Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mrniaboc

Starting 11 for Kazakhstan match

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Chripper said:

Yes, let's keep to the tired and failed formation and don't try anything progressive, even if there's a slim chance of different results.

There's zero percent chance that McLeish will play 3/5 at the back.

Honestly mate give it a rest. This 3 at the back wind up has went far enough

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2019 at 7:06 AM, mrniaboc said:

If Manchester United keep giving McTominay 90 minutes, we should probably consider doing it too? 

Will be interesting to see... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get the youngsters in and build for the future

Bain

Teirney Souttar Mc Kenna Robertson

McTom Henderson Armstrong...... if Christie and McGregor are injured

Fraser Burke Forrest

Subs

Bates, McBurnie, Phillips,  Fletcher, Snoody, Paterson O”Donnel McGregor etc.... bit more experience on the bench to call on.....

All playing first team fitba and are the future. If those 2 were not injured Armstrong would be a sub. Exciting things to come me thinks

Share this post


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

Honestly mate give it a rest. This 3 at the back wind up has went far enough

Wind up?

So, was qualifying for 96 and 98 was all a wind up, too?

Teams with limited ability (Us) have to do anything to bridge the gap. We play with a 4 and teams steam-roller us, and not even good teams.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Wind up?

So, was qualifying for 96 and 98 was all a wind up, too?

Teams with limited ability (Us) have to do anything to bridge the gap. We play with a 4 and teams steam-roller us, and not even good teams.

Deary me file Chripper next to Deluded in the Thesaurus 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Deary me file Chripper next to Deluded in the Thesaurus 

You mean In the dictionary.

Regardless.

Show me evidence of us qualifying for anything using 4 at the back (in the past 28 years) and I'll shut up.

Go.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I mean Thesaurus. Chripper would never come next to Deluded in a dictionary seeing as a dictionary is in Alphabetical order. It seems Chripper could also be filed next to something else.... 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

No I mean Thesaurus. Chripper would never come next to Deluded in a dictionary seeing as a dictionary is in Alphabetical order. It seems Chripper could also be filed next to something else.... 

Mmmm…. if you said that a "Photograph of Chripper should be under 'deluded' in the dictionary", that would've been a worse burn. (Which is what I thought you meant)

You still haven't given me evidence of Scotland qualifying for either the World Cup or the European Championships using a flat back four since Italia 90. I can give you evidence of us qualifying for one of each since then, using a back 3.

Edited by Chripper

Share this post


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

Mmmm…. if you said that a "Photograph of Chripper should be under 'deluded' in the dictionary", that would've been a worse burn. (Which is what I thought you meant)

You still haven't given me evidence of Scotland qualifying for either the World Cup or the European Championships using a flat back four since Italia 90. I can give you evidence of us qualifying for one of each since then, using a back 3.

Have you looked at our qualification group for 1996 and 1998 recently? You could argue that’s more of a reason than the formation we played. 

Share this post


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

Have you looked at our qualification group for 1996 and 1998 recently? You could argue that’s more of a reason than the formation we played. 

I've just had a look. If we played in those groups right now we'd be fighting for third.

Most of the people here are adamant that we play with a back four, but no one has given me a cogent reason why. The only reason, it appears to be, is that "our players play with 4 at club level". Yeah, well, how many of our clubs are losing to teams like Skonto Riga, etc, on a yearly basis.

Teams with limited ability (us) have to do something to bridge the quality gap. If putting an extra body in defence makes it 1% more difficult to break us down then why not do it? McLeish won't, I'm aware of this.

Share this post


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

I've just had a look. If we played in those groups right now we'd be fighting for third.

Most of the people here are adamant that we play with a back four, but no one has given me a cogent reason why. The only reason, it appears to be, is that "our players play with 4 at club level". Yeah, well, how many of our clubs are losing to teams like Skonto Riga, etc, on a yearly basis.

Teams with limited ability (us) have to do something to bridge the quality gap. If putting an extra body in defence makes it 1% more difficult to break us down then why not do it? McLeish won't, I'm aware of this.

96 - Russian, Greece and Finland. 

98 - Austria, Sweden and Latvia

Fighting for 3rd? Hmmm

Playing these groups right now is different to playing them in the 90’s. You’re not being honest if you disregard that these groups were potentially easier than the groups we’re likely to face now. 

Back then most teams played 2 centre forwards, I'm not sure how many teams play that way now and the gain in having an extra man to mark 1 forward when most teams load the midfield. 

Edited by ParisInAKilt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Playing these groups right now is different to playing them in the 90’s. You’re not being honest if you disregard that these groups were potentially easier than the groups we’re likely to face now. 

Back then most teams played 2 centre forwards, I'm not sure how many teams play that way now and the gain in having an extra man to mark 1 forward when most teams load the midfield. 

Well, groups are dependant on rankings. We were always generally in the 25 under Craig Brown. But yes, if we had those groups right now we would struggle. Our teams from 96 and 98 would absolutely thrash our current team.

With the three we can always push one or two defenders into midfield when we're swarming the opposition. Or we could spread two central defenders allowing both wingbacks to storm forwards and turning into wingers. The three at the back is a lot more flexible than people give credit.

 

Share this post


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

Our teams from 96 and 98 would absolutely thrash our current team.

Is it the quality of the players or the formation?

Better team (much better according to you) + easier opponents = more likely to qualify.  

Edited by ParisInAKilt

Share this post


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

Is it the quality of the players or the formation?

Better team (much better according to you) + easier opponents = more likely to qualify.  

Back them our midfield was far superior to what it is now. Even if you added Scott Brown to the mix, a midfield of McAllister, Collins, Lambert would embarrass the current midfield. The defenders and strikers are of equal standard (Apart from Colin Hendry).

Our defence wasn't very good in the 90s, which was underlined when Portugal demolished us 5:0 in 94 qualification group. Which is pretty much the reason when Craig Brown came in he installed a 3-5-2 formation. Yes, our midfield was stronger than it is now, but I don't think the defence was.

The rankings (and the results) improved when Brown came in.

Share this post


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

Back them our midfield was far superior to what it is now. Even if you added Scott Brown to the mix, a midfield of McAllister, Collins, Lambert would embarrass the current midfield. The defenders and strikers are of equal standard (Apart from Colin Hendry).

Our defence wasn't very good in the 90s, which was underlined when Portugal demolished us 5:0 in 94 qualification group. Which is pretty much the reason when Craig Brown came in he installed a 3-5-2 formation. Yes, our midfield was stronger than it is now, but I don't think the defence was.

The rankings (and the results) improved when Brown came in.

And who was our defenders then?

 

Share this post


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

Playing these groups right now is different to playing them in the 90’s. You’re not being honest if you disregard that these groups were potentially easier than the groups we’re likely to face now.

I think you're overrating us a dash.

Back then we played Russia and Greece and then Sweden and Austria and . If we were in groups with those teams we would be behind all four of them.

Hell, I can't even see us beating Kazakhstan.

Share this post


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

I think you're overrating us a dash.

Back then we played Russia and Greece and then Sweden and Austria and . If we were in groups with those teams we would be behind all four of them.

Hell, I can't even see us beating Kazakhstan.

I don’t think I am. Out with the status quo of top European teams I think we’ve a chance of beating teams like Russia, Sweden etc on our day. Equally we are more than capable of losing to Kazakhstan. This inconsistency is our downfall but we’re not alone in that.

Share this post


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

And who was our defenders then?

 

From memory. Players like Boyd, McKimmie, McKinley, Calderwood, Elliot, McLaren and Dailly. (Leaving out Hendry)

 

Share this post


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

I don’t think I am. Out with the status quo of top European teams I think we’ve a chance of beating teams like Russia, Sweden etc on our day. Equally we are more than capable of losing to Kazakhstan. This inconsistency is our downfall but we’re not alone in that.

Well, we are along in that, because teams like Sweden and Austria, etc, are actually qualifying. Hell, didn't Russia get to the Quarter finals of their World Cup?

We have done nothing but tread water for 21 years.

Edited by Chripper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chripper said:

From memory. Players like Boyd, McKimmie, McKinley, Calderwood, Elliot, McLaren and Dailly. (Leaving out Hendry)

 

Euro 96 squad - McKimmie, Hendry, Calderwood, Boyd, Whyte and McKinlay

98 - Weir, Elliott, McNamara, Hendry, Calderwood, Boyd, Whyte, Daily and McKinlay. 

Thats arguably a better defence than what we have now. 

Share this post


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

Well, we are along in that, because teams like Sweden and Austria, etc, are actually qualifying. Hell, didn't Russia get to the Quarter finals of their World Cup?

We have done nothing but tread water for 21 years.

We’ve underperformed and not qualified for a number of reasons, I just don’t think it’s not playing 3 centre half’s, equally qualifying in the 90’s was down to having a better squad and easier groups 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Euro 96 squad - McKimmie, Hendry, Calderwood, Boyd, Whyte and McKinlay

98 - Weir, Elliott, McNamara, Hendry, Calderwood, Boyd, Whyte, Daily and McKinlay. 

Thats arguably a better defence than what we have now. 

Really? An Aberdeen player, Blackburn, Spurs, Celtic, Middleborough and Celtic.

Rangers (?), Leicester, Celtic, Blackburn, Spurs, Celtic, Middleborough , West Ham and Celtic.

(Some of things might be wrong, so give me a wee bit of slack)

In terms of teams, take out Blackburn, and we pretty much have the same standard of players. Plus we're counting wingbacks, so I'm going to have to mention Tierney and Robertson, who are both better than McKimmie, Boyd, McKinley, McNamara.

Share this post


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

Really? An Aberdeen player, Blackburn, Spurs, Celtic, Middleborough and Celtic.

Rangers (?), Leicester, Celtic, Blackburn, Spurs, Celtic, Middleborough , West Ham and Celtic.

(Some of things might be wrong, so give me a wee bit of slack)

In terms of teams, take out Blackburn, and we pretty much have the same standard of players. Plus we're counting wingbacks, so I'm going to have to mention Tierney and Robertson, who are both better than McKimmie, Boyd, McKinley, McNamara.

At centre half definitely. You can’t even include Robertson if you’re going with 3 centre half’s. 

Share this post


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

We’ve underperformed and not qualified for a number of reasons, I just don’t think it’s not playing 3 centre half’s, equally qualifying in the 90’s was down to having a better squad and easier groups 

It's down to many things. One of the reasons is what we haven't produced central defenders who can't play at a top level in a 4 system since the 80s. 

Craig Brown recognized this so he gave us an identity, he forged a club mentality, on the park he condensed us and made us hard to play against. Just look at the midfielders that we'd had since, from Darren Fletcher, Barry Ferguson, Scott Brown, etc. If these guys played in a 3-5-2 we would've qualified for something. 

Edited by Chripper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chripper said:

It's down to many things. One of the reasons is what we haven't produced central defenders who can't play at a top level in a 4 system since the 80s. 

Craig Brown recognized this so he gave us an identity, he forged a club mentality, on the park he condensed us and made us hard to play against. Just look at the midfielders that we'd had since, from Darren Fletcher, Barry Ferguson, Scott Brown, etc. If these guys played in a 3-5-2 we would've qualified for something. 

Nobody can say that for sure. 

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...