Your starting XI against Russia - Page 4 - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Your starting XI against Russia


The_Dark_Knight

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Wow, a sensible and cogent rebuttal.

Wonders will never cease.

People say "Oh, but they don't play that formation for their clubs", and "players don't get enough time to train with Scotland to be able to adapt", etc. But back in the 90s only Elliot played in a back three at club level. Are people really saying that players were quicker learners in the 90s than they are now?

And yes, I would definitely play two up front. Go back to the days of Kenny Miller and ask him if he enjoyed running around like a headless chicken, chasing down every little scrap, or would he have preferred a strike partner to lighten the load. I think he would've chosen the latter. A little and large partnership of Fraser and McBurnie might be effective, with Fraser falling deep when we lose it.

Haha, the law of averages. 

That's a fair point, but it's entirely possible that those players were of a higher calibre than the current crop. On average I would say that's probably true. Better players, like your German examples, are often more adept at adapting. I would also say that Brown may well have been a better coach than anyone who has followed him, thus far. So those factors could be crucial. Our standing was better then as well, of course. Was it frankly easier to qualify? Even Vogts managed to finish second because our seeding was nice and high. Remember the Belgium team we threw away a two goal lead to at Hampden in Brown's last campaign? How much less worrying that would be than the side we face on Monday. 

I can't really think of a time even at club level that Miller played with a partner all that much. He seemed to excell as the lone front man. And the problem with two up top now is, well, who do we drop for the second striker, given that our strikers run the gamut from poor to unfit to not actually a striker? Does Fraser going up top not rather take away the weapon that is so effective for his club and has been intermittently effective for country, his burning pace up the wing then crossing in for a striker? Moving such an excellent wide man from out to in does not seem all that wise to me. I don't see us getting the best out of him there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ElChris04
14 hours 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 appreciate yourself trying to explain you’re reason behind why you went with this. 

But the whole concept of a 3-5-2 would be an entire waste of our best players who don’t fit the system. Steve Clarke has also Said publicly that he’s never been a fan of 3 at the back, so why on earth would he go with it and tell a team of a 4 day training camp to revert to a whole new system? I’m sorry but it’s absolutely crazy to even contemplate. 

 

The only thing I would entertain is yes, that’s very true about Kimmich and Alaba playing a CDM role for there country at times. But the reality is both have years of playing there. Robertson has not, why should we risk playing the best left back in the world and play him at CDM? A positive is  we are already absolutely loaded with talent in that position in the first place in McGregor, McTominay, McGinn, Jack. And so on so it wouldn’t make any sense.

I’ll give another example, Johan Cruyff when he was the Dutch manger done the diamond formation and put his fullbacks would drop as CDM so they wouldn’t get tired tracking back as he knew it was inhumanly impossible to do so for 90 minutes. He was the pioneer of it. But going back to the Dutch’s side when he was manger, as he details in the interview he played in a diamond all his life, he knew how it worked. And the Dutch team he coached in it to worked where full of world class players. Steve Clarke isn’t Cruyff that’s played or coached a diamond all his career and we certainly aren’t the Dutch team who have the players to make it work to the best. If you want to see the actual interview here’s a link - 

 

it details how Cruyff worked his diamond and how it’s used today. Like I said, I appreciate you trying to detail you’re points, Robertson at CDM isn’t a ludicrous idea, but with our current team, manger. It’s absolutely mental to do so in a 4 day camp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness, it's pretty irrelevant all of us piling in an saying Clarke wouldn't never play 3 at the back. 

The topic at hand is YOUR starting XI, not predicting what Clarke will do. Having been one of many to mention his apathy to the system, I felt that was worth pointing out. I doubt he will go with the 11 I put out, for one thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AndyDD said:

In fairness, it's pretty irrelevant all of us piling in an saying Clarke wouldn't never play 3 at the back. 

The topic at hand is YOUR starting XI, not predicting what Clarke will do. Having been one of many to mention his apathy to the system, I felt that was worth pointing out. I doubt he will go with the 11 I put out, for one thing. 

I agree re the topic title. The problem is the person who started it. 

The thread was only ever ending up going one way...........3 at the back, Robertson anchor man, Alba blah blah.

Good luck to those who can be arsed arguing with chripper

Edited by vanderark14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose there's no reason we have to let it dominate. I think we've talked that particular topic out by now. Surely? But then, I am new here... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AndyDD said:

I suppose there's no reason we have to let it dominate. I think we've talked that particular topic out by now. Surely? But then, I am new here... 

I'll save you some time

Thedarknight or chripper as most know him/her will spam the TA specific forum with the same subjects

1. 3 at the back with Robertson as anchor man. 

2. How bad scottish football is

3. Mctominey

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most people will pick the same team, as looking at the squad (and not allowing for any far out idea's that is outside of anything Scotland and/or Clarke have done in the past.....) the only real "but...." is what two start from McTominey, Chrsitie and McGregor, as I imagine Cooper will start as the only real major change, and most likely McBurnie will start up front (though I think there is a good chance Phillips might start).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AndyDD said:

 

But in the current circumstances, with the current squad, on the back of the improved display playing clarke's usual formation in those last two games, I would rather he stuck with his particular method for shape, at least right now. It hasn't stopped him having sensational success recently, that's for sure. 

 

It's not just the last two I would say the two wins against Albania and Israel were two of our most comfortable performances and they were both played using a back four.

McLeish lost his job  mainly because of the Kazakhstan result and the control, respect or whatever the players had for him by then.

Edited by ceudmilefailte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

I think there’s a chance Bates could start in place of Cooper from the above. Without a doubt we are weak there, adding an additional weak player to the two already there would be mental.

It’s hard to see McGinn not starting  although Christie is certainly in great form also.

Play one in front of the back four and get christie and mcginn on the park

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

Play one in front of the back four and get christie and mcginn on the park

 

 

The midfield selection will be interesting. Assume Forrest and Fraser both start in the wide positions, the other 3 could be almost any combination of McTominay, McGregor, McGinn, Christie, Armstrong and McLean.  I think Armstrong and McLean are the least likely but McLean has been starting matches recently and Armstrong has always done well for us. 

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...