What is our best starting 11? - Page 7 - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

What is our best starting 11?


Rohan

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, mrniaboc said:

I only ever bet a pint, because that's all I can afford. Especially in London!

Done!

Although, I must confess something. "Farcity" is another one of my hundreds of aliases, so you could say that the bet is rigged... if you insist on being technical about it.

I don't want to log into my Farcity account, so I'll just give you the answer here:

*As Farcity* Yes, I was serious you weirdo. You aren't fooling anyone, you gimpish cad!

So, you owe me a pint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Well, yes it is, I'm hardly going to start an argument with myself, am I?

I'm not crazy.

And hey! You're me! Why am I talking to myself?!

You win. 

We are all dark knight. The master of disguise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now now lads, don't joke. I barely have a grip on reality as things stand without worrying that I might not actually be real!

Anyway, I'm much too interested in seeing Scotland persist with Robbo at left-back in a back four to be one of TDK's aliases. When I change my mind on that, all bets are off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mrniaboc said:

Anyway, I'm much too interested in seeing Scotland persist with Robbo at left-back in a back four to be one of TDK's aliases. When I change my mind on that, all bets are off.

And why not, as that point of action is going just swimmingly so far...

A football match is won and lost in the middle of the park. So it stands to reason that you'd put your best players there. Pretty much why Austria play Alaba as an anchorman, etc.

Football isn't rocket science, as you well know... well... since I'm you, we both know it. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

                           Marshall

tierney.   Souttar.        McKenna.   Robertson

                             Fleck

snodgrass.  McGinn McTominay.  Fraser

                          Naismith

Edited by Malcolm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

And why not, as that point of action is going just swimmingly so far...

A football match is won and lost in the middle of the park. So it stands to reason that you'd put your best players there. Pretty much why Austria play Alaba as an anchorman, etc.

Football isn't rocket science, as you well know... well... since I'm you, we both know it. :P

Rocket science is fairly straightforward, it's just ballistics and Newtonian motion. There's a right and a wrong answer. It's football management that's fuckin' impossible. Anyhooooooo:

                    Marshall

  Jack McKenna Tierney Robbo

  McTominay McGregor McGinn

       Forrest McBurnie Fraser
 

I think that's possibly our best 11 players (excluding Christie), but I have massive doubts over playing Jack and Tierney out of position, and their being an imbalance of attack-minded midfielders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mrniaboc said:

Rocket science is fairly straightforward, it's just ballistics and Newtonian motion. There's a right and a wrong answer. It's football management that's fuckin' impossible. Anyhooooooo:

                    Marshall

  Jack McKenna Tierney Robbo

  McTominay McGregor McGinn

       Forrest McBurnie Fraser
 

I think that's possibly our best 11 players (excluding Christie), but I have massive doubts over playing Jack and Tierney out of position, and their being an imbalance of attack-minded midfielders.

Yeah, you lost me at Hello....

At the highest level (Which is international level) we cannot defend with a four. I have 17 years of evidence to back that up. It's not a theory anymore, it's fact.

                    Marshall

          McKenna Findley Tierney

Phillips                                  Taylor

                    Robertson

       McTominay      McGinn

          Griffiths          Hornby

Our best players (Tierney, Robertson and McTominay) down the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

N. Ireland playing 3-5-2.

Currently beating Czech Republic 0-3.

Almost 0-4

Because they have so many in the middle they're getting to every second ball, winning most 50/50s, etc.

It also happened when we played Croatia at under 21 level. We were getting beat 1-0, came out at the second half with a 3-5-2, looked a different team and scored 2 goals.

Edited by The_Dark_Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

N. Ireland playing 3-5-2.

Currently beating Czech Republic 0-3.

 

28 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Yeah, you lost me at Hello....

At the highest level (Which is international level) we cannot defend with a four. I have 17 years of evidence to back that up. It's not a theory anymore, it's fact.

                    Marshall

          McKenna Findley Tierney

Phillips                                  Taylor

                    Robertson

       McTominay      McGinn

          Griffiths          Hornby

Our best players (Tierney, Robertson and McTominay) down the middle.

That team looks ok to me, I would prefer tierney in place of Taylor and souttar brought in at cb. I would also put fraser or forrest as a wing back instead of Phillips. Not sure Clarke will go down the 5 at the back route. I suppose he could experiment with this two remaining games before the play offs but I can't see him doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

 

That team looks ok to me, I would prefer tierney in place of Taylor and souttar brought in at cb. I would also put fraser or forrest as a wing back instead of Phillips. Not sure Clarke will go down the 5 at the back route. I suppose he could experiment with this two remaining games before the play offs but I can't see him doing that.

I like Taylor, I think he has a lot to offer... all he has to do is break into the Celtic team.

Ah, ok. I forgot about Souttar. I'd probably swap Findley for him. I'd also accept Forrest or Fraser at wing-back.

Yeah, I doubt Clarke will ever deviate from a four at the back. Strachan and McLeish got so frustrated that they experimented with a 3, but they never stuck with it, unfortunately. If they did we might've got a clearer overview on matters and it would've underlined the fact when we play with a 4 we are too open and too easy to play against.

Watching the NI match, I'm kinda disappointed that we didn't get Michael O'Neil, at least he's got enough imagination to experiment. There's a pattern with the managers that we appoint, all of them are intellectually stubborn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mrniaboc said:

Hahaha I think he's just messin' on that one to be fair. He's a bit of a wind-up merchant I think. No harm in that.

https://www.tamb.net/forum/index.php?/topic/13237-tamb-where-did-it-all-go-wrong-part-ii/page/9/#comments

"Are you referring to the guiser and his numerous profiles? Using new usernames for a couple of days before retiring them and returning to other IDs that have been set up previously. It is truly tragic. Seems to have a hell of a lot of time on his hands."

See! He does actually think i have multiple accounts. He even thinks we're the same people. :lol:

I know that you think that he's kidding, as let's face it, the idea of it is crazy. I mean, why on earth would people make multiple accounts and talk to themselves? 

I'm genuinely embarrassed for Farcity. And for once, i don't mean that in a condescending way. I'm seriously embarrassed for him.

What's the common denominator? Good grammar? 

You owe me a pint. :cheers3:

Edited by The_Dark_Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

https://www.tamb.net/forum/index.php?/topic/13237-tamb-where-did-it-all-go-wrong-part-ii/page/9/#comments

"Are you referring to the guiser and his numerous profiles? Using new usernames for a couple of days before retiring them and returning to other IDs that have been set up previously. It is truly tragic. Seems to have a hell of a lot of time on his hands."

See! He does actually think i have multiple accounts. He even thinks we're the same people. :lol:

I know that you think that he's kidding, as let's face it, the idea of it is crazy. I mean, why on earth would people make multiple accounts and talk to themselves? 

I'm genuinely embarrassed for Farcity. And for once, i don't mean that in a condescending way. I'm seriously embarrassed for him.

What's the common denominator? Good grammar? 

You owe me a pint. :cheers3:

In fairness he doesn't say he thinks you and I are the same people there. If we were, we'd have a serious mental health issue considering how much we disagree with each other!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the last couple of qualifiers going into the playoffs, I would like to see:

                     Marshall

Tierney Souttar McKenna Robertson

Fraser McTominay McGregor McGinn

                 Christie

                          McBurnie

The theory being that Fraser offers natural width on the right, with McGinn slightly narrower on the left allowing Robertson the space to overlap. Christie has the intelligence to drift into space and interplay with McBurnie (who isn't effective in isolation).

I think this system also offers some reasonable depth across the positions. For instance, Fleck or Armstrong could easily be swapped in for McGregor (though it would be good to see the latter get more game time at Southampton). Jack/McLean for McTominay. Forrest for Fraser, and so on. Obviously Griffiths still to come back; would be a straight swap for McBurnie if fit and raring..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often think we as fans get too hung up over formations in the strict sense of the word. 

We might well have been 'set up' as a back 4 on Sunday according to a tv production company graphic, but it was essentially a one or a two at the back at most, with 'back' defined as the halfway line.

Formations are fluid and I think there is merit to considering playing three centre halves once we have enough of the younger, fitter and faster guys back in the fold. I would not have been keen to see it tried over the last few games simply because I think you need a three at the back that can cover ground. A 3 of, say, Mckenna souttar and Tierney could be worth trying. Bates has the mobility too, if he ever gets himself playing again (such a shame after how often he played last season. Fucking Sheffield Wednesday). Porteous and Mcrorie from the Under 21s might be up to that as well, as might Halkett and Gallagher, who played in a 3 at the back together at livi quite a lot. 

But when we were going into the games thin on centre halves, with Mulgrew, devlin, cooper, findlay? No thanks. No harm to them, but I don't think they would fare well in a 3.

Could SOD play in a back 3? Less likely to lose the ball up the field for us, he's big, strong and quick, he's a fit guy... his defending isn't exactly great, though... 

I'd still like to set up with Tierney in front of Robbo. Essentially let them take it in turns to be the fullback and winger. Let them job-share in the game. They are both going to then have a quality player in front of them, not be exposed as much when they go forward, both be on their stronger side when going forward so not hampering Tierney in an advanced role by making him go up the right and both are intelligent and cultured enough players to share it responsibly and cover each other. 

Give that a try in the next game if Tierney is finally fit and available. 

I'm concerned about a lack of left footed centre halves, which makes getting a pairing difficult if you intend to play a four. Likely why Mulgrew has been so regularly deployed thus far, albeit there is Cooper and, if he can get playing, Bates. That gives further credence to trying a 3, of course, but I still feel we are potentially vulnerable without good tacklers in the middle in front of that 3. I'm not convinced we have them.

So there are a few different teams, varying in shape, that I'd be interested to see -

4-4-1-1: GK-Robbo, Cooper, McKenna, Jack- Tierney, McTominay, McGinn, Fraser-Christie/Armstrong- Griff/Hornby/Shanks

Or

3-4-2-1: GK- Tierney, McKenna, Souttar-Robbo, McTominay, McGinn, Fraser- Christie, Armstrong/Forrest- Griff/Hornby/Shanks/McBurnie

Or

3-1-4-1-1: GK- Tierney, McKenna, Souttar- Jack- Robbo, McTominay, McGinn, Fraser-Armstrong/Christie-Griff/Hornby/Shanks/McBurnie

Ideally Armstrong gets game time somewhere and if so he's a great fit in an advanced role to connect us to our forward and stop them being isolated. He's also able to help press the opponent, supporting the forward in that task to help us prevent the opposition defence getting such an easy time.  As you can see i'm not sure who my striker of choice would be. Okay actually I am sure; I would go with Griffiths or Steven Fletcher all the time, but Griff might not get back playing for the foreseeable and Fletcher has clearly packed it in again. 

Should Armstrong not be getting enough game time, Christie is more than up to the same job and, in formation 2, if you went 2 behind the striker then Forrest could well be more effective for us centrally than out wide; he has been effective for Celtic when moving more infield before and could work an interchange with the rest of the team. These formations are ways that I think we can get as many of our more talented players on the pitch together. I am a big fan of Mcgregor and Mclean as well but at the moment Mcgregor isn't looking as effective as he can be and Mclean is perhaps a tad too lackadaisical on the ball. Good options to have in the squad for injuries in game or between games.  

Right back is a struggle; Palmer looks to be better than Odonnel, but not by much. Jack is worth a try and i'd be surprised if he wasn't better than those two as an option. Paterson is a good player in certain circumstances and could potentially be played as a sitting midfielder instead of Ryan Jack, but he was caught out a lot at home to Isreal and nearly cost us that game, which, well, speaks volumes. 

I suppose you could try a 5-3-2: Robbo, Cooper, McKenna, Souttar, Tierney- Mctominay, Mcginn, Fraser- Armstrong/Christie, Griff/Hornby/Shanks/McBurnie, but I think the 3 is too light. You could play two of the centre forwards rather than Armstrong/Christie, but frankly I think both armstrong and christie are more likely to score and create goals than a combo of any of our two out and out 'strikers'.

That being said, as per my initial point, I think the 'formation' is something we are maybe overly obsessed with. You don't want imbalance, but you want flexibility and a side than can adapt to how the game is going without needing drastic changes to personnel. You need adaptable players who can be one thing with the ball, another without it, and a lot of the time we will be changing things up game to game; at home to Bulgaria, your team ought to be rather different than your team away to Serbia, for example.  You'll need to do a lot more defending in the second instance than the first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Meagaidh said:

For the last couple of qualifiers going into the playoffs, I would like to see:

                     Marshall

Tierney Souttar McKenna Robertson

Fraser McTominay McGregor McGinn

                 Christie

                          McBurnie

The theory being that Fraser offers natural width on the right, with McGinn slightly narrower on the left allowing Robertson the space to overlap. Christie has the intelligence to drift into space and interplay with McBurnie (who isn't effective in isolation).

I think this system also offers some reasonable depth across the positions. For instance, Fleck or Armstrong could easily be swapped in for McGregor (though it would be good to see the latter get more game time at Southampton). Jack/McLean for McTominay. Forrest for Fraser, and so on. Obviously Griffiths still to come back; would be a straight swap for McBurnie if fit and raring..

 

That's decent. Wouldn't be against that at all, albeit I'd probably play someone else than McBurnie. Burke. Phillips. Shankland. My Gran. 

Tierney would have to do a lot going back the way to cover Fraser's forays forward, but he is less effective for natural reasons when going forward as a right back than over on the left anyway, so it doesn't really matter much. And if you swap Fraser for Forrest at any point in the game he and Tierney will have a decent working relationship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marshall

Teirney     Souttar     McKenna     Robertson

McTominay

Forrest     McGinn     Christie     Fraser

Griffiths

If McGregor gets a rest and gets back to his best, he comes in for McGinn or Christie, depending on who we are playing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mrniaboc said:

In fairness he doesn't say he thinks you and I are the same people there. If we were, we'd have a serious mental health issue considering how much we disagree with each other!

And as if by magic along pops the next one. Dark Knight/Mrniaboc/Rab."

That applies that he thinks all three accounts are the same. That's as plain as evidence as you can get. I know you always want to blame me, but you can't this time.

You've always accused me of being the one who stirs the pot, but now that you've been brought into the mix I hope that you begin to come to the realisation that there is reason behind my attitude.

I mean, a while back he accused of being a meth addict, all because I said that Brendan Rodgers "raised an eyebrow" to get Danny Ward's loan from Liverpool to Aberdeen cancelled.:blink: Which, when you think of it makes sense, as Ward was the best Aberdeen player at the time and they were seriously challenging Celtic.

From a psychological standpoint, when a person accuses someone of doing something it's usually a mirror-effect. People judge others by their own standards. Take from that what you will.

Edited by The_Dark_Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AndyDD said:

I often think we as fans get too hung up over formations in the strict sense of the word. 

We might well have been 'set up' as a back 4 on Sunday according to a tv production company graphic, but it was essentially a one or a two at the back at most, with 'back' defined as the halfway line.

Formations are fluid and I think there is merit to considering playing three centre halves once we have enough of the younger, fitter and faster guys back in the fold. I would not have been keen to see it tried over the last few games simply because I think you need a three at the back that can cover ground. A 3 of, say, Mckenna souttar and Tierney could be worth trying. Bates has the mobility too, if he ever gets himself playing again (such a shame after how often he played last season. Fucking Sheffield Wednesday). Porteous and Mcrorie from the Under 21s might be up to that as well, as might Halkett and Gallagher, who played in a 3 at the back together at livi quite a lot. 

But when we were going into the games thin on centre halves, with Mulgrew, devlin, cooper, findlay? No thanks. No harm to them, but I don't think they would fare well in a 3.

Could SOD play in a back 3? Less likely to lose the ball up the field for us, he's big, strong and quick, he's a fit guy... his defending isn't exactly great, though... 

I'd still like to set up with Tierney in front of Robbo. Essentially let them take it in turns to be the fullback and winger. Let them job-share in the game. They are both going to then have a quality player in front of them, not be exposed as much when they go forward, both be on their stronger side when going forward so not hampering Tierney in an advanced role by making him go up the right and both are intelligent and cultured enough players to share it responsibly and cover each other. 

Give that a try in the next game if Tierney is finally fit and available. 

I'm concerned about a lack of left footed centre halves, which makes getting a pairing difficult if you intend to play a four. Likely why Mulgrew has been so regularly deployed thus far, albeit there is Cooper and, if he can get playing, Bates. That gives further credence to trying a 3, of course, but I still feel we are potentially vulnerable without good tacklers in the middle in front of that 3. I'm not convinced we have them.

So there are a few different teams, varying in shape, that I'd be interested to see -

4-4-1-1: GK-Robbo, Cooper, McKenna, Jack- Tierney, McTominay, McGinn, Fraser-Christie/Armstrong- Griff/Hornby/Shanks

Or

3-4-2-1: GK- Tierney, McKenna, Souttar-Robbo, McTominay, McGinn, Fraser- Christie, Armstrong/Forrest- Griff/Hornby/Shanks/McBurnie

Or

3-1-4-1-1: GK- Tierney, McKenna, Souttar- Jack- Robbo, McTominay, McGinn, Fraser-Armstrong/Christie-Griff/Hornby/Shanks/McBurnie

Ideally Armstrong gets game time somewhere and if so he's a great fit in an advanced role to connect us to our forward and stop them being isolated. He's also able to help press the opponent, supporting the forward in that task to help us prevent the opposition defence getting such an easy time.  As you can see i'm not sure who my striker of choice would be. Okay actually I am sure; I would go with Griffiths or Steven Fletcher all the time, but Griff might not get back playing for the foreseeable and Fletcher has clearly packed it in again. 

Should Armstrong not be getting enough game time, Christie is more than up to the same job and, in formation 2, if you went 2 behind the striker then Forrest could well be more effective for us centrally than out wide; he has been effective for Celtic when moving more infield before and could work an interchange with the rest of the team. These formations are ways that I think we can get as many of our more talented players on the pitch together. I am a big fan of Mcgregor and Mclean as well but at the moment Mcgregor isn't looking as effective as he can be and Mclean is perhaps a tad too lackadaisical on the ball. Good options to have in the squad for injuries in game or between games.  

Right back is a struggle; Palmer looks to be better than Odonnel, but not by much. Jack is worth a try and i'd be surprised if he wasn't better than those two as an option. Paterson is a good player in certain circumstances and could potentially be played as a sitting midfielder instead of Ryan Jack, but he was caught out a lot at home to Isreal and nearly cost us that game, which, well, speaks volumes. 

I suppose you could try a 5-3-2: Robbo, Cooper, McKenna, Souttar, Tierney- Mctominay, Mcginn, Fraser- Armstrong/Christie, Griff/Hornby/Shanks/McBurnie, but I think the 3 is too light. You could play two of the centre forwards rather than Armstrong/Christie, but frankly I think both armstrong and christie are more likely to score and create goals than a combo of any of our two out and out 'strikers'.

That being said, as per my initial point, I think the 'formation' is something we are maybe overly obsessed with. You don't want imbalance, but you want flexibility and a side than can adapt to how the game is going without needing drastic changes to personnel. You need adaptable players who can be one thing with the ball, another without it, and a lot of the time we will be changing things up game to game; at home to Bulgaria, your team ought to be rather different than your team away to Serbia, for example.  You'll need to do a lot more defending in the second instance than the first. 

(Uh-oh. You've written a lot, you have good grammar and you're advocating a back 3/5. Farcity will accuse you being me.)

Fan...tastic post!.

Essentially, as i said previously, the reason i'd play Tierney, McTominay and Robertson all in the middle is because that's essentially where a match is won and lost. With Tierney and Robertson at fullbacks we're pretty much a sitting duck, as centrally we're always weak as hell.

I know that formations can be talked about too much and people put too much stock in them, etc, but essentially it's how a tram lines up. We've played with a back four for 17 years and we simply can't do it at this level. Even against teams like Cyprus and Kazakhstan, etc. Our central defenders don't play at a high level so they aren't used to a different style of opposition.

Look at Sheffield United and how they've taken the EPL by storm with their 3-5-2. So much so that they Forced Klopp to switch to a back three at half time. How many times have you heard that?

Sheffield United use it when they're in possession one of their centre backs overlaps and joins the midfield. When a wing back is running down the wing the center backs and the opposite wingback cuts in and helps covers the space that's been left behind, making a four.

As you said, it's a fluid system. And the mobility of Tierney and Porteous would make it interesting. Not even talking about the energy that Robertson, McGinn and McTominay bring to the middle.

Plus i grew up in the era of Rangers having Hately and McCoist, so I'd love to see Hornby and Griffiths given a go.

In an ideal world we'd play with a 4 at the back because we have two world class center backs, but we don't.

This would be my team.

Do I foresee it from Clarke? No. I think he's a dinosaur and unwilling to think outside the box.

 

                        Marshall

      McKenna Findley/Porteous Tierney

Phillips                                  Taylor

                    Robertson

       McTominay      McGinn

          Griffiths          Hornby

Edited by The_Dark_Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

(Uh-oh. You've written a lot, you have good grammar and you're advocating a back 3/5. Farcity will accuse you being me.)

Fan...tastic post!.

Essentially, as i said previously, the reason i'd play Tierney, McTominay and Robertson all in the middle is because that's essentially where a match is won and lost. With Tierney and Robertson at fullbacks we're pretty much a sitting duck, as centrally we're always weak as hell.

I know that formations can be talked about too much and people put too much stock in them, etc, but essentially it's how a tram lines up. We've played with a back four for 17 years and we simply can't do it at this level. Even against teams like Cyprus and Kazakhstan, etc. Our central defenders don't play at a high level so they aren't used to a different style of opposition.

Look at Sheffield United and how they've taken the EPL by storm with their 3-5-2. So much so that they Forced Klopp to switch to a back three at half time. How many times have you heard that?

Sheffield United use it when they're in possession one of their centre backs overlaps and joins the midfield. When a wing back is running down the wing the center backs and the opposite wingback cuts in and helps covers the space that's been left behind, making a four.

As you said, it's a fluid system. And the mobility of Tierney and Porteous would make it interesting. Not even talking about the energy that Robertson, McGinn and McTominay bring to the middle.

Plus i grew up in the era of Rangers having Hately and McCoist, so I'd love to see Hornby and Griffiths given a go.

In an ideal world we'd play with a 4 at the back because we have two world class center backs, but we don't.

This would be my team.

Do I foresee it from Clarke? No. I think he's a dinosaur and unwilling to think outside the box.

 

                        Marshall

      McKenna Findley/Porteous Tierney

Phillips                                  Taylor

                    Robertson

       McTominay      McGinn

          Griffiths          Hornby

Hahaha well hopefully our 'bait' dispute and our differing predictions for San Marino at Hampden puts paid to any Identity Crisis moments. 

Thanks mate haha one hopes not to overwrite too often but when it comes to Scotland it can be hard not to just let the stream/invective/rant/straw-clutching positivity flow. 

One thing, though; I wouldn't say I advocate a back 3, as such. 

At a push I'd probably say I prefer a 4-4-1-1 formation at least at the moment and I do think you are in danger of greatly underestimating the cons of a back 3 and perhaps even accidentally overestimating overestimating the capacity of our players. 

The 3-5-2 is incredibly demanding and needs your team to absolutely nail it, bang on, start to finish. 

Italians teams are excellent at it because they tend to have wonderfully capable passers in their team. 

The formation essentially  requires a midfielder with excellent passing range and one who is 'press resistant', to borrow a fucking horrible term from the nu-wave of football coaching gobbledegook. Juventus quite infamously suffered from the absence of Marchisio in 2016 when they stuck with the formation because it so thoroughly depended upon his individual capacity to dictate play from deep and more importantly hold off tacklers. Who do we have that can fill that roll? Anyone? Not convinced we do. Even our good passers, who are not necessarily in my view good enough at the passing itself for this role, are lightweight and/or liable to give the ball away cheaply and be hurried into errors. 

In a back 3 the build up, the progression forward, is quite predictable. You know what a team playing 3 at the back is going to try and do offensively, so it isn't going to surprise anyone. This puts even more onus on the personnel being up to it and getting it right. 

The wide areas are a liability when playing three at the back and a compact opposition midfield with effective wingers can exploit the formation. The wing backs need to be at their best physically, while the positioning of the players needs to be perfect in order to balance the numbers attacking and defending. The symmetry between the central midfielders and the centre backs also needs to be bang on. The understanding between the three centre backs needs to be coordinated as they risk playing the forward onside if he plays on the shoulder. The formation is very demanding physically on the team overall with high-energy midfielders a must for the formation too.

In order to use it, you've got to have a talented squad in pretty much every position and the centre-backs, in particular, need to be of a specific mould.

The outside two must be mobile and have good agility. Okay, we have those potentially, in the likes of Tierney, Souttar and Bates. The central defender must be dominant in the air and happy to move forward with the ball and if he isn't positionally perfect, none of them are. When it goes wrong, it goes really, spectacularly wrong. Which of our defenders could really fill that central role in the 3 and carry it off well? McKenna is one of out better players but he's a ball clearer, a tackler. The back 3 doesn't really have much use for an 'old-fashioned' centre half, which he most assuredly is. He can carry the ball out with a surge forward, but he isn't exactly a quarter-back style, string pulling passer. And if he tries to take it out from the back by running forward, all it takes is a good interception and we are truly and utterly fucked. 

When three at the back meet one up front, it can become tough to figure out who should mark the front man. If the central player man-marks, what do the others do? Little things can throw a three-man defence when it's inexperienced; ours most assuredly is and it will be in March even if we play this system in the next two matches. It will still be in the EUROS if we play it in the two qualifiers and the 2 play-off games. 

I wouldn't be against giving it a try with the return of some key players, but I don't think it would have been right to play it in recent games and I don't think it's as secure a formation as some might. Being open to it is not the same as advocating it, I would say. 

I take your point that our centre halves are not high quality, but I don't think they are necessarily suited to a back 3, either. I suppose you could ask the central defender not to try and play the ball, but then you are asking a midfielder to collect it from them and pull the strings. We have energetic midfielders, but Mcgregor and Mclean are probably the best passers of the ball. McTominay wisely restricts himself to simple passes and Mcginn seems under strict instructions not to pass back or pass at all deep in his own half, because he has a terrible habit of giving it away and playing us and his club into trouble when he does. I'm not convinced the players are any more suited to the ways you would need to work in a back 3 as they are to a back 4. 

I don't think there is any formation we are necessarily well suited to. There is no formation that Scotland, or many teams to be fair, can look at as without downsides or risks or vulnerabilities. Simply pointing to not having qualified with a back 4 is not really adequate to justify a change. Lots of teams do play with that and qualify just fine, without having 'world-class' centre halves. In the same way, several teams manage to do well enough in a back 3 without having the ideal central defender who can take it out from the back and ping passes. 

It's never going to be as exact. 

Sheffield utd have used it and have week after week after week to work on it in training. Livi often use it, but have week after week after week to work on it and try to get it right. Mcinnes switches to a 3 now and then at Aberdeen. There is a reason it happens more in club football than international football. But I'm sure we could go back to the qualifiers of world cups and euros over the last 20 years and find lots of teams succeeding with back fours, as well, again without having world class centre halves. It's silly to suggest you cannot succeed with a back 4 unless your centre halves are world class. 

I actually don't think Clarke is a dinosaur at all, nor stubborn and stuck in his ways. He proved very adept at changing things up whilst Killie manager, especially within a game, to exploit something he and his team spotted within the play itself. 

He hinted he is open to trying a 3 at the back but wisely did not try this whilst deprived of most of his 'best' defenders (or at least the ones least badly suited to trying such a formation). 

As for your team; certainly interesting. I'm a huge Robbo fan but I am not convinced he has the robust tackling capacity to play defensive midfield. It also largely nullifies his excellent ability to get up and down the side. Sure, centre half can step up as he moves out,, but one dispossession or breakdown and one long ball down the middle means that the centre half needs to get it or the opponent is in on goal. If they lob it over his head they are 1 on 1 at worst, taking on the wider set centre halves at best. 

Taylor is handy, but he is not as effective out wide as Robbo. Hell, he might be better swapping for Robbo in that lineup. Or Robbo goes there and someone like Ryan Jack takes the Robbo space in defensive middle. 

It will be very interesting to see what he does if he has the luxury of picking from more or less all his available defensive options. The potential returns of Souttar, Mckenna and especially Tierney could well be the crucial factor. You might just see you change. But you also might not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AndyDD said:

Hahaha well hopefully our 'bait' dispute and our differing predictions for San Marino at Hampden puts paid to any Identity Crisis moments. 

Thanks mate haha one hopes not to overwrite too often but when it comes to Scotland it can be hard not to just let the stream/invective/rant/straw-clutching positivity flow. 

One thing, though; I wouldn't say I advocate a back 3, as such. 

At a push I'd probably say I prefer a 4-4-1-1 formation at least at the moment and I do think you are in danger of greatly underestimating the cons of a back 3 and perhaps even accidentally overestimating overestimating the capacity of our players. 

The 3-5-2 is incredibly demanding and needs your team to absolutely nail it, bang on, start to finish. 

Italians teams are excellent at it because they tend to have wonderfully capable passers in their team. 

The formation essentially  requires a midfielder with excellent passing range and one who is 'press resistant', to borrow a fucking horrible term from the nu-wave of football coaching gobbledegook. Juventus quite infamously suffered from the absence of Marchisio in 2016 when they stuck with the formation because it so thoroughly depended upon his individual capacity to dictate play from deep and more importantly hold off tacklers. Who do we have that can fill that roll? Anyone? Not convinced we do. Even our good passers, who are not necessarily in my view good enough at the passing itself for this role, are lightweight and/or liable to give the ball away cheaply and be hurried into errors. 

In a back 3 the build up, the progression forward, is quite predictable. You know what a team playing 3 at the back is going to try and do offensively, so it isn't going to surprise anyone. This puts even more onus on the personnel being up to it and getting it right. 

The wide areas are a liability when playing three at the back and a compact opposition midfield with effective wingers can exploit the formation. The wing backs need to be at their best physically, while the positioning of the players needs to be perfect in order to balance the numbers attacking and defending. The symmetry between the central midfielders and the centre backs also needs to be bang on. The understanding between the three centre backs needs to be coordinated as they risk playing the forward onside if he plays on the shoulder. The formation is very demanding physically on the team overall with high-energy midfielders a must for the formation too.

In order to use it, you've got to have a talented squad in pretty much every position and the centre-backs, in particular, need to be of a specific mould.

The outside two must be mobile and have good agility. Okay, we have those potentially, in the likes of Tierney, Souttar and Bates. The central defender must be dominant in the air and happy to move forward with the ball and if he isn't positionally perfect, none of them are. When it goes wrong, it goes really, spectacularly wrong. Which of our defenders could really fill that central role in the 3 and carry it off well? McKenna is one of out better players but he's a ball clearer, a tackler. The back 3 doesn't really have much use for an 'old-fashioned' centre half, which he most assuredly is. He can carry the ball out with a surge forward, but he isn't exactly a quarter-back style, string pulling passer. And if he tries to take it out from the back by running forward, all it takes is a good interception and we are truly and utterly fucked. 

When three at the back meet one up front, it can become tough to figure out who should mark the front man. If the central player man-marks, what do the others do? Little things can throw a three-man defence when it's inexperienced; ours most assuredly is and it will be in March even if we play this system in the next two matches. It will still be in the EUROS if we play it in the two qualifiers and the 2 play-off games. 

I wouldn't be against giving it a try with the return of some key players, but I don't think it would have been right to play it in recent games and I don't think it's as secure a formation as some might. Being open to it is not the same as advocating it, I would say. 

I take your point that our centre halves are not high quality, but I don't think they are necessarily suited to a back 3, either. I suppose you could ask the central defender not to try and play the ball, but then you are asking a midfielder to collect it from them and pull the strings. We have energetic midfielders, but Mcgregor and Mclean are probably the best passers of the ball. McTominay wisely restricts himself to simple passes and Mcginn seems under strict instructions not to pass back or pass at all deep in his own half, because he has a terrible habit of giving it away and playing us and his club into trouble when he does. I'm not convinced the players are any more suited to the ways you would need to work in a back 3 as they are to a back 4. 

I don't think there is any formation we are necessarily well suited to. There is no formation that Scotland, or many teams to be fair, can look at as without downsides or risks or vulnerabilities. Simply pointing to not having qualified with a back 4 is not really adequate to justify a change. Lots of teams do play with that and qualify just fine, without having 'world-class' centre halves. In the same way, several teams manage to do well enough in a back 3 without having the ideal central defender who can take it out from the back and ping passes. 

It's never going to be as exact. 

Sheffield utd have used it and have week after week after week to work on it in training. Livi often use it, but have week after week after week to work on it and try to get it right. Mcinnes switches to a 3 now and then at Aberdeen. There is a reason it happens more in club football than international football. But I'm sure we could go back to the qualifiers of world cups and euros over the last 20 years and find lots of teams succeeding with back fours, as well, again without having world class centre halves. It's silly to suggest you cannot succeed with a back 4 unless your centre halves are world class. 

I actually don't think Clarke is a dinosaur at all, nor stubborn and stuck in his ways. He proved very adept at changing things up whilst Killie manager, especially within a game, to exploit something he and his team spotted within the play itself. 

He hinted he is open to trying a 3 at the back but wisely did not try this whilst deprived of most of his 'best' defenders (or at least the ones least badly suited to trying such a formation). 

As for your team; certainly interesting. I'm a huge Robbo fan but I am not convinced he has the robust tackling capacity to play defensive midfield. It also largely nullifies his excellent ability to get up and down the side. Sure, centre half can step up as he moves out,, but one dispossession or breakdown and one long ball down the middle means that the centre half needs to get it or the opponent is in on goal. If they lob it over his head they are 1 on 1 at worst, taking on the wider set centre halves at best. 

Taylor is handy, but he is not as effective out wide as Robbo. Hell, he might be better swapping for Robbo in that lineup. Or Robbo goes there and someone like Ryan Jack takes the Robbo space in defensive middle. 

It will be very interesting to see what he does if he has the luxury of picking from more or less all his available defensive options. The potential returns of Souttar, Mckenna and especially Tierney could well be the crucial factor. You might just see you change. But you also might not. 

:lol: Don't bank on it, they'll just thing that I'm playing a little game of misdirection and trying to get them off the scent. :P

In all seriousness, though, is that Farcity guy a troll or is he actually for real? I mean, in the past few days he's created a thread in order to create a mob against me (That quickly blew up in his face), now he's accusing me of being multiple people, including mrniaboc (Although I'm kinda glad at that, as he always pointed the finger at me when there was an issue with me and others. He can't do that now, what with him not existing and everything). I find it fascinating what paranoia can do to the mind. Next he'll be accusing me of hiding under his bed when he sleeps. 😂

Tell me about it, I've flow-of-consciousness so much about Scotland that I could print it out, bind it and send it off to the SFA as a manual. 

It's actually the same with me. I don't advocate 3 at the back, either. If we had two top drawer centerbacks I'd 100% want a back four, but we don't, so I see the back 3 as pretty much our only hope of qualifying for a World Cup or a European Championships. We've pretty much played every single variant of a 4, so why not try a 3?

Are you talking about the middle of the central midfield three? (The anchorman) It's a thorny one, yes, people now associate that role as kinda like the "quarterback" role, and it can certainly play to that. I remember when Beckham was losing his legs and people were talking about him switching to an anchorman role. It's not always the case, though, I grew up in the era of Dunga and Deschamps and even Paul Lambert. All phenomenal players, but they didn't have "pinging a 30 yarder straight to a team-mates foot" In their locker. What they did, as Cantona called Deshamps, was to be the "water-carrier" and tick things over and keep it simple. 

I get what you're saying, but most of those things are variables and details that could get ironed out easily on the training field. Recently I re-watched our matches at Euro 96 and France 98 (We played 3 at the back in the last match of Euro 96 and all three of France 98) and it was fascinating seeing all of our players instinctively knowing what their jobs are. People here complain about "not having enough time on the training field to practice a system that they don't play at with their clubs", etc, but they didn't have a problem with it back in the 90s. We went head-to-head against Brazil, England, Holland and Norway and Switzerland didn't embarrass ourselves. I'm even going to mention the Morocco match, there was no way that that was a 3:0 match. But yes, we were organized and yes, we had a better midfield and attack and a marginally better defence, so there's no reason why a system like that couldn't be re-introduced.

Yeah, I get that. I just think, at the top level, Scotland haven't produced good enough center-backs to play in a back 4 since the 80s. I'm amazed that one one manager since 1992 has realized that (Craig Brown).

Of course you can succeed with a back 4. I would prefer to play a back 4, but that isn't the issue. The issue is that we simply cannot succeed with playing with a back four, also, the sheer reluctance of the manager(s) and fans to even give a back 3 a chance. The most we've played it over recent times is three or four matches during that South American trip a year or so ago, under McLeish. That isn't long enough. We've played the dire 4-2-3-1 for how many years? Since Strachan.

I like Clarke, I think he's a great coach and a nice man, but I'm having my doubts about him as a manager. Not because he's doing so badly with Scotland, not at all, put Guardiola in charge and our results wouldn't pick up. I'm disappointed with him because he quite clearly knows that we have a soft center (In defense and midfield) and yet he's persisting to choose players like McGregor, McLean and deploy them as anchormen. It makes no sense. The double-pivot of anchormen is the most hipster of all systems and only works if you have two top anchor-men, and we don't have one.

Yeah, I noted that, too. He did mention a 3 and a 5 in his pre-match press conference against Russia, which gave me a glimmer of hope. I can't see him deviating from a 4, though. Our previous 2 managers have dabbled with a 3 (Most notably Strachan in the 2-2 draw against England. And bear in mind, we were a punt from Armstrong of winning it) and McLeish used it a couple times. Other than that, it's been the tested and failed system, time after time.

Idealy, I'd like to see Tierney as a central defender and Robertson as anchorman. I don't think I'd trust Jack, McTominay, McLean, etc, as an anchor-man.

Yeah. I highly doubt that we'll see a 3 anytime soon. We'll only see it when we appoint a manager who is progressive and imaginative. Who would've thunk that Craig Brown was in the progressive and imaginative mould...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.Marshall 2. Robertson 3. McKenna 4. Mulgrew 5. Tierney 6. McTominay 7. McGinn 8. Fraser 9. Christie 10. Forrest 11. Griffiths

Without getting into formation, those are our current best 11 players. If all on form and fit, that is who I'd play. To be honest, on paper, that is a fantastic XI. Lots of EPL and CL experience. We should be able to beat most 3rd seeded teams with those players. If we had a consistently available pool of players, we'd be doing far better. We are underperforming, a lack of talent is not the issue.

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...