Scottish players in action 19/20

[ErsatzThistle]

Has anyone actually seen Todd Kane (the QPR right back we've been linked with) in action ? Thoughts ? 

[er yir macaroon]

1 hour ago, Toepoke said:

I remember reading an interview with Craig Brown about his tactics.  He plumped for 3 at the back as it was used by Germany to great success over the years. Also it assisted with nullifying a strike partnership at a time when most sides went with 2 up front.

Five at the back really.

My problem is, in this formation, more often than not, Robertson will be over the half way line, the left centre half will be obliged to shift to left back and you could drive a bus through our back line. The full backs need to stay in defence but then we lose one of our main goal threats. Defensive mid is not going to plug the gaps. I’ll accept five at the back if that’s what it takes to stop shipping goals, but if it’s a middle three with Fraser on one side and Robertson on the other, forget it.

[Squirrelhumper]

12 hours ago, Arbroath1320 said:

They used to say Kenny Dalglish never replicated his club form at Liverpool when he played for Scotland. In reality, he was too good for the Scottish diddies he had to play alongside who did not have his intelligence and did not know how to play alongside him. McAllister, Collins and Lambert carried eight other ordinary Scots into the 1998 World Cup. Don't  criticise Robertson who's turning up to play with English lower league players when he plays for Scotland. When we have players like Liverpool, he'll reproduce his Liverpool form. 

Robertson issue is he's not that good at defending.

[Squirrelhumper]

7 hours ago, Return of Yermaw said:

we played 4-4-2 against Brazil and Norway. when we changed to 3 at the back against Morocco we got horsed. 

That's my recollection of it.

Edited October 22, 2019 by Squirrelhumper

[Squirrelhumper]

7 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

No. I recently watched the entirety of the six matches of Euro 96 and France 98.

 

You really need to get a life.

[mrniaboc]

57 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Robertson issue is he's not that good at defending.

Lol. 

[mrniaboc]

10 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

The whole was greater than the sum of its parts. Hell, at France 98 Boyd was a center back.

Brown moulded then into a three/five defensive man unit.

Hope that isn't lost on anyone.

Hahahaha you just couldn't help yourself, could you? 

[Squirrelhumper]

1 hour ago, mrniaboc said:

Lol. 

He's not.

Very good going forward but suspect at the back. Just doesn't have to defend much for Liverpool.

[0Neils40yarder]

16 hours ago, ceudmilefailte said:

When you find out what international class means let me know, it's used around here to describe loads of players despite what they are capable of at club level.

The likes of Mcallister, McClair and now Robertson would appear to be more capable at club level but were/are unsuited to international football.

By definition they must not be "international class"

McAllister was an excellent player for Scotland 

[Squirrelhumper]

6 minutes ago, 0Neils40yarder said:

McAllister was an excellent player for Scotland 

Agreed.

[mrniaboc]

13 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

He's not.

Very good going forward but suspect at the back. Just doesn't have to defend much for Liverpool.

I think if you watch a little closer you'll see he's a lot better defensively than you give him credit for. He stands people up well, can time tackles, and his reading of when to cover the gaps left by other defenders is impeccable. 

[0Neils40yarder]

It's much harder to be a good defender, when you're under the cosh for 90minutes, and you've got Charlie Mulgrew beside you, rather than VVD. 

 

Robbo is a top class left back, but playing for Scotland must dae his tits in

[Squirrelhumper]

12 minutes ago, mrniaboc said:

I think if you watch a little closer you'll see he's a lot better defensively than you give him credit for. He stands people up well, can time tackles, and his reading of when to cover the gaps left by other defenders is impeccable. 

We'll agree to disagree.

[Toepoke]

1 hour ago, 0Neils40yarder said:

McAllister was an excellent player for Scotland 

Yep, unfairly vilified for having a penalty luckily saved.  He was a huge miss at France 98.

 

[AndyDD]

Robbo is diligent defensively, works very hard when caught out of shape and can tackle very well, indeed put in some crucial tackles in Liverpool's two games with Barca in the champions league to much acclaim at the time. 

However, he is caught out of shape quite a lot, which is why he needs to work hard to get back when caught out. Some of this is due to it being in Liverpool and Scotland's nature (Patterson, SOD and Palmer have all been in the same boat on the right, including in the run up to conceding some goals)  but I would argue he is caught of of shape more than the liverpool right back is. That might be because Liverpool go down the left more than they go down the right, I'm not sure. Certainly we tend to go down our left more than our right, given our left back is superior to our right back and we have had Fraser in front of Robbo in many games. So it kind of follows that if you go up your left flank more, you are liable to be caught out down your left more. 

Anyway; disappointing Tierney didn't play last night for arsenal but hopefully gets another 90 mins on Thursday in Europa League. 

[The_Dark_Knight]

4 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

You really need to get a life.

Yes.

A person who likes to watch Scotland playing football should get a life...

That is, hands down, the most bizarre statement that I've ever read on here. (This is still a football forum, right?)

There are 8760 hours in a Year, multiple it by the most recent time that I watched those matches (21 years ago), that would be 183,960 hours. Six 90 minutes matches are approximately 9 hours.

So, what you're saying, essentially, is that in my previous 183,960 hours on Earth I need a "life" because I dedicated 9 hours to watching 6 football matches?

Just because I took nine hours out of one hundred and eighty three thousand, nine hundred and sixty hours you're saying that I need a "life"?

Couldn't you say that about 99% of things, though? I mean, the Godfather Trilogy has a total runtime of 10 hours. Lord of the Rings has 11 hours. Breaking Bad is 133 hours long. Are people not allowed to watch movies/TV? 

Give me a schedule of your weekly life and I'll tell you which parts are a waste of your time and which aren't. You're a Kilmarnock fan? Don't you think it's a waste of time and a clear sign that you need a "life" for spending tens of hours a season watching football? It makes it even sadder knowing that you know the final result before a ball's been kicked (Psssttt… Celtic will win the league. Don't let it leave this post)

You've accumulated an astounding amount of posts in this place (8,767). I could just as easily say that that's time wasted. But I won't. Because I mind my own business.

Just do you, mate. 

[The_Dark_Knight]

4 hours ago, mrniaboc said:

Hahahaha you just couldn't help yourself, could you? 

No.

And I'm not going to lie, I didn't try. 

[kumnio]

Can the people who said chripper was unfairly banned just admit they were wrong. His new incarnation is even worse, what a boring tedious self indulgent shit stain of a pleb. 

I was suspended for telling him to top himself before he was killed off by the mods. It’s time for another funeral, just decapitate the body so the zombie cunt can’t come back. 

[ParisInAKilt]

1 hour ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Yes.

A person who likes to watch Scotland playing football should get a life...

That is, hands down, the most bizarre statement that I've ever read on here. (This is still a football forum, right?)

There are 8760 hours in a Year, multiple it by the most recent time that I watched those matches (21 years ago), that would be 183,960 hours. Six 90 minutes matches are approximately 9 hours.

So, what you're saying, essentially, is that in my previous 183,960 hours on Earth I need a "life" because I dedicated 9 hours to watching 6 football matches?

Just because I took nine hours out of one hundred and eighty three thousand, nine hundred and sixty hours you're saying that I need a "life"?

Couldn't you say that about 99% of things, though? I mean, the Godfather Trilogy has a total runtime of 10 hours. Lord of the Rings has 11 hours. Breaking Bad is 133 hours long. Are people not allowed to watch movies/TV? 

Give me a schedule of your weekly life and I'll tell you which parts are a waste of your time and which aren't. You're a Kilmarnock fan? Don't you think it's a waste of time and a clear sign that you need a "life" for spending tens of hours a season watching football? It makes it even sadder knowing that you know the final result before a ball's been kicked (Psssttt… Celtic will win the league. Don't let it leave this post)

You've accumulated an astounding amount of posts in this place (8,767). I could just as easily say that that's time wasted. But I won't. Because I mind my own business.

Just do you, mate. 

😂😂😂

[aaid]

In the 1990s, when Brown played with three centre backs in a 3-5-2, although it was probably more often than not a 5-3-2 it was a fairly common formation used by a number of sides.  We also had a number of good centre backs who either played in the formation at their clubs or were adaptable enough to play it at international level.   In fact we had so many decent centre backs that Brown started five away to Belgium in 2001.

The other aspect of "three at the back" is the wide players, or wing backs as they were known then.  We didn't really have many recognised wing backs, what we tended to do was to utilise midfielders in those positions.  Craig Burley for example probably played there for about his first 20 or so caps.  However, he'd come through the ranks at Chelsea under Hoddle who was a great proponent of 3-5-2 and that's largely where Burley played at club level.  Similarly Dailly also played there as a young player.

Where we currently stand is that we aren't blessed with a surplus of quality centre backs, it's probably our weakest position and similarly, as most clubs play a flat back four, we don't have players who are familiar with playing as a "wing back".

In club football - depending on your transfer budget - it's possible for a manager to have a favoured formation and then buy players into fill any gaps he has.   That's not the case in International football for pretty obvious reasons.  An international manager has to come up a formation that makes the best use of the players available to him and then stick to that.

I can't see, given the players available to him, how Steve Clarke can put together a team based on 5-3-2, 3-5-2, 3-4-3 or whatever variant that makes us better, in fact I'd suspect it would make us worse as.  

 

[The_Dark_Knight]

1 minute ago, aaid said:

In the 1990s, when Brown played with three centre backs in a 3-5-2, although it was probably more often than not a 5-3-2 it was a fairly common formation used by a number of sides.  We also had a number of good centre backs who either played in the formation at their clubs or were adaptable enough to play it at international level.   In fact we had so many decent centre backs that Brown started five away to Belgium in 2001.

The other aspect of "three at the back" is the wide players, or wing backs as they were known then.  We didn't really have many recognised wing backs, what we tended to do was to utilise midfielders in those positions.  Craig Burley for example probably played there for about his first 20 or so caps.  However, he'd come through the ranks at Chelsea under Hoddle who was a great proponent of 3-5-2 and that's largely where Burley played at club level.  Similarly Dailly also played there as a young player.

Where we currently stand is that we aren't blessed with a surplus of quality centre backs, it's probably our weakest position and similarly, as most clubs play a flat back four, we don't have players who are familiar with playing as a "wing back".

In club football - depending on your transfer budget - it's possible for a manager to have a favoured formation and then buy players into fill any gaps he has.   That's not the case in International football for pretty obvious reasons.  An international manager has to come up a formation that makes the best use of the players available to him and then stick to that.

I can't see, given the players available to him, how Steve Clarke can put together a team based on 5-3-2, 3-5-2, 3-4-3 or whatever variant that makes us better, in fact I'd suspect it would make us worse as.  

 

Could you post it here, mate?

[aaid]

1 minute ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Could you post it here, mate?

No

[The_Dark_Knight]

Just now, aaid said:

No

[aaid]

19 hours ago, Arbroath1320 said:

They used to say Kenny Dalglish never replicated his club form at Liverpool when he played for Scotland. In reality, he was too good for the Scottish diddies he had to play alongside who did not have his intelligence and did not know how to play alongside him. McAllister, Collins and Lambert carried eight other ordinary Scots into the 1998 World Cup. Don't  criticise Robertson who's turning up to play with English lower league players when he plays for Scotland. When we have players like Liverpool, he'll reproduce his Liverpool form. 

That would be Scottish diddies like Alan Hansen, Graeme Souness, John Wark, Gary Gillespie and Steve Nicol then?

[The_Dark_Knight]

3 hours ago, aaid said:

No

Rebuttal:

https://www.tamb.net/forum/index.php?/topic/14378-formations-and-a-much-needed-reality-check/page/2/#comments