Scott McTominay - Page 27 - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Scott McTominay


Chripper

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

We qualified because they introduced another (easier) way to qualify. Nothing to do with changing formation. We drew both our matches. Under the format that was in place for the time period you mention that would be 4 points dropped.

In our last 3 matches using the formation you think would have solved all of our worries, we have lost 2 and drawn 1 against sides of a similar level to ourselves. Again stick those results into a normal qualifiers and we are out.

Moving to a 3 gave us some stability that we have been lacking but also increased our existing problem of not creating or converting chances.

And to be a Scotland fan but not know what foot 3 of our regular squad kick with is just embarrasing.

Agreed.

As improved as the Serbia performance was (compared with Russia and Belgium away) we’re a missed penalty away from losing 3 games, being out the euros and things feeling pretty grim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Tbh I don't think that most fans would know which foot such and such a player kicked with unless it's say for example Robertson or Tierney who play a defined position. Some players are comfortable with both feet too it should be remembered.

There isnt a Scottish player currently in or about the squad who doesnt have a dominant foot that would be obvious to any fan who watches the games.

In fact there are few players in the history of the game that fans would struggle to know what foot they kick with. Thats not to say that some players arent decent with their weaker foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Diamond Scot said:

There isnt a Scottish player currently in or about the squad who doesnt have a dominant foot that would be obvious to any fan who watches the games.

In fact there are few players in the history of the game that fans would struggle to know what foot they kick with. Thats not to say that some players arent decent with their weaker foot.

I doubt my Dad or Grandad could tell me what foot all the guys from they watched in the forties, fifties, sixties, seventies etc kicked with.

As I said I highly doubt that if you quizzed a random bunch of Scotland fans on what foot each of our players kicks with if they would know i) know the answer or ii) honestly give a toss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ErsatzThistle said:

I doubt my Dad or Grandad could tell me what foot all the guys from they watched in the forties, fifties, sixties, seventies etc kicked with.

As I said I highly doubt that if you quizzed a random bunch of Scotland fans on what foot each of our players kicks with if they would know i) know the answer or ii) honestly give a toss.

I can only speak for myself and the guys I go to the game with and can 100% say that we would know.

You cant watch a game of football and not pick up on it. Especially if you have ever played the game at any level. How somebody shapes when receiving the ball, what foot they favour when passing, shooting or tackling. 

Its akin to suggesting we put Fleck on to defend set pieces without knowing he is 5ft fuck all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Diamond Scot said:

I can only speak for myself and the guys I go to the game with and can 100% say that we would know.

You cant watch a game of football and not pick up on it. Especially if you have ever played the game at any level. How somebody shapes when receiving the ball, what foot they favour when passing, shooting or tackling. 

Its akin to suggesting we put Fleck on to defend set pieces without knowing he is 5ft fuck all.

I don't pick up on those things and I'm confident I'm not the only one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Taylor1996 said:

Yeah, me, neither.

But hey, if some people sit gazing at footballer's feet, as opposed to looking at the ball itself, or their team-mates' movement, then peace be with them.


its not so much by watching players feet, it’s watching where they run.  I’m right footed and sometimes played inside left which naturally took me to the centre of the pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Taylor1996 said:

Yeah, me, neither.

But hey, if some people sit gazing at footballer's feet, as opposed to looking at the ball itself, or their team-mates' movement, then peace be with them.

Yip. Cause you need to gaze at a players feet to know what foot they kick with. Dearie me.

Do you just watch the ball lol. Somebody does a lovely step over but you dont see it cause you are jusy starring at the ball. 

Player scores an overhead kick but to you it could have just been a header.

Its the basics of watching a game of football.

All the tactics you talk about, inverted wingers etc. You do realise that these came about because of the foot somebody kicks with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

We qualified because they introduced another (easier) way to qualify. Nothing to do with changing formation. We drew both our matches. Under the format that was in place for the time period you mention that would be 4 points dropped.

In our last 3 matches using the formation you think would have solved all of our worries, we have lost 2 and drawn 1 against sides of a similar level to ourselves. Again stick those results into a normal qualifiers and we are out.

Moving to a 3 gave us some stability that we have been lacking but also increased our existing problem of not creating or converting chances.

And to be a Scotland fan but not know what foot 3 of our regular squad kick with is just embarrasing.

Yes. That is neither here nor there. I'd be willing to bet that Serbia would've beaten us if we kept with the tried and failed system of the past.

My point is, we would've had a better chance of qualifying in the past couple of seasons, if our managers weren't stubborn in terms of keeping it old school.

Don't agree with me? We played with three at the back from, what, 1993 to 2001, so that's 9 years and two successful qualifications. Add to a few months in 2021 playing with a three. So that's three successful qualifications in nine years (and a couple months) out of a possible five.

We played with a four from 2001 to late 2021. That's twenty years. We qualified for zero tournaments out of a possible ten.

3 out of 5 Vs 0 out of 10.

And yet the majority of Scotland fans still wanted to stick with a four.

Fact really is stranger than fiction. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

Yip. Cause you need to gaze at a players feet to know what foot they kick with. Dearie me.

Do you just watch the ball lol. Somebody does a lovely step over but you dont see it cause you are jusy starring at the ball. 

Player scores an overhead kick but to you it could have just been a header.

Its the basics of watching a game of football.

All the tactics you talk about, inverted wingers etc. You do realise that these came about because of the foot somebody kicks with?

The ball is what you look at.

That's something they teach you in primary school. "Don't look at the feet, look at the ball". The aim of football is to pay attention to the ball. 

Not that complicated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Taylor1996 said:

Yes. That is neither here nor there. I'd be willing to bet that Serbia would've beaten us if we kept with the tried and failed system of the past.

My point is, we would've had a better chance of qualifying in the past couple of seasons, if our managers weren't stubborn in terms of keeping it old school.

Don't agree with me? We played with three at the back from, what, 1993 to 2001, so that's 9 years and two successful qualifications. Add to a few months in 2021 playing with a three. So that's three successful qualifications in nine years (and a couple months) out of a possible five.

We played with a four from 2001 to late 2021. That's twenty years. We qualified for zero tournaments out of a possible ten.

3 out of 5 Vs 0 out of 10.

And yet the majority of Scotland fans still wanted to stick with a four.

Fact really is stranger than fiction. 

 

No you said we have been robbed of qualifying for tournaments since 98 because we havent played 3 at the back. 

If I remember correctly the 1st game under Clarke that we played 3 at the back was Israel at home. So we have played 8 games using that system. We have won 3, drawn 3 and lost 2. All against teams of similar or lower ranking to us. 

Apply those stats to any qualifying campaign and we wouldnt qualify. And thats not even taking into account that we would be playing at least 1 top team twice which we havent since changing.

It was the correct call to change to 3 CBs when Clarke did. It allowed us a base and made us harder to beat. We then used the new format which wasnt in place for the 20 years you are referring to in order to draw our way through 120 mins and win on penalties twice.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Diamond Scot said:

No you said we have been robbed of qualifying for tournaments since 98 because we havent played 3 at the back. 

If I remember correctly the 1st game under Clarke that we played 3 at the back was Israel at home. So we have played 8 games using that system. We have won 3, drawn 3 and lost 2. All against teams of similar or lower ranking to us. 

Apply those stats to any qualifying campaign and we wouldnt qualify. And thats not even taking into account that we would be playing at least 1 top team twice which we havent since changing.

It was the correct call to change to 3 CBs when Clarke did. It allowed us a base and made us harder to beat. We then used the new format which wasnt in place for the 20 years you are referring to in order to draw our way through 120 mins and win on penalties twice.

 

Yes. That is what I said. I know, because I'm the one that said it.

For some reason you're ignoring 96 and 98.

Facts don't lie:

3 out of 5 Vs 0 out of 20.

You can say this, that and the other, but the simple fact is the last time we qualified for a tournament, playing four at the back, was 1992.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Taylor1996 said:

The ball is what you look at.

That's something they teach you in primary school. "Don't look at the feet, look at the ball". The aim of football is to pay attention to the ball. 

Not that complicated. 

Theres not a chance in hell that you have played football at any level. 

Put him onto his weaker side!! I cant, ive no idea what foot he kicks with.

Is this going to be an inswinger or outswinging corner? Ive no idea, I will just watch the ball when it starts to come in.

Pass the ball into the players path so he doesnt need to break stride!! Why do you keep playing it to my weaker foot?

I honestly dont know how somebody can watch a game of football and not pick up on that. Its literally ablut the 1st thing you see. Its not even something you need to focus on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Taylor1996 said:

Yes. That is what I said. I know, because I'm the one that said it.

For some reason you're ignoring 96 and 98.

Facts don't lie:

3 out of 5 Vs 0 out of 20.

You can say this, that and the other, but the simple fact is the last time we qualified for a tournament, playing four at the back, was 1992.

 

Im concentrating on the last 22 years as you listed a bunch of players from that time period and said how the managers have robbed them of qualifying because they didnt play 3 CBS. 

Answer me this. Would we have qualified in a normal qualifying group with our results of 3 wins, 3 draws and 2 defeats against similar or lower ranked teams? So for clarity those are the result that we would have got against the teams in pots 3 and 5.

Its also a simple fact that we have qualified for more tournaments playing a back 4 than a back 5. Facts dont lie but you can use them to make useless points!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

Theres not a chance in hell that you have played football at any level. 

Sorry, but I don't think that is a good argument to make to anyone.

To give you one example - there are people out there with health issues that meant they could never actually play the game but they still enjoy watching it, reading about it and talking about it. Their opinion cannot be dismissed just because they have never played the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Sorry, but I don't think that is a good argument to make to anyone.

To give you one example - there are people out there with health issues that meant they could never actually play the game but they still enjoy watching it, reading about it and talking about it. Their opinion cannot be dismissed just because they have never played the game.

I didnt dismiss somebodys opinion because they havent played the game. My post was in reply to a comment about coaching that they recieved. 

There are loads of ppl who havent played at a high level but even guys who play 5 a side with their mates know what foot they kick with.

Its like calling yourself a tennis fan and not knowing that Nadal is left handed then saying it doesnt matter because they just watch the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Diamond Scot said:

Theres not a chance in hell that you have played football at any level. 

Put him onto his weaker side!! I cant, ive no idea what foot he kicks with.

Is this going to be an inswinger or outswinging corner? Ive no idea, I will just watch the ball when it starts to come in.

Pass the ball into the players path so he doesnt need to break stride!! Why do you keep playing it to my weaker foot?

I honestly dont know how somebody can watch a game of football and not pick up on that. Its literally ablut the 1st thing you see. Its not even something you need to focus 

Any level? Even school level? So, you knew the strongest foot of every player in your school?

If you're actually playing yourself, sure, it's easier to see a player's dominant foot if you're actually coming up against a player, but when you're watching a game, either live or the TV, who gives a crap? 

I'm not hung up on stuff like that, because, quite frankly, I couldn't care less.

It's easier to know a player's strongest foot if he's a full back, but if a player whose primary position is the middle, then it's foggy.

I can't believe we're even having this discussion. Blood hell.

Can you do me a favour? Can you wave to me whilst you're at the bottom of the barrel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Diamond Scot said:

Its also a simple fact that we have qualified for more tournaments playing a back 4 than a back 5. Facts dont lie but you can use them to make useless points!!!

Fine.

Let's play the percentage game.

Scotland first entered the World Cup fray in 1954. (We qualified for 1950, but we withdrew, so that's null and void)There's been 17 World Cups where Scotland have attempted qualification:

We've played with a back four for 15 of those campaigns. Qualifying for 7. (46% success rate)

We've played with a back three for two World Cup campaigns. We qualified once. (50% success rate)

For the European Championships, we've participated in 15. Starting at 1968. (15, because of the new qualification route)

We've played with a back four for 12 of those 15 campaigns, qualifying once, in 1992. (8% success rate)

We've played with a back three for three European Championships campaigns. We qualified for two and we narrowly got beat by England for Euro 2000. (75% success rate)

Back four: 27% (Qualification success rate)

Back three: 62.5% (Qualification success rate)

We're dealing with facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to bite my lip on this but it too hard not to...

Not knowing that a guy like McGregor who has 26 caps for Scotland isn’t right footed is very surprising.  Everything he does is with his left foot. Stating that you’re looking at the ball instead is a bizarre excuse. It’s fine not to know, I don’t think anyone is claiming you’re not a fan because you didn’t know. 
 

But...arrogantly stating that Scotland qualified for the Euros because of a formation, and hadn’t qualified previously due to playing a back 4 is weird and shows a lack of understanding. There are so many reasons that we qualified this time around (one of them could have been due to the change of formation). Other (and probably stronger) reasons why we qualified are...better players, better coaches, easier qualifying route, luck on the day, and an effective system and style understood by the players (unrelated to the formation). 

This is all simple correlation not equaling causation. You can’t say that Scotland were robbed of previous tournaments because we played a back 4. 

You really need to reign it in on the formation thing. There’s no need to continuously bring it up. It’s been done to death, we’re are actually playing in a back 3 now, and there doesn’t seem to be any arguments about changing back anytime soon.  
 

Anyway, that McTominay guy is a good player. 
 

 

 


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Diamond Scot said:

Yip. Cause you need to gaze at a players feet to know what foot they kick with. Dearie me.

Do you just watch the ball lol. Somebody does a lovely step over but you dont see it cause you are jusy starring at the ball. 

Player scores an overhead kick but to you it could have just been a header.

Its the basics of watching a game of football.

All the tactics you talk about, inverted wingers etc. You do realise that these came about because of the foot somebody kicks with?

It really is, as Diamond says, the basics of watching football. The confused faces on his posts are quite embarrassing for those who put them there. We really do have supporters who spout so many opinions but don’t actually understand the basics of football. And that’s fine, of course. But a a bit of self-awareness when voicing such opinions wouldn’t go amiss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Given the goals he’s scoring for Man U, I think we need to find a way to move McTominay into midfield. 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Taylor1996 said:

Fine.

Let's play the percentage game.

Scotland first entered the World Cup fray in 1954. (We qualified for 1950, but we withdrew, so that's null and void)There's been 17 World Cups where Scotland have attempted qualification:

We've played with a back four for 15 of those campaigns. Qualifying for 7. (46% success rate)

We've played with a back three for two World Cup campaigns. We qualified once. (50% success rate)

For the European Championships, we've participated in 15. Starting at 1968. (15, because of the new qualification route)

We've played with a back four for 12 of those 15 campaigns, qualifying once, in 1992. (8% success rate)

We've played with a back three for three European Championships campaigns. We qualified for two and we narrowly got beat by England for Euro 2000. (75% success rate)

Back four: 27% (Qualification success rate)

Back three: 62.5% (Qualification success rate)

We're dealing with facts.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Tbh I don't think that most fans would know which foot such and such a player kicked with unless it's say for example Robertson or Tierney who play a defined position. Some players are comfortable with both feet too it should be remembered.

Aye they are, but we are talking about Scotland here remember. Not many of our players are equally uncomfortable with both feet. ;)

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...