Starting 11 for Kazakhstan match

[Chripper]

2 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

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

Exactly. That's why we play 3/5 in defence. 3 in the middle of midfield and 2 in attack.

[Chripper]

2 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

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.

It's not failed logic at all. My logic is that we haven't qualified for anything using 4 at the back since 1990. 

Correct. An extra body in defence can make a difference, if only to naturally plug a hole that's inevitably left by the other teo central defenders.

You're drastically underrating them, Robertson especially. He's venturing into world class territory. If you think he can only play in one position then you're selling him short. There's no reason why he couldn't be our Joshua Kimmich or David Alaba. Those two alternate between anchorman and full backs for their club and countries.

[Caledonian Craig]

Just now, Chripper said:

It's not failed logic at all. My logic is that we haven't qualified for anything using 4 at the back since 1990. 

Correct. An extra body in defence can make a difference, if only to naturally plug a hole that's inevitably left by the other teo central defenders.

You're drastically underrating them, Robertson especially. He's venturing into world class territory. If you think he can only play in one position then you're selling him short. There's no reason why he couldn't be our Joshua Kimmich or David Alaba. Those two alternate between anchorman and full backs for their club and countries.

It is failed logic. You have said we are weak in central defence (players-wise I presume) so you want to play three weak central defenders instead of two. Illogical. Failed logic two you just said we are weak in attack (I presume you mean players wise too) so you want to play two weak players in that position instead of one?

Failed logic three you want to have Robertson and Tierney (on the wrong wing for him) bombing forward as wing-backs leaving what you call weak central defence even more exposed.

[Chripper]

8 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

It is failed logic. You have said we are weak in central defence (players-wise I presume) so you want to play three weak central defenders instead of two. Illogical. Failed logic two you just said we are weak in attack (I presume you mean players wise too) so you want to play two weak players in that position instead of one?

Failed logic three you want to have Robertson and Tierney (on the wrong wing for him) bombing forward as wing-backs leaving what you call weak central defence even more exposed.

So, you think my idea of playing three at the back is illogical? So, I assume you think if I suggested that we play one in central defence would be logical?

In football, there's strength in numbers. If two central defenders make mistakes then there's a third to cover them. How many times have we seen Kenny Miller doing his best headless chicken routine because he didn't have a strike-partner? Too many.

And I don't recall saying anything about playing Tierney on the right. I'd play him on the left. And as for Robertson, I'd say that he'd be better in midfield than all of our midfielders (Not that it's difficult, as most of them are Championship class), so I'd play him quite happily as an anchorman. 

You can count up as many failed logics as you wish. You give me evidence of us qualifying with 4 at the back since 1990, I'll give you 24 hours to produce the fact and figures that show that Scotland can play, and qualify for tournaments, playing 4 at the back.

[bigfingers]

Snoddy seems to be back to his best. Any chance of us fitting in fraser, forrest and snodgrass into the same 11? 

[ParisInAKilt]

6 minutes ago, bigfingers said:

Snoddy seems to be back to his best. Any chance of us fitting in fraser, forrest and snodgrass into the same 11? 

He’s played well. Looks as fit as I’ve seen him.

[Caledonian Craig]

3 minutes ago, Chripper said:

So, you think my idea of playing three at the back is illogical? So, I assume you think if I suggested that we play one in central defence would be logical?

In football, there's strength in numbers. If two central defenders make mistakes then there's a third to cover them. How many times have we seen Kenny Miller doing his best headless chicken routine because he didn't have a strike-partner? Too many.

And I don't recall saying anything about playing Tierney on the right. I'd play him on the left. And as for Robertson, I'd say that he'd be better in midfield than all of our midfielders (Not that it's difficult, as most of them are Championship class), so I'd play him quite happily as an anchorman. 

You can count up as many failed logics as you wish. You give me evidence of us qualifying with 4 at the back since 1990, I'll give you 24 hours to produce the fact and figures that show that Scotland can play, and qualify for tournaments, playing 4 at the back.

Sorry but you are barking up the wrong tree. You are seemingly putting all the blame on us having not qualified for so long because we haven't played 3-5-2. You do comprehend to counter that argument that when we did qualify regularly it was not by playing 3-5-2 but 4-4-2. The reason we haven't qualified for so long is quite glaringly obvious - a distinctive drop-off in quality players at international level available to us. Evidence being not only have results in international football dipped but also at European club level that alone points to quality (or lack of) being the problem. Also the diminishing figure of Scottish players sought after by EPL clubs has dropped markedly. Wherein we used to be able to boast a strong Scottish contingent at top clubs in the EPL that is no longer the case - again proof of a marked drop in quality and quantity available to us. So you see it has naff all to do with not playing 3-5-2 and everything to do with a drop in the quality of players available to us.

Now as to your strength in numbers - well I'd say four defenders sure as hell beats three so again backs up playing 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 over 3-5-2. You do realise that Kenny Miller is the most successful striker we have had in recent years? As for your idea of Tierney on the left with Robertson on the right in midfield? Whit? So now you are attempting to convert Robertson into a midfielder to make your 3-5-2 happen? We already have the evidence that Scotland can qualify playing 4-4-2 - it happened all the time through the 1970's, 1980s and into the 1990s. Now can you provide evidence where we used 3-5-2 in campaigns where we have qualified?

[Chripper]

18 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Sorry but you are barking up the wrong tree. You are seemingly putting all the blame on us having not qualified for so long because we haven't played 3-5-2. You do comprehend to counter that argument that when we did qualify regularly it was not by playing 3-5-2 but 4-4-2. The reason we haven't qualified for so long is quite glaringly obvious - a distinctive drop-off in quality players at international level available to us. Evidence being not only have results in international football dipped but also at European club level that alone points to quality (or lack of) being the problem. Also the diminishing figure of Scottish players sought after by EPL clubs has dropped markedly. Wherein we used to be able to boast a strong Scottish contingent at top clubs in the EPL that is no longer the case - again proof of a marked drop in quality and quantity available to us. So you see it has naff all to do with not playing 3-5-2 and everything to do with a drop in the quality of players available to us.

Now as to your strength in numbers - well I'd say four defenders sure as hell beats three so again backs up playing 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 over 3-5-2. You do realise that Kenny Miller is the most successful striker we have had in recent years? As for your idea of Tierney on the left with Robertson on the right in midfield? Whit? So now you are attempting to convert Robertson into a midfielder to make your 3-5-2 happen? We already have the evidence that Scotland can qualify playing 4-4-2 - it happened all the time through the 1970's, 1980s and into the 1990s. Now can you provide evidence where we used 3-5-2 in campaigns where we have qualified?

Are you kidding me? At a period of time we had midfielders of Scott Brown, Darren Fletcher and Barry Ferguson. Are you trying to tell me that those midfielders lacked quality? Fact is, If we were playing with a three man midfield during that era then you could easily compare it to the 96 and 98 midfield. Would playing with a 3 have gotten us qualified during that period? Impossible to say, but I'll take a stab in the dark and give a resounding yes. Your arguments are all smoke and mirrors. Oh really, it's because we don't have players in the EPL? Really? That's interesting. Looking at the 96 squad the majority of the players were Scottish based.

And no, am I saying that the sole reason for us not qualifying is because of a formation? I don't ever recall saying that. I do recall saying the Scottish football is rotten, from root to branch. I do recall saying that our football has a culture of teaching our youngsters to run up and down hills, opposed to being able to do the basics. If you think I'm saying the root cause of us failing to qualify for a tournament is solely down to a formation then I suggest you read more of my posts. No one is more scathing of the way that we fundamentally play the game than I. Scottish football is rotten and it has to be rebooted. Go to a div 1 match and you'll just see a bunch of players lumping the ball into the air, as if they're scared of the ball and they want it as far away from them as possible.

Four beats three? So, you'd play four central defenders then? That sounds like overkill to me. Kenny Miler was brilliant for us, I'm not dissing him, but he would've been a lot more productive and thankful if he had an extra striker to share the workload. Did you actually read what I wrote? I didn't say anything about Robertson being on the right of midfield. With a 3-5-2 there is no right of midfield. I'd play him as the anchorman of a midfield three. Milner can swap fullback to midfield, so can Alaba and Kimmich. Robertson could play anywhere, he's that good.

We played 3-5-2 when we qualified for Euro 96 and France 98. Easy.

[ParisInAKilt]

Ferguson, Brown and Fletcher only played one and a bit campaigns together at most. Mainly because of Ferguson’s off field stuff 2009. 

[Caledonian Craig]

1 minute ago, Chripper said:

Are you kidding me? At a period of time we had midfielders of Scott Brown, Darren Fletcher and Barry Ferguson. Are you trying to tell me that those midfielders lacked quality? Fact is, If we were playing with a three man midfield during that era then you could easily compare it to the 96 and 98 midfield. Would playing with a 3 have gotten us qualified during that period? Impossible to say, but I'll take a stab in the dark and give a resounding yes. Your arguments are all smoke and mirrors. Oh really, it's because we don't have players in the EPL? Really? That's interesting. Looking at the 96 squad the majority of the players were Scottish based.

And no, am I saying that the sole reason for us not qualifying is because of a formation? I don't ever recall saying that. I do recall saying the Scottish football is rotten, from root to branch. I do recall saying that our football has a culture of teaching our youngsters to run up and down hills, opposed to being able to do the basics. If you think I'm saying the root cause of us failing to qualify for a tournament is solely down to a formation then I suggest you read more of my posts. No one is more scathing of the way that we fundamentally play the game than I. Scottish football is rotten and it has to be rebooted. Go to a div 1 match and you'll just see a bunch of players lumping the ball into the air, as if they're scared of the ball and they want it as far away from them as possible.

Four beats three? So, you'd play four central defenders then? That sounds like overkill to me. Kenny Miler was brilliant for us, I'm not dissing him, but he would've been a lot more productive and thankful if he had an extra striker to share the workload. Did you actually read what I wrote? I didn't say anything about Robertson being on the right of midfield. With a 3-5-2 there is no right of midfield. I'd play him as the anchorman of a midfield three. Milner can swap fullback to midfield, so can Alaba and Kimmich. Robertson could play anywhere, he's that good.

We played 3-5-2 when we qualified for Euro 96 and France 98. Easy.

Sorry but you really do talk rubbish. Scott Brown and Barry Ferguson were two players who never proved themselves outside the SPL - sorry but that leaves a massive question mark over them and leaves us with Darren Fletcher so how is that oozing the quality of what went before when we used to qualify perenially. It is the distinct dip in quality and quantity available to us that is why we now do not qualify. I gave you several pieces of proof of that. It has Sweet FA to do with this 3-5-2 myth. Give it up man. Sit back and allow the manager to choose (for his reasons) the formations we play as you cannot make a difference on what he decides anyway.

Yes four beats three. Who said anything about playing four central defenders I am talking about playing four conventional defenders in positions they are comfortable with - two central defenders, a left-back and a right-back. As for Robertson you really are showing yourself up by claiming he could play anywhere as if we are talking about him playing a Sunday League game. We are talking about international football where we are not at our strongest just now and you want to move our best player around the pitch dumping him anywhere but the position he is renowned and respected for and all so it can fit him into your 3-5-2 template.

[Chripper]

1 minute ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Sorry but you really do talk rubbish. Scott Brown and Barry Ferguson were two players who never proved themselves outside the SPL - sorry but that leaves a massive question mark over them and leaves us with Darren Fletcher so how is that oozing the quality of what went before when we used to qualify perenially. It is the distinct dip in quality and quantity available to us that is why we now do not qualify. I gave you several pieces of proof of that. It has Sweet FA to do with this 3-5-2 myth. Give it up man. Sit back and allow the manager to choose (for his reasons) the formations we play as you cannot make a difference on what he decides anyway.

Yes four beats three. Who said anything about playing four central defenders I am talking about playing four conventional defenders in positions they are comfortable with - two central defenders, a left-back and a right-back. As for Robertson you really are showing yourself up by claiming he could play anywhere as if we are talking about him playing a Sunday League game. We are talking about international football where we are not at our strongest just now and you want to move our best player around the pitch dumping him anywhere but the position he is renowned and respected for and all so it can fit him into your 3-5-2 template.

That argument holds no water. Would you say that McFadden proved himself in the EPL? I wouldn't say so. That wasn't down to him, that was down to David Moyed who is painfully pragmatic. Scott Brown would've definitely have made an impression in the EPL. And as far as Ferguson, well, he joined Blackburn when they were turning into a misfit club. That aside, if you asked the Blackburn fans if he was any good then they'd give you a thumb's up. I don't know if you're one of these people who look at the EPL with amazement, but I'm not. Take out the top 6 and the EPL is just an extension of the English Championship. 

Do I have an option? It's not like I'm going to storm Hampden and declare myself the manager. I'll sit back and watch Alex McLeish doing the same old tried and failed formula.

You did. You said that 4 is more than 3. But that's a false equivalency as you're including the fullbacks. Fine, I'll include the wingbacks. Five beats four.

Exactly, this is international football. I would be more comfortable than a European Cup finalist playing in midfield than I would an English Championship manager like McGinn or McLean, etc. Andy Robertson could play the anchorman easily. Just look at Kimmich and Alaba (Milner, too). Those are players who alternate several positions. 

[ceudmilefailte]

6 hours ago, mrniaboc said:

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.

I think that about sums it up, a few of us have made a point of saying that we shouldn't experiment in competitive games but Tierney at right back in the next two games can't do any damage surely. If it doesn't work Paterson seems able to do a decent job there even though not playing at all in that position at club level.

I find it very hard to believe that a 27 year old Stephen O'Donnell who was released by an English 3rd tier team at 25 has suddenly become an international class footballer. 

[ParisInAKilt]

7 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

I think that about sums it up, a few of us have made a point of saying that we shouldn't experiment in competitive games but Tierney at right back in the next two games can't do any damage surely. If it doesn't work Paterson seems able to do a decent job there even though not playing at all in that position at club level.

I find it very hard to believe that a 27 year old Stephen O'Donnell who was released by an English 3rd tier team at 25 has suddenly become an international class footballer. 

I think Tierney is a better right back than them both 

[Caledonian Craig]

18 minutes ago, Chripper said:

That argument holds no water. Would you say that McFadden proved himself in the EPL? I wouldn't say so. That wasn't down to him, that was down to David Moyed who is painfully pragmatic. Scott Brown would've definitely have made an impression in the EPL. And as far as Ferguson, well, he joined Blackburn when they were turning into a misfit club. That aside, if you asked the Blackburn fans if he was any good then they'd give you a thumb's up. I don't know if you're one of these people who look at the EPL with amazement, but I'm not. Take out the top 6 and the EPL is just an extension of the English Championship. 

Do I have an option? It's not like I'm going to storm Hampden and declare myself the manager. I'll sit back and watch Alex McLeish doing the same old tried and failed formula.

You did. You said that 4 is more than 3. But that's a false equivalency as you're including the fullbacks. Fine, I'll include the wingbacks. Five beats four.

Exactly, this is international football. I would be more comfortable than a European Cup finalist playing in midfield than I would an English Championship manager like McGinn or McLean, etc. Andy Robertson could play the anchorman easily. Just look at Kimmich and Alaba (Milner, too). Those are players who alternate several positions. 

If you want further evidence of your 3-5-2 flaws we stuttered through the start of the European Nations League matches with it. When we needed to win our last two games to assure we topped the group what happened? We played four at the back (two centre-backs and a right and left-back) and we won 4-0 and 3-2. 

[Chripper]

1 minute ago, Caledonian Craig said:

If you want further evidence of your 3-5-2 flaws we stuttered through the start of the European Nations League matches with it. When we needed to win our last two games to assure we topped the group what happened? We played four at the back (two centre-backs and a right and left-back) and we won 4-0 and 3-2. 

Again, that makes absolutely no sense. We play what, two matches with 3-5-2? And that's healthy, is it? If you fail at something after only a few attempts you give up? We've played with four at the back for 19 years and yet you aren't saying anything about that.

[Caledonian Craig]

1 minute ago, Chripper said:

Again, that makes absolutely no sense. We play what, two matches with 3-5-2? And that's healthy, is it? If you fail at something after only a few attempts you give up? We've played with four at the back for 19 years and yet you aren't saying anything about that.

I've already told you what all Scotland fans with a brain and football knowledge know - the quality has been lacking in our squad at international level. It has Jack to do with not playing 3-5-2. I am surprised you really are trying to use that as some sort of primary reason for our failings.

[Chripper]

Just now, Caledonian Craig said:

I've already told you what all Scotland fans with a brain and football knowledge know - the quality has been lacking in our squad at international level. It has Jack to do with not playing 3-5-2. I am surprised you really are trying to use that as some sort of primary reason for our failings.

And as for your previous post. We played Israel away with 3-5-2 (the harder match) and played them at home and played 4-4-2. You see how stats can be deceiving?

So what exactly are you saying? That our stock formation should always be 4 at the back? We should play it through thick and thin? We should never think outside the box and try to condense the pitch and make it more difficult to play against? Yeah. Not for me, thanks. We've made it easy for the opposiitition for far too long.

Look, I'm not saying that rain would turn into rainbows if we played a 3-5-2. I'm not even saying that we would qualify. Hell, we might not even improve, but what I don't get is why are people so stubborn that they don't want to even try something different? It's like Scotland fans are obsessed with four at the back and they've convinced themselves that it's the only way to play. 

I would understand the argument if the formation/tactics were obsolete and no one plays it. It's played across Europe on a weekly basis. Wolves are currently pulling up trees with three at the back. They're just outside the top 6 in their first season back in the EPL.

 

[Caledonian Craig]

At present I feel we offer more with 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 simple as that. It allows us to have our best players (mostly all) playing in positions they are comfortable with and I see that as the way forward for the time being. You downplay our centre-backs and think McKenna and Bates are a good pairing perhaps the best we have had in that position since the days of Weir and Dailly. Robertson has excelled at left-back so stick with him there with right-back going to one of O'Donnell, Paterson or Tierney. The midfield has a good club understanding with McGregor, Christie, Armstrong and Forrest making a good blend bolstered with the inclusion of Fraser so there is goal threats in that midfield with Fletcher or McBurnie or Naismith up front. I have never said don't look at any other formation but right now we look better with the 4-5-1 or if needs be 4-4-2.

[Chripper]

19 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

At present I feel we offer more with 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 simple as that. It allows us to have our best players (mostly all) playing in positions they are comfortable with and I see that as the way forward for the time being. You downplay our centre-backs and think McKenna and Bates are a good pairing perhaps the best we have had in that position since the days of Weir and Dailly. Robertson has excelled at left-back so stick with him there with right-back going to one of O'Donnell, Paterson or Tierney. The midfield has a good club understanding with McGregor, Christie, Armstrong and Forrest making a good blend bolstered with the inclusion of Fraser so there is goal threats in that midfield with Fletcher or McBurnie or Naismith up front. I have never said don't look at any other formation but right now we look better with the 4-5-1 or if needs be 4-4-2.

I'm not downplaying anyone in particular. I just think a threesome of Souttar, Bates and McKenna has definite potential.

The midfield is more of a worry for me, to be honest. McGregor, Christie and Armstrong may look like world beaters in the SPL, but put them up against better players and then they go into their shells and go into passing the ball backwards/sideways mode. I'd say that our best midfielder in McTominay, and yet he'll probably only make the United bench when the Man United injuries clear up. Who do we have as back up in midfield? McGinn, McDonald, McLean, who are all Championship standard players.

I do like Fraser and Forrest and Fletcher has always been underrated... he isn't a goal scorer, though.

I'd love to see us sticking to a variant of a three at the back for at least through one campaign, alas, it won't happen. Just to clarify, though, I just want us to qualify. I don't care which tactics or formation we use. It's long past that. Do I think we will? Not in my lifetime. The SFA and the Scottish clubs have neglected our football for far too long. Having a few performance schools won't cover the cracks and it will not make amends for decades of ignorance.

[mrniaboc]

4 hours ago, Chripper said:

I'm not downplaying anyone in particular. I just think a threesome of Souttar, Bates and McKenna has definite potential.

The midfield is more of a worry for me, to be honest. McGregor, Christie and Armstrong may look like world beaters in the SPL, but put them up against better players and then they go into their shells and go into passing the ball backwards/sideways mode. I'd say that our best midfielder in McTominay, and yet he'll probably only make the United bench when the Man United injuries clear up. Who do we have as back up in midfield? McGinn, McDonald, McLean, who are all Championship standard players.

I do like Fraser and Forrest and Fletcher has always been underrated... he isn't a goal scorer, though.

I'd love to see us sticking to a variant of a three at the back for at least through one campaign, alas, it won't happen. Just to clarify, though, I just want us to qualify. I don't care which tactics or formation we use. It's long past that. Do I think we will? Not in my lifetime. The SFA and the Scottish clubs have neglected our football for far too long. Having a few performance schools won't cover the cracks and it will not make amends for decades of ignorance.

It's interesting you think our best midfielder is McTominay. I truly think he could go on to be great. It appears that his most natural position is a defensive midfielder who spoils the opposition play and collects the ball from the back and move it out quickly. Might a man like that on the park nagate your desire to pack the defense? 

[Chripper]

2 hours ago, mrniaboc said:

It's interesting you think our best midfielder is McTominay. I truly think he could go on to be great. It appears that his most natural position is a defensive midfielder who spoils the opposition play and collects the ball from the back and move it out quickly. Might a man like that on the park nagate your desire to pack the defense? 

It's a strange one, at youth level he played as a striker, he played in central defence and he also played in midfield. In that way he reminds me of Don Hutchinson, that he can play anywhere down the middle. It's also strange that the United fans don't like him that much as he provides pretty much what Fellaini (sp?) did and Matic Does. Maybe he should change his name to Scott McTominho. 

I like him a lot. His attitude is brilliant and he's always so calm and assured on the ball.

To answer your question, no. His future position could be in defence. He has a bit of John Stones about him. Either way, though, I'd find a place for him. I'd play three at the back no matter what.

[BucksburnDandy]

If all our options are fit and presuming Griffiths isn't up to speed: Shagger; Tierney, Bates, McKenna, Robertson; Armstrong, McGregor; Forrest, Christie, Fraser; Fletcher

 

If Callum McGregor and Ryan Christie are out: Shagger; Tierney, Bates, McKenna, Robertson; McGinn; McTominay; Forrest, Armstrong, Fraser; Fletcher. If McGinn is injured, push Armstrong back and bring Snodgrass in behind the striker.

 

Stick with the 4-2-3-1 and close to the team from the last two Nations League games who did well and played some excellent football. Key thing is retain the pace of the side.

[bigfingers]

6 hours ago, BucksburnDandy said:

If all our options are fit and presuming Griffiths isn't up to speed: Shagger; Tierney, Bates, McKenna, Robertson; Armstrong, McGregor; Forrest, Christie, Fraser; Fletcher

 

If Callum McGregor and Ryan Christie are out: Shagger; Tierney, Bates, McKenna, Robertson; McGinn; McTominay; Forrest, Armstrong, Fraser; Fletcher. If McGinn is injured, push Armstrong back and bring Snodgrass in behind the striker.

 

Stick with the 4-2-3-1 and close to the team from the last two Nations League games who did well and played some excellent football. Key thing is retain the pace of the side.

I agree bucksburn! 

[csinclair]

getting a headache seeing every thread become a back 4 vs back 3 debate

 

[ErsatzThistle]

5 minutes ago, csinclair said:

getting a headache seeing every thread become a back 4 vs back 3 debate

We need bonny78 to inject a bit of common sense into the whole debate.

Doing away completely with the need for a goalkeeper for example.