Starting 11 v Belgium

[aaid]

42 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Was thinking that this morning, be a shame if he drops out the squad.

I think KT will go right back though when fit.

I think that's the only option.  Based on his debut last night it's a pity Taylor isn't a right back as I can't see him getting too many caps with Robertson and Tierney ahead of him.

I'm not going to criticise Stephen O"Donnell, he did his best but ultimately he's not good enough to play at International level but is probably the best natural right back we have.

The options therefore are hope someone comes through the youths,, there don't look like many candidates, convince some "eligible" to play for us or play someone out of position and the best person for that looks like Tierney.

i know people will say that means that Tierney won't be as effective as if he was on the left and that's true.  However, he'll be a lot more effective than he would be sitting on the bench.  Let's face it, the way Robertson has kicked on in the last couple of years - and the fact he's captain - means he's the first name on the team sheet. 

It's a no brainer for me unless a natural right back appears out of the blue.

Edited June 12, 2019 by aaid

[aaid]

14 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

it's both surely.

Not really.  England has had similar levels of the sorts of immigration mentioned for decades and have underachieved during that period.   Somewhat worryingly though they seem to have cottoned no and are now being successful at youth level and hats translating itself to the A team.  What happened? They overhauled their youth development system and they're now starting to se the benefits of that  

 

[Caledonian Craig]

I must be the only one that noticed Forrest and Fraser were totally spent on Saturday. Fresh legs were needed and Clarke intended on a team thst could keep it tight and keep possession as much as possible and certainly Forrest and McGinn don't fit that bill. Given that we very nearly got to half-time at 0-0 I would say the gameplan worked aside from players switching off.

I think Clarke wanted to keep Fraser and Forrest back and introduce them later as an attacking option to have pace to attack tiring opponents.

[Mox]

4 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

I'm not sure what folk see in McKenna btw.

He can header a ball and that's about it, his distribution is utterly woeful.

[vanderark14]

45 minutes ago, Mox said:

He can header a ball and that's about it, his distribution is utterly woeful.

Mox with the dramatic again

[SMcoolJ]

19 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

Mox with the dramatic again

Best ignored - always the same three people with the same three comments.

[andyD]

1 hour ago, Mox said:

He can header a ball and that's about it, his distribution is utterly woeful.

Didn't not his distribution to be particularly bad. Marshall stood out on that front.

Mostly we tried to play out from the back, tho there were a few hoofs to nowhere, but that's not surprising given the pressure we were under and it's also sometimes the best thing to do.. get rid.. avoid the current risk and give us a moment to reorganise.

[Morrisandmoo]

3 hours ago, daviebee said:

That was the most noticeable thing for me, the calmness in and around our own box.  Actually quite impressive.

I'm not too despondent - we were playing the No. 1 ranked team in the world without our only world-class player and having to throw a rookie on in his place.  The first goal was an absolute sickener though.  3 men should've surrounded Hazard when he was on the bye-line giving him nowhere to go.  Second goal was offside and the 3rd was really just icing on the cake for them.  If we'd gone in at 0-0 and kept it tight at the start of the 2nd half...

As for our rookie - I thought Greg Taylor was brilliant considering what he was facing.  So what do we do now with him and Tierney?  He should be in the squad to stay going by that performance.

I agree. Think we looked organised and comfortable on the ball. Belgium are just much better at football than us. 

I'm confident we will keep getting better. Would love to see Griffiths's back more than anything. 

Over the two games I'm happy enough with McKenna and mulgrew. Would like to see them continue to build a partnership across this campaign. 

[Morrisandmoo]

Also thought mctominay was excellent,  despite switching off for the first goal. 

[SMcoolJ]

7 minutes ago, Morrisandmoo said:

Also thought mctominay was excellent,  despite switching off for the first goal. 

I don't think he's quite getting the credit he deserves from last night.  Him and McLean, despite being at fault for the goal,  were superb and tried to play football throughout.  

The most baffling thing for me was the starting 11.  I have absolute faith in Clarke and believe he is the right man for the job and will turn us around but why not start Fraser and to a lesser extent Forrest?

[Caledonian Craig]

4 minutes ago, SMcoolJ said:

 

The most baffling thing for me was the starting 11.  I have absolute faith in Clarke and believe he is the right man for the job and will turn us around but why not start Fraser and to a lesser extent Forrest?

Both were utterly knackered after Saturday. Plus Forrest is certainly not the type of player to do pressing and keeping possession whilst covering back as Clarke wanted us to keep it tight and press players in possession. 

[SMcoolJ]

3 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Both were utterly knackered after Saturday. Plus Forrest is certainly not the type of player to do pressing and keeping possession whilst covering back as Clarke wanted us to keep it tight and press players in possession. 

Didn't look utterly knackered when he came on.  I'm not buying that.

ETA - appreciate it's with hindsight, but Russell is far less effective defensively than Forrest.

Edited June 12, 2019 by SMcoolJ

[Caledonian Craig]

Just now, SMcoolJ said:

Didn't look utterly knackered when he came on.  I'm not buying that.

Look Clarke is smart enough to know what side to start with. Forrest and Fraser are fine if you want to play an open type game but Clarke had other plans in mind. A much tighter set up keeping it tight in defence and midfield and Forrest and Fraser are not of that ilk. His set up almost got us through to half-time at 0-0. He was evidently hoping that to be the case and then try to be a bit more attacking the more we were still in the game bringing Forrest and Fraser's pace on to attack tiring players. 

[SMcoolJ]

2 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Look Clarke is smart enough to know what side to start with. Forrest and Fraser are fine if you want to play an open type game but Clarke had other plans in mind. A much tighter set up keeping it tight in defence and midfield and Forrest and Fraser are not of that ilk. His set up almost got us through to half-time at 0-0. He was evidently hoping that to be the case and then try to be a bit more attacking the more we were still in the game bringing Forrest and Fraser's pace on to attack tiring players. 

I think he'd achieved that with Fraser starting.

[Caledonian Craig]

12 minutes ago, SMcoolJ said:

 

ETA - appreciate it's with hindsight, but Russell is far less effective defensively than Forrest.

Well he played the first 45 minutes last night in a team and set-up that almost shut-out Belgium so he couldn't have done that shabby.

Edited June 12, 2019 by Caledonian Craig

[SMcoolJ]

Just now, Caledonian Craig said:

Well he played the first 45 minutes last night in a team and set-up that almost shut-out Belgium so he couldn't have done that shabby.

However you look at we were losing 1-0 at half time having also ridden our luck to achieve that. 

Clarke is clearly way more qualified than me to be picking the team. I just think Russell over Fraser was a mistake as was further evidenced by the bulk of the issues coming down our right side. 

[Auld_Reekie]

17 minutes ago, SMcoolJ said:

I don't think he's quite getting the credit he deserves from last night.  Him and McLean, despite being at fault for the goal,  were superb and tried to play football throughout.  

The most baffling thing for me was the starting 11.  I have absolute faith in Clarke and believe he is the right man for the job and will turn us around but why not start Fraser and to a lesser extent Forrest?

For me, I actually think this is to Clarke's credit. It would have been reasonably easy to pick Fraser and Forrest and roll the dice knowing he's unlikely to get much criticism given the opposition. He's two games in, has the team setup like they actually know what they are doing and hasn't been afraid to make tough calls on his starting XI. I'd also have started Fraser but I doubt it would have made much of a difference at all - just happy to have a manager again who at least seems to know what he's doing. 

[er yir macaroon]

8 minutes ago, SMcoolJ said:

However you look at we were losing 1-0 at half time having also ridden our luck to achieve that. 

Clarke is clearly way more qualified than me to be picking the team. I just think Russell over Fraser was a mistake as was further evidenced by the bulk of the issues coming down our right side. 

Hazard was operating on that side of the pitch. Second best player in the world i would think. 

[Caledonian Craig]

6 minutes ago, Auld_Reekie said:

For me, I actually think this is to Clarke's credit. It would have been reasonably easy to pick Fraser and Forrest and roll the dice knowing he's unlikely to get much criticism given the opposition. He's two games in, has the team setup like they actually know what they are doing and hasn't been afraid to make tough calls on his starting XI. I'd also have started Fraser but I doubt it would have made much of a difference at all - just happy to have a manager again who at least seems to know what he's doing. 

I agree.

Fraser started (as did Robertson) when we played Belgium at home and we lost 4-0.

[SMcoolJ]

5 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

Hazard was operating on that side of the pitch. Second best player in the world i would think. 

He started on the other side but gravitated to where he was getting more joy.  

[SMcoolJ]

10 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

I agree.

Fraser started (as did Robertson) when we played Belgium at home and we lost 4-0.

Complete irrelevance!  There were so many other variables.  By that logic we should never start Robertson and Fraser again because they were once on the wrong side of a humping?! If that applies, we're really going to struggle to ever get a team on the pitch.

Edited June 12, 2019 by SMcoolJ

[Caledonian Craig]

9 minutes ago, SMcoolJ said:

Complete irrelevance!  There were so many other variables.  By that logic we should never start Robertson and Fraser again because they were once on the wrong side of a humping?! If that applies, we're really going to struggle to ever get a team on the pitch.

No my point is that starting Fraser last night did not guarantee solidity at the back. That is what Clarke was evidently striving for with his team changes.

[SMcoolJ]

7 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

No my point is that starting Fraser last night did not guarantee solidity at the back. That is what Clarke was evidently striving for with his team changes.

I don't debate that he was trying to find the best defensive formation.  My point was that Fraser is surely a better option in front of a fullback given his experience of playing there and pace to provide cover as well as take us forward (like he proved when he came on). Russell is a no10/forward. Remains a strange choice in my mind.  that all said, I don't know what goes on at training nor do i know what Fraser's state of mind/appetite to play was.

[andyD]

2 hours ago, Morrisandmoo said:

Also thought mctominay was excellent,  despite switching off for the first goal. 

He and the ball were going in very different directions, I don't think he could really have got close.
McLean on the other hand just stops and starts appealing for it being a goal kick when he could have got there and pressured Hazard.

[andyD]

2 hours ago, Auld_Reekie said:

For me, I actually think this is to Clarke's credit. It would have been reasonably easy to pick Fraser and Forrest and roll the dice knowing he's unlikely to get much criticism given the opposition. He's two games in, has the team setup like they actually know what they are doing and hasn't been afraid to make tough calls on his starting XI. I'd also have started Fraser but I doubt it would have made much of a difference at all - just happy to have a manager again who at least seems to know what he's doing. 

I get the idea of playing deep, looking to shut Belgium out. Essentially playing for the draw and hoping for some Faddy-esque magic to produce a win.

But if that was the plan.. then why Russell? He's a wide forward if anything and certainly wasn't managing his man as well as he should have while he was playing out wide. Playing Shinnie in front of Taylor and McGregor on the right would make more sense. or put Palmer on at right mid, as he's played there a fair bit at club level and has much better defensive instincts than Russell, while still being able to put a cross in.

Fraser came on, worked harder and looked more energetic than Russell did.