Formations and a much needed reality check

[Dalgety Bay TA]

11 minutes ago, AndyDD said:

I disagree, it looked 4-2-3-1 to my eye. Darren Fletcher was under the impression it was actually a change to 4-3-2-1, as it happens- Nothing was working for Jurgen Klopp's side before the break, but he changed that in the second half when they moved from their usual 4-3-3 to a 4-3-2-1 formation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50119352

Certainly not 4-4-2. But ah well. 

 

 

 

Liverpool went 442 against Man Utd second half. Sky commented on it during the game and it was also discussed on last nights MNF. 

[mrniaboc]

15 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

This thread is about FORMATIONS, as FORMATIONS is in the title. IFf a poor wee soul, with sensitive sensibility happen upon this thread, and they are offended by FORMATION talk, please accept my most humble apologizes. You poor thing. Get in contact with a family member and/or a friend. And just remember, YOU ARE NOT ALONE. 

Talk To Someone.

I know this was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but I don't think it shows any class to joke about mental health issues. It's 2019 mate. Call me a snowflake if you will, but as someone who has struggled with mental health issues I took didn't find it very funny. 

Happy to talk formations though! I know you want to try 3 at the back and Robbo at anchorman. That means getting rid of two of our starting midfielders. Which two would you drop and why? 

[N4Footsoldier]

Personally I think the defensive issue comes from the lack of balance in the midfield.

We're quick to pipe up about how strong our individual midfield players are but in actual fact we always end up with now far too much space between the midfield and the back four and we're an absolute canter to hit on the break (both under McLeish AND Clarke I might add).

Taking a step back to figure out the pros and cons of each individual midfield player and how they fit together. I feel we've got a bad habit of considering some players undroppable.

Not saying I know the answer but there's definitely something to be unearthed in there. I do think we need at least one more defensive minded player in the midfield position just to keep games tight.

[Guest ElChris04]

Personally this is what I would try 

5-4-1 

Hickey-Soutter-Porteous-Tierney-Robertson 

Forrest-McGinn-McTominay-Johnston 

Griffiths ( Hornby IF Griff isn’t ready )
 

hickey & robbo as wing backs. Chris Wilder also implements his 2 wing sided CB’s to overlap, something KT would flourish at. 
 

with a comfortable back five, i feel our wingers would flourish in helping our lone striker. 
 

Finally, if we’re calling you young players they start for me. For example some may wonder who I would start Mikey Johnston ahead of Ryan Fraser. It’s simple to me, if I’m calling them up, I’m calling them up to play games, not sit on the bench and stop there development playing at the U21’s, Mikey was flourishing before his injury and hopefully we’ll see him make his comeback against Lazio. 
 

 

[The_Dark_Knight]

5 hours ago, AndyDD said:

I disagree, it looked 4-2-3-1 to my eye. Darren Fletcher was under the impression it was actually a change to 4-3-2-1, as it happens- Nothing was working for Jurgen Klopp's side before the break, but he changed that in the second half when they moved from their usual 4-3-3 to a 4-3-2-1 formation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50119352

Certainly not 4-4-2. But ah well. 

And the other bolded bits bring me to something I've tried to point out a few times, now. This argument would only be of merit if the only teams that ever qualified for tournaments with a back four had central defenders from 'a top league'. But that's not true at all. Indeed, several teams played 4 at the back in the last euros, having played it in qualifying, without having centre halves from 'a top league'. So if you're contention is genuinely that no team can get to a tournament deploying a back 4 without 'top league' centre halves, well, the facts simply don't bear it out. 

So perhaps holding back a bit on the condescension when making blanket statements without a full account of the facts would be a decent shout. It's such a preposterous contention, that it is impossible for any team to qualify playing four at the back without top league centre halves (especially when qualifying is especially easy this time; you need top quality centre halves to beat Bulgaria and Serbia?) that it rather beggars belief. 

Finland are playing a back four with a centre half from the Finnish league and a centre half from the Cypriot league. 

They are currently 5 points clear of Armenia and Bosnia & Herzegovina, with a home match against Lichtenstein  one of their last two matches. 

So one of three things must be true; the Finnish and Cypriot leagues are 'top leagues', it is somehow still 'hysterical' to suggest they will qualify, or you are demonstrably incorrect and need to temper your claims somewhat. 

Which of the three do you think it is? 

 

 

I watched it on NBCsn and Lee Dixon and Graeme Le Saux pointed it out. It was also discussed last night on MNF. 

I was watching the match and it's easy to understand why they stuck 2 up front. It was to engage Man United's wingbacks, get a hold of the midfield and to occupy their three center-backs more than they were in the first half.

It was definitely a 4-4-2, with all due respect to Darren Fletcher.

There's nuances to it. How many international teams qualify for a World Cup or a European Championships with mainly an English Championship/SPL standard spine? Wales have had SPL stand-outs in previous years, like Jonny Evans and Ashley Williams, much in the same way as we had Colin Hendry in the late-to mid 90s. Right now we have no one of that standard. I'm not saying that you need center backs playing a top 5 league in order to qualify, I'm just saying that it helps. And the countries that do qualify, who don't have central defenders playing in a top 5 league, you can bet your ass that they still have center backs from a better league than the English Championship or the SPL.

If you're using Finland as an example then I'll counter that by saying that we've alternated between using 4 and 5 throughout their qualification campaign. I'll also say that they have a very anchorman in Glen Karama. 

Which one of the three? Neither. Circumstantial evidence comes to mind. Bosnia are 46th (or so) and bombing, Scotland style. In every qualification campaign, or a finals, a dark-horse emerges and upsets the odds (Iceland 2016), just so happens that it's Finland's turn. But that's more by luck than by design. Our design has heralded 17 years of mediocrity and for some reason, that I'm not aware of, fans don't want to contemplate a change of system.

I mean, just a few hours ago a guy saying that I should get a "life" because I watched the 6 matches from Euro 96 and France 98. Are people here even football fans? (Never mind Scotland fans). 

[The_Dark_Knight]

5 hours ago, Dalgety Bay TA said:

Liverpool went 442 against Man Utd second half. Sky commented on it during the game and it was also discussed on last nights MNF. 

100% correct.

[The_Dark_Knight]

4 hours ago, mrniaboc said:

I know this was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but I don't think it shows any class to joke about mental health issues. It's 2019 mate. Call me a snowflake if you will, but as someone who has struggled with mental health issues I took didn't find it very funny. 

Happy to talk formations though! I know you want to try 3 at the back and Robbo at anchorman. That means getting rid of two of our starting midfielders. Which two would you drop and why? 

I'll be lying if I said that I didn't write it with my tongue firmly imbedded in my cheek, because I did. Thinking about it, though, there is truth in jest, and in this case there definitely is. As you know, just in the past couple of weeks a guy here has accused me of having several accounts (You're supposed to be me). A guy who has almost ten thousand posts on a SCOTLAND FOOTBALL forum, claims that I have no life because I watched a handful of Scotland football matches.

You seriously could not make this stuff up.

But yeah, I've had my experiences to, so no offence was intended, and if you were offended then I apologize.

That's one of the bizarre things, in our current system of 4-2-3-1 we use three central midfielders, but none of them actually play in the center of midfield. Aberdeen pretty much showed that at the weekend, they put two defenders in the anchormen position and they pretty much ran the show. Charlie Mulgrew is a defender, and yet he's better at playing the anchorman position than any of our midfielders. And as for the second striker, well, we have a ton of midfielders that can play there... but not well enough to justify zero players in central midfield. And as for two wingers, we aren't exactly in a position to "spread play". It's not like we've had a ton of luck with Forrest and Fraser our wide... there's no real point of having them out side if no one can get the ball to them

The middle of midfield would consist of McTominay, Robertson and McGinn.

[The_Dark_Knight]

1 hour ago, N4Footsoldier said:

Personally I think the defensive issue comes from the lack of balance in the midfield.

We're quick to pipe up about how strong our individual midfield players are but in actual fact we always end up with now far too much space between the midfield and the back four and we're an absolute canter to hit on the break (both under McLeish AND Clarke I might add).

Taking a step back to figure out the pros and cons of each individual midfield player and how they fit together. I feel we've got a bad habit of considering some players undroppable.

Not saying I know the answer but there's definitely something to be unearthed in there. I do think we need at least one more defensive minded player in the midfield position just to keep games tight.

Absolutely! 

I was watching Sheffield United last night (and pretty much all season) and they reminded me a lot of 90s Scotland. In the middle of midfield (and wing-backs) they were always within 5-10 yards of each other when they had the ball, which lead to a lot of neat little interchangeable passes as well as transitions in both sides of the park. You're spot-on when you note the distance that our midfielders have to pass. I mean, that's okay if you have Pirlo or Scholes, etc, but we don't. Fleck pretty much ran the midfield last night, in a tight, compact 3.

I'd go with that, too. I'm not talking about Robertson (because we all know how good he is), I'm talking about players who are supposed to be good, but has never actually done much in a Scotland shirt, McGregor comes to mind.

Yeah, that's the trouble, though. We don't really have what you would call a prototypical anchorman. Personally, I'd try Andrew Robertson in that position. A match is won and lost in the middle, and he's not really having the chance to influence things out wide, so play him through the middle, the way that Austria and Germany do with Alaba and Kimmich (two fullbacks.

[The_Dark_Knight]

1 hour ago, ElChris04 said:

Personally this is what I would try 

5-4-1 

Hickey-Soutter-Porteous-Tierney-Robertson 

Forrest-McGinn-McTominay-Johnston 

Griffiths ( Hornby IF Griff isn’t ready )
 

hickey & robbo as wing backs. Chris Wilder also implements his 2 wing sided CB’s to overlap, something KT would flourish at. 
 

with a comfortable back five, i feel our wingers would flourish in helping our lone striker. 
 

Finally, if we’re calling you young players they start for me. For example some may wonder who I would start Mikey Johnston ahead of Ryan Fraser. It’s simple to me, if I’m calling them up, I’m calling them up to play games, not sit on the bench and stop there development playing at the U21’s, Mikey was flourishing before his injury and hopefully we’ll see him make his comeback against Lazio. 
 

 

If I was given that team today I'd take it!

The overlapping centerback thing is genius!

https://footballdna.co.uk/features/sheffield-united-3-5-2-attacking-overlapping-centre-backs/?fbclid=IwAR1cw4Tv7NVIf-pOjhzkO61QTxzpKS3tEBnuRpDmw0Z9QfEBVHS3l1lt6b4

It's something from the Pep Guardiola Masterclass.

My idea was to have one of the flaking center backs coming forward into midfield, affording one of the central midfielders to roam. But Wilder's system where either flanking center back turns into a winger, it's certainly innovative! If a great manager like Klopp struggles to find a way of combatting it then it must be a fantastic system.

Agreed. I want to see players like Porteous, Johnston, Hornby, Gilmour, etc, being called up and given their chance. Maybe even George Johnston, too. 

[AndyDD]

49 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

I watched it on NBCsn and Lee Dixon and Graeme Le Saux pointed it out. It was also discussed last night on MNF. 

I was watching the match and it's easy to understand why they stuck 2 up front. It was to engage Man United's wingbacks, get a hold of the midfield and to occupy their three center-backs more than they were in the first half.

It was definitely a 4-4-2, with all due respect to Darren Fletcher.

There's nuances to it. How many international teams qualify for a World Cup or a European Championships with mainly an English Championship/SPL standard spine? Wales have had SPL stand-outs in previous years, like Jonny Evans and Ashley Williams, much in the same way as we had Colin Hendry in the late-to mid 90s. Right now we have no one of that standard. I'm not saying that you need center backs playing a top 5 league in order to qualify, I'm just saying that it helps. And the countries that do qualify, who don't have central defenders playing in a top 5 league, you can bet your ass that they still have center backs from a better league than the English Championship or the SPL.

If you're using Finland as an example then I'll counter that by saying that we've alternated between using 4 and 5 throughout their qualification campaign. I'll also say that they have a very anchorman in Glen Karama. 

Which one of the three? Neither. Circumstantial evidence comes to mind. Bosnia are 46th (or so) and bombing, Scotland style. In every qualification campaign, or a finals, a dark-horse emerges and upsets the odds (Iceland 2016), just so happens that it's Finland's turn. But that's more by luck than by design. Our design has heralded 17 years of mediocrity and for some reason, that I'm not aware of, fans don't want to contemplate a change of system.

I mean, just a few hours ago a guy saying that I should get a "life" because I watched the 6 matches from Euro 96 and France 98. Are people here even football fans? (Never mind Scotland fans). 

Fair enough so, although i'm not really sure what makes 'MNF' a holy authority. Aren't the folk on that generally self-important windbags?

Watching it at the time it looked like a more staggered midfield to me but i'm no holy authority either 😜 

Yes, there are nuances to it, and sorry to pklay the man rather than the ball here, but you are rather fond of leaving nuances at the door at times in this conversation. You have been saying it is in some way outlandish to suggest that Scotland can qualify for a tournament with four at the back because we don't have 'top league' centre halves. So you really have at times been saying we do need 'top league' centre halves, in so much as you earlier suggested that it is reasonable to condescend to anyone with the temerity to think otherwise. 

You very much seemed to be saying that Scotland could not qualify with four at the back without 'top league' centre halves. So if you are now saying that teams can, in fact, qualify for tournaments playing with a four without top quality centre halves, is your opinion actually that yes, so could Scotland, or is it that Scotland are in some way uniquely incapable of a task that other teams could manage? 

See, now you are saying it would be better to have better centre halves, and we would agree on that. Everyone would agree on that. 

It would be much better. But judging it purely on what i've read you say on the topic, your contention has never been 'I wish we had better centre halves in our back four', it has been 'we MUST abandon back four until and unless we have top quality centre halves because anyone who thinks you can qualify for tournaments with a back four with no top league centre halves doesn't have football knowledge'. 

If that seems unfair, well, I think you've been rather unfairly categorical about it, leaving little to no room for the thing you now rightly point to; nuance.

'And the countries that do qualify, who don't have central defenders playing in a top 5 league, you can bet your ass that they still have center backs from a better league than the English Championship or the SPL.'

I'll once again point to Finland and say that their centre halves are playing in Finland and Cyprus, which IS below or on par with SPL/english championship. Cyprus 16, Scotland 19 and Finland... 43. We are in the middle of the two, and I'd fancy English companionship teams to hold their own against Cypriot and Finnish clubs. 

They have played a back 5 twice in these qualifiers, both against Italy and lost both matches. They have NOT alternated. 2 out of 8, the two being the top seed, is not alternating. It is making an exception to the rule for one team. They will play a back four in their 9th game and almost certainly their 10th, so no, again, not alternating. Nor has Glen Kamara been played as an anchorman when they have gone back four. He has been played as a centre mid. Glen Kamara, for it is he, who plies his trade in the backwater league that is the spl.

And it seems that, faced with an example of a team doing what you have been spending a lot of time explaining is a fools errand, you're now saying we have to take nuance and caveats into account. Well, yes. The hardline position in this discussion has been yours, as far as I can see; that we have played back four and must abandon it. That is not nuanced, nor is it taking circumstantial evidence into account to say 'well we have played back 4 for 17 years and not qualified'. If circumstantial evidence applies to the Finnish example, it follows that it must also apply to us. 

 Bosnia battered Finland 4-1 earlier in the group and will likely finish 3rd. But I doubt you'd let me away with an argument along the lines of 'we played back four in the last euros and, but for circumstantial evidence like ireland fluking points home and away off Germany, or the last kick of the ball equaliser by a world class striker for Poland at Hampden, we'd have qualified' but that seems just as valid an explanation as 'Finland are lucky because Bosnia are underperforming'.  Well Germany under performed in two games against Ireland, but the chances of you allowing that as proof that back four is fine in and of itself despite the lack of top league centre halves in it are thin. 

Essentially, your argument is 'well Finland are just lucky and are the exception that proves the back 4 rule'. It doesn't really hold water for me. 

They are proof, and by no means solitary proof, that you can indeed qualify with a back four despite not having 'top league' defenders in the middle of it. I've actually seen a lot of folk on here saying they are open to trying a change of system. I'd count myself amongst them. I don't think I have ever read anyone say 'anyone who wants to move to a back 3 has no football knowledge' or declared it impossible to qualify playing a back 3. I've not seen anyone say if Clarke so much as dares tinker with the back four then he is a dinosaur and I have not seen anyone say we must stick with a back 4 no matter what happens or who is available. 

I've seen folk say it is worth a try, folk argue that if Tierney and McKenna are looking likely to be back it might be wroth trying a back 3 and I've seen folk say they are 'not convinced' a back 3 is the right idea. I fail to see what's wrong with any of that. Those seem nuanced. Those seem reasoned. Those seem open to discussion. 

Yeah, well, you don't want to take that to heart. Read like a joke to me, but if it wasn't,  i'd not spend any time thinking about it. If that's what you like to do then go for it. But I'll go out on a limb and say everyone here is a football fan. 

 

[The_Dark_Knight]

46 minutes ago, AndyDD said:

Fair enough so, although i'm not really sure what makes 'MNF' a holy authority. Aren't the folk on that generally self-important windbags?

Watching it at the time it looked like a more staggered midfield to me but i'm no holy authority either 😜 

Yes, there are nuances to it, and sorry to pklay the man rather than the ball here, but you are rather fond of leaving nuances at the door at times in this conversation. You have been saying it is in some way outlandish to suggest that Scotland can qualify for a tournament with four at the back because we don't have 'top league' centre halves. So you really have at times been saying we do need 'top league' centre halves, in so much as you earlier suggested that it is reasonable to condescend to anyone with the temerity to think otherwise. 

You very much seemed to be saying that Scotland could not qualify with four at the back without 'top league' centre halves. So if you are now saying that teams can, in fact, qualify for tournaments playing with a four without top quality centre halves, is your opinion actually that yes, so could Scotland, or is it that Scotland are in some way uniquely incapable of a task that other teams could manage? 

See, now you are saying it would be better to have better centre halves, and we would agree on that. Everyone would agree on that. 

It would be much better. But judging it purely on what i've read you say on the topic, your contention has never been 'I wish we had better centre halves in our back four', it has been 'we MUST abandon back four until and unless we have top quality centre halves because anyone who thinks you can qualify for tournaments with a back four with no top league centre halves doesn't have football knowledge'. 

If that seems unfair, well, I think you've been rather unfairly categorical about it, leaving little to no room for the thing you now rightly point to; nuance.

'And the countries that do qualify, who don't have central defenders playing in a top 5 league, you can bet your ass that they still have center backs from a better league than the English Championship or the SPL.'

I'll once again point to Finland and say that their centre halves are playing in Finland and Cyprus, which IS below or on par with SPL/english championship. Cyprus 16, Scotland 19 and Finland... 43. We are in the middle of the two, and I'd fancy English companionship teams to hold their own against Cypriot and Finnish clubs. 

They have played a back 5 twice in these qualifiers, both against Italy and lost both matches. They have NOT alternated. 2 out of 8, the two being the top seed, is not alternating. It is making an exception to the rule for one team. They will play a back four in their 9th game and almost certainly their 10th, so no, again, not alternating. Nor has Glen Kamara been played as an anchorman when they have gone back four. He has been played as a centre mid. Glen Kamara, for it is he, who plies his trade in the backwater league that is the spl.

And it seems that, faced with an example of a team doing what you have been spending a lot of time explaining is a fools errand, you're now saying we have to take nuance and caveats into account. Well, yes. The hardline position in this discussion has been yours, as far as I can see; that we have played back four and must abandon it. That is not nuanced, nor is it taking circumstantial evidence into account to say 'well we have played back 4 for 17 years and not qualified'. If circumstantial evidence applies to the Finnish example, it follows that it must also apply to us. 

 Bosnia battered Finland 4-1 earlier in the group and will likely finish 3rd. But I doubt you'd let me away with an argument along the lines of 'we played back four in the last euros and, but for circumstantial evidence like ireland fluking points home and away off Germany, or the last kick of the ball equaliser by a world class striker for Poland at Hampden, we'd have qualified' but that seems just as valid an explanation as 'Finland are lucky because Bosnia are underperforming'.  Well Germany under performed in two games against Ireland, but the chances of you allowing that as proof that back four is fine in and of itself despite the lack of top league centre halves in it are thin. 

Essentially, your argument is 'well Finland are just lucky and are the exception that proves the back 4 rule'. It doesn't really hold water for me. 

They are proof, and by no means solitary proof, that you can indeed qualify with a back four despite not having 'top league' defenders in the middle of it. I've actually seen a lot of folk on here saying they are open to trying a change of system. I'd count myself amongst them. I don't think I have ever read anyone say 'anyone who wants to move to a back 3 has no football knowledge' or declared it impossible to qualify playing a back 3. I've not seen anyone say if Clarke so much as dares tinker with the back four then he is a dinosaur and I have not seen anyone say we must stick with a back 4 no matter what happens or who is available. 

I've seen folk say it is worth a try, folk argue that if Tierney and McKenna are looking likely to be back it might be wroth trying a back 3 and I've seen folk say they are 'not convinced' a back 3 is the right idea. I fail to see what's wrong with any of that. Those seem nuanced. Those seem reasoned. Those seem open to discussion. 

Yeah, well, you don't want to take that to heart. Read like a joke to me, but if it wasn't,  i'd not spend any time thinking about it. If that's what you like to do then go for it. But I'll go out on a limb and say everyone here is a football fan. 

 

Self important windbags? Why do football fans generally have such a problem with pundits? I mean, the criticism is usually "Why does he always give his opinion?!". Well, do people not realize that pundits get employed for... giving their opinion? But no. I'd say that the likes of Patrice Evra (last night), Roy Keane, Carragher, Gary Neville, etc, have been involved at the highest level of football to have their opinion valued. Not that I'm saying that their opinion is more important than mine or anything...

So yes, Liverpool switched to a 4-4-2. I can link you the match, if you want, and you can hear the commentators say it or you can see it before your very eyes.

I have 17 years of evidence to say, without certainty, that our center backs (for the past 17 years) have crumbled at international level. We've conceded a total of 113 in 91 matches over the period of 17 years, playing with a back four. Is this not evidence enough that our center backs aren't capable at this level? That's evidence enough for me to ponder a change in system. When I have mentioned "top center backs", I've always prefaced it by saying "in a perfect world", and then "we would play four at the back". I've never said that the only way to qualify for anything is with two quality center backs. Usually when teams qualify with two limited center backs they're usually being protected by a quality anchorman. If we had a quality anchorman then yes, maybe we could get away with a 4.

It's structurally defensive where we are lacking. We have no central defender who is great at defending and we don't have a midfielder who is especially good at defending. (Or attacking) That being said, it's no wonder we leak so many goals if we fundamentally can't defend.

I don't see any problem with saying that. People are watching us leak goals, left, right and center, and not just against great teams. I'm talking about teams like Kazakhstan and Cyprus, etc. People are watching us fold like wet spaghetti and the majority of people just don't want to discuss changing systems. I posted a link to a Man United forum (Redcafe) and I'd say that about 60% are open to change and they're all discussing it in an adult and a fashion that would suggest that they know what they're talking about. What have I been faced with here? When I first mentioned the subject of Robertson as an anchorman people were pouring scorn on it, saying things like Denis Law should've been in goals, etc. When I mentioned the formation change, I face nothing but question like "Our players don't play it as club level/We don't have the center backs to play a 3", etc. 

I mean, just today I was accused of not having a life because over the past month or so I re-watched our 6 matches at Euro 96 and France 98. I think this must be the only football forum in the history of the internet where you'd be ridiculed for watching football. 

Finland have swapped from a 4 to a 5 throughout their campaign. Yes, both times were against Italy, and they lost both matches, but that's not the point. They've experimented. We've played 8 matches using 4-2-3-1 in all 8 matches. And if you really want to play the numbers game, we've played 8, won 3 and lost 5. Bear in mind, two of those wins were against San Marino.

Fair play to Finland for doing what we can't. Also, they have Glen Kamara, we don't have a quality anchorman like him. Jack is OK, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kamara was playing In the EPL in a couple of years.

In any walk of life, be it a chef or a plumber or a writer or a builder, etc, if something isn't working then you must make a change. It's been fairly obvious that we just don't produce center backs, and we haven't done since Weir and Hendry (and even then we played with a 3/5) so doesn't it stand to reason why we haven't succeeded with a back four? The comical argument is "We don't have two good center backs, so why play three?" is rather sweet. It's akin to saying that swapping a house of bricks with a house made completely out of straw. Yes, less is more in life, but not in football. I mean, if people want to play with less center backs then why not just play 1-8-1 or 0-9-1, etc?

I wouldn't say that Finland are lucky, at all. I'd say that they're playing to their strengths, they're organized and the whole is certainly worth more than the sum of their parts. I applaud them and I hope they qualify.

Look at Sheffield United vs Arsenal last night, the combined market value of the three Sheffield United center backs has a market value of £15.8m, the market value of Arsenal's defence is £75.5m. People here seem to think that if you play three center backs they must be top quality, but Chris Wilder has shown what you can do if you organize a team and develop a great team bond.

Of course there's evidence of teams qualifying for things with a back four, there's loads of it. But usually they have midfielders who can defend and make up the difference. With most cases, when it involves players playing from a lower standard, the team is uber organized and they have a never-say-die attitude.

Well, I'd argue against that one. When I first suggested playing three at the back I was accused of everything from being a meth addict to being a stupid mother-f*king c*nt with s*it for brains! If those two were on the menu with "Lack of football knowledge", I'd gladly take the knowledge one. 

Yep. People who are open to discussion (The people who post in this thread) have my respect. I'm not saying 100% are against the idea. There are a lot more people who are open to suggestion now than when I first broached the subject.

I'd say that if someone derides a person for watching a football, it's pretty peculiar, as they're dedicated their own time watching it and talking about it. Seems rather odd to me and hypocritical, especially from a person who has posted almost 10k posts.

[The_Dark_Knight]

aai said:

In the 1990s, when Brown played with three centre backs in a 3-5-2, although it was probably more often than not a 5-3-2 it was a fairly common formation used by a number of sides.  We also had a number of good centre backs who either played in the formation at their clubs or were adaptable enough to play it at international level.   In fact we had so many decent centre backs that Brown started five away to Belgium in 2001.

The other aspect of "three at the back" is the wide players, or wing backs as they were known then.  We didn't really have many recognised wing backs, what we tended to do was to utilise midfielders in those positions.  Craig Burley for example probably played there for about his first 20 or so caps.  However, he'd come through the ranks at Chelsea under Hoddle who was a great proponent of 3-5-2 and that's largely where Burley played at club level.  Similarly Dailly also played there as a young player.

Where we currently stand is that we aren't blessed with a surplus of quality centre backs, it's probably our weakest position and similarly, as most clubs play a flat back four, we don't have players who are familiar with playing as a "wing back".

In club football - depending on your transfer budget - it's possible for a manager to have a favoured formation and then buy players into fill any gaps he has.   That's not the case in International football for pretty obvious reasons.  An international manager has to come up a formation that makes the best use of the players available to him and then stick to that.

I can't see, given the players available to him, how Steve Clarke can put together a team based on 5-3-2, 3-5-2, 3-4-3 or whatever variant that makes us better, in fact I'd suspect it would make us worse as.  

-----

No it wasn't. It wasn't common, at all. From our Euro 96 and France 98 squads only Matt Elliot (Leicester) played in a 3/5 at club level. So no, you're dead wrong. Very few clubs in the UK used a variant of 3/5 at the back, I can only remember one.

The 2-2 match? It was a back three of Elliot, Hendry and Weir, with two fullback of Matteo and Boyd. Boyd and Matteo were usually fullbacks for Celtic and Liverpool

Does it really matter? Seriously. People here get too bogged down with positions, etc. Kimmich started his career as an anchorman, with Bayern he played full back, he plays anchorman for Germany. Patrice Evra started off his career as a striker, got turned into a fullback. Scholes was a striker because he found his position in central midfield. Eric Cantona spent his youth in goals before he realized that he would rather score goals than save them. Mulgrew started as a left midfielder and he's pretty much played everywhere in defence and midfield, same with James Milner. I could go on and on and on and on, etc, about players being used as utility players, suffice to say, professional football players can play in more than one position. It's not like they're being asked to play a different sport. 

You're correct, we aren't blessed with quality center backs, so why expose them by playing them in a two? It hasn't worked well for the previous 17 years. It's basic physics, if a foundation is weak, you strengthen it. Our weakness is center back, you strengthen it by adding numbers, not taking them away.

We've played 4-2-3-1 for how many years now? 5? We don't have two center backs that are capable of playing 4 at the back at international level. We have no right back. We don't have any good anchormen. We don't have a quality second striker and we don't have a quality main striker. All that being said, why do people think we have the players to be able to pull off a 4-2-3-1?

[ParisInAKilt]

Can see why twitter limit characters 

[The_Dark_Knight]

6 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Can see why twitter limit characters 

https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-literacy/

[ParisInAKilt]

23 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-literacy/

Because Scotland don’t play 352?

[mrniaboc]

2 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-literacy/

Studies show that the brevity enforced by Twitter leads to an increase in thoughtful vocabulary - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/twitter-language-book_n_5786556

[Malcolm]

4-4-2 for me, ideally with a giant centre forward like ikpeazu at hearts.

[AndyDD]

13 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Self important windbags? Why do football fans generally have such a problem with pundits? I mean, the criticism is usually "Why does he always give his opinion?!". Well, do people not realize that pundits get employed for... giving their opinion? But no. I'd say that the likes of Patrice Evra (last night), Roy Keane, Carragher, Gary Neville, etc, have been involved at the highest level of football to have their opinion valued. Not that I'm saying that their opinion is more important than mine or anything...

So yes, Liverpool switched to a 4-4-2. I can link you the match, if you want, and you can hear the commentators say it or you can see it before your very eyes.

I have 17 years of evidence to say, without certainty, that our center backs (for the past 17 years) have crumbled at international level. We've conceded a total of 113 in 91 matches over the period of 17 years, playing with a back four. Is this not evidence enough that our center backs aren't capable at this level? That's evidence enough for me to ponder a change in system. When I have mentioned "top center backs", I've always prefaced it by saying "in a perfect world", and then "we would play four at the back". I've never said that the only way to qualify for anything is with two quality center backs. Usually when teams qualify with two limited center backs they're usually being protected by a quality anchorman. If we had a quality anchorman then yes, maybe we could get away with a 4.

It's structurally defensive where we are lacking. We have no central defender who is great at defending and we don't have a midfielder who is especially good at defending. (Or attacking) That being said, it's no wonder we leak so many goals if we fundamentally can't defend.

I don't see any problem with saying that. People are watching us leak goals, left, right and center, and not just against great teams. I'm talking about teams like Kazakhstan and Cyprus, etc. People are watching us fold like wet spaghetti and the majority of people just don't want to discuss changing systems. I posted a link to a Man United forum (Redcafe) and I'd say that about 60% are open to change and they're all discussing it in an adult and a fashion that would suggest that they know what they're talking about. What have I been faced with here? When I first mentioned the subject of Robertson as an anchorman people were pouring scorn on it, saying things like Denis Law should've been in goals, etc. When I mentioned the formation change, I face nothing but question like "Our players don't play it as club level/We don't have the center backs to play a 3", etc. 

I mean, just today I was accused of not having a life because over the past month or so I re-watched our 6 matches at Euro 96 and France 98. I think this must be the only football forum in the history of the internet where you'd be ridiculed for watching football. 

Finland have swapped from a 4 to a 5 throughout their campaign. Yes, both times were against Italy, and they lost both matches, but that's not the point. They've experimented. We've played 8 matches using 4-2-3-1 in all 8 matches. And if you really want to play the numbers game, we've played 8, won 3 and lost 5. Bear in mind, two of those wins were against San Marino.

Fair play to Finland for doing what we can't. Also, they have Glen Kamara, we don't have a quality anchorman like him. Jack is OK, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kamara was playing In the EPL in a couple of years.

In any walk of life, be it a chef or a plumber or a writer or a builder, etc, if something isn't working then you must make a change. It's been fairly obvious that we just don't produce center backs, and we haven't done since Weir and Hendry (and even then we played with a 3/5) so doesn't it stand to reason why we haven't succeeded with a back four? The comical argument is "We don't have two good center backs, so why play three?" is rather sweet. It's akin to saying that swapping a house of bricks with a house made completely out of straw. Yes, less is more in life, but not in football. I mean, if people want to play with less center backs then why not just play 1-8-1 or 0-9-1, etc?

I wouldn't say that Finland are lucky, at all. I'd say that they're playing to their strengths, they're organized and the whole is certainly worth more than the sum of their parts. I applaud them and I hope they qualify.

Look at Sheffield United vs Arsenal last night, the combined market value of the three Sheffield United center backs has a market value of £15.8m, the market value of Arsenal's defence is £75.5m. People here seem to think that if you play three center backs they must be top quality, but Chris Wilder has shown what you can do if you organize a team and develop a great team bond.

Of course there's evidence of teams qualifying for things with a back four, there's loads of it. But usually they have midfielders who can defend and make up the difference. With most cases, when it involves players playing from a lower standard, the team is uber organized and they have a never-say-die attitude.

Well, I'd argue against that one. When I first suggested playing three at the back I was accused of everything from being a meth addict to being a stupid mother-f*king c*nt with s*it for brains! If those two were on the menu with "Lack of football knowledge", I'd gladly take the knowledge one. 

Yep. People who are open to discussion (The people who post in this thread) have my respect. I'm not saying 100% are against the idea. There are a lot more people who are open to suggestion now than when I first broached the subject.

I'd say that if someone derides a person for watching a football, it's pretty peculiar, as they're dedicated their own time watching it and talking about it. Seems rather odd to me and hypocritical, especially from a person who has posted almost 10k posts.

Ach, I was clearly poking fun at them. I'm sure they can take that without your riding to their defence, but yes I find almost all pundits annoying. I'll record football matches and delay watching it for 15 mins so I can fast forward their inane half-time drivel and often make liberal use of the mute button whilst sticking some music on, especially if we're talking BT Sport or Sky. 

Clearly their opinion is valid as ex professionals and, often, failed coaches or managers, but that doesn't make them any less self-important or wind-baggy... or plain boring to listen to. 

Haha no, heaven fore-fend... 

I caught some of the game and it didn't look like it to me, I clearly wasn't alone, but fair do's, if the sky sports rent-a-mob says it, who am I to disagree  

Well, it's certainly evidence that we are weak at centre half and have been for a long time now. Are there many positions on the park, though, that this is not the case? I wonder what our goals for ratio is. I wonder what our set-piece execution stats would be like, what our interceptions in the midfield stats would be like, etc etc. Goalkeeper has been the only position in recent times we've had consistent strength in depth in, I would argue, back when we could have put in any of Gordon, Mcgregor and Marshall at the height of their game. Definitely evidence to justify pondering a system change, no doubt about it. There's even evidence there to justify advocating it, which is more like what you do in this case than pondering it is. But what you have said is thing like 'we will never qualify for anything if we play a back four without top league centre halves', or 'anyone who thinks we will qualify whilst continuing to play a back four with this level of centre half is mad/a halfwit/kidding themselves etc etc'. 

And that's just much, much too simplistic and categorical. The reality is that teams quite often qualify without 'higher level' centre halves in a back four set up, so anyone who does NOT see changing the formation of the back line as an absolute MUST for Scotland is not some imbecile or dinosaur or ignoramus. 

We're also lacking goals, any quality strikers or any quality ball winner in the middle of the park. We are a limited team of limited players. And we are two games away from the Euros. It is eminently possible that we defeat Bulgaria and Norway or Serbia, despite our limitations and with a back four, and any suggestion that this is for the birds is overly-pessimistic claptrap. We could wuite easily fail in this endeavour, but to suggest there is no chance of it coming to fruition is intellectual vapidity. 

The only goal we 'leaked' to Cyprus was a corner kick, was it not? That's poor execution of set-piece defending. It is pretty irrelevant what back line you employ when you concede from a corner or set play, as your set-up at the corner/free-kick is quite a separate matter from how you choose to set out your defensive backline. But I  really don't see this 'people refuse to talk about it' stuff. Disagreeing with switching to a 3 is not refusing to discuss it. Those are not the same thing. Not is disagreeing and being brief in the explanation in some way an affront, or a judgement on the validity of the topic. It merely means they don't happen to want to go back 3. 

I don't really see the relevance of the comparison with your Man U forum; I think the odds are high they have very bit as many cretins and wind up merchants and thoughtful posters and run of the mill posters as this forum or any other, relative to user numbers. It's the internet; folk aren't always going to be civil. This is especially true when you make categorical statements that they think are much too strongly stated. 

There is some merit, for me,in the argument that our players don't play it. The best centre half we have ever produced, Willie Miller, talked recently about what Jock Stein said to him in the Scotland camps. Along the lines of 'you are here because of what you do for Aberdeen. That's what I'm looking for. Do for me what you do for Aberdeen, play the same role, do the same job and that's all I'll ask of you.' Those two chaps knew/know a bit about football, and are there advocating the concept of sticking to what you do week in week out at club level. So it's not some preposterous suggestion, as arguments go. Sure, it's never pleasant to have scorn poured over your opinion but, again, it's an internet fitba board, of course that happens. I'm sure we are all guilty of it. Even you. Maybe even me, hard though it may be to believe.

Yeah, you mentioned it in the last post as well and as I said already, you don't want to take that to heart. Read like a joke to me, but if it wasn't,  i'd not spend any time thinking about it.

Finland have done it twice to try and keep Italy out, but they play with a back 4 and all evidence suggests it will be two games out of ten. It wasn't an experiment, so much as an attempt to batten down the hatches and 'park the bus' or whatever other way playing uber-defensively is described. A one-off, as in against one team, albeit over two matches. I don't think we have played 4-2-3-1 in every match thus far, actually. If memory serves, and looking back at highlights, we approximated 4-3-3 in Astana, 4-2-3-1 in san marino, 4-3-3 against Cyprus, 4-4-1-1 in both Belgium games, 4-3-3 at home to the Russians, 4-2-3-1 in Russia and who the hell knows what the formation was at home to San Marino. The players certainly went out and experimented amongst themselves in that match. 

As for Kamara, again, Finland do not play him as an anchorman or pivot midfielder whose job is to screen the centre halves. Neither do Rangers. Neither did Dundee. So i'm not at all in agreement that he's an anchorman, quality or not. He is deployed as a central midfielder for his nation. Will he be playing in the EPL someday? Who knows. As of right now, he's a centre mid in the scottish league, playing for the second best team and has never tasted champions league football. 

We have performed to varying levels of quality over the last 17 years you point to. The thing that has changed hasn't always been the formation. The changes have included personnel, management style, manager, formation, number of friendlies and i'm sure several other things. Using a back 4 did not change from Levein to Strachan, but there was a marked improvement from the  first few Scotlands Strachan  put out to the last few. That improvement was achieved without altering the back four, and he was one set piece lapse from his team away from the world cup playoffs. Granted, he did on I think one occasion play a back three, against England at home. But he beat Slovakia with a back four, beat and drew with Slovenia with a back four. McLeish beat France, that France, with a back four. He also lost to Georgia with a back four. There's just no evidence that the formation itself is even a major contributing factor to the varying quality of performances and results. Contributing, sure, of course it is, but no evidence it is consistently  the or a major factor. 

It's not a great argument, that, but i've not made it. If you were being kind, though, you could say those who ever have said it are pointing out that you are talking about having to potentially take out one of our better footballers to play another person who isn't very good. There isn't anything comical about wanting to limit the amount of limited players in your 11 and preferring to go with midfield players who might be able to retain the ball than playing a third centre half who is slow, error-ridden and loose. 

The issue with that of course is that our mifdfield are often profligate and give the ball away cheaply. I don't see that being changed by a formation shift. Poor passing is an individual error. 

Eh, only issue is you really rather did say that Finland are lucky. You said 'just so happens that it's Finland's turn. But that's more by luck than by design'

What else is one to take from this statement other than a quite churlish suggestion that Finland are lucky that they are doing so well with a back four using non-top league centre halves? 

'they're playing to their strengths, they're organized and the whole is certainly worth more than the sum of their parts. I applaud them and I hope they qualify.'

I agree with all of that and the discussion then is what are our strengths, how do we play to them and can we make the whole more than the sum of our parts. I would point out that we did that before and still failed, in the Smith/McLeish campaign (and the second half of Strachan's last campaign as well as the first part of his first full campaign., which is I understand not a view shared by everyone). Those things alone are not always enough to succeed. 

Yeah but that's an example of one upset in one game. Livingston played a back four and beat celtic. The disparity is likely even larger there than in the Sheffield and Arsenal example. Although I thought the epl centre halves were 'top quality'? On that basis Sheffield are not bucking the 'need top quality centre halves for a back 3' trend  and all we need is for Hanley to be fit. Then we can play him with Tierney and Robbo and we will be hunky dory... (for avoidance of doubt I know that;s not what you are advocating, but ti think it does rather illustrate a point in a tongue in cheek way; the league one currently plays in does not always tell you everything about one's capability or quality). 

Chris Wilder has indeed 'shown what you can do if you organise a team and develop a great team bond'. Nothing about that cannot be attached to a back four (here's looking at you, Burnley, with your exceptional quality footballers Ben Mee and Tarkowski). 

I think you're right, we need a team that is very well organised and has a never-say-die attitude. Nothing about that requires a back 3. Indeed, it really ought to be a basic standard. I would think If Clarke ever gets to pick his first choice defensive partnership for a few games in a row he could take us a long way towards that level of organisation. I'm sure I wasn't alone in thinking we were much more defensively organised in Brussels than we were in Astana. 

Hahaha yes fair point that's not the worst language in the world, and maybe I've just missed these posts saying you are a meth addict or a stupid cunt for saying we should ponder playing 3 at the back, but what can I say? I've not seen them. I've seen folk have a go at you for talking about it a lot and I've seen folk having a go at you for condescending to them, but honestly, I've never seen anyone attack you for suggesting back 3 is worth a try. Must have been before my time. 

I'd be alright with it being tried, as it happens, if we have Tierney and Mckenna back. Ideally if we have Souttar, as well. I think those three could potentially work as they are quick enough to cover the ground and fit enough to keep it up, but i'd still be nervous about their discipline and how vulnerable we will be if the midfielders don't do their bit. That applies to any formation of course, but you are really really exposed in a three if your midfield is posted missing as there is one guy in the middle if the two need to go wide. 

Personally, I'd place a 4-4-1-1 with Tierney and Robertson on the same side of the pitch as left back and left mid (probably robbo left back as he will have marginally more of an understanding with the other defenders), with them essentially job sharing it and covering for each other. 

As I've also said before, I can see some potential in a 3-4-2-1, but only if we have our fastest and most energetic available centre halves to pick from. If we are having to play one of Mulgrew, Devlin, Hanley or Findlay in that three i'd really, really not want to bother. 

 

[AndyDD]

13 hours ago, Malcolm said:

4-4-2 for me, ideally with a giant centre forward like ikpeazu at hearts.

He's no exactly an elegant player, but I was saying to my brother whilst watching the Hearts V rangers game on Sunday that I'd quite like for Ikpeazu to be eligble for Scotland. He is such a menace for defenders when in the mood. Must be horrific to play against. I'll never forget how easily he threw the celtic defence about (Tierney and Simunovic included) in that 1-0 game early last season. 

I bet he'd give away so many fouls in an international game though. Like a non-contact sport at times, which does my fucking head in. 

[Dalgety Bay TA]

17 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

 

-----

No it wasn't. It wasn't common, at all. From our Euro 96 and France 98 squads only Matt Elliot (Leicester) played in a 3/5 at club level. So no, you're dead wrong. Very few clubs in the UK used a variant of 3/5 at the back, I can only remember one.

The 2-2 match? It was a back three of Elliot, Hendry and Weir, with two fullback of Matteo and Boyd. Boyd and Matteo were usually fullbacks for Celtic and Liverpool

 

A decent percentage of the EPL played a back 3 at that point.

Matteo played as part of a back 3 at Liverpool alongside Babb, Carragher and Staunton. Bjornebye and Heggem tended to be wing backs. Matteo sometimes played wing back.

Boyd was in a back 3 at Celtic alongside likes of Stubbs, Mjallby and Rieper. Mahe and McNamara were the wing backs. He played wing back for Scotland due to Hendry, Weir, Calderwood, Dailly and Elliot all being more natural centre backs.

Hendry still played in a 4 at Blackburn alongside Henchoz I believe. But Calderwood was in a 3 at Spurs.

 

[aaid]

58 minutes ago, Dalgety Bay TA said:

A decent percentage of the EPL played a back 3 at that point.

Matteo played as part of a back 3 at Liverpool alongside Babb, Carragher and Staunton. Bjornebye and Heggem tended to be wing backs. Matteo sometimes played wing back.

Boyd was in a back 3 at Celtic alongside likes of Stubbs, Mjallby and Rieper. Mahe and McNamara were the wing backs. He played wing back for Scotland due to Hendry, Weir, Calderwood, Dailly and Elliot all being more natural centre backs.

Hendry still played in a 4 at Blackburn alongside Henchoz I believe. But Calderwood was in a 3 at Spurs.

 

Calderwood was indeed in a 3 at Spurs with Ramon Vega and Sol Campbell, before that he was at Swindon under Hoddle who used three centre backs almost as an article of faith.

[The_Dark_Knight]

1 hour ago, Dalgety Bay TA said:

A decent percentage of the EPL played a back 3 at that point.

Matteo played as part of a back 3 at Liverpool alongside Babb, Carragher and Staunton. Bjornebye and Heggem tended to be wing backs. Matteo sometimes played wing back.

Boyd was in a back 3 at Celtic alongside likes of Stubbs, Mjallby and Rieper. Mahe and McNamara were the wing backs. He played wing back for Scotland due to Hendry, Weir, Calderwood, Dailly and Elliot all being more natural centre backs.

Hendry still played in a 4 at Blackburn alongside Henchoz I believe. But Calderwood was in a 3 at Spurs.

 

Looking back on the 06/07 EPL campaign I can see that 5 teams out of 20 played a variant of 3/5, on the opening day: Arsenal, Man United, Leicester, Middleborough and Newcastle. Of those teams only Dickov (he got 6 minutes), McClair (11 minutes) played, and by that time McClair had retired from international duty.

From those four teams, the most notable player we had playing regularly was Matt Elliot (and he didn't play in the opening match of the season)

https://www.football-lineups.com/tourn/FA_Premier_League_1996-1997/

As for the formation Celtic played in 96/97, It may have been a back three, which Stubbs the big new signing. I can't honestly remember and there doesn't seem to be any resources online.

So yes, back then, not many of our players played in a 3/5 on a regular basis. Only Elliot.

[aaid]

Brown utilised players in positions they were familiar with, he rarely played players in positions they weren't familiar with or uncomfortable.

Defenders in 1998 World Cup Squad.

Jackie McNamara - wing back for Celtic
Tom Boyd - back three for Celtic
Colin Calderwood - back three for Spurs
Tosh McKinlay - wing back for Celtic
David Weir - back three for Hearts
Matt Elliott - back three for Leicester
Derek Whyte - not sure, perhaps some Aberdeen fan will confirm, but prior to that he'd played in a back three at MIddlesborough.
Christian Dailly - played in a back four at Derby but utilised as a wing back by Brown.
Colin Hendry - Blackburn, orthodox flat back four.

Six of the eight played in the same formation at their club that Brown used.   Of the other two, I doubt anyone would suggest that Hendry didn't fit well into that system and Dailly is probably one of the most versatile players we've had in the last 20-30 years.



 

[The_Dark_Knight]

3 hours ago, AndyDD said:

Ach, I was clearly poking fun at them. I'm sure they can take that without your riding to their defence, but yes I find almost all pundits annoying. I'll record football matches and delay watching it for 15 mins so I can fast forward their inane half-time drivel and often make liberal use of the mute button whilst sticking some music on, especially if we're talking BT Sport or Sky. 

Clearly their opinion is valid as ex professionals and, often, failed coaches or managers, but that doesn't make them any less self-important or wind-baggy... or plain boring to listen to. 

Haha no, heaven fore-fend... 

I caught some of the game and it didn't look like it to me, I clearly wasn't alone, but fair do's, if the sky sports rent-a-mob says it, who am I to disagree  

Well, it's certainly evidence that we are weak at centre half and have been for a long time now. Are there many positions on the park, though, that this is not the case? I wonder what our goals for ratio is. I wonder what our set-piece execution stats would be like, what our interceptions in the midfield stats would be like, etc etc. Goalkeeper has been the only position in recent times we've had consistent strength in depth in, I would argue, back when we could have put in any of Gordon, Mcgregor and Marshall at the height of their game. Definitely evidence to justify pondering a system change, no doubt about it. There's even evidence there to justify advocating it, which is more like what you do in this case than pondering it is. But what you have said is thing like 'we will never qualify for anything if we play a back four without top league centre halves', or 'anyone who thinks we will qualify whilst continuing to play a back four with this level of centre half is mad/a halfwit/kidding themselves etc etc'. 

And that's just much, much too simplistic and categorical. The reality is that teams quite often qualify without 'higher level' centre halves in a back four set up, so anyone who does NOT see changing the formation of the back line as an absolute MUST for Scotland is not some imbecile or dinosaur or ignoramus. 

We're also lacking goals, any quality strikers or any quality ball winner in the middle of the park. We are a limited team of limited players. And we are two games away from the Euros. It is eminently possible that we defeat Bulgaria and Norway or Serbia, despite our limitations and with a back four, and any suggestion that this is for the birds is overly-pessimistic claptrap. We could wuite easily fail in this endeavour, but to suggest there is no chance of it coming to fruition is intellectual vapidity. 

The only goal we 'leaked' to Cyprus was a corner kick, was it not? That's poor execution of set-piece defending. It is pretty irrelevant what back line you employ when you concede from a corner or set play, as your set-up at the corner/free-kick is quite a separate matter from how you choose to set out your defensive backline. But I  really don't see this 'people refuse to talk about it' stuff. Disagreeing with switching to a 3 is not refusing to discuss it. Those are not the same thing. Not is disagreeing and being brief in the explanation in some way an affront, or a judgement on the validity of the topic. It merely means they don't happen to want to go back 3. 

I don't really see the relevance of the comparison with your Man U forum; I think the odds are high they have very bit as many cretins and wind up merchants and thoughtful posters and run of the mill posters as this forum or any other, relative to user numbers. It's the internet; folk aren't always going to be civil. This is especially true when you make categorical statements that they think are much too strongly stated. 

There is some merit, for me,in the argument that our players don't play it. The best centre half we have ever produced, Willie Miller, talked recently about what Jock Stein said to him in the Scotland camps. Along the lines of 'you are here because of what you do for Aberdeen. That's what I'm looking for. Do for me what you do for Aberdeen, play the same role, do the same job and that's all I'll ask of you.' Those two chaps knew/know a bit about football, and are there advocating the concept of sticking to what you do week in week out at club level. So it's not some preposterous suggestion, as arguments go. Sure, it's never pleasant to have scorn poured over your opinion but, again, it's an internet fitba board, of course that happens. I'm sure we are all guilty of it. Even you. Maybe even me, hard though it may be to believe.

Yeah, you mentioned it in the last post as well and as I said already, you don't want to take that to heart. Read like a joke to me, but if it wasn't,  i'd not spend any time thinking about it.

Finland have done it twice to try and keep Italy out, but they play with a back 4 and all evidence suggests it will be two games out of ten. It wasn't an experiment, so much as an attempt to batten down the hatches and 'park the bus' or whatever other way playing uber-defensively is described. A one-off, as in against one team, albeit over two matches. I don't think we have played 4-2-3-1 in every match thus far, actually. If memory serves, and looking back at highlights, we approximated 4-3-3 in Astana, 4-2-3-1 in san marino, 4-3-3 against Cyprus, 4-4-1-1 in both Belgium games, 4-3-3 at home to the Russians, 4-2-3-1 in Russia and who the hell knows what the formation was at home to San Marino. The players certainly went out and experimented amongst themselves in that match. 

As for Kamara, again, Finland do not play him as an anchorman or pivot midfielder whose job is to screen the centre halves. Neither do Rangers. Neither did Dundee. So i'm not at all in agreement that he's an anchorman, quality or not. He is deployed as a central midfielder for his nation. Will he be playing in the EPL someday? Who knows. As of right now, he's a centre mid in the scottish league, playing for the second best team and has never tasted champions league football. 

We have performed to varying levels of quality over the last 17 years you point to. The thing that has changed hasn't always been the formation. The changes have included personnel, management style, manager, formation, number of friendlies and i'm sure several other things. Using a back 4 did not change from Levein to Strachan, but there was a marked improvement from the  first few Scotlands Strachan  put out to the last few. That improvement was achieved without altering the back four, and he was one set piece lapse from his team away from the world cup playoffs. Granted, he did on I think one occasion play a back three, against England at home. But he beat Slovakia with a back four, beat and drew with Slovenia with a back four. McLeish beat France, that France, with a back four. He also lost to Georgia with a back four. There's just no evidence that the formation itself is even a major contributing factor to the varying quality of performances and results. Contributing, sure, of course it is, but no evidence it is consistently  the or a major factor. 

It's not a great argument, that, but i've not made it. If you were being kind, though, you could say those who ever have said it are pointing out that you are talking about having to potentially take out one of our better footballers to play another person who isn't very good. There isn't anything comical about wanting to limit the amount of limited players in your 11 and preferring to go with midfield players who might be able to retain the ball than playing a third centre half who is slow, error-ridden and loose. 

The issue with that of course is that our mifdfield are often profligate and give the ball away cheaply. I don't see that being changed by a formation shift. Poor passing is an individual error. 

Eh, only issue is you really rather did say that Finland are lucky. You said 'just so happens that it's Finland's turn. But that's more by luck than by design'

What else is one to take from this statement other than a quite churlish suggestion that Finland are lucky that they are doing so well with a back four using non-top league centre halves? 

'they're playing to their strengths, they're organized and the whole is certainly worth more than the sum of their parts. I applaud them and I hope they qualify.'

I agree with all of that and the discussion then is what are our strengths, how do we play to them and can we make the whole more than the sum of our parts. I would point out that we did that before and still failed, in the Smith/McLeish campaign (and the second half of Strachan's last campaign as well as the first part of his first full campaign., which is I understand not a view shared by everyone). Those things alone are not always enough to succeed. 

Yeah but that's an example of one upset in one game. Livingston played a back four and beat celtic. The disparity is likely even larger there than in the Sheffield and Arsenal example. Although I thought the epl centre halves were 'top quality'? On that basis Sheffield are not bucking the 'need top quality centre halves for a back 3' trend  and all we need is for Hanley to be fit. Then we can play him with Tierney and Robbo and we will be hunky dory... (for avoidance of doubt I know that;s not what you are advocating, but ti think it does rather illustrate a point in a tongue in cheek way; the league one currently plays in does not always tell you everything about one's capability or quality). 

Chris Wilder has indeed 'shown what you can do if you organise a team and develop a great team bond'. Nothing about that cannot be attached to a back four (here's looking at you, Burnley, with your exceptional quality footballers Ben Mee and Tarkowski). 

I think you're right, we need a team that is very well organised and has a never-say-die attitude. Nothing about that requires a back 3. Indeed, it really ought to be a basic standard. I would think If Clarke ever gets to pick his first choice defensive partnership for a few games in a row he could take us a long way towards that level of organisation. I'm sure I wasn't alone in thinking we were much more defensively organised in Brussels than we were in Astana. 

Hahaha yes fair point that's not the worst language in the world, and maybe I've just missed these posts saying you are a meth addict or a stupid cunt for saying we should ponder playing 3 at the back, but what can I say? I've not seen them. I've seen folk have a go at you for talking about it a lot and I've seen folk having a go at you for condescending to them, but honestly, I've never seen anyone attack you for suggesting back 3 is worth a try. Must have been before my time. 

I'd be alright with it being tried, as it happens, if we have Tierney and Mckenna back. Ideally if we have Souttar, as well. I think those three could potentially work as they are quick enough to cover the ground and fit enough to keep it up, but i'd still be nervous about their discipline and how vulnerable we will be if the midfielders don't do their bit. That applies to any formation of course, but you are really really exposed in a three if your midfield is posted missing as there is one guy in the middle if the two need to go wide. 

Personally, I'd place a 4-4-1-1 with Tierney and Robertson on the same side of the pitch as left back and left mid (probably robbo left back as he will have marginally more of an understanding with the other defenders), with them essentially job sharing it and covering for each other. 

As I've also said before, I can see some potential in a 3-4-2-1, but only if we have our fastest and most energetic available centre halves to pick from. If we are having to play one of Mulgrew, Devlin, Hanley or Findlay in that three i'd really, really not want to bother. 

 

Nah. I get it. It’s a valid point, though. Society, now, have opinions about every single thing and every single body. Twitter and Facebook, etc, have seen to that. These days people with more opinions than brain cells can unleash their opinion upon the world. Football fans are perhaps the worst at it, in terms of their opinions on punditry. You could visit every football forum on Earth and you’ll find a thread dedicated to tearing strips off commentators/pundits. You don’t get that in any other sport. I’ve never heard a snooker fan bitch about Stephen Hendry’s analysis or a Tennis fan moan about John McEnroe, etc. And yet football fans bitch and moan incessantly about Roy Keane and Alan Shearer, etc. It’s like “Who are they to give their opinions?!”. Umm.. They’re Roy Keane and Alan Shearer, two of the best players of their generation… and they’re being paid to give their opinion. It’s like opinions are only accepted in this society when they’re unsolicited.

I might be in the minority here, but I like listening to the analysis. Pretty much one of the reasons why I miss Andy Gray on Sky. Just too bad Gray was suing the Sun at the time (Rupert Murdoch) for tapping his phone, as that’s why he got fired. 

Yeah, they discussed it on Sky Sports and they also mentioned it on NBC at the time (Le Saux and Dixon), so yes, it was definitely 4-4-2. Klopp seems to have a habit of doing that, when a system isn’t working, he changes it (Must be nice having a proactive manager…). He did it against Manchester United by switching to 4-4-2 at half time and he also did it against Sheffield United at half time, switching to a 3-5-2. All credit to Klopp, as both matches he managed to finagle four points from a potential one.

I know a few basic stats: we’ve conceded 113 goals in 91 matches and our win ratio is 44.9%. (These are stats spanning the past 17 years of competitive matches) The goal conceded per game ratio is atrocious and it’s actually worse than I thought, before I did the research. One of the real shames is, like you said, at one point we had the luxury of having prime Gordon, McGregor and Marshall at our disposal, and all of our managers have let all three down by failing to give them adequate protection. Are there any positions on the field were we are strong? I wouldn’t say so. No. People talk about us having two work class left backs in Tierney and Robertson, and yes, they are world class, but the simple fact is that they’ll never be able to replicate their club form with Scotland, purely because they’re playing with better players at Arsenal and Liverpool. Robertson has been taking pelters for the last few months because he’s not replicating what he does with Liverpool when he’s on international duty. Which I find unfair. He’s a left back. No fullback in the history of football has taken a match by the scruff of its neck.

I grew up in the era of Maldini and Roberto Carlos, but I don’t remember them ever dominating a match. Players like Zidane, Keane, Vieira, Scholes, Pirlo, etc, those are the players that dominated midfield, as they played in positions from which it was easier to dictate a match. That’s another reason why I call into question the general footballing knowledge of people here. How on earth can Robertson replicate his form with Liverpool to Scotland? At Liverpool he’s playing with top players, playing that he can trust to be able to pass the ball to him, players that he can trust passing the ball to. With Scotland we can hardly string three passes together. 

No. I’ll categorically state that there is zero percent chance that we’ll qualify for the Euros via the Play-offs. Technically, there is a chance and it’s possible, since the results aren’t in yet, but for anyone to think that we do stand a chance of qualify is quite frankly, living in a fantasy-land, and is a real-life threat to himself/herself and their community. It’s not impossible, but it is improbable. I literally know nothing of the play-offs, the format, who we might play, etc. As it just doesn’t interest me. 

No. It’s a complete refusal to discuss change. I’ve given my reasons for saying that we are ill-equipped to playing with a back four (to nausea), and it’s always been well thought-out and constructive. Plus, I have seventeen years of documented evidence that we are hopeless using a back four. But I’m always faced with the same old tired clichés. I think the most bizarre reply to my instance that we experiment with a three at the back is the comical “We played three at the back and got beat by Israel. So we gave it a chance”. I’ve faced that one multiple times. I’m never sure if the person is serious or not. I’ll fill that one under the heading of “calling into question the footballing knowledge of the general populace of the TAMB”. That’s akin to Manchester United sacking SAF when he spent his first few years not improving anything. It’s funny (Not in a ha ha way), people expect three at the back to work instantly, they have zero patience for it, and yet they’ve give four at the back seventeen fruitless years and they’re willing to give it another seventeen years.

I also got the question “Why doesn’t Robertson play in midfield for Liverpool”. Do people not realize how good the Liverpool midfield is? They won the European Cup! Besides, just a few weeks ago, Jamie Carragher came out and said that Alexander-Arnold will probably end up playing as an attacking midfielder. 

I’d actually say that the Redcafe is probably one of the most civil football forums. The worst that I’ve ever visited is the Everton one, no idea what it was called. Toffee something. On the main, though, I like the way that the system change was discussed on Redcafe. The person who broached the subject certainly wasn’t on the receiving end of the abuse that I suffered when I first suggested a back three on here.  
I get the analogy and it does have its merit, but we’re talking about Willie Miller here. Right now we have Scott McKenna, a player who was in the heart of the Aberdeen defence when they got beat four-nil on aggregate by HNK Rijeka and Stuart Findlay who was in the Kilmarnock defence who got beat 3-2 by Connah’s Quay Nomads.. And he was also red carded. If anything, you’d tell them NOT to play the way you do with your clubs, and yes, that includes the formation. I’m not sure how much more proof Scotland fans need that our defenders simply cannot cope at any decent level. I get the analogy, but we’re talking apples and oranges here. 

Fair enough, and you may be right, I’m pretty sure you are. But what’s the common dominator with all of the formations that you mentioned? Yep. The four at the back. We’ve tried every single variant of a four and we’ve failed each and every time. It’s akin to a Chef making a curry-base with the same ingredients, and the same volume, and expecting it to taste differently. Am I saying that the sole reason for our lack of relative success is solely down to four at the back? Of course not. They’re many reasons, much of which I’ve listed in my “Sack the SFA” thread, so I’m not going to go over old ground. All I’m asking for is that  a Scotland manager play with a three at the back and give it at least one full campaign. Strachan got the point where he experimented with a four, and that was against England, with Tierney as one of the three center backs. I’d say that it worked. If Stuart Armstrong didn’t try to thread a stupid ball to Griffiths instead of launching it into the stands, we would’ve won. McLeish played it once against Israel. Yes, we got beat, but we went down to 10 men and we had a man sent off. Truth is, we would’ve gotten beat in Israel, no matter which system we played.

In fairness, I don’t watch Scottish football, at all, not even highlights, so I’m not sure where he plays for Rangers. I did watch the match when Italy played Finland a few months ago, I think it was in March. Kamara was playing in the middle of a three, in front of a back five. And you’re being unfair to Finland a tad. They may have played with a five in defence against Italy twice, but they were attacked just as much as Italy did in Italy. In two matches against Italy they only lost 2:0 and 1-2. Hardly embarrassing stuff. And they could’ve easily have gotten a point in Finland. Kamara will probably end up playing as anchorman, he’s a little like Patrick Vieira… but not nearly as good, obviously. He’s only 23 years old. Apart from McTominay, I’d take Kamara over any of our midfielders. What I’ve seen in a Finland shirt (I’ve seen him a handful of times) I quite like.  

You say that a formation isn’t a major contributing factor in our varying quality of performances and results. Of course it isn’t. In any clinical experiment you need both a test group as well as an experimental group. Over the past 17 years (In competitive matches) the test group (four at the back) has been used 91 times, whereas, the experimental group (three at the back) has been used 2 times. 91 to 2 is NOT a fair comparison. It’s disproportionate. 

“Potentially taking out of our better footballers to play another person who isn’t very good”. I don’t understand that one. I’d drop Robertson, Tierney, McTominay, Fraser if it meant we’d qualify for something. What you’re saying is that we should play our best players and not our best team. Yeah, well, England did that when they played Gerrard and Lampard in the middle of midfield whilst shunting Scholes out wide. The way that I see it, the vast majority of our players (defenders and otherwise) are slow and error-prone, etc. 

Do you watch Sheffield United? Those midfielders don’t have to spray 30/40 yard ball around the park, they just do quick little 5 yard passes, which reduces the chance of a misplaced pass. It sound like it’s ver simplifying things, but that’s the thing with our current system, it’s too complicated for our limited players. So yes, if players are closer together, they don’t have to do a Pirlo impression.
Eh, only issue is you really rather did say that Finland are lucky. You said 'just so happens that it's Finland's turn. But that's more by luck than by design' 

Well, there are varying degrees of luck. Finland are making their own luck by being hard working, organized, etc. There’s a difference between being lucky (and earning it) and being lucky and not deserving it.

The Smith era is the closest thing that I’ve felt to the Brown era, both in the stadium and in general. You could just tell that the bond of the players were strong enough to get us over the line, and I think it would’ve, if Rangers didn’t come calling. People can say what they want about Walter Smith, but in my view he’s one of the best managers that we’ve produced. 

Errrr… when did I say that simply being in a top 5 league makes you “top quality”? If that was the case then Hanley would be “top quality”, same with Fleck, McLean, McBurnie, etc. Hanley is a nightmare, Fleck is decent, McLean is hopeless and McBurnie is the worst striker that I’ve ever seen playing for Scotland, at Under 21 level and full level. So… No. The Sheffield United center backs are all Championship level, if they do it at EPL level for a season or so then it may change. One snowflake doesn’t make a Christmas. 
Yes, “nothing about that cannot be attached to a back four (organization and team spirit, etc)” but we’ve had how many managers in the past 17 years? 7? (McLeish twice) None of them have managed to mould our team and organize the back line to a level that we’d be close to qualifying. And Clarke’s remit was to make us organized, etc. I think he only now realizes how massive the task is. 

A back-line of “right back”, Souttar, McKenna and Robertson won’t qualify for anything. I think we all agree that that would be the strongest back four? I don’t care if we had Klopp, Guardiola or Mourinho in the dugout, we would still ship goals. Now, Souttar, McKenna and Tierney is something that I could on board with, as Robertson the anchorman shielding them.

Yeah. It was a while back. The language and abuse has subsided a lot, but It was pretty bad back in the day. I don’t mind, though, in my opinion I’m right about this, so I didn’t mind the abuse thrown at me (even if it was off-the-scale).

Agreed. McKenna, Souttar and Tierney are my dream trio at the back. All three are young and they have many years in front of them, hopefully in a back three. 

That’s the thing about Tierney and Robertson, I’d actually trust them in central midfield more than I would any of our midfielders. That’s just how lowly I rate McLean, Fleck, McGregor, etc. (I’m leaving McTominay out of it because I feel that he has potential) That’s the reason I’d play Robertson as the anchorman, that and he has more defensive capabilities that all of our midfielders combined. Another reason is that when a player is playing in the middle he’ll have the potential to have more influence. I watched the Bayern Munich match last night. Alaba is usually at left back for Munich and anchorman for Austria, but last night he played anchorman and he was flawless. I see no reason why Robertson (or/and Tierney) couldn’t play that role.

I get your point, but I’d much rather Devlin, Mulgrew, etc, have an extra defender to have their back, than having to depend on a two. *shudder*

[The_Dark_Knight]

14 minutes ago, aaid said:

Brown utilised players in positions they were familiar with, he rarely played players in positions they weren't familiar with or uncomfortable.

Defenders in 1998 World Cup Squad.

Jackie McNamara - wing back for Celtic
Tom Boyd - back three for Celtic
Colin Calderwood - back three for Spurs
Tosh McKinlay - wing back for Celtic
David Weir - back three for Hearts
Matt Elliott - back three for Leicester
Derek Whyte - not sure, perhaps some Aberdeen fan will confirm, but prior to that he'd played in a back three at MIddlesborough.
Christian Dailly - played in a back four at Derby but utilised as a wing back by Brown.
Colin Hendry - Blackburn, orthodox flat back four.

Six of the eight played in the same formation at their club that Brown used.   Of the other two, I doubt anyone would suggest that Hendry didn't fit well into that system and Dailly is probably one of the most versatile players we've had in the last 20-30 years.

You could just as easily do that with this squad of defenders:

Devlin - back three for Hamilton and Aberdeen.
McKenna - back three for Aberdeen.
Mulgrew - back three for Celtic, Aberdeen and Blackburn
Souttar - back three for Hearts and Dundee United
Halkett (sp?) - back three for Livingston and Hearts
Berra  - Back three for Hearts
Hanley - back three for Norwich and Blackburn and Newcastle.
Tierney - back three for Celtic.

The only real difference is that the defenders you listed are far, far, far more accomplished that the current crop. (Aside from Tieney)

People are making out that our current center backs have NEVER played in a back three, at any level. Total fallacy.

Edited October 23, 2019 by The_Dark_Knight