Reflections/Projections. - Page 3 - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Reflections/Projections.


marinello

Recommended Posts

So.. my take on the two games as a whole..

I've said quite a few times that our problems lie at center mid and not at center back, and I saw nothing to change that. Two of the Russia goals came from our center mids not doing their job, most notably McGinn as he was involved in both. McGinn's shown he's defensively deficient in most games he's played for us, and a hattrick against San Marino doesn't indicate to me that he's suddenly going to change that.

I think the problem runs a little deeper than just McGinn lacking defensive awareness tho.

The problem is.. discipline. At both ends of the field.

In the home game against Russia:
1st goal was a lack of defensive discipline. McTominay didn't make an effort to get back goal side. Cooper breaks the defensive line and leaves a huge gap for Russia to play into and chaos ensues.

In the away game, the 3rd is McGinn not being disciplined enough to actually go with his man when he makes a run. He just lets him go and watches. The 4th it's McGinn, Snoddy and McGregor all lacking the discipline to do the defensive work, leaving the defense outnumbered and dragged out of position to try and cope with the Russian runners from midfield.

Switch to San Marino.. and we didn't seem to have a coherent game plan to me. There was absolutely nothing in terms of system or patterns of play that we could take into a match against anyone other than San Marino. The instruction just seemed to be for everyone to push forward. We had no discernable patterns.. the fullbacks were barely involved, I guess told to stay back for the counter, so Palmer and Robertson were largely sidelined the entire game (tho Robertson's side of the pitch in the 2nd half was also a reason!). Our midfield just pressed forward, compressing play. That put Shankland back to goal, usually surrounded by 4 players and left us little room to play the ball as we were trying to just batter thru a block of 7-8 players in central defensive positions. Virtually nothing came from one of our 3 center mids passing to another of the center mids, yet we spent a lot of time with those three in possession. Our routes thru were almost entirely Christie or Forrest isolating a fullback 1v1. I can't even talk about our 18 corners, which had no structure, no plan, just hoof it across and see what happened. 1 goal from 18 corners is a shockingly bad return. No discipline. No plan.

Sure, we won the game and scored a few goals. But without a system to take forward, then we're just going to be relying on Christie or Forrest repeating the same 'beat a man' when facing better players who are better organised, something Forrest has already shown many times that he can't do. So i took basically zero value from this game, other than a bit of confidence for the players.

We need discipline in our defending and in our attacking. We need to work on our patterns, on our combinations and we really need to work on our set pieces. Because we look like a team without a plan right now, at both ends of the pitch.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, andyD said:

So.. my take on the two games as a whole..

I don't think your San Marino analysis is very fair tbh.  We won the game 6-0, a higher scoreline than we've achieved at Hampden in all our previous encounters with them, even with far better players.  If the conditions hadn't become as farcical in the 2nd half I reckon we'd have matched Russia's and Belgium's totals against them as well.

BTW, I'd say that's the best I've ever seen San Marino play in Glasgow as on all their previous visits they've been far, far worse, seldom coming further than 40 yards from their own goal.

Not getting carried away, but credit where credit's due.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, daviebee said:

I don't think your San Marino analysis is very fair tbh.  We won the game 6-0, a higher scoreline than we've achieved at Hampden in all our previous encounters with them, even with far better players.

My point wasn't that it was a bad result..

What tactical things did we do to break them down?
What patterns of play did you see from us?
What, aside from confidence, can we take from that game into future games?

It seemed to me like we just threw people forward, not really a plan.
In the 1st half we isolated the fullbacks a few times, but like I said that's not proved viable for us against better opposition.
Lots of shots from outside the area because we didn't have a plan to break them down.
16 fruitless corners, there didn't seem to be a plan or a routine. Folk went forward and we crossed it. We don't seem to have even a basic corner routine or two. Just knock it in and see what happens.
There were no notable link-ups among our players anywhere on the park.
No one learnt anything about Shankland or how he likes to receive the ball (which is a vital understanding between striker and midfield) because no one passed to him all day.

So the result doesn't really matter to me. We were expected to win and we did win. What I wanted to see was some indication of development. Of organisation. Of discipline. Of us progressing as a team and putting things into practice for the next 4 games.

Instead it seemed like a very individual performance. No real team play. Lots of people trying to get forward and get on the score sheet, hence so many shots from outside.

I'd honestly rather have won 2-0 and seen the fullbacks involved in the forward play, or McGinn and Shankland actually playing a 1-2 at least once. To have seen some kind of established central midfield roles, so we can take that understanding forward. And a corner routine that gives us a decent chance of a goal.

So yeah. 6-0, great. But we didn't do really anything as a team, so it feels kinda hollow and a waste of precious time with the national side to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, andyD said:

My point wasn't that it was a bad result..

What tactical things did we do to break them down?
What patterns of play did you see from us?
What, aside from confidence, can we take from that game into future games?

It seemed to me like we just threw people forward, not really a plan.
In the 1st half we isolated the fullbacks a few times, but like I said that's not proved viable for us against better opposition.
Lots of shots from outside the area because we didn't have a plan to break them down.
16 fruitless corners, there didn't seem to be a plan or a routine. Folk went forward and we crossed it. We don't seem to have even a basic corner routine or two. Just knock it in and see what happens.
There were no notable link-ups among our players anywhere on the park.
No one learnt anything about Shankland or how he likes to receive the ball (which is a vital understanding between striker and midfield) because no one passed to him all day.

So the result doesn't really matter to me. We were expected to win and we did win. What I wanted to see was some indication of development. Of organisation. Of discipline. Of us progressing as a team and putting things into practice for the next 4 games.

Instead it seemed like a very individual performance. No real team play. Lots of people trying to get forward and get on the score sheet, hence so many shots from outside.

I'd honestly rather have won 2-0 and seen the fullbacks involved in the forward play, or McGinn and Shankland actually playing a 1-2 at least once. To have seen some kind of established central midfield roles, so we can take that understanding forward. And a corner routine that gives us a decent chance of a goal.

So yeah. 6-0, great. But we didn't do really anything as a team, so it feels kinda hollow and a waste of precious time with the national side to me.

Great post, San Marino are rubbish but the game should have been used to prepare to beat the next level of teams. The teams we always seem to muck up against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Great post, San Marino are rubbish but the game should have been used to prepare to beat the next level of teams. The teams we always seem to muck up against.

How exactly do u prepare for a playing a better team by thrashing a shyte team that canny tackle or mark to save themselves??? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bonny78 said:

How exactly do u prepare for a playing a better team by thrashing a shyte team that canny tackle or mark to save themselves??? 

You play in a formation that prepares you for the next level of team that you should be beating ie Georgia.

Playing with out any formation  will only work against San Marino and prepare you for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

You play in a formation that prepares you for the next level of team that you should be beating ie Georgia.

Playing with out any formation  will only work against San Marino and prepare you for nothing.

Playing San Marino does not help this cause you speak of. 

 

If you had said getting players that rarely score a run out then that would be better. 

Edited by bonny78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bonny78 said:

How exactly do u prepare for a playing a better team by thrashing a shyte team that canny tackle or mark to save themselves??? 

Bit of a surprising question imo, but ok.

Just because it's San Marino doesn't mean it can't be useful. It's not the only game we're going to be on top in, so there are things we could work on that could be put to use in other games. Cyprus and Kazakhstan are games we should be on top in as well, so to work on things here made lots of sense.

#1 Against an opponent that sits back you need some plan as to how to break them down. Overloading the fullback to outnumber them out wide. Playing 1-2s thru the middle in what space there might be. Thru balls to forward runners. Or putting the ball into the box to a dominant aerial threat. We did none of these, so when we come up against a better organised and better able team parking the bus we'll find things a great deal harder as 'just have a pop from outside' or 'hope forrest can beat his man' won't work as well.

#2 Have a shape to our side. It seemed like we kept our entire back 4 back most of the time, I can only think we were scared of San Marino's blistering counter-attack? Our midfield lacked any real roles for anyone. McGinn just seemed to play as a number 10 most of the time, which is fine, but McTominay and McGregor just seemed to be attacking mids as well. Surely one should have some defensive responsibility? That would allow our fullbacks to go forward (1 man back for 2 forward is a good trade imo) and given we have arguably the best left back in the world, that seems like something we'd want. That the center mids just charged on up and the back 4 sat right back was strange.. and doesn't seem like it'd be helpful in any game ever. It seemed more like a lack of discipline from our players at center mid than anything. I can't believe Clarke thought that was the best plan.. and if he did I'm starting to worry.

#3 Work on partnerships on the field. We saw very little in terms on players linking up, making runs for each other, playing 1-2s etc. Just players developing an understanding with each other. Palmer made a couple of runs outside Christie, but I don't think Christie used him even once. Robertson didn't really go past Forrest at all. McGinn barely looked at Shankland, much less passed him the ball. To me these are things we should be looking to develop in games like this. Some players like a ball to feet some like it a little ahead, some like to run onto it. Some like shooting for certain angles. We had 90 minutes to put understanding in plae among the players on the pitch and we didn't. So when we come up against better opposition and need to be sharper and more concise and can't just rely on sheer weight of chances to result in goals, we'll have the groundwork there.

#4 Set plays, set plays, set plays. Armstrong's free kick was lovely. Hit the side netting and most keepers would have trouble stopping it. But it was an individual skill. The rest of our set plays were pretty random, and didn't seem to follow any pattern or plan. 18 corners, 2 goals, 2 very different goals. 1st was towards the edge of the area, and Findlay seemed to be desperately back-peddling to get to it. Suggests it wasn't intentional, and that's not what "right arm raised" means for where the cross is going. The 2nd was into the 6 yard box, which any decent keeper should field, and if we're honest, Findlay's a bit lucky not to have had it ruled out as a foul since he has his arm over the defenders shoulder. So it seems like both the ones we scored had more than a little luck about them. and the 16 we missed.. didn't really have any common thread and we didn't look like scoring from the vast majority of them. We just crossed and hoped something happened. That's frankly not good enough. And i don't care if it's San Marino, we can work on set plays, as they're about how we set up and execute, regardless of the opposition.

So there's lots we could work on despite the quality of the opposition.

It comes down to discipline, again. Do we have enough discipline to play as if San Marino could pose a threat, do we treat them as if they could break one top corner it at any minute. Is our system set up to cope with that, are our players switched on and focussed. Or are they just running up the pitch hoping to luck one from distance to get their name in lights. We can have the right level of discipline and focus, the lack of which has cost us in this very campaign, regardless of the opposition. It's entirely on us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 'kept our entire back 4 back most of the time'

Uhm. 

Looked to me like we were playing with a back one much of the time. Devlin or Findlay standing on the halfway line. 

At a push, sometimes as a two. I can't think of any time during the game, standing watching from the West Stand, that we had a back four, never mind a 'back four back'.

Must have been my mistake. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AndyDD said:

Looked to me like we were playing with a back one much of the time. Devlin or Findlay standing on the halfway line.

I don't mean that they were stood in a line on halfway all game, but both fullbacks spent 99% of the match firmly our goal-side of all the San Marino players. There were very few overlapping runs and when there were they were not used.

I don't think Palmer crossed the ball once all game.
I can only think of 2 crosses from Robertson, for a goal kick and a clearance.
In 90 minutes.. against San Marino.

Robertson did play a couple of nice cross-field balls from a center-back position to find Christie. And while I'm sure there is exactly one person on here who will be delighted to have seen that, I think most of us agree that one of the worlds best fullbacks should probably be used as a fullback.

So aside from Findlay's obvious contributions from corners, our back 4 was entirely absent from our attacking play, and almost always in a position goal-side of their man. Since San Marino were playing as a defensive 7-8 never going wider than the penalty area, our fullbacks lack of overlaps meant they didn't even move any of the San Marino defenders to make space in the middle. Robertson and Palmer stayed in a more defensive position for basically the entire game.

Certainly Devlin and Findlay didn't contribute offensively from open play either, so while I'm sure there were times where we looked like we had a back 1, those were probably times where San Marino had a front 0, and the 3 'roaming' defenders weren't contributing to the attack in any meaningful or purposeful way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, andyD said:

Bit of a surprising question imo, but ok.

Just because it's San Marino doesn't mean it can't be useful. It's not the only game we're going to be on top in, so there are things we could work on that could be put to use in other games. Cyprus and Kazakhstan are games we should be on top in as well, so to work on things here made lots of sense.

#1 Against an opponent that sits back you need some plan as to how to break them down. Overloading the fullback to outnumber them out wide. Playing 1-2s thru the middle in what space there might be. Thru balls to forward runners. Or putting the ball into the box to a dominant aerial threat. We did none of these, so when we come up against a better organised and better able team parking the bus we'll find things a great deal harder as 'just have a pop from outside' or 'hope forrest can beat his man' won't work as well.

#2 Have a shape to our side. It seemed like we kept our entire back 4 back most of the time, I can only think we were scared of San Marino's blistering counter-attack? Our midfield lacked any real roles for anyone. McGinn just seemed to play as a number 10 most of the time, which is fine, but McTominay and McGregor just seemed to be attacking mids as well. Surely one should have some defensive responsibility? That would allow our fullbacks to go forward (1 man back for 2 forward is a good trade imo) and given we have arguably the best left back in the world, that seems like something we'd want. That the center mids just charged on up and the back 4 sat right back was strange.. and doesn't seem like it'd be helpful in any game ever. It seemed more like a lack of discipline from our players at center mid than anything. I can't believe Clarke thought that was the best plan.. and if he did I'm starting to worry.

#3 Work on partnerships on the field. We saw very little in terms on players linking up, making runs for each other, playing 1-2s etc. Just players developing an understanding with each other. Palmer made a couple of runs outside Christie, but I don't think Christie used him even once. Robertson didn't really go past Forrest at all. McGinn barely looked at Shankland, much less passed him the ball. To me these are things we should be looking to develop in games like this. Some players like a ball to feet some like it a little ahead, some like to run onto it. Some like shooting for certain angles. We had 90 minutes to put understanding in plae among the players on the pitch and we didn't. So when we come up against better opposition and need to be sharper and more concise and can't just rely on sheer weight of chances to result in goals, we'll have the groundwork there.

#4 Set plays, set plays, set plays. Armstrong's free kick was lovely. Hit the side netting and most keepers would have trouble stopping it. But it was an individual skill. The rest of our set plays were pretty random, and didn't seem to follow any pattern or plan. 18 corners, 2 goals, 2 very different goals. 1st was towards the edge of the area, and Findlay seemed to be desperately back-peddling to get to it. Suggests it wasn't intentional, and that's not what "right arm raised" means for where the cross is going. The 2nd was into the 6 yard box, which any decent keeper should field, and if we're honest, Findlay's a bit lucky not to have had it ruled out as a foul since he has his arm over the defenders shoulder. So it seems like both the ones we scored had more than a little luck about them. and the 16 we missed.. didn't really have any common thread and we didn't look like scoring from the vast majority of them. We just crossed and hoped something happened. That's frankly not good enough. And i don't care if it's San Marino, we can work on set plays, as they're about how we set up and execute, regardless of the opposition.

So there's lots we could work on despite the quality of the opposition.

It comes down to discipline, again. Do we have enough discipline to play as if San Marino could pose a threat, do we treat them as if they could break one top corner it at any minute. Is our system set up to cope with that, are our players switched on and focussed. Or are they just running up the pitch hoping to luck one from distance to get their name in lights. We can have the right level of discipline and focus, the lack of which has cost us in this very campaign, regardless of the opposition. It's entirely on us.

T. L. D.R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2019 at 3:06 PM, andyD said:

My point wasn't that it was a bad result..

What tactical things did we do to break them down?
What patterns of play did you see from us?
What, aside from confidence, can we take from that game into future games?

It seemed to me like we just threw people forward, not really a plan.
In the 1st half we isolated the fullbacks a few times, but like I said that's not proved viable for us against better opposition.
Lots of shots from outside the area because we didn't have a plan to break them down.
16 fruitless corners, there didn't seem to be a plan or a routine. Folk went forward and we crossed it. We don't seem to have even a basic corner routine or two. Just knock it in and see what happens.
There were no notable link-ups among our players anywhere on the park.
No one learnt anything about Shankland or how he likes to receive the ball (which is a vital understanding between striker and midfield) because no one passed to him all day.

So the result doesn't really matter to me. We were expected to win and we did win. What I wanted to see was some indication of development. Of organisation. Of discipline. Of us progressing as a team and putting things into practice for the next 4 games.

Instead it seemed like a very individual performance. No real team play. Lots of people trying to get forward and get on the score sheet, hence so many shots from outside.

I'd honestly rather have won 2-0 and seen the fullbacks involved in the forward play, or McGinn and Shankland actually playing a 1-2 at least once. To have seen some kind of established central midfield roles, so we can take that understanding forward. And a corner routine that gives us a decent chance of a goal.

So yeah. 6-0, great. But we didn't do really anything as a team, so it feels kinda hollow and a waste of precious time with the national side to me.

This is ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2019 at 9:50 PM, ceudmilefailte said:

You play in a formation that prepares you for the next level of team that you should be beating ie Georgia.

Playing with out any formation  will only work against San Marino and prepare you for nothing.

They were playing in a formation. 

All teams come out of shape when they are attacking constantly as we were last Sunday. What matters is how quickly the team regains their shape when they lose possession which Scotland did just fine against San Marino.

With the greatest of respect to San Marino, our last match was a glorified training session. We will learn far more from our next 2 games. 

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...