Your starting XI against Russia - Page 5 - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Your starting XI against Russia


The_Dark_Knight

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

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

It actually astonishes me that some fans think they know better than the manager who has been a top coach over the years and knows the player’s abilities (and limitations) more than anyone sitting in the stands.

This is no the time for Champ Man tactics!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ElChris04 said:

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. 

There's not a chance in hell that Steve Clarke will play a 3 at the back. Doesn't mean that he shouldn't. He certainly should try something, anything, as opposed to sticking with the same formula that our players simply are not suited to play.

We have time on our hands to alter the system. I don't see us qualifying for a major tournament any time soon, so I say that we have tons of time to revert to a new system. All of our matches for the foreseeable future are dead rubbers, in my opinion. There's no better time than the present. 

8 hours ago, ElChris04 said:

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.

Yes, Kimmich and Alaba have had years of playing in those positions, but there was a time when the roles were foreign to them. I don't see it as a risk, at all. 

We aren't loaded with talent in the anchorman role. Maybe Jack is, but I don't rate him. McTominay is best when he's playing a box-to-box role. And as for McGregor and McGinn, well, I'm not convinced.

Thanks for the video, I'll give it a look when I have time. :)

In essence, I just want a manager to think outside the box and to divert from the hipster formation of 4-2-3-1. I just don't think we have the players who are capable of playing in a four at the back at this level. I mean, how many players have we god playing in European competition? It speaks volumes. Our players aren't as good as their foreign equivalent.

I appreciate the articulate and thoughtful input. It's nice having a debate with a person who doesn't throw tantrums and insults every second word. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SWMM82 said:

It actually astonishes me that some fans think they know better than the manager who has been a top coach over the years and knows the player’s abilities (and limitations) more than anyone sitting in the stands.

This is no the time for Champ Man tactics!

I've no issue with anyone having an opinion that differs to the manager but when its put across in such a condescending manner, it only ends up going one way.

I've no interest in getting into the formations debate again, I posted my opinion on this months ago and dont need to repeat it. 

I'm starting to look forward to the match, I'm regretting not booking a ticket and travel to go up. I hope I regret it even more by full time tomorrow night

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AndyDD said:

Okay, so you would like to find out. So set the parameters of this experiment. How many games would you like this to be tried? The rest of the campaign? How do you judge if it has succeeded or not? What is the threshold for determining if the back 3 system has brought tangible improvement over the back four? Would you continue with the back 3 in the playoffs if we have failed in the games between now and then using it, or persist, insisting it might have not worked in the last 6 or so games but might just do it this time? 

We've given 4 at the back 19 years, so I say give 3 at the back just as much time. Strachan played it against England, got a 2-2 draw and then abandoned it. McLeish gave it about 5 matches and then ditched it. This isn't long enough. When a club employs a new manager it's common courtesy to give him a year or two, so why should it be any different for a new system?

9 hours ago, AndyDD said:

The same squad that has, albeit briefly, tried a back 3 and hated it. The players seemed clearly uncomfortable, unsure and out of sorts in that set-up. I don't think the spirit would have been all that lifted if Clarke walked in to training day 1 and said 'right lads, back 3'. That's not to say it couldn't be much better delivered by a coach of Clarke's calibre. Of course it could. Who knows, when Tierney is fit he might well try it. That seemed to be the reason McLeish was giving it a go anyway, to try and play both him and Tierney. 

I think it was Andy Robertson who said that he was uncomfortable with it. I think he was taking liberties when he said that. There's no way in hell he would've said that at Liverpool if Klopp decided to play his as a wing-back. If that was the case Robertson would just get his head down and do his job. I don't even think he'd say it now that Steve Clarke is the manager. He saw McLeish as a soft touch, as all the other players did.

9 hours ago, AndyDD said:

Oh, and, eh, how dare you discuss this abomination, you should be hung by the neck until dead, I saw goody The_Dark_Knight with the devil, yadda yadda yadda...

:lol: That is what it feels like sometimes... most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SWMM82 said:

It actually astonishes me that some fans think they know better than the manager who has been a top coach over the years and knows the player’s abilities (and limitations) more than anyone sitting in the stands.

This is no the time for Champ Man tactics!

You know, just because a person is in a job doesn't mean that he knows best.

That's like Trump and Johnston know best because they're in the positions that they're in.

Champ Man? I don't even know if that exists anymore. Probably Football Manager. And yes, this IS the time to rip up the tried and failed formula and try something new... and bloody stick with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

                                                                                               McBurnie

                                               Fraser                                                                                        Forrest

                                                          McGregor                        McTominay             McGinn

                                                     Robertson                      Cooper          Mulgrew                   Jack

                                                                                                Marshall

 

Two changes from last weeks team Marshall in goal and Mulgrew in for Hanley.

Still keeping Jack at right back, think he is showing this season that he is good enough to be able to adapt to a position he has played in the past

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

                                                                                               McBurnie

                                               Fraser                                                                                        Forrest

                                                          McGregor                        McTominay             McGinn

                                                     Robertson                      Cooper          Mulgrew                   Jack

                                                                                                Marshall

 

Two changes from last weeks team Marshall in goal and Mulgrew in for Hanley.

Still keeping Jack at right back, think he is showing this season that he is good enough to be able to adapt to a position he has played in the past

Not sure what your formation looks like on the laptop but on my phone it looks like Marshall is camped out at the corner flag and leaving the goals open😂😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours 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.

Anything’s possible but why would Clarke play Bates ahead of Cooper when Cooper was in his original squad and Bates wasn’t? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:

Anything’s possible but why would Clarke play Bates ahead of Cooper when Cooper was in his original squad and Bates wasn’t? 

Different attitudes in training, cooper might be a prick 😂. Theres Multiple reasons to drop one for the other

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

You know, just because a person is in a job doesn't mean that he knows best.

That's like Trump and Johnston know best because they're in the positions that they're in.

Champ Man? I don't even know if that exists anymore. Probably Football Manager. And yes, this IS the time to rip up the tried and failed formula and try something new... and bloody stick with it.

FFS!  Comedy gold!  :lol: 

I'm happy to concede that Steve Clarke has forgotten more about fitba than I've learned in my past 352 incarnations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vanderark14 said:

Different attitudes in training, cooper might be a prick 😂. Theres Multiple reasons to drop one for the other

I know but I was asking why Macaroon thought this might happen as what he said didn’t appear to be based on anything other that his opinion of Cooper which Clarke doesn’t appear to share.

Unless Bates blows Clarke away in training then he’s unlikely to start ahead of Cooper in my opinion. 

Like I said though, anything is possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, daviebee said:

Comedy gold! 

The "comedy gold" patronising tag is used to make you look clever and to make the person you're throwing it towards look small and ridiculous. The thing about the "comedy gold" tag is that it only holds as much power as the person you're saying to gives it.

I give it zero.

It also tells me that you're unable to engage on any kind of intellectual level, so to avoid looking stupid you make a statement that's stand-alone and pretty much a full-stop.

Also, you can't out-patronize me. No one can. You can try, though. God loves a trier.

So, what's your next rebuttal gonna be? Does it include the words "train" and "wreck"? :P

If so, also a zero. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

The "comedy gold" patronising tag is used to make you look clever and to make the person you're throwing it towards look small and ridiculous. The thing about the "comedy gold" tag is that it only holds as much power as the person you're saying to gives it.

I give it zero.

It also tells me that you're unable to engage on any kind of intellectual level, so to avoid looking stupid you make a statement that's stand-alone and pretty much a full-stop.

Also, you can't out-patronize me. No one can. You can try, though. God loves a trier.

So, what's your next rebuttal gonna be? Does it include the words "train" and "wreck"? :P

If so, also a zero. ;)

So little that you've replied to it twice...

You should actually be happy that someone appreciates your surrealistic comic brilliance.  Your inference that Steve Clarke, a highly-rated coach who's worked with some of the folk at the very top of his profession, doesn't know better than us lot on here was borderline genius.

No point engaging as I already know all your answers - "try 3-5-2 forever even though all the players are sh*te anyway..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, daviebee said:

So little that you've replied to it twice...

You should actually be happy that someone appreciates your surrealistic comic brilliance.  Your inference that Steve Clarke, a highly-rated coach who's worked with some of the folk at the very top of his profession, doesn't know better than us lot on here was borderline genius.

No point engaging as I already know all your answers - "try 3-5-2 forever even though all the players are sh*te anyway..."

Actually my Note 8 pressed submit before I could finish. Sorry to pop your bubble. I know that receiving a reply from me means so much.

So, you're calling me a genius? Thanks. Comedy genius or just genius genius?

Also, the part of my post that you said was comedy gold was the "Your position doesn't mean you're the best for that job", to paraphrase. Would you say that just because Scot Gemmill is under 21 manager he knows best? How about OGS at Man United?

Maybe you hero worship people but I don't.

So, what's your answers? Play 4-2-3-1 till the end of days? Nice. Nothing conformist about that....

Edited by The_Dark_Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

There's not a chance in hell that Steve Clarke will play a 3 at the back. Doesn't mean that he shouldn't. He certainly should try something, anything, as opposed to sticking with the same formula that our players simply are not suited to play.

We have time on our hands to alter the system. I don't see us qualifying for a major tournament any time soon, so I say that we have tons of time to revert to a new system. All of our matches for the foreseeable future are dead rubbers, in my opinion. There's no better time than the present. 

Yes, Kimmich and Alaba have had years of playing in those positions, but there was a time when the roles were foreign to them. I don't see it as a risk, at all. 

We aren't loaded with talent in the anchorman role. Maybe Jack is, but I don't rate him. McTominay is best when he's playing a box-to-box role. And as for McGregor and McGinn, well, I'm not convinced.

Thanks for the video, I'll give it a look when I have time. :)

In essence, I just want a manager to think outside the box and to divert from the hipster formation of 4-2-3-1. I just don't think we have the players who are capable of playing in a four at the back at this level. I mean, how many players have we god playing in European competition? It speaks volumes. Our players aren't as good as their foreign equivalent.

I appreciate the articulate and thoughtful input. It's nice having a debate with a person who doesn't throw tantrums and insults every second word. :)

I’m not against 3 central defender systems but there’s zero logic in us playing it when our weakest position is central defence and it would stop arguably our best 2 threats - Forrest and Fraser from being able to play in their strongest position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BraveheartGordon said:

I’m not against 3 central defender systems but there’s zero logic in us playing it when our weakest position is central defence and it would stop arguably our best 2 threats - Forrest and Fraser from being able to play in their strongest position.

The reason we ought to play with a three is because it's such a weak position. The reason why no top teams play with a 4 is because they have top center-backs.

Think about it in a different way. When SAF left Manchester United he left a gaping hole the size of the Grand Canyon. How many people do you think United will have to hire to fill the hole left by SAF?

SAF was more than a manager, he was a therapist, a psychologist and pretty much the DNA of Manchester United. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

The reason we ought to play with a three is because it's such a weak position. The reason why no top teams play with a 4 is because they have top center-backs.

Think about it in a different way. When SAF left Manchester United he left a gaping hole the size of the Grand Canyon. How many people do you think United will have to hire to fill the hole left by SAF?

SAF was more than a manager, he was a therapist, a psychologist and pretty much the DNA of Manchester United. 

so top teams don't play with a 4 because they have top centre backs but we shouldn't play with a 4 because we don't have top centre backs....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

The reason we ought to play with a three is because it's such a weak position. The reason why no top teams play with a 4 is because they have top center-backs.

Think about it in a different way. When SAF left Manchester United he left a gaping hole the size of the Grand Canyon. How many people do you think United will have to hire to fill the hole left by SAF?

SAF was more than a manager, he was a therapist, a psychologist and pretty much the DNA of Manchester United. 

Ignoring your unrelated tangent about SAF not all of the top teams have top centre-backs.

The reason few of the top teams play 3 central defenders is because with the game advancing with such attacking full-backs the wide areas are such an obvious 2 v 1 overload.

So you think we have weak central defenders so we should sacrifice an attacking wide player (an area we are stronger in) to accommodate another player in a position we’re weaker in? Makes zero sense to me.

We should play to our strengths not our weaknesses.

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...