What is our best starting 11?

[The_Dark_Knight]

23 minutes ago, Tartan blood said:

a lack of talent is not the issue.

Personally, I don't rate Marshall, Mulgrew, Christie, Griffiths of Forrest. That's half the team. 

If it's true, that our starting XI is fantastic, it MUST be a case of formations/systems. Fact is, in the past 17 years we've had better players than we have now: Fletcher, Fletcher, Boyd, Miller, Brown, Ferguson, Hutton, McFadden, etc. For 17 years we've played a variant of 4 at the back, and for 17 we've failed.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't like three at the back, but in my opinion it's the only thing that can bridge the gap at the back.

[Rohan]

1 hour ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Personally, I don't rate Marshall, Mulgrew, Christie, Griffiths of Forrest. That's half the team. 

If it's true, that our starting XI is fantastic, it MUST be a case of formations/systems. Fact is, in the past 17 years we've had better players than we have now: Fletcher, Fletcher, Boyd, Miller, Brown, Ferguson, Hutton, McFadden, etc. For 17 years we've played a variant of 4 at the back, and for 17 we've failed.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't like three at the back, but in my opinion it's the only thing that can bridge the gap at the back.

5 at the back is where it is, starting off with a 5311, then shifting it to a 3511 on the counter with Christie playin off the forward

[mccaughey85]

4 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Personally, I don't rate Marshall, Mulgrew, Christie, Griffiths of Forrest. That's half the team. 

If it's true, that our starting XI is fantastic, it MUST be a case of formations/systems. Fact is, in the past 17 years we've had better players than we have now: Fletcher, Fletcher, Boyd, Miller, Brown, Ferguson, Hutton, McFadden, etc. For 17 years we've played a variant of 4 at the back, and for 17 we've failed.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't like three at the back, but in my opinion it's the only thing that can bridge the gap at the back.

Those players were no better than our players now or the last few years. Boyd and miller were not better than Griffith's. We had decent central midfielders back then but our midfielders now are of the similar standard. Granted Hutton was a better right back than we have had recently but we now have a two top class left backs which we never had back then. Our wingers are better now as well. We do have worse centre backs now though. 

There isn't alot of difference between the squads of today and the squads of the noughties. If I was making a team from both squads I would probably have a pretty even mix. 

Difference between the noughties and today is management or specifically the management of Smith and McLeish which helped us over achieve and get good results for a few years. The teams of the noughties also went out with a battling mentality that seems to missing from recent years. This helped alot in achieving upsets now and then. 

[ProudScot]

21 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Those players were no better than our players now or the last few years. Boyd and miller were not better than Griffith's. We had decent central midfielders back then but our midfielders now are of the similar standard. Granted Hutton was a better right back than we have had recently but we now have a two top class left backs which we never had back then. Our wingers are better now as well. We do have worse centre backs now though. 

There isn't alot of difference between the squads of today and the squads of the noughties. If I was making a team from both squads I would probably have a pretty even mix. 

Difference between the noughties and today is management or specifically the management of Smith and McLeish which helped us over achieve and get good results for a few years. The teams of the noughties also went out with a battling mentality that seems to missing from recent years. This helped alot in achieving upsets now and then. 

That’s pretty fair. 
 

I think some of our most important players don’t play; McGregor, Brown, Griffiths (albeit different circumstances) & that doesn’t help.

The key difference is management though and how bad the last few we have had have been, including this one it would seem. 

[Bino's]

Big difference in those squads is we had a special player, for us, in faddy that could turn a game

Edited October 17, 2019 by Bino's

[The_Dark_Knight]

29 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Those players were no better than our players now or the last few years. Boyd and miller were not better than Griffith's. We had decent central midfielders back then but our midfielders now are of the similar standard. Granted Hutton was a better right back than we have had recently but we now have a two top class left backs which we never had back then. Our wingers are better now as well. We do have worse centre backs now though. 

There isn't alot of difference between the squads of today and the squads of the noughties. If I was making a team from both squads I would probably have a pretty even mix. 

Difference between the noughties and today is management or specifically the management of Smith and McLeish which helped us over achieve and get good results for a few years. The teams of the noughties also went out with a battling mentality that seems to missing from recent years. This helped alot in achieving upsets now and then. 

You're being much to kind to our current squad.

I'll go back to 2006 when we beat France 1-0 at Hampden. I'll use a 4-5-1 and pick a select XI from 2006 and 2019:

                         Gordon, (Gordon 2006 over 2019)

         Dailly, Pressley, Weir, Robertson

Fraser, Fletcher, Caldwell, Ferguson, McCulloch

                         McFadden

Only two players from the current squad would get into the 2006 XI. No idea why you think our current midfield is good, McLeish, Strachan and Clarke don't rate our midfielders, why else would they play a 4-2-3-1? That system doesn't have any central midfielders. Anchor-men aren't central midfielders.

Central defence, I think we'd all love to have Weir and Dailly. Midfield wise Fletcher and Ferguson are better than anyone we have in central midfield. McGregor, Fleck, McLean are decent, but not in the same league as Fletcher or Ferguson. 

And McFadden played striker in the aforementioned match. He's better than anyone we have available.

[Bino's]

11 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

You're being much to kind to our current squad.

I'll go back to 2006 when we beat France 1-0 at Hampden. I'll use a 4-5-1 and pick a select XI from 2006 and 2019:

                         Gordon, (Gordon 2006 over 2019)

         Dailly, Pressley, Weir, Robertson

Fraser, Fletcher, Caldwell, Ferguson, McCulloch

                         McFadden

Only two players from the current squad would get into the 2006 XI. No idea why you think our current midfield is good, McLeish, Strachan and Clarke don't rate our midfielders, why else would they play a 4-2-3-1? That system doesn't have any central midfielders. Anchor-men aren't central midfielders.

Central defence, I think we'd all love to have Weir and Dailly. Midfield wise Fletcher and Ferguson are better than anyone we have in central midfield. McGregor, Fleck, McLean are decent, but not in the same league as Fletcher or Ferguson. 

And McFadden played striker in the aforementioned match. He's better than anyone we have available.

In midfield, Gary Caldwell (always) and Lee McCulloch (bar one performance v Ukraine) were rotten

[The_Dark_Knight]

1 minute ago, Bino's said:

In midfield, Gary Caldwell (always) and Lee McCulloch (bar one performance v Ukraine) were rotten

In Caldwell's case, he did score in the France match and played very well, we would need the balance. Right now we have no one who can play anchorman role. McTominay struggles in that position for club and country. I suppose you could swap Caldwell for Hartley.

I quite liked McCulloch, I always though he was a consistent performer. Put it this way, he'd walk into our current team. He held him own in the EPL, which means more than the trio of Christie, Forrest and McGregor (add Brown to the mix) of being satisfied with going up against teams who have no folding money.

[ParisInAKilt]

Caldwell played defence against France.

Cant mind him playing holding midfield much. 

[mccaughey85]

34 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

You're being much to kind to our current squad.

I'll go back to 2006 when we beat France 1-0 at Hampden. I'll use a 4-5-1 and pick a select XI from 2006 and 2019:

                         Gordon, (Gordon 2006 over 2019)

         Dailly, Pressley, Weir, Robertson

Fraser, Fletcher, Caldwell, Ferguson, McCulloch

                         McFadden

Only two players from the current squad would get into the 2006 XI. No idea why you think our current midfield is good, McLeish, Strachan and Clarke don't rate our midfielders, why else would they play a 4-2-3-1? That system doesn't have any central midfielders. Anchor-men aren't central midfielders.

Central defence, I think we'd all love to have Weir and Dailly. Midfield wise Fletcher and Ferguson are better than anyone we have in central midfield. McGregor, Fleck, McLean are decent, but not in the same league as Fletcher or Ferguson. 

And McFadden played striker in the aforementioned match. He's better than anyone we have available.

I suppose it's just down to opinions, not sure why you would have Caldwell as he was a terrible player, yes he scored v France but overall he was a complete bombscare and would of never reached the levels that mcginn or mctominay will, especially as a central midfielder. Mctominay imo is of similar standard to fletcher but maybe a bit better technically although not by much. You could easily pick either tbh. Mcginn is being linked with man utd and will be playing with a top 6 side next year. Ferguson was good but he was vastly overrated and wouldnt make a top 6 side today. This was proven by the fact the mighty Blackburn bought him when he was given the chance to leave rangers.

McCulloch wasn't better than forrest, they were of similar level with Forrest having the edge in ability. Fair play to McCulloch he put some decent performances for Scotland but if Forrest could discover more of his form that produced the nations league performance then it's Forrest all day long. Overall it's a toss up on that position but personally I would prefer forrest.

As for McFadden up front, your having a laugh. He spent most of his career on the bench for Everton and lives of scoring some belters. He gave us some great memories but overall he wasn't remotely as good upfront as Griffith's. He also played on the wing most of his career, there's maybe an argument for him getting a spot on the wing but upfront defo no. 

So personally I would have 5 or 6 from today's squad in a combined team. Your allowing the fact we got better results with the noughties squad to hinder your judgement when the real reason behind those decent results was good management and a better team spirit. Also tbf we were mostly woeful throughout the noughties until now apart from this brief spell and a couple of other even more brief spells.

Finally an anchorman is a central midfielder, any player who plays in front of the centre backs and between the wingers is a central midfielder. Trying to suggest Clarke doesn't trust his centre midfielders is daft as you don't really know what he thinks.

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by mccaughey85

[The_Dark_Knight]

I actually don't think he was as bad as people remember him to be. He's certainly better than the likes of Cooper, Mulgrew, etc. I wouldn't compare Fletcher to McTominay as it's not fair to McTominay. Before his illness Fletcher was improving an insane amount and was probably the closest thing that I've seen to Keane standards. His illness robbed him, United and Scotland.

Every player who plays in midfield is being linked with Man United. I wouldn't really look too much into it. 

Do you remember that Everton team? It was the most boring team to watch ever in the EPL years. Yes, they were efficient and Moyes had them organized, etc, but boy where they dull! It wasn't McFadden's fault that he was on the bench more times than not. 

I disagree. An anchorman has a specific job and that's to shield the defence with defensive discipline, positioning and intelligence. When you think about the best anchormen, like Kante, Makelele, Viera, Petit, Dunga, Lambert, Batty, Fabinho, Matic, Hargreaves, etc. Those players rarely crossed the halfway line. A central midfielder is a player in midfield that goes box-to-box, like a prime Roy Keane.

Not saying we don't have midfielders who can't play box-to-box, I'm saying we don't have any good anchormen. 

Have you watched any Man United matches this season? They're playing two archetypal box-to-box midfielders as anchormen. And they're getting their rewards. When McTominay is allowed to stretch his legs and stride forward he turns into a different player. He's one of the most fouled players because he has deceptive pace and opposition players just hack him out of desperation.

I'd say either Clarke doesn't trust his central midfielders or he's contractually obligated to play 4-2-3-1. 

[mccaughey85]

52 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

I actually don't think he was as bad as people remember him to be. He's certainly better than the likes of Cooper, Mulgrew, etc. I wouldn't compare Fletcher to McTominay as it's not fair to McTominay. Before his illness Fletcher was improving an insane amount and was probably the closest thing that I've seen to Keane standards. His illness robbed him, United and Scotland.

Every player who plays in midfield is being linked with Man United. I wouldn't really look too much into it. 

Do you remember that Everton team? It was the most boring team to watch ever in the EPL years. Yes, they were efficient and Moyes had them organized, etc, but boy where they dull! It wasn't McFadden's fault that he was on the bench more times than not. 

I disagree. An anchorman has a specific job and that's to shield the defence with defensive discipline, positioning and intelligence. When you think about the best anchormen, like Kante, Makelele, Viera, Petit, Dunga, Lambert, Batty, Fabinho, Matic, Hargreaves, etc. Those players rarely crossed the halfway line. A central midfielder is a player in midfield that goes box-to-box, like a prime Roy Keane.

Not saying we don't have midfielders who can't play box-to-box, I'm saying we don't have any good anchormen. 

Have you watched any Man United matches this season? They're playing two archetypal box-to-box midfielders as anchormen. And they're getting their rewards. When McTominay is allowed to stretch his legs and stride forward he turns into a different player. He's one of the most fouled players because he has deceptive pace and opposition players just hack him out of desperation.

I'd say either Clarke doesn't trust his central midfielders or he's contractually obligated to play 4-2-3-1. 

Yeh tbf I would defo have Caldwell over our centre backs today.

Fletcher was a limited player but he did well at united because he stuck to his role and was excellent at breaking up play and marking key men out of the game. Mctominay is a bit more technically gifted imo and also a bit more athletic as well. I am not sure he's necessarily the better player overall though which is where we might agree. For me it would be a toss up between the two if we were having to pick one for the team. Ideally I would have both, probably a midfield three of fletcher, mctominay and mcginn would be my choice but brown or Ferguson could easily be swapped in for any of those three. 

Mcginn is linked with man utd but he's very likely going to be at a top 6 club next season regardless. To me that speaks volumes about his ability.

As for McFadden I am probably in a minority in here but I never rated him that highly, he sat on the bench for Everton because he wasn't good enough to start regardless of the negative tactics moyes liked. I used to watch the highlights of him playing for Everton back in the day and he was useless half the time and would be far too greedy with the ball and never linked up well with others. He did however produce some absolute moments of magic especially in a Scotland shirt. It's debatable for me if he would start above our current day wingers of forrest or Fraser imo. Saying that he certainly pulled out performances for Scotland that Fraser is yet to. I was a far bigger fan of Maloney overall as a player than McFadden but sadly injuries really denied us of Maloney alot of the time.

Anchorman might be a different kind of central midfielder but it's still a central midfielder at the end of the day. Imo mctominay can play that position and can play it well. 

[The_Dark_Knight]

36 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Yeh tbf I would defo have Caldwell over our centre backs today.

Fletcher was a limited player but he did well at united because he stuck to his role and was excellent at breaking up play and marking key men out of the game. Mctominay is a bit more technically gifted imo and also a bit more athletic as well. I am not sure he's necessarily the better player overall though which is where we might agree. For me it would be a toss up between the two if we were having to pick one for the team. Ideally I would have both, probably a midfield three of fletcher, mctominay and mcginn would be my choice but brown or Ferguson could easily be swapped in for any of those three. 

Mcginn is linked with man utd but he's very likely going to be at a top 6 club next season regardless. To me that speaks volumes about his ability.

As for McFadden I am probably in a minority in here but I never rated him that highly, he sat on the bench for Everton because he wasn't good enough to start regardless of the negative tactics moyes liked. I used to watch the highlights of him playing for Everton back in the day and he was useless half the time and would be far too greedy with the ball and never linked up well with others. He did however produce some absolute moments of magic especially in a Scotland shirt. It's debatable for me if he would start above our current day wingers of forrest or Fraser imo. Saying that he certainly pulled out performances for Scotland that Fraser is yet to. I was a far bigger fan of Maloney overall as a player than McFadden but sadly injuries really denied us of Maloney alot of the time.

Anchorman might be a different kind of central midfielder but it's still a central midfielder at the end of the day. Imo mctominay can play that position and can play it well. 

Fletcher's best performance came between 08-10. I remember one match during the 09/10 EPL season against Arsenal at Old Trafford, United won 2-1 and Fletcher pretty much ran the entire midfield. If you can it online check it out, the energy and drive was Keaneesque. In that season he was incredible. In 09 he was unfairly sent off in European Cup semi-final (also against Arsenal) after another wonderful performance.

He was inching towards world class. It's just a pity illness hit him when it did.

McTominay has talent but this pretty much his first full season. Much too soon to put him in the Darren Fletcher bracket.

I could definitely see McGinn at Manchester United. They play 4-2-3-1, so it's hard to see where he'd play, as a second striker, probably. I wouldn't trust him as anchorman. Not many know that he began his career as a left back. He's better than Luke Shaw. 

On pure Scotland performances, Fraser and Forrest have done very little in the navy blue, at least, in comparison to McFadden. But yeah, that Everton team was so dire to watch. Moyes isn't the type of manager that gives players much creative freedom.

The anchorman position is a limited position. I'd say that only Fleck is suited to it. McTominay has been playing in that position all season, yes, he's been United's best player this season, but it just shows how good he is. He's playing out of position and he's out-shining Fred and Pogba, two players that cost a combined £150m. 

I'd say that McGregor, Christie and McTominay are all box-to-box players, but McTominay is of a different level to those other two.

[ParisInAKilt]

The legend of McTominay continues to grow and grow. 

[vanderark14]

26 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

The legend of McTominay continues to grow and grow. 

. He is no better than mcginn as far as I am concerned, both are very good midfielders but I don't believe mctominay is any better

[Bino's]

15 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

In Caldwell's case, he did score in the France match and played very well, we would need the balance. Right now we have no one who can play anchorman role. McTominay struggles in that position for club and country. I suppose you could swap Caldwell for Hartley.

I quite liked McCulloch, I always though he was a consistent performer. Put it this way, he'd walk into our current team. He held him own in the EPL, which means more than the trio of Christie, Forrest and McGregor (add Brown to the mix) of being satisfied with going up against teams who have no folding money.

None of Hartley McCulloch or Caldwell would walk into our current midfield

[Squirrelhumper]

21 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Personally, I don't rate Marshall, Mulgrew, Christie, Griffiths of Forrest. That's half the team. 

If it's true, that our starting XI is fantastic, it MUST be a case of formations/systems. Fact is, in the past 17 years we've had better players than we have now: Fletcher, Fletcher, Boyd, Miller, Brown, Ferguson, Hutton, McFadden, etc. For 17 years we've played a variant of 4 at the back, and for 17 we've failed.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't like three at the back, but in my opinion it's the only thing that can bridge the gap at the back.

You don't rate Christie but think Boyd was good?

Boyd was never an international player, nowhere near it.

[The_Dark_Knight]

 

48 minutes ago, Bino's said:

None of Hartley McCulloch or Caldwell would walk into our current midfield

All three would. 

Do people here watch any league that isn't the SPL? McGregor and Christie may look like superstar up here, but they're playing against teams that live off free transfers.

Collins, Lambert and McAllister could unretire themselves and look like superstars in our league.

23 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

You don't rate Christie but think Boyd was good?

Boyd was never an international player, nowhere near it.

I never once said Boyd was good, just better than Shankland, Russell, etc.

Christie, Forrest and McGregor get way too many plaudits for my liking. All three would get found out in the EPL.

[Bino's]

7 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

 

All three would. 

Do people here watch any league that isn't the SPL? McGregor and Christie may look like superstar up here, but they're playing against teams that live off free transfers.

Collins, Lambert and McAllister could unretire themselves and look like superstars in our league.

I never once said Boyd was good, just better than Shankland, Russell, etc.

Christie, Forrest and McGregor get way too many plaudits for my liking. All three would get found out in the EPL.

Collins Lambert and McAllister would walk into our midfield now

Hartley Caldwell and McCulloch would absolutely not

Hartley had a cross, nothing else

Caldwell was one of the worst DM's I have ever seen, completely out of his depth in the position. He was a centre half and occasional passable right back if pushed

Big Lee was a clogger striker good for knock downs to the wee man striker and only began playing left midfield to do the same role as two strikers became obsolete

They wouldn't replace any of the current starting crop

Edited October 18, 2019 by Bino's

[The_Dark_Knight]

1 minute ago, Bino's said:

Collins Lambert and McAllister would walk into our midfield now

Hartley Caldwell and McCulloch would absolutely not

Hartley had a cross, nothing else

Caldwell was one of the worst FM's I have ever seen, completely out of his depth in the position. He was a centre half and occasional passable right back if pushed

Big Lee was a clogger striker good for knock downs to the wee man striker and only began playing left midfield to do the same role as two strikers became obsolete

They wouldn't replace any of the current starting crop

The only reason I'd pick Hartley or Caldwell is because they're really the only two who would be passable anchormen (I would choose Lambert, but this was a comparison between the squad from 2006 and now). McTominah struggles in that position, McGregor is truly awful, no matter where he plays. Fleck has potential, though. It'll be interesting to see how he fares against Arsenal on Monday.

Lee more than held his own in the EPL, so by that regard he's done more than McGregor and Christie combined.

[romanticscot]

1 hour ago, Bino's said:

None of Hartley McCulloch or Caldwell would walk into our current midfield

There was a period where Hartley was our best player in my opinion, it was maybe half a season but I was very impressed with him during that time. I'd have to go hunting to see if I could envision when that was, likely 07 or 08, I think he was still at Hearts. 

[Bino's]

18 minutes ago, romanticscot said:

There was a period where Hartley was our best player in my opinion, it was maybe half a season but I was very impressed with him during that time. I'd have to go hunting to see if I could envision when that was, likely 07 or 08, I think he was still at Hearts. 

Aye,  took forever to get going then season or tops 18 months when he was good, seemed to get over the hill after that

 

[Bino's]

33 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

The only reason I'd pick Hartley or Caldwell is because they're really the only two who would be passable anchormen (I would choose Lambert, but this was a comparison between the squad from 2006 and now). McTominah struggles in that position, McGregor is truly awful, no matter where he plays. Fleck has potential, though. It'll be interesting to see how he fares against Arsenal on Monday.

Lee more than held his own in the EPL, so by that regard he's done more than McGregor and Christie combined.

Fleck is comparable to Hartley

Disappeared for years now seems to have come into his prime at 27 to prob age quickly and disappear again in circa a year from now

We have probably just seen his one cap

[mccaughey85]

2 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

 

All three would. 

Do people here watch any league that isn't the SPL? McGregor and Christie may look like superstar up here, but they're playing against teams that live off free transfers.

Collins, Lambert and McAllister could unretire themselves and look like superstars in our league.

I never once said Boyd was good, just better than Shankland, Russell, etc.

Christie, Forrest and McGregor get way too many plaudits for my liking. All three would get found out in the EPL.

Would they, I am pretty sure all three could play for lower half epl teams. If James McArthur and Matt Ritchie and countless other average players can cut it in the epl then so could those three.

[The_Dark_Knight]

1 hour ago, Bino's said:

Fleck is comparable to Hartley

Disappeared for years now seems to have come into his prime at 27 to prob age quickly and disappear again in circa a year from now

We have probably just seen his one cap

I've watched a lot of Sheffield United (for obvious reasons) and I've been impressed by Fleck's transformation from attacking midfielder to anchorman. It's best to reserve judgement till the end of the season.

Sheffield United won't get relegated.

21 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Would they, I am pretty sure all three could play for lower half epl teams. If James McArthur and Matt Ritchie and countless other average players can cut it in the epl then so could those three.

True. You could also add Arfield and McCarthy to the mix.

The way that people talk, though, it's like those three could play for Man City or Barcelona, etc. Some people see Christie, Forrest and McGregor swagger around the SPL and get spellbound. I think more people should watch better leagues.

Personally, I've lost 100% interest in Scottish football. Don't even watch Sportscene anymore.