactive, our manager did absolutely nothing. It was staggeringly inept management from him.

I don't think anyone has ever said that McLeish is a good manager. The only reason he did well in his first stint is because he was working off of Walter Smith's good work. The only reason.

Edited October 13, 2018 by Chripper

[daviebee]

8 minutes ago, Chripper said:

How many players do you think deserved more than a 5 on Thursday? One? I'm no maths whizz, but I think that means that 10 players were off-form on Thursday.

So, it's acceptable for our players to run around like headless chickens in a 4 at the back system?

One - Allan McGregor.

No, it's NEVER acceptable for Scotland players to run around like headless chickens.  Ever.  They should be given a system to play and that system should be adapted as the game goes on.  Players should know the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition before they go on the park and be able to exploit and counteract them during the game.  There was ZERO evidence of that on Thursday night.

One thing's for sure and that's that we should be beating that Israel side 9 times out of 10.

[Chripper]

1 minute ago, daviebee said:

One - Allan McGregor.

No, it's NEVER acceptable for Scotland players to run around like headless chickens.  Ever.  They should be given a system to play and that system should be adapted as the game goes on.  Players should know the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition before they go on the park and be able to exploit and counteract them during the game.  There was ZERO evidence of that on Thursday night.

One thing's for sure and that's that we should be beating that Israel side 9 times out of 10.

I just think we've done the 4 at the back thing for 20 years now, with many, many variations and tweaks, it's time to get back to the 3 at the back. And with that we have to be compact and play as a unit and be difficult to break down. The players have to get used to it, and any chance of that happening is by playing that way for more than a years. 

Agreed.

[er yir macaroon]

41 minutes ago, Chripper said:

We've been doing that (as well as 4-2-3-1) for 20 years with no success. Typical Scottish attitude, "don't try something new, I'm too scared to!"

I never heard anyone say after a drubbing (whilst playing a 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or a 4-2-3-1) that we should try a 3-5-2, no, people just wanted to continue doing the same thing that failed.

We should be playing with 3-5-2 for at least 4 years and see if they get used to it, as we've played 4 at the back for 20 years and they sure as hell can't do that.

The shambles on Thursday has nothing to do with the formation or the tactics or even the managers, the players were simply shocking. 

We’ve not had fast wingers available in the last 20 years or centre halves with pace. Now we have these, there’s no need to form a line of 5 at the edge of our 18 yard box. 

[Chripper]

7 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

We’ve not had fast wingers available in the last 20 years or centre halves with pace. Now we have these, there’s no need to form a line of 5 at the edge of our 18 yard box. 

Can our defenders defend better than the ones that we've had for the past 20 years? I think so. The fact that they now has pace has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything.

Who are these wingers with pace? Forrest? Fraser? Fraser only looks fast because his little legs move so fast. He isn't fast at all. He isn't even the fastest at Bournemouth, Ibe and King are faster than Fraser. I'd suspect that a few others are, too.

Edited October 13, 2018 by Chripper

[er yir macaroon]

7 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Can our defenders defend better than the ones that we've had for the past 20 years? I think so. The fact that they now has pace has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything.

Who are these wingers with pace? Forrest? Fraser? Fraser only looks fast because his little legs move so fast. He isn't fast at all. He isn't even the fastest at Bournemouth, Ibe and King are faster than Fraser. I'd suspect that a few others are, too.

You are mental. Good afternoon.

[Chripper]

1 minute ago, er yir macaroon said:

You are mental. Good afternoon.

Apparently you think pacey defenders and pacey wingers are the key to football domination.

I want defenders that can defend and wingers who can cross the ball, I'm old fashioned that way.

Good afternoon.

[Caledonian Craig]

53 minutes ago, Chripper said:

We've been doing that (as well as 4-2-3-1) for 20 years with no success. Typical Scottish attitude, "don't try something new, I'm too scared to!"

I never heard anyone say after a drubbing (whilst playing a 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or a 4-2-3-1) that we should try a 3-5-2, no, people just wanted to continue doing the same thing that failed.

We should be playing with 3-5-2 for at least 4 years and see if they get used to it, as we've played 4 at the back for 20 years and they sure as hell can't do that.

The shambles on Thursday has nothing to do with the formation or the tactics or even the managers, the players were simply shocking. 

Stevie Wonder could see we were far too narrow at the back V Israel and you have a system that none of the players are familiar playing with. Tierney doesn't play in a 3-5-2 neither does O'Donnell or Robertson or our other centre-backs. To me it is clear. It is a blatant attempt to shoe-horn Tierney and Robertson into the same team and it just does not work. The formation saw us cut open too many times by an ordinary side with 3 at the back and the more under cosh we became the deeper we sunk back and reverted into a 5-3-2 and the midfield was outnumbered and over-run. If you think 3-5-2 works just fine for us with countless players having to play out of position in places unfamiliar to them then I despair.

[Orraloon]

2 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Apparently you think pacey defenders and pacey wingers are the key to football domination.

I want defenders that can defend and wingers who can cross the ball, I'm old fashioned that way.

Good afternoon.

Why do you want Forrest to play then?

[Chripper]

Just now, Caledonian Craig said:

Stevie Wonder could see we were far too narrow at the back V Israel and you have a system that none of the players are familiar playing with. Tierney doesn't play in a 3-5-2 neither does O'Donnell or Robertson or our other centre-backs. To me it is clear. It is a blatant attempt to shoe-horn Tierney and Robertson into the same team and it just does not work. The formation saw us cut open too many times by an ordinary side with 3 at the back and the more under cosh we became the deeper we sunk back and reverted into a 5-3-2 and the midfield was outnumbered and over-run. If you think 3-5-2 works just fine for us with countless players having to play out of position in places unfamiliar to them then I despair.

I'm sorry, but that isn't a cogent argument. We played with a 3 at the back in the 90s, none of those central defenders or wing-backs played that system for them clubs and yet we qualified for two tournaments and got to the play-off of another. If we play it for long enough, the players practice it and know their jobs, to the letter, then results will pick up. I'm 100% sure of it.

[Chripper]

2 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Why do you want Forrest to play then?

Because he's the best we have.. unfortunately. He's a dreadful crosser, but he's decent when he moves into the inside forward position... but yes, too back he can't cross.

Apparently we have an abundance of "pacey wingers". That's news to me. 😉

[Caledonian Craig]

3 minutes ago, Chripper said:

I'm sorry, but that isn't a cogent argument. We played with a 3 at the back in the 90s, none of those central defenders or wing-backs played that system for them clubs and yet we qualified for two tournaments and got to the play-off of another. If we play it for long enough, the players practice it and know their jobs, to the letter, then results will pick up. I'm 100% sure of it.

Dream on eh? A system works if you have players comfortable with it and we don't. Why not take a wee look at our results under McLeish for further evidence of it not working. Tierney is being wasted at centre-back (a role he is unfamiliar with). Robertson is being mis-used as a wing-back (another position alien to him) and O'Donnell is a right-back being asked to adapt into a right wing-back and to top that off you are trying to force inexperienced central defenders such as McKenna and Soutter to adapt to playing in a back three alien to them at club level.

 

Edited October 13, 2018 by Caledonian Craig

[Return of Yermaw]

19 hours ago, Rolling hIlls said:

Cheer up ☺

if I were also in a permanent jaiked state, I would cheer up.....

[Chripper]

4 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Dream on eh? A system works if you have players comfortable with it and we don't. Why not take a wee look at our results under McLeish for further evidence of it not working.

We have players comfortable with a 4 at the back system?

Why not take a wee look at our results for the past 20 years.

Oh, and by the way, we played 3-5-2-1 against England we almost beat them. For some reason people forget about this.

https://www.skysports.com/football/scotland-vs-england/teams/350131

Edited October 13, 2018 by Chripper

[Return of Yermaw]

11 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Apparently you think pacey defenders and pacey wingers are the key to football domination.

I want defenders that can defend and wingers who can cross the ball, I'm old fashioned that way.

Good afternoon.

there is absolutely no point in talking about formations and player's ability when you have a buffoon in charge. the majority of our team are much of a much in all positions - a hungry, upcoming, ambitious, tactically shrewd manager would get the best out of them. we however have the complete opposite and therefore will just stumble along until he gets his jotters in 2-3 years time or has no option but to resign (in 2-3 years time).....

[Chripper]

1 minute ago, Return of Yermaw said:

there is absolutely no point in talking about formations and player's ability when you have a buffoon in charge. the majority of our team are much of a much in all positions - a hungry, upcoming, ambitious, tactically shrewd manager would get the best out of them. we however have the complete opposite and therefore will just stumble along until he gets his jotters in 2-3 years time or has no option but to resign (in 2-3 years time).....

100% correct.

[Caledonian Craig]

6 minutes ago, Chripper said:

100% correct.

So you agree 100% that McLeish is a buffoon and not up to the job. Seems very much like that qualifies him for choosing to play a formation incompatible with the players at his disposal.

[Chripper]

Just now, Caledonian Craig said:

So you agree 100% that McLeish is a buffoon and not up to the job. Seems very much like that qualifies him for choosing to play a formation incompatible with the players at his disposal.

Of course I do. Of course he isn't up for the job, as I stated earlier, the only reason he did well the previous time was because he was benefiting from the foundations and good work done by Walter Smith. 

If we got a capable managers, who knew what he was doing, and could organize the team and let them know EXACTLY what they are doing, someone who could whip up a team bond... then yes, 3 at the back would be the way forward. Unequivocally so.