Scott McTominay

[Taylor1996]

1 hour ago, Diamond Scot said:

You keep saying we qualified from the Nations League by using a back 3. We didnt. We played the last 2 games (and a defeat in the league) in a back 3. The other games with the possible exception of Albania away as I cant remeber who was playing where that game we used a back 4. 

So the qualifying campaign you keep referring to, we never actually won a game using the formation you are claiming would have led us to more tournaments. * Again its possible we used it in a win against Albania however if thats the crux of your argument I suggest you dont have much of one.

The switch to a back 3 was done at the correct time for us and it served its purpose. We will likely keep it for a bit however its not solved our problems. The scores tell us that.

Im not sure what the comment about the barrell is about as I dont drink in the house. Maybe thats why I can see what foot somebody kicks with.

You say you dont care what foot somebody kicks with. Do you agree that its an important factor is the position somebody plays? Ie if you want your wing back to whip in early crosses then they tend to need to be right footed on the right and vice versa.

If we played with a back four against Serbia, we would be lost. Or are you forgetting about the 13 goals we conceded in just four match, that prompted our formation change? How about before that, when we lost 0-3 to the mighty Kazakhstan?

The barrell comment was that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. Nothing to do with alcohol. 

No. It's not important, at all, that's why God invented inverted wingers and such.

Anyway.

This thread is about Scott McTominay. If you want to talk about formations or which foot a footballer kicks the ball with, make a separate thread,  and maybe I'll contribute. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Taylor1996

[mccaughey85]

4 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

Is mctom back in midfield? I thought he was going upfront. Fleck to wing back, and David Marshall into the triple pivot role 🤣

Perhaps the quadruple pivot with an anchorman? 

[Taylor1996]

6 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Perhaps the quadruple pivot with an anchorman? 

Get on topic or get out.

By whilst we're here:

An article from 2013.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.vavel.com/en/football/2013/12/07/308802.amp.html

It's embarrassing that football fans don't even know what a double-pivot is. Or better yet, it's embarrassing that football fans don't want to learn.

But yeah, I was mocked for suggesting a system change to back three (I was proven right), was mocked for suggesting that we play some players In different positions (Again, I'm right), now I'm being mocked for the double pivot thing. (Hat-trick)

Edited February 11, 2021 by Taylor1996

[Taylor1996]

The first sentence of the article that I just linked, that was published in 2013: (EIGHT YEARS AGO)

"The so-called ‘double pivot’ is rapidly becoming a common term in the footballing word."

Apparently not with some Scotland fans. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Taylor1996

[mccaughey85]

10 minutes ago, Taylor1996 said:

Get on topic or get out.

By whilst we're here:

An article from 2013.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.vavel.com/en/football/2013/12/07/308802.amp.html

It's embarrassing that football fans don't even know what a double-pivot is. Or better yet, it's embarrassing that football fans don't want to learn.

But yeah, I was mocked for suggesting a system change to back three (I was proven right), was mocked for suggesting that we play some players In different positions (Again, I'm right), now I'm being mocked for the double pivot thing. (Hat-trick)

Your not in charge around here so wind yer neck in. 

 

[Taylor1996]

11 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Your not in charge around here so wind yer neck in. 

 

Ohhh! I get it. It's only "derailing threads" when I do it. Gotcha. Didn't know the rules. Now I do.

It's comical that you have seemingly never heard the phrase "double-pivot" since it's been in circulation since the 90s.

And "anchorman" is what it says on the tin: "A midfielder that anchors the midfield". It's self-explanatory. 

It's good to learn. And you don't learn by talking or by mocking.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Taylor1996

[mccaughey85]

1 minute ago, Taylor1996 said:

Ohhh! I get it. It's only "derailing threads" when I do it. Gotcha. Didn't know the rules. Now I do.

It's comical that you have seemingly never heard the phrase "double-pivot" since it's been in circulation since the 90s.

And "anchorman" is what it says on the tin: "A midfielder that anchors the midfield".

It's good to learn. And you don't learn by talking or by mocking.

First of all I don't mind derailing or going off topic with threads. Don't know why you think otherwise. 

Secondly I have heard and known of the double pivot and have done for a very long time. 

I find it comical that you haven't heard of the quadruple pivot also known as the double double pivot. 

Now can you please go back to leaving me alone and not responding to my posts. 

 

[Taylor1996]

9 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

First of all I don't mind derailing or going off topic with threads. Don't know why you think otherwise. 

Secondly I have heard and known of the double pivot and have done for a very long time. 

I find it comical that you haven't heard of the quadruple pivot also known as the double double pivot. 

Now can you please go back to leaving me alone and not responding to my posts. 

 

Oh. So now you're saying that you HAVE heard of the double-pivot. Then why the sarcasm? People don't usually when sarcasm against things that they understand..

Yeah. Nice try. It's obvious that you were being sarcastic and trying to win cheap points.

But fine, you want to play a "quadruple pivot and an anchorman". So, you want to play with five anchormen? Explain.

I'm not the one following you around and trying (and failing) to be funny.

So, as I said, stick to the thread topic, or kindly go. But before you go, explain to me the reasoning behind playing with five midfielders in defensive positions. Thank you. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Taylor1996

[ProudScot]

Thank god Steve Clarke has Chripper to provide him with inspirational groundbreaking ideas and tactical nous.

Thank you Chripper for ending our 20 + year wait for a tournament. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by ProudScot

[mccaughey85]

1 minute ago, Taylor1996 said:

Oh. So now you're saying that you HAVE heard of the double-pivot. Then why the sarcasm? People don't usually when sarcasm against things that they understand..

Yeah. Nice try. It's obvious that you were being sarcastic and trying to win cheap points.

But fine, you want to play a "quadruple pivot and an anchorman". So, you want to play with five anchorman? Explain.

I'm not the one following you around and trying (and failing) to be funny.

So, as I said, stick to the forum topic, or kindly go. But before you go, explain to me the reasoning behind playing with five midfielders in defensive positions. Thank you. 

I never said I haven't heard of the double pivot. 

When have I followed you around? 

As I said your not in charge around here so I will post as I please. 

 

[mccaughey85]

5 minutes ago, ProudScot said:

Thank god Steve Clarke has Chripper to provide him with inspirational groundbreaking ideas and tactical nous.

Thank you Chripper for ending our 20 + year wait for a tournament. 

The man who invented the double pivot. Nobody had ever heard of it before him. 

[Taylor1996]

4 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

I never said I haven't heard of the double pivot. 

When have I followed you around? 

As I said your not in charge around here so I will post as I please. 

 

You were mocking it. People usually mock what they don't understand. 

So, you would play with five midfielders in defensive positions?

How would that even work, logically?

3-7-0 ?

It would be "park the bus" territory and it would make Jose Mourinho look like Kevin Keegan.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Taylor1996

[Diamond Scot]

3 hours ago, Taylor1996 said:

If we played with a back four against Serbia, we would be lost. Or are you forgetting about the 13 goals we conceded in just four match, that prompted our formation change? How about before that, when we lost 0-3 to the mighty Kazakhstan?

The barrell comment was that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. Nothing to do with alcohol. 

No. It's not important, at all, that's why God invented inverted wingers and such.

Anyway.

This thread is about Scott McTominay. If you want to talk about formations or which foot a footballer kicks the ball with, make a separate thread,  and maybe I'll contribute. 

I have said on multiple occasions that changing to 3 at the back when we did was the correct decision. 

Where you are wrong is the proposition that Scotland would have qualified or indeed will qualify for tournaments in the future by using a back 3 as the results dont back this view up.

Its also strange to say that not knowing the double pivot is embarrassing but not knowing what foot your players play with isnt. Especially when suggesting putting said players in different positions.

[Dave78]

The double-double pivot will only become a thing once it appears in Football Manager.

Chripper, which of our players are best suited to the Raumsdeuter role?

[mccaughey85]

12 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

The double-double pivot will only become a thing once it appears in Football Manager.

Chripper, which of our players are best suited to the Raumsdeuter role?

I would like to see a quintuple pivot with a double anchorman and a triple trequartista. 

[Taylor1996]

5 hours ago, Diamond Scot said:

I have said on multiple occasions that changing to 3 at the back when we did was the correct decision. 

Where you are wrong is the proposition that Scotland would have qualified or indeed will qualify for tournaments in the future by using a back 3 as the results dont back this view up.

Its also strange to say that not knowing the double pivot is embarrassing but not knowing what foot your players play with isnt. Especially when suggesting putting said players in different positions.

Fair enough. You are correct.

I've given you the facts and figures:

Back four: 27% (Qualification success rate)

Back three: 62.5% (Qualification success rate)

I just don't really think it's important knowing a player's dominant leg, from a fan's point of view.

[Taylor1996]

10 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

I would like to see a quintuple pivot with a double anchorman and a triple trequartista. 

So you want to see:

0-8-3-0?

No defenders and no strikers?

Well, it is bold, I'll give you that.. 

[ceudmilefailte]

17 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

I would like to see a quintuple pivot with a double anchorman and a triple trequartista. 

Back on topic McTominay could do all that so looking ahead a 1-1-0-1 formation might work.

[Taylor1996]

8 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

Now can you please go back to leaving me alone and not responding to my posts. 

Ah. 

I get it. You just want to respond to other people's post, by trying to mock me and directing sarcasm as me?

You don't wish to talk to me directly.

You're so brave.

(And a great big thank you to the Emoji Army. I'm almost at the magical number of 500! Yay.)

Edited February 11, 2021 by Taylor1996

[mccaughey85]

4 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Back on topic McTominay could do all that so looking ahead a 1-1-0-1 formation might work.

We need to clone mctominay. 10 mctominays and a keeper would be great. 

[mccaughey85]

3 minutes ago, Taylor1996 said:

Ah. 

I get it. You just want to respond to other people's post, by trying to mock me and directing sarcasm as me?

You don't wish to talk to me directly.

You're so brave.

Where have I mocked you? 

[Taylor1996]

6 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Back on topic McTominay could do all that so looking ahead a 1-1-0-1 formation might work.

In fairness, makes as much sense as the 0-8-3-0 that Captain Courage suggested.

[Taylor1996]

3 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Where have I mocked you? 

You haven't posted one serious post in this thread, so, take your pick.

Tried to mock me. Not quite achieved your mark.

[mccaughey85]

Just now, Taylor1996 said:

You haven't posted one serious post in this thread, so, take your pick.

Tried to mock me. Not quite achieved your mark.

Where have I mocked you? I am just shocked you haven't heard of the quad pivot. such ignorance. 

[Taylor1996]

2 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Where have I mocked you? I am just shocked you haven't heard of the quad pivot. such ignorance. 

You just said that you would play a 0-8-3-0

Either you're trying to take the piss or Boots is shut and you've ran out of meds.

Citing history, I'd say that it's lack of football knowledge... and the meds thing.