Your starting XI against Russia

[wanderer]

Probably means nothing much, but going by McBurnies social media posts last night, suspect he has been told he is starting tonight.

Says ready for a massive game v Russia (could mean he is starting.... could be an attempt to soften the inevitable boo's he will get from (hopefully a very small) section of the support),

[Squirrelhumper]

55 minutes ago, mrniaboc said:

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. 

I actually think he should see a doc, no jokes.

[daviebee]

2 hours ago, mrniaboc said:

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. 

   

You can just imagine - "Am tellin' ye - descend to 352 feet!"

[Third Lanark]

18 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. 

Why are our players not suited to playing 4 at the back when most of their clubs play that way? Not having a go, just questioning.

[ParisInAKilt]

1 hour ago, Squirrelhumper said:

I actually think he should see a doc, no jokes.

Some things are beyond western medicine. 

[Dave78]

41 minutes ago, daviebee said:

   

You can just imagine - "Am tellin' ye - descend to 352 feet!"

"Why are ye in a holding pattern?! This plane can't play in the holding role!"

[vanderark14]

16 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

"Why are ye in a holding pattern?! This plane can't play in the holding role!"

😂😂

[The_Dark_Knight]

1 hour ago, Third Lanark said:

Why are our players not suited to playing 4 at the back when most of their clubs play that way? Not having a go, just questioning.

How many of them play at a really top level?

How many of them participate it European Competitions?

[The_Dark_Knight]

2 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

I actually think he should see a doc, no jokes.

Yeah. I was actually thinking something similar.

What did Einstein say? A sign of insanity is doing something the same way over and over and expecting different results.

This is pretty much what everyone here is suggesting. Stick with a system that's failed for 19 years. Good luck with that.

[bigfingers]

I'm starting to think the midfield 3 might be McGregor Mcginn and Christie  Sorry McT lovers out there.

[vanderark14]

3 minutes ago, bigfingers said:

I'm starting to think the midfield 3 might be McGregor Mcginn and Christie  Sorry McT lovers out there.

I'd be shocked if he didn't start McTominey. 

I think it will be McGinn or Christie to be sacrificed

[mrniaboc]

24 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

How many of them play at a really top level?

How many of them participate it European Competitions?

About 65% of tonight's probable starting line up, and they all play for teams with a back 4.

[The_Dark_Knight]

3 hours ago, mrniaboc said:

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. 

Wow. Jeez. Ok. Fine. I'll dumb it down a tad more, I thought my previous post was basic enough for someone with a PhD to get. Apparently I have to dig through the floorboards.

Take Roy Keane. Not many people would argue that he's better than McGinn, McTominay and MacGregor combined. That would conclude that United would need all three in order to fill the gap left by Keane.

Wow, well done on your introduction of reduction ad absurdum to the TAMB. I actually thought the bar couldn't be raised on that particular scale, but congrats, you're obviously putting that PhD of yours to great use.

Am I part of a medical forum? Is this actually an aviation forum and I didn't know about it?

I thought this was a football forum. Last time I looked it was a football forrum. I may be mistaken, though, as for strange and bewildering reason you're bringing medic and aviation into the conversation. I never knew that you have to know medicine and how to fly a plane if you're a football fan. Is this a new thing? Is it official legislation?

Do you know this because you have a PhD in, what was it again? Astrophysics? So, I assume that you also have a doctorate in medicine as well as being a fully paid-up airline pilot? I mean, if the answer is "no" to those two questions then shouldn't you be under the same scrutiny as I?

So, getting down to the crux of the matter, you're telling me that everyone here is a gp and a pilot? You sure?

Edited September 6, 2019 by The_Dark_Knight

[The_Dark_Knight]

4 minutes ago, mrniaboc said:

About 65% of tonight's probable starting line up, and they all play for teams with a back 4.

Yes. And they all play at an international standard, what with the league one and Championship and SPL players.....

It's akin to expecting a cook at a greasy spoon to be able to be able to adapt to a 5 star michelin restaurant.

Edited September 6, 2019 by The_Dark_Knight

[Tartan_McCole]

30 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

How many of them play at a really top level?

How many of them participate it European Competitions?

What difference does their level make? The majority of them will be used to playing with a flat back 4. I'm aware you do not rate very many of our players. Surely asking them to play in a formation they are not used to is a recipe for disaster?

[The_Dark_Knight]

3 minutes ago, Tartan_McCole said:

What difference does their level make? The majority of them will be used to playing with a flat back 4. I'm aware you do not rate very many of our players. Surely asking them to play in a formation they are not used to is a recipe for disaster?

A disaster like being thrashed by Kazakhstan? A disaster like not qualifying for a finals for 19 years?

If those are defined as anything other than disasters then maybe standards should raise.

[Templeton_Peck]

4 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

A disaster like being thrashed by Kazakhstan? A disaster like not qualifying for a finals for 19 years?

If those are defined as anything other than disasters then maybe standards should raise.

Wished it was only 19 years

[The_Dark_Knight]

1 minute ago, Templeton_Peck said:

Wished it was only 19 years

Good catch. Was getting my digits confused.

21 years.

[Templeton_Peck]

Wonder how many of the playing squad even remember france 98.. Marshall and mulgrew only im guessing. 

[Bino's]

26 minutes ago, bigfingers said:

I'm starting to think the midfield 3 might be McGregor Mcginn and Christie  Sorry McT lovers out there.

It's a farce if mctominay doesn't play

He was the only player against Belgium that looked he could live at that level

[Tartan_McCole]

10 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

A disaster like being thrashed by Kazakhstan? A disaster like not qualifying for a finals for 19 years?

If those are defined as anything other than disasters then maybe standards should raise.

Oh, right. So you don't have an actual answer to my question. Duly noted.

[The_Dark_Knight]

Just now, Templeton_Peck said:

Wonder how many of the playing squad even remember france 98.. Marshall and mulgrew only im guessing. 

Yeah, i was actually thinking that watching the under 21 match last night as there was a lot of kids there.

As a kid you fall in love with your country at football. My first game was about 11 or 12, in a family of non football fans. You can understand why this and the next generation not caring, as they just aren't seeing anything with note. Growing up i had 96 and 98, now kids are seeing us beating Cyprus in the last minute and a thrashing against Kazakhstan.

[BraveheartGordon]

13 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

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.

1. Technically strong midfield players like McGregor, Armstrong and Christie, along with one of the EPL’s best Wingers last season in Fraser and a player in Forrest who scored 5 goals in our 2 most important games last year.

2. We got absolutely horsed that game. We were lucky to be 1-0 up, it was arguably an even worse performance then Kazakhstan given the individuals we had available And both goals from errors from the outside central defenders after getting overloaded in wide areas. Our performance against England was bang average apart from 2 outstanding set-plays.

3. See number 2.

4. I know you don’t rate any of them for some bizarre reason but it’s laughable if you don’t think McGregor, Christie, Armstrong, McTominay, McGinn, McLean etc don’t amount to a strong midfield. Especially in comparison to other areas in the team.

[The_Dark_Knight]

4 minutes ago, Tartan_McCole said:

Oh, right. So you don't have an actual answer to my question. Duly noted.

Does that sound like me?

To answer your question, no, it wouldn't be a disaster. It'll be a bigger disaster to keep on keeping on.

[The_Dark_Knight]

Just now, BraveheartGordon said:

1. Technically strong midfield players like McGregor, Armstrong and Christie, along with one of the EPL’s best Wingers last season in Fraser and a player in Forrest who scored 5 goals in our 2 most important games last year.

2. We got absolutely horsed that game. We were lucky to be 1-0 up, it was arguably an even worse performance then Kazakhstan given the individuals we had available And both goals from errors from the outside central defenders after getting overloaded in wide areas. Our performance against England was bang average apart from 2 outstanding set-plays.

3. See number 2.

4. I know you don’t rate any of them for some bizarre reason but it’s laughable if you don’t think McGregor, Christie, Armstrong, McTominay, McGinn, McLean etc don’t amount to a strong midfield. Especially in comparison to other areas in the team.

1. Armstrong is struggling massively at Southampton. He played 30 mins against Manchester United and all he did of note was get booked. McGregor reminds me of Jamie Redknapp, aka the king of passing backwards and sideways. Christie hasn't convinced me.

2. Fine. I'll give you that one. But how many matches in the past 19 years have we been battered and struggled to beat a mediocre team? Dozens of times, I'd say. And yet, for some reason people ignore the possibility that 4 at the back may not work for us.

4. Sorry. I don't. McTominay is getting there and no way the finished article and Fraser could probably step up a level. In my lifetime we've had guys like Lambert, McAllister, Ferguson, Fletcher, Collins. The midfielder we have present aren't good enough to lace their boots, and that includes McTominay.