Squirrelhumper Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 19 minutes ago, wanderer said: with 2 goals this season, he is probably the most "on form" striker we have available in the squad...... At the moment I think it will be very close between Phillips and McBurnie over who starts (with the Steven Reid link with WBA, I actually can see Phillips starting, and McBurnie left to come on later on) SOD has scored two goals, might as well play him up top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccaughey85 Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 It has to be mcburnie upfront imo, there's good chance our goals(if there are any)will come from our wingers or Christie tbh. I don't mind Phillips and would happy see him subbed on second half for Forrest or Fraser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 21 minutes ago, gaz7 said: we can all dream even after last 20 years. i dont know if it would work but i know those 4 midfielders and 2 wingers have all started season well and we do not have an out and out striker who has done very much. i always read about strikers who dont hold ball in well enough to let midfielders to get up and help and always think why put 1 striker with his back to goal all game up against 2 or 3 6ft plus defenders as very rarely have i saw it working. give the ball to fraser,forrest,mcginn or christie in space who can all run at defenders. good players can find space and those 4 are imo good players. It kinda made a wee bit of sense for Levien to try it. At that time the only strikers we had were Miller and Fletcher, neither of whom could hit a coo's erse wi a banjo. Nowadays we have goal machines like McBurnie and eh..........eh........oh aye, right enough, maybe you've got a point. You might be starting to convince me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanderer Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 14 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said: SOD has scored two goals, might as well play him up top. If Eck was still manager I would not put it past him....... Given the number of times the likes of Robbo, Fraser, SOD etc were putting excellent crosses into the box v Cyprus and Brophy was nowhere to be seen, I suspect he will go for the target man. Most likely McBurnie or Phillips.... I think if Naismith was fitter he could have had a great chance of sneaking in (and done a job for us) but noticed Hearts have been playing him a lot deeper than he usually plays (certainly came on and changed game v Aberdeen few weeks back). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningtings Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 7 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said: 3-5-2 Marshall Bates - Cooper - Mulgrew Snodgrass - Taylor Robertson McTominay - McGinn McBurnie - Fraser Worst team ever. 1 hour ago, bigfingers said: Marshall O'Donnell...Cooper...Mulgrew...Robertson ...........Mcgregor....McTominay Forrest.......McGinn........Fraser Mcburnie With Christie being our supersub if needed. This will be the team I think, I think we'll do ok against Russia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ElChris04 Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 7 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said: 3-5-2 Marshall Bates - Cooper - Mulgrew Snodgrass - Taylor Robertson McTominay - McGinn McBurnie - Fraser Gonna be honest here. I’ve burst out laughing at that line up it’s that bad. Snodgrass RB? Robertson CDM? Fraser ST? You're having a laugh surely 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ElChris04 Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 My line up MacGillvery O'Donnell- Mulgrew-Cooper-Robertson McTominay-McGinn Forrest-Christie-Fraser McBurnie Can’t afford to not start Christie, his form has been magic. Unfortunately McGregor gets cut from the team, Soley on the grounds he looked quite reckless in the old firm and was late to challenges, something we can’t afford against Russia. Where as McGinn and McTominay have both strolled there past games in there role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tartan blood Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 Our wingers, Forrest and Fraser, pick themselves. GK and CBs pick themselves as well, but for different reasons i.e lack of options (Marshall, Mulgrew and Cooper). Midfield is where we are strongest and gives Clarke the biggest dilemma. However, I would say if we are going to compete against Russia, we need to dominate the centre of the pitch. Which means having McGinn, McTominay and McGregor starting. All 3 can be disciplined and take turns at joining in attacks. Getting the ball to Forrest or Fraser will always cause opposition problems, especially on the counter. Who to aim at is the biggest problem. My money is on McBurnie, though I couldn't say if he is necessarily the best pick. Marshall O'Donnell Cooper Mulgrew Robertson McTominay McGregor McGinn Forrest Fraser McBurnie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrniaboc Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 2 hours ago, gaz7 said: lol i know but im hoping its more the barca false 9 than leveins 4-6-0 that would happen Seriously though, looking at the 6 from that fateful night versus the 6 we have on offer right now we have: Caldwell D Fletcher Naismith Mackie Morrison Dorrans vs McTominay McGregor McGinn Fraser Forrest Christie Who would be your best 6 from those 12 players? I think I'd go with Fletch then any 5 from the second 6. See, our squad is actually quite promising when you compare it to recent history! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrniaboc Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 12 minutes ago, Tartan blood said: Our wingers, Forrest and Fraser, pick themselves. GK and CBs pick themselves as well, but for different reasons i.e lack of options (Marshall, Mulgrew and Cooper). Midfield is where we are strongest and gives Clarke the biggest dilemma. However, I would say if we are going to compete against Russia, we need to dominate the centre of the pitch. Which means having McGinn, McTominay and McGregor starting. All 3 can be disciplined and take turns at joining in attacks. Getting the ball to Forrest or Fraser will always cause opposition problems, especially on the counter. Who to aim at is the biggest problem. My money is on McBurnie, though I couldn't say if he is necessarily the best pick. Marshall O'Donnell Cooper Mulgrew Robertson McTominay McGregor McGinn Forrest Fraser McBurnie I think you're right. I'd be surprised if the starting lineup doesn't look very similar to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tartan blood Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, mrniaboc said: Seriously though, looking at the 6 from that fateful night versus the 6 we have on offer right now we have: Caldwell D Fletcher Naismith Mackie Morrison Dorrans vs McTominay McGregor McGinn Fraser Forrest Christie Who would be your best 6 from those 12 players? I think I'd go with Fletch then any 5 from the second 6. See, our squad is actually quite promising when you compare it to recent history! Well I'd have Caldwell in defence for a start. I think Fletcher was at his peak around then, too. But, I agree, our young developing midfield could be the strongest we've had for a long time. Christie started out as a striker, if i remember correctly, and plays very high up the pitch even now with Celtic. So starting with him (as a centre forward) wouldn't necessarily be a negative, though I doubt that is what Clarke will go with. Edited September 4, 2019 by Tartan blood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyDD Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 2 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said: Folk seriously starting Philips up top? jesus. Not with any great degree of relish, but when there is such a paucity of options it merits consideration. His pace will be an asset when it comes to getting us up the pitch when under pressure. His physicality- stature, low centre of gravity, strength and height combined with powerful and quick running- will win us freekicks and give centre halves something to think about. Rather like Oli Burke, only not as quick nor as clumsy. Our threat is from our midfielders, so our striker has to be whomever is best suited to get the best out of them. This is why I was hoping Steven Fletcher would play on, but he seems to have packed it in. No him, no griffiths, no Burke, Naismith isn't fit. So, be it Phillips, Mcburnie, Russel or Naismith, you're having to make do with less than ideal choices. No matter what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanderark14 Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tartan blood said: Our wingers, Forrest and Fraser, pick themselves. GK and CBs pick themselves as well, but for different reasons i.e lack of options (Marshall, Mulgrew and Cooper). Midfield is where we are strongest and gives Clarke the biggest dilemma. However, I would say if we are going to compete against Russia, we need to dominate the centre of the pitch. Which means having McGinn, McTominay and McGregor starting. All 3 can be disciplined and take turns at joining in attacks. Getting the ball to Forrest or Fraser will always cause opposition problems, especially on the counter. Who to aim at is the biggest problem. My money is on McBurnie, though I couldn't say if he is necessarily the best pick. Marshall O'Donnell Cooper Mulgrew Robertson McTominay McGregor McGinn Forrest Fraser McBurnie That’s the team I would go with, as long as forrest turns up we will score. EDIT id be happy with Christie in the attacking midfield role too Edited September 4, 2019 by vanderark14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyDD Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 1 hour ago, vanderark14 said: That’s the team I would go with, as long as forrest turns up we will score. EDIT id be happy with Christie in the attacking midfield role too My worry on Sunday, watching the old firm game, was that Forrest seemed a bit tired. Him, Mcgregor and Christie have played a lot of games and done a lot of travelling over the last month and a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazmidd Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 Surprised to not see McLean in more starting line ups, he was arguably our best player the last two qualifiers. Hasn't started for Norwich since the opening day of the season though tbf. Harsh to leave him out but McGregor is a fantastic Midfield player. McGinn started season well but just hasn't done it for Scotland recently and Christie is on fire and can make things happen. I would probably go with... Marshall O'Donnell Cooper Mulgrew Robertson McTominay McGregor Forrest Christie Fraser McBurnie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romanticscot Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 I am sure they will be fine, they have had from Sunday to Friday with no midweek game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romanticscot Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 McBurnie too lightweight for me against Russia so went with Philips. Taylor was great last game and want him on the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killiefaetheferry Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 Just saw that Eden and Thorgen Hazard both out, as well as Witsel, Kompany and Boyata. They still have great players in every position though 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romanticscot Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 Just now, killiefaetheferry said: Just saw that Eden and Thorgen Hazard both out, as well as Witsel, Kompany and Boyata. They still have great players in every position though 😂 I read a similar article and thought hey this is great, then I looked at their squad and though, hmmm not much difference. A draw would be fantastic but honestly we can lose this, its all about the Russia games, providing we don't slip up anywhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dark_Knight Posted September 4, 2019 Author Share Posted September 4, 2019 5 hours ago, ElChris04 said: Gonna be honest here. I’ve burst out laughing at that line up it’s that bad. Snodgrass RB? Robertson CDM? Fraser ST? You're having a laugh surely 😂 Snodgrass would be right wing-back. I'm not discussing the Robertson thing as I've probably explained that decision a thought times on here (If Alaba and Kimmich are good enough to switch between full back for their club and anchorman for their country Robertson certainly is) As for Fraser, as with all creative players, i'd give him a free-role. The thing that makes me laugh is everyone has chosen a flat back four. The last time we qualified for a tournament playing with a back four was almost thirty (30) years ago. Whereas, we played with a back three from '95 to 2000 and qualified for a World Cup, a European Championship and it would've been a third if England didn't beat us (luckily) in the '99 playoffs. But oh wait, we tried a three against Israel away and got beat. I suppose that's that then. Back to the beloved four at the back... Then Kazakhstan demolishes us. It's completely hypocritical. People moan about the away match to Israel when a back three is brought up, and yet we've been humiliation countless times playing a back four, and yet no one suggests that we look outside the box and do something different. This obsession Scotland fans have with a back four is ludicrous. The last ten qualifiers we've played with a back four we have failed. My obsession with a three is logical and forged in fact, and that fact is growing we qualified for '96 and '98, with Scotland teams that were limited at the back and up front. And yet we were organised, we had a club spirit and we're hard to beat. I expect us to play with a back four on Friday, as I do the foreseeable future. And for that reason (people have stated, and rightly so, that teams no better than us qualify for tournaments) we'll always be lambs to the slaughter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tartan blood Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 41 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said: Snodgrass would be right wing-back. I'm not discussing the Robertson thing as I've probably explained that decision a thought times on here (If Alaba and Kimmich are good enough to switch between full back for their club and anchorman for their country Robertson certainly is) As for Fraser, as with all creative players, i'd give him a free-role. The thing that makes me laugh is everyone has chosen a flat back four. The last time we qualified for a tournament playing with a back four was almost thirty (30) years ago. Whereas, we played with a back three from '95 to 2000 and qualified for a World Cup, a European Championship and it would've been a third if England didn't beat us (luckily) in the '99 playoffs. But oh wait, we tried a three against Israel away and got beat. I suppose that's that then. Back to the beloved four at the back... Then Kazakhstan demolishes us. It's completely hypocritical. People moan about the away match to Israel when a back three is brought up, and yet we've been humiliation countless times playing a back four, and yet no one suggests that we look outside the box and do something different. This obsession Scotland fans have with a back four is ludicrous. The last ten qualifiers we've played with a back four we have failed. My obsession with a three is logical and forged in fact, and that fact is growing we qualified for '96 and '98, with Scotland teams that were limited at the back and up front. And yet we were organised, we had a club spirit and we're hard to beat. I expect us to play with a back four on Friday, as I do the foreseeable future. And for that reason (people have stated, and rightly so, that teams no better than us qualify for tournaments) we'll always be lambs to the slaughter. I like that you are stimulating conversation on this forum. I don't know if you are being deliberately contrarian or these are genuinely your beliefs, but I'll comment anyway. I don't think any of us would be against a back 3 if CB was our strongest position. If we had Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal CBs to choose from, then of course, play to your strength. A back 3 would make sense. Unfortunately we are in a position where at 1 point we only had 2 recognised CBs in the squad. No one in their right mind would look at that and assume a back 3 is the way forward. Arguably, our 2 best players, Fraser and Robertson, play down the left. We should utilise both to the best of their abilities. Shifting around our best players to accommodate for a back 3 that would be shaky at best is ludicrous. I hope that thought has not entered Clarke's head even for a second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dark_Knight Posted September 4, 2019 Author Share Posted September 4, 2019 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Tartan blood said: I like that you are stimulating conversation on this forum. I don't know if you are being deliberately contrarian or these are genuinely your beliefs, but I'll comment anyway. I don't think any of us would be against a back 3 if CB was our strongest position. If we had Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal CBs to choose from, then of course, play to your strength. A back 3 would make sense. Unfortunately we are in a position where at 1 point we only had 2 recognised CBs in the squad. No one in their right mind would look at that and assume a back 3 is the way forward. Arguably, our 2 best players, Fraser and Robertson, play down the left. We should utilise both to the best of their abilities. Shifting around our best players to accommodate for a back 3 that would be shaky at best is ludicrous. I hope that thought has not entered Clarke's head even for a second. Nope. I'm not a contrarian. What I'm saying is 100% my opinion and besides, I've given a watertight case for my defence. That's actually wrong. If you had good center backs you'd only need to play two. This is why no top team plays with a back three. If you're weak in a position you must play more players there, if only to plug in gaps. I like Taylor, I think he'll do fine. I believe truly great players can adapt to any position, Kimmich and Alaba alternative, so can Robertson. And Fraser, i'd tell him to do as he pleases and go where he wants. We're currently in a position where we have to think outside the box and do something different. I rewatched the Kazachstan match, they played 3-5-2 and they did it perfectly. They ripped us to shreds that day. Edited September 4, 2019 by The_Dark_Knight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrniaboc Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 1 hour ago, The_Dark_Knight said: Snodgrass would be right wing-back. I'm not discussing the Robertson thing as I've probably explained that decision a thought times on here (If Alaba and Kimmich are good enough to switch between full back for their club and anchorman for their country Robertson certainly is) As for Fraser, as with all creative players, i'd give him a free-role. The thing that makes me laugh is everyone has chosen a flat back four. The last time we qualified for a tournament playing with a back four was almost thirty (30) years ago. Whereas, we played with a back three from '95 to 2000 and qualified for a World Cup, a European Championship and it would've been a third if England didn't beat us (luckily) in the '99 playoffs. But oh wait, we tried a three against Israel away and got beat. I suppose that's that then. Back to the beloved four at the back... Then Kazakhstan demolishes us. It's completely hypocritical. People moan about the away match to Israel when a back three is brought up, and yet we've been humiliation countless times playing a back four, and yet no one suggests that we look outside the box and do something different. This obsession Scotland fans have with a back four is ludicrous. The last ten qualifiers we've played with a back four we have failed. My obsession with a three is logical and forged in fact, and that fact is growing we qualified for '96 and '98, with Scotland teams that were limited at the back and up front. And yet we were organised, we had a club spirit and we're hard to beat. I expect us to play with a back four on Friday, as I do the foreseeable future. And for that reason (people have stated, and rightly so, that teams no better than us qualify for tournaments) we'll always be lambs to the slaughter. Despite actually seriously considering your stance on this and almost being convinced at points, and despite really really not wanting to reopen this whole debate, I am completed to say that you really have to not attribute causation to correlation. Saying we qualified because of the formation is really hard to defend. We qualified because of many different factors, you even mention them later in your post. This isn't '96, it's not the same squad and it's not the same manager. It's not even the same game to a point! You have to play to your strengths, and we have a manager who knows how to make an average team hard to beat with a back four, and a bunch of good players in attacking positions who are used to fitting into a formation with a back four. To ask that manager and those players to adapt to an entirely new formation and new positions in a 4-day training camp and then execute it successfully in a competitive international match is absolute suicide. Your defence for this decision is not as strong as you think. It's tantamount to suggesting we call up Del Amitri and ask them to write us a song. Correlation does not imply causation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningtings Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 It's Chripper in disguise, just talks nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrniaboc Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 2 minutes ago, runningtings said: It's Chripper in disguise, just talks nonsense. Haha I know, but he's not always spouting nonsense. Sometimes just a bit reductionist and radical without considering the reality of the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.