Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mrniaboc

Starting 11 for Kazakhstan match

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

I would be happy with that choice of team. Shame Fraser isn't able to play but Burke could do well there.

This is actually a really positive lineup. Look at that back 5. Solid as fuck. Look at the attacking potential from midfield. Not bad at all. Things aren't as bad as they may appear. Really annoyed about Fraser though. 

Share this post


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

McLaughlin is having an excellent season for Sunderland. He should get the nod over Bain.

He shouldnt even be in the squad, let alone playing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bain

Tierney Souttar McKenna Robertson

McTominay Shinnie

Forrest Armstrong McGregor

Burke

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Absolutely. I doubt many Scotland fans would disagree with that.

Its possible to achieve the above with 4 or 5 at the back. We defend as a team. McLeish played 451 in Paris and limited a strong French team to a couple of decent chances, absolutely no reason why on our day we can frustrate a good Belgium side also. 

To be fair, I think Walter Smith deserves at least 80% of the credit for that result as he forged the bond with the players and he is the one who formed the spirit. McLeish was just luck to be in the right spot at the right time.

When we play four at the back we are so exposed, and against the good (and semi-good) teams we pay for it. It happens time after time. I believe, by adding another central defender we'd be able to plug the gaping hole that always appears. To dismiss three at the back after three matches just tells me how much of a bad manager Alex McLeish really is. What did he expect? To change from a 4 to a 3 and automatically for us to become a world beater? 

Share this post


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

To be fair, I think Walter Smith deserves at least 80% of the credit for that result as he forged the bond with the players and he is the one who formed the spirit. McLeish was just luck to be in the right spot at the right time.

When we play four at the back we are so exposed, and against the good (and semi-good) teams we pay for it. It happens time after time. I believe, by adding another central defender we'd be able to plug the gaping hole that always appears. To dismiss three at the back after three matches just tells me how much of a bad manager Alex McLeish really is. What did he expect? To change from a 4 to a 3 and automatically for us to become a world beater? 

Possibly McLeish was lucky, my point was that with 4 at the back we were solid and frustrated a very good side. 

I don’t care what formation we play, as long as it suits the players available and is appropriate for the opposition. 

Share this post


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

Possibly McLeish was lucky, my point was that with 4 at the back we were solid and frustrated a very good side. 

I don’t care what formation we play, as long as it suits the players available and is appropriate for the opposition. 

I know.

I don't really care what formation we play, either, but I appear to be the only person who thinks that our players don't suit a four, and haven't done since the 80s/early 90s. We have no top central defenders who play at the top level, so they need help, and making it a three would help.

Share this post


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

Agreed on Fraser though by far our most dangerous attacking player

Forrest has scored 5 goals in two games, so “by far” is an exaggeration. He’s a big miss though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The formation we play depends on the opposition. 3 Centre backs could be handy against bigger nations but against nations of similar quality or less than ourselves we are definitely at our best on the front foot playing a high tempo harrying the opposition and playing with pace in attack. A 4231 allows this with two holding Midfielders as cover and the 3 ahead pressing the opposition. Agreed though a 3 may be beneficial when we have to be even more solid at the back and aim to just soak up pressure and hit teams on the counter attack. I don't know all the answers but we have one big weapon just now in our team and that is pace, Fraser, Forrest, Armstrong, Burke so McLeish has to find the best way to use it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

                          Bain

Tierney Mulgrew McKenna Robertson

           Mctominay Armstrong

         Forrest McGregor Fraser

                          Burke

Edited by Bino's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just seen Fraser is 'out'

Fraser our most potent forward player isn't playing because he had ACL damage 4 years ago

What the fuck do they think this is, a kickabout down the park

From my reckoning we know have, who are fit and play every week. McGregor, Brown, Fletcher, Fraser, Patterson, Ritchie, McArthur and Snodgrass all refusing to play for their country

That is probably also the list of all our highest paid players at their clubs

Disgrace

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bino's said:

Just seen Fraser is 'out'

Fraser our most potent forward player isn't playing because he had ACL damage 4 years ago

What the fuck do they think this is, a kickabout down the park

From my reckoning we know have, who are fit and play every week. McGregor, Brown, Fletcher, Fraser, Patterson, Ritchie, McArthur and Snodgrass all refusing to play for their country

That is probably also the list of all our highest paid players at their clubs

Disgrace

 

Most of those players have tried to get us to a tournament and failed. The only one I'm fussed about is Fraser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really surprised at all those not putting McGinn in the 11, guy been brilliant for us all season.

He'll be a premier league player very soon, hopefully with us as we suddenly look like we'll make the the play offs.

I'd have said McTominay sitting, McGinn box to box and Armstrong most advanced of the three midfielders is way to go for this.

Share this post


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

The formation we play depends on the opposition. 3 Centre backs could be handy against bigger nations but against nations of similar quality or less than ourselves we are definitely at our best on the front foot playing a high tempo harrying the opposition and playing with pace in attack. A 4231 allows this with two holding Midfielders as cover and the 3 ahead pressing the opposition. Agreed though a 3 may be beneficial when we have to be even more solid at the back and aim to just soak up pressure and hit teams on the counter attack. I don't know all the answers but we have one big weapon just now in our team and that is pace, Fraser, Forrest, Armstrong, Burke so McLeish has to find the best way to use it. 

I agree with you.

However, against teams akin to us, or teams we're expected to beat, when we have possession it allows our two flaking center backs to spread out, allowing our wingbacks to pretty much turn into wingers. Or one of center backs can push up into midfield, allowing a midfielder license to roam forward. There's so many variables with a three and if we played it long enough, the players got comfortable with it and the manager had faith in it I'm sure we'd begin to see an improvement.

I was encouraged when McLeish was talking about "going back to the future with a three" but the simple fact that he gave it a handful of matches says that he's scrambling. And as far as the 4-2-3-1, played in a way that one of the anchormen can push forward when we have possession it could definitely work, but whenever we use that formation the anchormen just stay grounded in a defensive stance.

Thanks for at least acknowledging that the sky wouldn't fall in if we used three at the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bino's said:

                          Bain

Tierney Mulgrew McKenna Robertson

           Mctominay Armstrong

         Forrest McGregor Fraser

                          Burke

That's not how you spell Bates. 

Share this post


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

I agree with you.

However, against teams akin to us, or teams we're expected to beat, when we have possession it allows our two flaking center backs to spread out, allowing our wingbacks to pretty much turn into wingers. Or one of center backs can push up into midfield, allowing a midfielder license to roam forward. There's so many variables with a three and if we played it long enough, the players got comfortable with it and the manager had faith in it I'm sure we'd begin to see an improvement.

I was encouraged when McLeish was talking about "going back to the future with a three" but the simple fact that he gave it a handful of matches says that he's scrambling. And as far as the 4-2-3-1, played in a way that one of the anchormen can push forward when we have possession it could definitely work, but whenever we use that formation the anchormen just stay grounded in a defensive stance.

Thanks for at least acknowledging that the sky wouldn't fall in if we used three at the back.

I have to admit I skim read most of the longer posts on here but are 95% of your posts about playing 3 at the back or 5-3-2? Are you chinese Scottish? Do you think 4 is an unlucky number? 

Share this post


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

I agree with you.

However, against teams akin to us, or teams we're expected to beat, when we have possession it allows our two flaking center backs to spread out, allowing our wingbacks to pretty much turn into wingers. Or one of center backs can push up into midfield, allowing a midfielder license to roam forward. There's so many variables with a three and if we played it long enough, the players got comfortable with it and the manager had faith in it I'm sure we'd begin to see an improvement.

I was encouraged when McLeish was talking about "going back to the future with a three" but the simple fact that he gave it a handful of matches says that he's scrambling. And as far as the 4-2-3-1, played in a way that one of the anchormen can push forward when we have possession it could definitely work, but whenever we use that formation the anchormen just stay grounded in a defensive stance.

Thanks for at least acknowledging that the sky wouldn't fall in if we used three at the back.

I never ever said a 3 couldn't work I was actually an advocate for trying it at the beginning of the Nations League, but I never ever saw it as the solution to all our problems and that by simply changing to 3 at the back everything was solved. We looked ropey the first few friendlies we played it, which was understandable as it was new. It seemed to work in attacking sense in our first Nations League match v Albania but still looked vulnerable in defence which this was meant to solve. This was then completely brought home to roost in Israel when we were cut open time and again with balls in behind our wing back who didn't appear to have a clue how to play the position, this then stretched our centre halves to cover them and we were continually wide open. I was an advocate for it, we tried it and it didn't work. That's not to say that giving time it wouldn't work, but we simply don't have the luxury of time at international level to work on these things. That result in Israel almost cost us and the formation was to blame. At this moment and time we need to play a way the players are familiar with unless of course we are going ultra defensive v say Belgium and we string 5 across the back but I wouldn't expect those full backs to be doing too much attacking as if they did in the way they did in Israel it would be a cricket score. So for games we just want to shut up shop yes maybe the 5 has a place but for now against teams similar to ourselves the 4 just simply works better with the players we have

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bino's said:

                          Bain

Tierney Mulgrew McKenna Robertson

           Mctominay Armstrong

         Forrest McGregor Fraser

                          Burke

Mulgrew instead of Bates is absolutely bonkers!

Mulgrew shouldn’t even be in the squad.

Theres a couple very unlucky centre backs who should be in ahead of him on form with Stuart Findlay probably the most obvious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing I would add is Scotland in recent years have been trying to incorporate the same formations and style of play at every level from U16s up to the Senior squad. From U16s to U21s there is a focus on playing passing progressive football in a variant of either 433 or 4231. This is the way we are trying to play and the way players are now being brought through in this country. To completely abolish all that learning and good work over the past few years and have these young players come through the system only to come in to the senior side and then be asked to play in a completely different way that is alien to them and that they have not been taught is not the way to go. There is good work being done in the Scotland set up at all levels and hopefully in time there won't even be an argument for the way Scotland play. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

To be fair, I think Walter Smith deserves at least 80% of the credit for that result as he forged the bond with the players and he is the one who formed the spirit. McLeish was just luck to be in the right spot at the right time.

When we play four at the back we are so exposed, and against the good (and semi-good) teams we pay for it. It happens time after time. I believe, by adding another central defender we'd be able to plug the gaping hole that always appears. To dismiss three at the back after three matches just tells me how much of a bad manager Alex McLeish really is. What did he expect? To change from a 4 to a 3 and automatically for us to become a world beater? 

I don't think that's 'fair' to give so much credit to Smith. As if it would be that easy to actually score and win away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bino's said:

Just seen Fraser is 'out'

Fraser our most potent forward player isn't playing because he had ACL damage 4 years ago

What the fuck do they think this is, a kickabout down the park

From my reckoning we know have, who are fit and play every week. McGregor, Brown, Fletcher, Fraser, Patterson, Ritchie, McArthur and Snodgrass all refusing to play for their country

That is probably also the list of all our highest paid players at their clubs

Disgrace

 

We can weigh them up later. For now let's be positive about those who are up for it, give them the attention.... 

Edited by exile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like alot of negativity on here regarding the squad. Imo McLeish has called up all the worthy available players. Our first team looks reasonably good and is relatively young as well. We have a first team of good pros who play at a decent level who should be able to beat Kazakhstan and san Marino comfortably. I am looking forward to the games knowing that we have a play off to fall back on.

Share this post


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

but we simply don't have the luxury of time at international level to work on these things.

We have more matches/time to work on things than in Craig Brown's time, and yet he managed to coach them properly.

As for the Israel match, if we played with a four away at Israel then the performance/result would've been pretty much the same.

3 hours ago, bazmidd said:

the 4 just simply works better with the players we have

Where's the evidence of this? In 2001 we switched from a 3 to a 4 and we have not once qualified for anything since. Our players are not suited to a 4 and they haven't been since the 80's/very early 90's.

 

3 hours ago, exile said:

I don't think that's 'fair' to give so much credit to Smith. As if it would be that easy to actually score and win away. 

There's no doubt that McLeish benefitted greatly from the comradery that was built up by Smith. 

 

7 hours ago, LewisEDI said:

I have to admit I skim read most of the longer posts on here but are 95% of your posts about playing 3 at the back or 5-3-2? Are you chinese Scottish? Do you think 4 is an unlucky number? 

Look at the results of the past 18 years, I think you'll find that it's very unlucky. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...