Should McLeish Be Sacked IF We Lose?

[er yir macaroon]

54 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:

I gave up reading this about half way through. There’s only so much negative drivel I can stomach. 

Why are you even on here man? You clearly have no interest in supporting Scotland and this is a Scotland supporters forum. 

He’s training to be a writer and we are his mediocre guinea pigs. 

[Chripper]

2 hours ago, Texas Pete said:

Why are you even on here man? You clearly have no interest in supporting Scotland and this is a Scotland supporters forum. 

Because it's a free world/Internet.

So, in order to be a supporter one has follow blindly and be happy for the bare minimum of success?

These are the credentials of entering a cult.

If that's you, then fine. If you're pleased with Scotland being dwarfed by a nation the size of Stoke, when it comes to football facilities, then again, fine. If that is true, then are you a Scotland supporter?

[Texas Pete]

3 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Because it's a free world/Internet.

So, in order to be a supporter one has follow blindly and be happy for the bare minimum of success?

These are the credentials of entering a cult.

If that's you, then fine. If you're pleased with Scotland being dwarfed by a nation the size of Stoke, when it comes to football facilities, then again, fine. If that is true, then are you a Scotland supporter?

In order to be a Scotland supporter you need to actually support the team. 

When was the last time you went to Hampden for a Scotland game? I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if you had never been. Even if you have, you don’t appear to be able to separate the failings of the SFA from supporting the team.

Every second post of yours is rambling, boring piece of shite that is quite often irrelevant to the thread so you can have a go at the SFA. Write them an email or a letter ffs. Moaning about them on here won’t do any good. Either that or you post an Oscar Wilde quote as you appear to think this makes you interesting. 

[Chripper]

2 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:

In order to be a Scotland supporter you need to actually support the team. 

When was the last time you went to Hampden for a Scotland game? I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if you had never been. Even if you have, you don’t appear to be able to separate the failings of the SFA from supporting the team.

Every second post of yours is rambling, boring piece of shite that is quite often irrelevant to the thread so you can have a go at the SFA. Write them an email or a letter ffs. Moaning about them on here won’t do any good. Either that or you post an Oscar Wilde quote as you appear to think this makes you interesting. 

So, me wanting better facilities, more facilities and more money spent on the game, at grass roots, equated to me not supporting the team?

Mate, I'm looking at the big picture. If most people are happy with short-term and brief "success", then fair enough. You would think supporters would want long lasting success, because I think we deserve it and god knows we've suffered long enough.

When was the last time I was at Hampden? When we played Albania.

[mrniaboc]

5 minutes ago, Chripper said:

So, me wanting better facilities, more facilities and more money spent on the game, at grass roots, equated to me not supporting the team?

Mate, I'm looking at the big picture. If most people are happy with short-term and brief "success", then fair enough. You would think supporters would want long lasting success, because I think we deserve it and god knows we've suffered long enough.

When was the last time I was at Hampden? When we played Albania.

I think it might be ok to have both? You can want better for the team and the supporters, but also enjoy the moments of relative happiness when they come. I don't think any of us on here are under the illusion that the SFA are doing the best they possibly can, but I think it makes us feel a bit shit when you jump on and basically call us blind fools for enjoying a win. Can't we do both? Celebrate the wins when they come and also strive to be better?

[Texas Pete]

Just now, Chripper said:

So, me wanting better facilities, more facilities and more money spent on the game, at grass roots, equated to me not supporting the team?

Mate, I'm looking at the big picture. If most people are happy with short-term and brief "success", then fair enough. You would think supporters would want long lasting success, because I think we deserve it and god knows we've suffered long enough.

When was the last time I was at Hampden? When we played Albania.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting better facilities but you bang on about it like it’s the only thing that matters. If this was all you did I wouldn’t give a shit but you appear to have a go at people for enjoying any meagre success we do have because the SFA don’t run things very well. A lot of what you say about the SFA is also inaccurate but why let that stand in the way of a good moan?

People are allowed to be happy that we have a playoff if we need one and people are also allowed to be happy that Forrest has come on to a game for us. It doesn’t mean we think the SFA are suddenly perfect or that we are now going to start qualifying willy nilly.

You are also free to bleat on about the dross you do and I am free not to read it. 

[Chripper]

2 minutes ago, mrniaboc said:

I think it might be ok to have both? You can want better for the team and the supporters, but also enjoy the moments of relative happiness when they come. I don't think any of us on here are under the illusion that the SFA are doing the best they possibly can, but I think it makes us feel a bit shit when you jump on and basically call us blind fools for enjoying a win. Can't we do both? Celebrate the wins when they come and also strive to be better?

Sure you can.

I just don't see why I'm being lambasted (not by you) for daring to want something a whole better than a bloody playoff place. People can celebrate all they like, but personally I find a little odd. It strikes me that are so starved on any success that we'll celebrate the opening of a crisp packet.

For longer than I care to remember I've been like the rest of the people here, letting a win here or there cloud my judgement and letting that sliver of success distort everything. Not anymore. You may think me as being negative, I don't, I think of myself as being realistic. And as realism goes, the SFA and the entire landscape of Scottish football should be gutted.

[Chripper]

7 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:

There’s nothing wrong with wanting better facilities but you bang on about it like it’s the only thing that matters. If this was all you did I wouldn’t give a shit but you appear to have a go at people for enjoying any meagre success we do have because the SFA don’t run things very well. A lot of what you say about the SFA is also inaccurate but why let that stand in the way of a good moan?

People are allowed to be happy that we have a playoff if we need one and people are also allowed to be happy that Forrest has come on to a game for us. It doesn’t mean we think the SFA are suddenly perfect or that we are now going to start qualifying willy nilly.

You are also free to bleat on about the dross you do and I am free not to read it. 

Yeah, maybe you could refrain from your "posting pieces of boring shit" and "posting drivel/dross", etc. We're all adults here.

Also, the "piece of drivel" that I posted a few posts ago is 100% correct on what Iceland have done as far as facilities, etc. If you think that's "drivel" then maybe you should recalibrate your stance on who exactly you support.

[er yir macaroon]

5 hours ago, Chripper said:

OK. I first said it was cute, but now it's getting a little creepy...

Do you follow me around? I'm 100% serious, but I don't swing that way. Not that there's anything wrong with it. I'm sure you're lovely, but not for me. 

PS: I'd be EXTREMELY surprised if that was the only grammatical mistake in that post. I'm sure there are loads of them. Once again, I only proof-read if I'm getting paid. Plus it was, what? Six in the morning? I'm delighted that I'm able to write anything semi-cogent that early in the morning. 

“There’s enough material there for an entire conference.” 

[Texas Pete]

21 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Yeah, maybe you could refrain from your "posting pieces of boring shit" and "posting drivel/dross", etc. We're all adults here.

Also, the "piece of drivel" that I posted a few posts ago is 100% correct on what Iceland have done as far as facilities, etc. If you think that's "drivel" then maybe you should recalibrate your stance on who exactly you support.

No, I’ll post what I want thanks. Just as I’m sure you will.

You said something along the lines of it won’t even matter if we qualify for the World Cup as nothing will have changed. This is absolute drivel. World Cup qualification would be a massive achievement and would bring a much needed financial boost to the Scottish game. It would also make the vast majority of Scotland supporters happy. Can’t have that though eh?

You also appeared to use an Oscar Wilde quote to suggest you were a genius. That says it all really. 

You also went on incessantly about McLeish playing a back three and now he was wrong to consider going back to a back 4. I notice you haven’t posted about this in a while. 

[Chripper]

3 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:

No, I’ll post what I want thanks. Just as I’m sure you will.

You said something along the lines of it won’t even matter if we qualify for the World Cup as nothing will have changed. This is absolute drivel. World Cup qualification would be a massive achievement and would bring a much needed financial boost to the Scottish game. It would also make the vast majority of Scotland supporters happy. Can’t have that though eh?

You also appeared to use an Oscar Wilde quote to suggest you were a genius. That says it all really. 

You also went on incessantly about McLeish playing a back three and now he was wrong to consider going back to a back 4. I notice you haven’t posted about this in a while. 

Well, if you want to post insults, derogatory comments and use crude language then that's completely and entirely up to you. It just puts you in a bad light. Be better than that.

When was the last few times we qualified for anything? 96 and 98? Yes. What happened the "financial boost to the Scottish game" from that? I didn't see anything put back into the game from the SFA.

Always? How can you equate "always" with one time? 

Not at all. I would definitely love for us to go back to a back three, for the reasons well covered.   Oh wait, we beat Albania and Israel... our troubles are now over! 

[Texas Pete]

1 minute ago, Chripper said:

Well, if you want to post insults, derogatory comments and use crude language then that's completely and entirely up to you. It just puts you in a bad light. Be better than that.

When was the last few times we qualified for anything? 96 and 98? Yes. What happened the "financial boost to the Scottish game" from that? I didn't see anything put back into the game from the SFA.

Always? How can you equate "always" with one time? 

Not at all. I would definitely love for us to go back to a back three, for the reasons well covered.   Oh wait, we beat Albania and Israel... our troubles are now over! 

Thanks for the advice but I’d rather be seen in a bad light for calling a spade a spade than be as sanctimonious as you appear to be.

We weren’t in a recession in the late 90s so the financial boost we would receive if we qualified for the World Cup or even the euros now would have a greater impact at a time where funding is tight. You probably won’t agree with this but the SFA is actually run a lot better now than it was in the days of Jim Farry and his corrupt cronies so the money would be better spent.

Always? Care to re-read my post and tell me where I used that word?

If you still think we should be playing with a back three with the players at our disposal and the emergence of Forrest, your Oscar Wilde quote was even more ridiculous than I thought. 

[Chripper]

3 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:

Thanks for the advice but I’d rather be seen in a bad light for calling a spade a spade than be as sanctimonious as you appear to be.

We weren’t in a recession in the late 90s so the financial boost we would receive if we qualified for the World Cup or even the euros now would have a greater impact at a time where funding is tight. You probably won’t agree with this but the SFA is actually run a lot better now than it was in the days of Jim Farry and his corrupt cronies so the money would be better spent.

Always? Care to re-read my post and tell me where I used that word?

If you still think we should be playing with a back three with the players at our disposal and the emergence of Forrest, your Oscar Wilde quote was even more ridiculous than I thought. 

Well, you can call a spade a spade without being insulting or using colourful language. You think I'm a shrinking violet? Hardly. I say it as I see it, but in a different way.

We weren't in a recession in the late 90s? Then shouldn't that pose an even bigger question as to why we didn't invest heavily in the grass roos in the 90's? No, I won't agree with you. I don't see any work done by the SFA, and never have. All these initiatives like the "think tank" and "project brave" are nothing but lip service in an attempt to silence their critics.

Going back to the Iceland thing. It's laughable that a country the size of Stoke can spend more on facilities than us, recession or not.

My apologizes.

What do you mean the emergence of Forrest? Our formation against Israel was 4-3-3. Forrest and Fraser were playing inside forwards, either side of Fletcher.

[Texas Pete]

25 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Well, you can call a spade a spade without being insulting or using colourful language. You think I'm a shrinking violet? Hardly. I say it as I see it, but in a different way.

We weren't in a recession in the late 90s? Then shouldn't that pose an even bigger question as to why we didn't invest heavily in the grass roos in the 90's? No, I won't agree with you. I don't see any work done by the SFA, and never have. All these initiatives like the "think tank" and "project brave" are nothing but lip service in an attempt to silence their critics.

Going back to the Iceland thing. It's laughable that a country the size of Stoke can spend more on facilities than us, recession or not.

My apologizes.

What do you mean the emergence of Forrest? Our formation against Israel was 4-3-3. Forrest and Fraser were playing inside forwards, either side of Fletcher.

You can but it’s so much more fun not to. 

The SFA do a lot more than you seem to think they do. They are certainly not perfect but they don’t exactly have a bottomless budget. They are funded by the Scottish government to a certain extent for community projects. 

Iceland have decided to spend a lot on footballing facilities. I am no expert on this subject but I am fairly confident this decision was made by the Icelandic government and not the Icelandic FA. 

Do you do any work with the SFA? I have in the past and I always got the vibe that they were running on a very tight budget. 

I meant emergence of Forrest as a potent threat. He spent plenty of time on the right wing in both matches and wouldn’t fit into a system with wing backs in my opinion. Anyway, we have debated the merits of a back three or back four to death and I think, for the moment anyway, the back four supporters have won this particular argument. 

[Chripper]

21 hours ago, Texas Pete said:

You can but it’s so much more fun not to. 

The SFA do a lot more than you seem to think they do. They are certainly not perfect but they don’t exactly have a bottomless budget. They are funded by the Scottish government to a certain extent for community projects. 

Iceland have decided to spend a lot on footballing facilities. I am no expert on this subject but I am fairly confident this decision was made by the Icelandic government and not the Icelandic FA. 

Do you do any work with the SFA? I have in the past and I always got the vibe that they were running on a very tight budget. 

I meant emergence of Forrest as a potent threat. He spent plenty of time on the right wing in both matches and wouldn’t fit into a system with wing backs in my opinion. Anyway, we have debated the merits of a back three or back four to death and I think, for the moment anyway, the back four supporters have won this particular argument. 

Nah. My way is most funest! (Note to my stalker: I know that it's not a real word) Plus it gives you a moral high ground. 

Fair enough. I'll freely admit it, I'm not expert on the matter, as I haven't seen it with my own eyes, but it doesn't take a lot to get into dialogue with the government, the councils, the schools, etc, and come up with a blueprint that'll change the landscape of Scottish football. I would like to see the introduction of a US sporting system, where the students balance their studies with training. It doesn't take a fortune, just a little bit or organization and synergy between the schools and the SFA.

I wouldn't play Forrest as a wing back, I'd either play him as an inside forward or a central midfielder, depending on the formation. You this the back four have won this particular debate? Not really. For all you know we could've beat Albania 0:5 and Israel 3:0 playing a back three.

 

[mrniaboc]

13 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Nah. My way is most funest! (Note to my stalker: I know that it's not a real word) Plus it gives you a moral high ground. 

Fair enough. I'll freely admit it, I'm not expert on the matter, as I haven't seen it with my own eyes, but it doesn't take a lot to get into dialogue with the government, the councils, the schools, etc, and come up with a blueprint that'll change the landscape of Scottish football. I would like to see the introduction of a US sporting system, where the students balance their studies with training. It doesn't take a fortune, just a little bit or organization and synergy between the schools and the SFA.

I wouldn't play Forrest as a wing back, I'd either play him as an inside forward or a central midfielder, depending on the formation. You this the back four have won this particular debate? Not really. For all you know we could've beat Albania 0:5 and Israel 3:0 playing a back three.

 

I thought that this was exactly what the performance schools were doing. Isn't it?

[Chripper]

16 minutes ago, mrniaboc said:

I thought that this was exactly what the performance schools were doing. Isn't it?

I think so. I'd hope so. But I'm not 100% on it.

How widespread is it?

If we can do the US template from here on it, from a very early age. And not just training, but also sports science, there's no reason why we can't improve. English football is doing this and I'm afraid to say that they're starting to produce real players.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Chripper

[Texas Pete]

37 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Nah. My way is most funest! (Note to my stalker: I know that it's not a real word) Plus it gives you a moral high ground. 

Fair enough. I'll freely admit it, I'm not expert on the matter, as I haven't seen it with my own eyes, but it doesn't take a lot to get into dialogue with the government, the councils, the schools, etc, and come up with a blueprint that'll change the landscape of Scottish football. I would like to see the introduction of a US sporting system, where the students balance their studies with training. It doesn't take a fortune, just a little bit or organization and synergy between the schools and the SFA.

I wouldn't play Forrest as a wing back, I'd either play him as an inside forward or a central midfielder, depending on the formation. You this the back four have won this particular debate? Not really. For all you know we could've beat Albania 0:5 and Israel 3:0 playing a back three.

 

You’ve got a stalker? Whoever it is must be desperate or insane. 😂 

As for the moral high ground, I refer you to my previous comment on being sanctimonious. 🤣

Considering we played 3 at the back in Haifa, your suggested score lines seem unlikely. 

I’m not suggesting we play Forrest as a wing back. I wouldn’t play him there either. I just wouldn’t play him in a team that had wing backs as it would stifle his freedom to roam I think. 

International football should come down to playing your best players in their favoured position (where possible) and in a system they are used to and excel in (again, where possible). You don’t have a lot of time to practice and bed in a new formation in international football the way you do at club level. We also have one (possibly two) of the best left backs in Europe. Why would you want to neutralise that by playing Robertson as a wing back? 

[Chripper]

1 minute ago, Texas Pete said:

You’ve got a stalker? Whoever it is must be desperate or insane. 😂 

As for the moral high ground, I refer you to my previous comment on being sanctimonious. 🤣

Considering we played 3 at the back in Haifa, your suggested score lines seem unlikely. 

I’m not suggesting we play Forrest as a wing back. I wouldn’t play him there either. I just wouldn’t play him in a team that had wing backs as it would stifle his freedom to roam I think. 

International football should come down to playing your best players in their favoured position (where possible) and in a system they are used to and excel in (again, where possible). You don’t have a lot of time to practice and bed in a new formation in international football the way you do at club level. We also have one (possibly two) of the best left backs in Europe. Why would you want to neutralise that by playing Robertson as a wing back? 

It's "Eire macaroon" or whatever the hell his name is. Seriously. Check out my posts, he interjects with a quip or a slight to the vast majority of them. Weird.

Well, I am a self-proclaimed narcissist, so... yes. 

Unlikely? Not we'll never know. Consider it Schrodinger's formation.

I don't know. If we played three at the back we could still theoretically play with two inside forwards (see my team in the "first 11" thread) but it would empty the midfield. I don't envy McLeish on his choice of team AND formation. I won't deviate on the three at the back, but it does pose problems in midfield and attack. In retrospect we'd have to play Fraser and Forrest, but I think I would start Forrest up front with Fletcher and give him the license to drift. And have Fraser in midfield, with a license to roam.

That's the thing, when we did play with three under Brown, no club played with a three. Maybe Leicester under Martin O'Neill, but that's it. The way that people talk sometimes it's like every club team in the UK played with a three. I can only think of one.

I wouldn't play Robertson as a winback, I'd actually play him in midfield. He'd be a cracking anchorman.

[er yir macaroon]

1 hour ago, Chripper said:

It's "Eire macaroon" or whatever the hell his name is. Seriously. Check out my posts, he interjects with a quip or a slight to the vast majority of them. Weird.

Well, I am a self-proclaimed narcissist, so... yes. 

Unlikely? Not we'll never know. Consider it Schrodinger's formation.

I don't know. If we played three at the back we could still theoretically play with two inside forwards (see my team in the "first 11" thread) but it would empty the midfield. I don't envy McLeish on his choice of team AND formation. I won't deviate on the three at the back, but it does pose problems in midfield and attack. In retrospect we'd have to play Fraser and Forrest, but I think I would start Forrest up front with Fletcher and give him the license to drift. And have Fraser in midfield, with a license to roam.

That's the thing, when we did play with three under Brown, no club played with a three. Maybe Leicester under Martin O'Neill, but that's it. The way that people talk sometimes it's like every club team in the UK played with a three. I can only think of one.

I wouldn't play Robertson as a winback, I'd actually play him in midfield. He'd be a cracking anchorman.

I refer you to my previous post.

[Chripper]

See? ⬆️

 

[Chripper]

8 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

I refer you to my previous post.

If you have a problem with me then send me a PM.

Be a man. Not a stalker.

[er yir macaroon]

3 hours ago, Chripper said:

If you have a problem with me then send me a PM.

Be a man. Not a stalker.

See above. 

[Chripper]

2 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

See above. 

Still waiting, big man.

[Chripper]

On ‎11‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 5:39 PM, er yir macaroon said:

“There’s enough material there for an entire conference.” 

Okay. I've "seen above", since you keep telling me to.

Am I supposed to know what this means? There's enough material of what for which kind of conference?

Alright, either you send me a PM (like a grownup) and tell me why you have beef with me or you stop following me around. You're coming across as a right weirdo, mate... and not the good kind.