Starting 11 for Kazakhstan match - Page 5 - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Starting 11 for Kazakhstan match


mrniaboc

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

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

Well, he'd be a wingback. When that's suggested people counter it with "WHAT?! HE'D BE OUT OF POSITIONNNN!!!!". But he's a world class player, he could pretty much play anywhere. Plus if Boyd, McKinley, McNamara and even Craig Burnley can play wingback then Robertson can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chripper said:

Well, he'd be a wingback. When that's suggested people counter it with "WHAT?! HE'D BE OUT OF POSITIONNNN!!!!". But he's a world class player, he could pretty much play anywhere. Plus if Boyd, McKinley, McNamara and even Craig Burnley can play wingback then Robertson can.

I’ve no problem with Robertson playing wing back but our centre half’s of the 90’s were stronger than what we have available at the moment. McKenna, Bates and Soutar could all improve though but are inexperienced at this level just now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Nobody can say that for sure. 

True. 

But compare those three midfielders to our current midfield. People are wanting McGinn, McLean and Armstrong to play in the next couple of matches. Those are potentially three Championship players. As opposed to a multiple EPL winner, one of the best ball playing midfielders we've produced for 20 years and a player who would still walk into out team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chripper said:

True. 

But compare those three midfielders to our current midfield. People are wanting McGinn, McLean and Armstrong to play in the next couple of matches. Those are potentially three Championship players. As opposed to a multiple EPL winner, one of the best ball playing midfielders we've produced for 20 years and a player who would still walk into out team.

I don’t see anyone comparing our current midfield to midfield of the past, we’ll apart from yourself. 

We beat France twice with 4 at the back. Does that mean we should play 4 at the back now? No. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ParisInAKilt said:

I’ve no problem with Robertson playing wing back but our centre half’s of the 90’s were stronger than what we have available at the moment. McKenna, Bates and Soutar could all improve though but are inexperienced at this level just now.

To be honest, I think the difference is marginal. the central defenders of the 90s were great (apart from Hendry), but the thing that really solidified them and made them more solid was because they were knitted together as a three and all three knew there jobs. I think if we played with a 4 in the 90s we wouldn't have qualified for 96 and 98.

We should've also have qualified for 2000, too. If it wasn't for the brilliance of Seaman we would have.

McLeish was a top defender so surely to god he should be able to tap into the potential partnership of McKenna, Bates and Souttar.

People say that they don't play in a three at club level (Souttar does), but only Elliot did in the 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

I don’t see anyone comparing our current midfield to midfield of the past, we’ll apart from yourself. 

We beat France twice with 4 at the back. Does that mean we should play 4 at the back now? No. 

And yet people keep saying that we're strong in midfield. 

No, as ultimately it was a failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chripper said:

I think if we played with a 4 in the 90s we wouldn't have qualified for 96 and 98.

Hahaha that’s a ridiculous statement. Impossible to have a reasonable debate about this when you’re obsessed with one formation.

How old are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Hahaha that’s a ridiculous statement. Impossible to have a reasonable debate about this when you’re obsessed with one formation.

How old are you?

I'm not talking about formation. If we think I'm simply talking about formation then obviously you have not been paying attention. What part of "we haven't produced central defenders who can play at a high level, since the 80's" didn't you understand?

Our central defenders don't play at the top level and they fall apart from they come up against genuine quality. Because of this we should add an extra body in defence. 

I'm old enough to know what I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chripper said:

I'm not talking about formation. If we think I'm simply talking about formation then obviously you have not been paying attention. What part of "we haven't produced central defenders who can play at a high level, since the 80's" didn't you understand?

Our central defenders don't play at the top level and they fall apart from they come up against genuine quality. Because of this we should add an extra body in defence. 

I'm old enough to know what I'm talking about.

You just said we wouldn’t have qualified if the formation was different.

Are old enough to have watched the 96 and 98 campaigns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ParisInAKilt said:

You just said we wouldn’t have qualified if the formation was different.

Are old enough to have watched the 96 and 98 campaigns?

We wouldn't have. We weren't good enough to play with a 4 in the 90s and we still aren't.

Yes, I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chripper said:

We wouldn't have. We weren't good enough to play with a 4 in the 90s and we still aren't.

Yes, I am.

Fair enough if that’s what you believe. No point talking about it anymore with than concrete thinking.

Sure you’ve said you’re younger than most on here but fair enough if you don’t wanna say your age. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ParisInAKilt said:

Fair enough if that’s what you believe. No point talking about it anymore with than concrete thinking.

Sure you’ve said you’re younger than most on here but fair enough if you don’t wanna say your age. 

I just want us to qualify. It really is as simply as that. Do I think 3 at the back would improve us? I do. I do think it. Do I think it would improve us enough that we qualified? I don't know. I just want us to try something, anything, as long as it's different from previous approaches. 

Well, I would say that I'm younger than most, but I'm not young enough that I don't remember 96 and 98. I think I was in 4th year during 98. It memory serves me. I attended about half of the home qualifiers during those periods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Fair enough if that’s what you believe. No point talking about it anymore with than concrete thinking.

Sure you’ve said you’re younger than most on here but fair enough if you don’t wanna say your age. 

You got there eventually.

 

Edited by vanderark14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Chripper said:

I just want us to qualify. It really is as simply as that. Do I think 3 at the back would improve us? I do. I do think it. Do I think it would improve us enough that we qualified? I don't know. I just want us to try something, anything, as long as it's different from previous approaches. 

Well, I would say that I'm younger than most, but I'm not young enough that I don't remember 96 and 98. I think I was in 4th year during 98. It memory serves me. I attended about half of the home qualifiers during those periods.

So you're 37 this year then. Not younger than me, grandpa :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the first time since probably the 60s, we've got pace in the side.  We should stick with our front three. We can now play a higher line with better pace at the back. The opposition no longer have carte blanche to play a high line against us with the likes of Forrest, Fraser, Burke and Armstrong around. 

I do think this will become academic when players of a higher quality emerge and it is going to happen in the next 3 or 4 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This fascination with playing wing-backs is really just an attempt to work it out so both Robertson and Tierney can play. That is a stupid thing to do it really is. Did England play Ray Clemence at centre-back when he and Peter Shilton were vying for the England No 1 jersey just so they could both play? Of course not. We have dabbled with the five at the back and looked poorer for it in the early to mid games of Nations League and we looked much better when we went 4-4-2 towards the end of that tournament. You play your best players in their best positions to get the best from them. If that means one of Robertson or Tierney misses out then so be it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really can't decide what I like the idea of better, Tierney at RB or a much worse, but naturally right-footed player there? Tierney isn't nearly as effective as normal when he plays there, but he is an excellent footballer with a great football brain and awareness, so it's great to just have him on the park. I think he actually did a better job than Paterson. Yes, he didn't maraud down the flank as he does on the left, but he also didn't let a lot past him down that side. I think I'm leaning towards giving him another chance there, most due to the outrageous lack of other options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

We have dabbled with the five at the back and looked poorer for it

We played with 3/5 for what, two or three matches?

We've played with 4 for 19 years.

Our fascination with 4 at the back is baffling, especially since we don't have the central defenders for it and because we have constantly failed. Scotland are a team of limited ability, there's no denying it, so we need an extra body in defence to naturally fill the gaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chripper said:

We played with 3/5 for what, two or three matches?

We've played with 4 for 19 years.

Our fascination with 4 at the back is baffling, especially since we don't have the central defenders for it and because we have constantly failed. Scotland are a team of limited ability, there's no denying it, so we need an extra body in defence to naturally fill the gaps.

Tosh. We have dabbled with wing-backs many times over the years.

Hmm so we don't have the central defenders yet you want us to play three central defenders instead of two and play Robertson and Tierney out of position to boot. 😨

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Tosh. We have dabbled with wing-backs many times over the years.

Hmm so we don't have the central defenders yet you want us to play three central defenders instead of two and play Robertson and Tierney out of position to boot. 😨

Really? How can you play wingbacks in a 4? We've played 4 consistently since Craig Brown left.

Nah. We're hopeless in the middle of defense so we play less. How about one? Or none? If you're bad in a position then you have to play more in a position, purely for numerical reasons. I also think we should play two strikers, for the same reason.

3-5-2 would suit me just fine.

But nah. We've Scotland, we're going to make a variant of 4-4-2/4-2-3-1 work, even if it takes a hundred failed campaigns....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Really? How can you play wingbacks in a 4? We've played 4 consistently since Craig Brown left.

Nah. We're hopeless in the middle of defense so we play less. How about one? Or none? If you're bad in a position then you have to play more in a position, purely for numerical reasons. I also think we should play two strikers, for the same reason.

3-5-2 would suit me just fine.

But nah. We've Scotland, we're going to make a variant of 4-4-2/4-2-3-1 work, even if it takes a hundred failed campaigns....

We’re bad in midfield and attack according to yourself ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Really? How can you play wingbacks in a 4? We've played 4 consistently since Craig Brown left.

Nah. We're hopeless in the middle of defense so we play less. How about one? Or none? If you're bad in a position then you have to play more in a position, purely for numerical reasons. I also think we should play two strikers, for the same reason.

3-5-2 would suit me just fine.

But nah. We've Scotland, we're going to make a variant of 4-4-2/4-2-3-1 work, even if it takes a hundred failed campaigns....

With your serious failures in logic I say thank god you'll never be in the Scotland hot seat. Sorry but just so many flaws and illogical decisions.

1. You say we are weak in the centre of defence but want us to play three players you describe as weak there instead of two just to make your 3-5-2 wet dream come true.

2. You want to play our two best defenders out of position forcing them into playing as wing-backs again just to satisfy your desire for 3-5-2.

Link to comment
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...
×
×
  • Create New...