Scott McTominay - Page 12 - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Scott McTominay


Chripper

Recommended Posts

Maybe a point for another thread but defensively we do ourselves no favours in the time I’ve watched us by mostly being unable to retain possession, defending very deep and not pressing the other team. Makes us very easy to play against and any suffer from any defensive errors. 

Back to McTominay, when he came on against Cyprus he almost instantly looked a level above the rest of the midfield in how he took possession and passed forward. 

He must start on Friday. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
12 minutes ago, bazmidd said:

Our last manager experimented... He failed. A 3 at the back doesn't conquer Europe pal so give it a rest

Yes. One match against Israel.

Meanwhile, we have had to endure 91 matches, conceding 113 playing with a four.

When we've played 91 matches with a back three, that's when I'll concede that we've experimented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Market value, Liverpool are worth double of this United team.

Manchester United were pitch perfect today. They're limited and they done the right thing by keeping things compact. A match is won and lost down the middle. United had eight players down the middle, Liverpool had nine. 

Scotland play six players down the middle. We also have the audacity and cheek to play with two fullbacks and two wingers and zero central midfielders. Good luck with that, Mr Clarke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manchester United fans are discussing the 3-4-3 they played against Liverpool. If wasn't perfect, but it improved them. Reminiscent of when we used it in the 2-2 draw with England.

It would appear that most of them are willing to give it a go. Wish people here were as knowledgeable.

Bear in mind, United are in an appalling state (sound familiar?) and they're riddled with limited players (surely that must sound familiar?)

It would appear that journalists from the Sun read this forum. Well, I hope someone close to the Scotland setup does, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Manchester United fans are discussing the 3-4-3 they played against Liverpool. If wasn't perfect, but it improved them. Reminiscent of when we used it in the 2-2 draw with England.

It would appear that most of them are willing to give it a go. Wish people here were as knowledgeable.

Bear in mind, United are in an appalling state (sound familiar?) and they're riddled with limited players (surely that must sound familiar?)

It would appear that journalists from the Sun read this forum. Well, I hope someone close to the Scotland setup does, too.

Let's not pretend Man United fans are more knowledgeable. The formation worked today against a far superior opponent as it did for us against England. Both of which are one offs where it has happened.

 

My club side, Aberdeen, pulled off a shock 3-0 against Rijeka in Croatia using 3-5-2. We've tried it on numerous occasions since and failed every time. I understand that you want to try 3-5-2, and I might tend to agree with you. But let's not pretend that it will magic up results or that people are more knowledgeable for wanting to play it.

 

It has a number of merits, which I'm happy to discuss. But attacking people for not wanting to play it by claiming that they are not knowledgeable is a bit of a false economy and is likely to turn people off from the idea of debating its merits.

 

Happy to see the debate The_Dark_Knight but please don't insult people in the process. We all want the best for Scotland on here 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Manchester United fans are discussing the 3-4-3 they played against Liverpool. If wasn't perfect, but it improved them. Reminiscent of when we used it in the 2-2 draw with England.

It would appear that most of them are willing to give it a go. Wish people here were as knowledgeable.

Bear in mind, United are in an appalling state (sound familiar?) and they're riddled with limited players (surely that must sound familiar?)

It would appear that journalists from the Sun read this forum. Well, I hope someone close to the Scotland setup does, too.

Being a patronising cunt will never win you votes. Everybody knows your opinion on formation but still you persist. Yes we understand your opinion which is valid but would you not try to turn every post into a chance til a point score as it's boring. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, BucksburnDandy said:

Let's not pretend Man United fans are more knowledgeable. The formation worked today against a far superior opponent as it did for us against England. Both of which are one offs where it has happened.

 

My club side, Aberdeen, pulled off a shock 3-0 against Rijeka in Croatia using 3-5-2. We've tried it on numerous occasions since and failed every time. I understand that you want to try 3-5-2, and I might tend to agree with you. But let's not pretend that it will magic up results or that people are more knowledgeable for wanting to play it.

 

It has a number of merits, which I'm happy to discuss. But attacking people for not wanting to play it by claiming that they are not knowledgeable is a bit of a false economy and is likely to turn people off from the idea of debating its merits.

 

Happy to see the debate The_Dark_Knight but please don't insult people in the process. We all want the best for Scotland on here 

I've watched every minute of United in the EPL this season. To say that they've been awful is an understatement. Watching them is kinda watching Scotland, they've just been a shambles all season. If they didn't fluke it against Chelsea at the start of the season they'd be in deep, deep trouble. They also play 4-2-3-1 (like us) and it's understandable that they'd scrap their double pivot of anchored, because like us, they don't have a decent anchorman.

I'm not sure if it would improve results, but i'd love to find out. Let's be honest, results couldn't get any worse. 

People here don't want to discuss it. They've made that clear. 

I don't know if that's true. If I didn't know any better I would swear that some people in this place didn't support Scotland. I mean, we are being disnantled on a regular basis and yet people, en mass, don't even want to mention the word "experiment".

The people that say "Oh, we tried 3 against Israel and it failed - so let's never try it again" are probably the same people who think we shouldn't employ a foreign manager because Vogts wasn't a success. 

Edited by The_Dark_Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Being a patronising cunt will never win you votes. Everybody knows your opinion on formation but still you persist. Yes we understand your opinion which is valid but would you not try to turn every post into a chance til a point score as it's boring. 

 

I don't see anyone using this thread.

And it's actually on subject, I'm talking about United's formation.

Edited by The_Dark_Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Being a patronising cunt will never win you votes. Everybody knows your opinion on formation but still you persist. Yes we understand your opinion which is valid but would you not try to turn every post into a chance til a point score as it's boring. 

 

And going forward, when I do mention it, I'll keep it on subject, like in this thread. ;)

I'm not forcing people to reply.

I make absolutely no apologizes for what I've said about the general populace, there. Before the San Marino match we conceded eight goals in two matches and yet people still wanted to keep on keepin' on.

That convinced me of a lot of things.

Edited by The_Dark_Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

I've watched every minute of United in the EPL this season. To say that they've been awful is an understatement. Watching them is kinda watching Scotland, they've just been a shambles all season. If they didn't fluke it against Chelsea at the start of the season they'd be in deep, deep trouble. They also play 4-2-3-1 (like us) and it's understandable that they'd scrap their double pivot of anchored, because like us, they don't have a decent anchorman.

I'm not sure if it would improve results, but i'd love to find out. Let's be honest, results couldn't get any worse. 

People here don't want to discuss it. They've made that clear. 

I don't know if that's true. If I didn't know any better I would swear that some people in this place didn't support Scotland. I mean, we are being disnantled on a regular basis and yet people, en mass, don't even want to mention the word "experiment".

The people that say "Oh, we tried 3 against Israel and it failed - so let's never try it again" are probably the same people who think we shouldn't employ a foreign manager because Vogts wasn't a success. 

People here are fairly happy to discuss anything related to Scotland. What annoys them is when they put up a counter point, they are patronised for being not knowledgeable.

 

Like you, I am somewhat of a mind that maybe we do need to implement 3-5-2 for a while. But I'm not going to patronise those who disagree as I was recently one of them who couldn't see 3-5-2 working.

 

The biggest barrier to us at present using the system is the lack of time we have to train as a national team, working on that new system. It is a big issue with the current setup of constant games is no time to work on tactical stuff on the training park. The reason it failed last year was because we had a group of naive, inexperienced players playing the system without through tactical work and instruction.

 

It worked against England as we had a far more experienced team, not needing as much tactical instruction.

 

I have no doubt that given time, Clarke could make 3-5-2 work, but he doesn't have enough time to make it work before March.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, BucksburnDandy said:

People here are fairly happy to discuss anything related to Scotland. What annoys them is when they put up a counter point, they are patronised for being not knowledgeable.

 

Like you, I am somewhat of a mind that maybe we do need to implement 3-5-2 for a while. But I'm not going to patronise those who disagree as I was recently one of them who couldn't see 3-5-2 working.

 

The biggest barrier to us at present using the system is the lack of time we have to train as a national team, working on that new system. It is a big issue with the current setup of constant games is no time to work on tactical stuff on the training park. The reason it failed last year was because we had a group of naive, inexperienced players playing the system without through tactical work and instruction.

 

It worked against England as we had a far more experienced team, not needing as much tactical instruction.

 

I have no doubt that given time, Clarke could make 3-5-2 work, but he doesn't have enough time to make it work before March.

I don't mind a counter-point, in fact, I encourage it. What disturbs me, though, is 98% of the people here have their head in the sand and don't even want to consider a change in system. The link that I posted from the redcafe, it was an actual discussion, some were open to it, some weren't, I'd say that it's a 65/35 split in favour of a system change. Zero change of such a debate on here.

Hell, only last week a guy registered, and just because he agreed with me that 3 is the way to go, the poor guy was ran off the forum by the lynch mob accusing him of being me. I wish I was joking.

I posted a good stat a day or so ago, in the past 17 years of playing with a variant of a 4, we've conceded 113 goals in 91 matches. People say that we've given a 3/5 a chance. No we haven't. We've only tried it in two competitive matches over 17 years.

I'm not insulting people with no foundation. Forget about the 3 or 4 at the back debate. People are saying that we have good midfielders and that's the strongest position of our squad... And yet they want to play a system that doesn't even facilitate central midfielders (4-2-3-1). People seem to think the 2 anchormen are central midfielder, but they're not. Just look at Aberdeen at the weekend, they played 4-2-3-1, with two defenders as the 2, and lo-and-behold, they won.

You must see my frustration, though, surely? The vast majority of people don't even want to discuss it. It's unfathomable. If something isn't working, in any walk of life, change it. Not saying a system change is magic wand. Hardly. The only way to restore life in Scottish football is to introduce a homegrown player rule, bigger leagues, more money spent on facilities at pro and grassroots level. A dozen or so massive performance schools, much like Clairefontaine 

Yeah, people say that the players wouldn't have time to get used to the new system, but is that true, though? In the 90s our players get just as much time away with the national team (I think they had less, actually, because of the Nations league, etc) as they do now, didn't stop them from qualifying in 96 and 98 and almost for 2000.

I did a stat for a couple of international breaks ago: 40 out of 180 national teams played with a variant of a 3. How can those players play a system that they most probably don't play at club level and not ours? Besides, our players train playing in a 4 all season long, I don't see that familiarity coming through.

That's the thing, though, it a perpetual cycle of "We don't have time (to experiment)". I say we do. I say do it now. What's March? The play-offs? Honestly, I don't think that's important. We'll use no matter what system we use.

Also, I've answered a lot of counter-arguments here.

I like Clarke as a person and as a manager, but I question his proclivity towards his systems. We need someone who is either reactive or proactive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

I don't mind a counter-point, in fact, I encourage it... blah...blah...blah...

Trouble is, you just never fkin stop.  Same sh*te copied and pasted onto nearly every thread.  You must be making the board an unreadable nightmare for anyone on a smartphone which I suspect most are.  It's bad enough for me and I only ever view it on a desktop PC.

Give it a rest FFS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, daviebee said:

Trouble is, you just never fkin stop.  Same sh*te copied and pasted onto nearly every thread.  You must be making the board an unreadable nightmare for anyone on a smartphone which I suspect most are.  It's bad enough for me and I only ever view it on a desktop PC.

Give it a rest FFS.

I'll keep it to this thread for now.

Don't like it? Don't post. I'm hardly forcing you to post.

"Copied and pasted"? Errrrr.... No.

:)

Edited by The_Dark_Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The_Dark_Knight said:

I'll keep it to this thread for now.

Don't like it? Don't post. I'm hardly forcing you to post.

:)

Seriously though dude, your man has a valid point. It's not so much that we're not up for considering or discussing a change in formation, it's that you turn so many different threads into this one discussion. 

Can't you see how that would make people exasperated? I guess maybe not, as you have self-identified as being "not a people person", so as a people person myself trust me when I tell you it really does make people exasperated. This is why you are being met with such negativity. It's not the idea of a formation change that does it, it's your style of presentation.

This is a football forum. We want to discuss formations. But we also want to talk about other stuff too! Why don't you create a thread for discussing formation experimentation and try and keep the majority of it there? Then people who genuinely do want to think about it and discuss it with you have an appropriate place to do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, mrniaboc said:

Seriously though dude, your man has a valid point. It's not so much that we're not up for considering or discussing a change in formation, it's that you turn so many different threads into this one discussion. 

Can't you see how that would make people exasperated? I guess maybe not, as you have self-identified as being "not a people person", so as a people person myself trust me when I tell you it really does make people exasperated. This is why you are being met with such negativity. It's not the idea of a formation change that does it, it's your style of presentation.

This is a football forum. We want to discuss formations. But we also want to talk about other stuff too! Why don't you create a thread for discussing formation experimentation and try and keep the majority of it there? Then people who genuinely do want to think about it and discuss it with you have an appropriate place to do it. 

 

I think a formations thread would be good, as this one is about McTominay, who had another good game yesterday. Fire up a formations thread @The_Dark_Knight, I'm happy to contribute as seen above, so long as everybody's opinion is respected and not patronised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to note that Liverpool absolutely dominated the second half and adapted to the Man U formation by switching to... 

... the 4-2-3-1, a formation maligned as 'old-fashioned' and 'backwards' and for those who are lacking knowledge of the game on more than one occasion on here.

This freed up space for their fullbacks, which especially told when Robbo managed to get down the left hand side, put a ball into the box and... a goal was scored.

Look right through the leagues in Scotland and, if you must, england, even around Europe, and you will be able to find various formations working to various degrees for various clubs with varying levels of players in varying circumstances. 

You don't need top quality centre halves to win a match with four at the back, nor does 3 at the back without 90 days of non-stop training on the formation beforehand automatically mean you will be as bad as Scotland were in Isreal. Scotland's failure to qualify is not because of 4 at the back, nor is it because we don't have a Kenny Dalglish or a gareth bale. It also isn't because the SFA needs to be disbanded and the earth salted where they sat, just like it isn't because we aren't playing six or 7 under-21 players. 

I confidently predict all such arguments will from here cease, never to return... 

I joke. I enjoy the formation chat, even if I think it's a bit of a red-herring at times. It does have a tendency to get awfully tedious though when the same arguments are rehashed.

The topic at hand; McTominay did reasonably well which is heartening and he's a player who often looks a cut above several others, but he still sometimes seems a bit, I don't know, hesitant? He also has a worrying tendency to get booked for us, which could prove costly down the line (albeit we have relative strength in depth in that area). 

He's hit the bar twice for us, in my immediate memory, but it'd be grand if he could add goals to his game. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mrniaboc said:

Seriously though dude, your man has a valid point. It's not so much that we're not up for considering or discussing a change in formation, it's that you turn so many different threads into this one discussion. 

Can't you see how that would make people exasperated? I guess maybe not, as you have self-identified as being "not a people person", so as a people person myself trust me when I tell you it really does make people exasperated. This is why you are being met with such negativity. It's not the idea of a formation change that does it, it's your style of presentation.

This is a football forum. We want to discuss formations. But we also want to talk about other stuff too! Why don't you create a thread for discussing formation experimentation and try and keep the majority of it there? Then people who genuinely do want to think about it and discuss it with you have an appropriate place to do it. 

Mate, note another thread that I've discussed formation in in the past 30+ hours. I think you'll find, if you're truthful, and you're not some lying moron, that's it's been solely this one.

I could make my "formations and a reality check" thread solely about formations but I haven't.

Go. Check. This is the only thread. :)

Also, not to go completely off topic here, but these people, that you're defending, are accusing you of being me. Not that that's got anything to do with anything, I just think it's amusing that "my alias" is siding with people that are having a go at me. lol

As I said. I'm just going to stick the formation stuff in this thread. I literally said that in my previous thread. So, have you got a problem with me talking about formations in this thread? If so... I really don't care.

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...