Your starting XI against Russia - Page 6 - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Your starting XI against Russia


The_Dark_Knight

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, BraveheartGordon said:

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.

No. It's totally related. SAF did the job of about four or five people. If you're weak in a position, you have to fill the gaps with more bodies.

If you play with a three, to combat an attacking fullback overload is one of the center backs m covering the empty space.

Exactly. We have to build from the back. The two anchormen formation is just footballing suicide.

We need to compensate for our weakness. You can't ignore the fact that we're shocking at the back and except us to get results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

No. It's totally related. SAF did the job of about four or five people. If you're weak in a position, you have to fill the gaps with more bodies.

If you play with a three, to combat an attacking fullback overload is one of the center backs m covering the empty space.

Exactly. We have to build from the back. The two anchormen formation is just footballing suicide.

We need to compensate for our weakness. You can't ignore the fact that we're shocking at the back and except us to get results.

1. Surely not at the expense of your major strengths like this would be though?

2.That second bit would sound great if we didn’t play it a year ago and get destroyed by Israel because the centre-backs weren’t good enough at supporting the wing-backs.

3. It’s hardly suicide when our best performances over the last 3 years have all come from that system.

4. Playing 3 central defenders turns into a 5 leaving us on the back foot and ironically exposes our weakness in that area more. Before we switched to that system we went a calendar year unbeaten playing 4-2-3-1 and playing to the strengths of our midfield and attacking players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

No. It's totally related. SAF did the job of about four or five people. If you're weak in a position, you have to fill the gaps with more bodies.

If you play with a three, to combat an attacking fullback overload is one of the center backs m covering the empty space.

Exactly. We have to build from the back. The two anchormen formation is just footballing suicide.

We need to compensate for our weakness. You can't ignore the fact that we're shocking at the back and except us to get results.

So we're weakest in goals, at the back, and up front right? So by your logic we pack another centre half in there and play two wing backs. We can't put more than one goalie in between the sticks unfortunately, but we can chuck another striker up front right? Because we're weak there. Needs more than one man to do the job. So now we're playing a 5-3-2, most of our top players are stuck on the bench, and the ones on the pitch are out of their usual positions, and we're playing against a team who will waltz through our empty midfield and then come up against 3 terrible centre backs. What will happen then? They will score. With ease. That's what will happen then. 

Ps: Scot Gemmill doesn't know best. OGS doesn't know best. Steve Clarke doesn't know best. They all know better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BraveheartGordon said:

1. Surely not at the expense of your major strengths like this would be though?

2.That second bit would sound great if we didn’t play it a year ago and get destroyed by Israel because the centre-backs weren’t good enough at supporting the wing-backs.

3. It’s hardly suicide when our best performances over the last 3 years have all come from that system.

4. Playing 3 central defenders turns into a 5 leaving us on the back foot and ironically exposes our weakness in that area more. Before we switched to that system we went a calendar year unbeaten playing 4-2-3-1 and playing to the strengths of our midfield and attacking players.

1. What strengths? 

2. Israel beat us 2-1, the winning goal was an own goal and we were down to 10 mem. It was hardly a destruction. How about when we drew with England playing with a three? You give me one match against Israel, I can give you 19 years of being destroyed by teams ranging from Georgia to Kazakhstan.

3. Wrong. The 2-2 draw with England is one of our best results in the past three years.

4. I'd rather play an out-and-out 5 than the 4-2-3-1 system. And again, we don't have strengths in midfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, mrniaboc said:

So we're weakest in goals, at the back, and up front right? So by your logic we pack another centre half in there and play two wing backs. We can't put more than one goalie in between the sticks unfortunately, but we can chuck another striker up front right? Because we're weak there. Needs more than one man to do the job. So now we're playing a 5-3-2, most of our top players are stuck on the bench, and the ones on the pitch are out of their usual positions, and we're playing against a team who will waltz through our empty midfield and then come up against 3 terrible centre backs. What will happen then? They will score. With ease. That's what will happen then. 

Ps: Scot Gemmill doesn't know best. OGS doesn't know best. Steve Clarke doesn't know best. They all know better. 

Waltz through our midfield like Kazakhstan done against our two anchormen? 4-2-3-1 leaves the midfield empty. With the 3-5-2 I kinda like the thought of a central midfield duo of McTominay and McGinn with an anchorman behind them.

We have awful center backs and people want to play less at the back? Fine, how about we play with one center back... Or none.

If you're weak in a position, in any industry, you employ more people to compensate for said weakness. 

At the of the day, I predicted in our next three matches we'll lose 0-2, 0-3 and 5-0. 

If Russia score early today it will be more than 0-2.

Clarke knows better? Tell me that after the next three matches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Waltz through our midfield like Kazakhstan done against our two anchormen? 4-2-3-1 leaves the midfield empty. With the 3-5-2 I kinda like the thought of a central midfield duo of McTominay and McGinn with an anchorman behind them.

We have awful center backs and people want to play less at the back? Fine, how about we play with one center back... Or none.

If you're weak in a position, in any industry, you employ more people to compensate for said weakness. 

At the of the day, I predicted in our next three matches we'll lose 0-2, 0-3 and 5-0. 

If Russia score early today it will be more than 0-2.

Clarke knows better? Tell me that after the next three matches.

How does 4231 leave the midfield empty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ParisInAKilt said:

How does 4231 leave the midfield empty?

Two players just in front of the back four, playing deep and one advanced central midfielder.

Manchester United are playing the same system and it's why they are struggling, well, one of the reasons. It's a counter-attacking system, which is how they beat Chelsea but can't beat Crystal Palace, Wolves or Southampton. And it's how we got a point against Germany.

We should be going out to beat Russia at home, not play, in my eyes, a negative system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Two players just in front of the back four, playing deep and one advanced central midfielder.

Manchester United are playing the same system and it's why they are struggling, well, one of the reasons. It's a counter-attacking system, which is how they beat Chelsea but can't beat Crystal Palace, Wolves or Southampton. And it's how we got a point against Germany.

We should be going out to beat Russia at home, not play, in my eyes, a negative system.

I think you’re overvaluing a formation. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Texas Pete said:

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. 

It’s a fair point but it happens often enough that a player comes in and makes an impact in training and gets in the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should go back to the good old days when Scotland were great at football.  2-3-5  formation.  That way we can play without any centre backs...  (we will need a centre half for midfield),  but we have some great outside and inside forwards.  How about

 

1 Gk - marshall

2 Right back - o donnel

3 left back - robertson

4 right half - mcginn

5 centre half - mctominay

6 left half - mcgregor

7 outside right - James forrest

8 inside right - Stevie naismith

9 centre forward -  mcburnie

10 inside left - christie

11 outside left - fraser

 

what  team!!   I will bring my tartan Tammy and rattle for the game tonight!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, er yir macaroon said:

It’s a fair point but it happens often enough that a player comes in and makes an impact in training and gets in the team.

Yeah it could happen but the main reason I don’t think it will is Cooper is currently a better player than Bates. 

I think if Bates was the type of player to impress people in training he’d probably still be at Hamburg. Or Rangers for that matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

Marshall

SOD Cooper Mulgrew Robertson

Armstrong McGinn

Forrest Christie Fraser

Garry O'Connor

"Using his experience in Russian football, where he scored a massive eight goals in just thirty-nine games, Garry O'Connor is set to make his stunning comeback to lead the line for Scotland".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Waltz through our midfield like Kazakhstan done against our two anchormen? 4-2-3-1 leaves the midfield empty. With the 3-5-2 I kinda like the thought of a central midfield duo of McTominay and McGinn with an anchorman behind them.

We have awful center backs and people want to play less at the back? Fine, how about we play with one center back... Or none.

If you're weak in a position, in any industry, you employ more people to compensate for said weakness. 

At the of the day, I predicted in our next three matches we'll lose 0-2, 0-3 and 5-0. 

If Russia score early today it will be more than 0-2.

Clarke knows better? Tell me that after the next three matches.

With your industry analogy you're failing to take into account the fixed size of a football team. A company wouldn't hire multiple people for one position if it meant they had to get rid of their best people in other positions. 

I will tell you Clarke knows better than you no matter what, until you get your Uefa coaching badges. I mean how deluded do you have to be? If you are on a plane and it hits some bad turbulence do you try and burst into the cockpit and tell the pilot what he should do? I imagine you visit the GP and diagnose their ailments for them hahaha. Read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect for the love of God. 

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...