Your starting XI against Russia - Page 2 - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Your starting XI against Russia


The_Dark_Knight

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ElChris04
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 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ElChris04

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Tartan blood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by vanderark14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by The_Dark_Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

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...