What is our best starting 11?

[Guest RabS]

2 hours ago, bazmidd said:

McTominay and McGinn should play together, dovetailing each other as box to box midfielders. They are quite simply our best Midfielders and can both do a bit of everything very well. Against better opposition McGregor is just a passenger he offers nothing that we need. Fine against San Marino or Cyprus etc we need creative players in there to break teams down, but against better sides we need players who are ball winners in there who can play in quick transitions and go box to box with one man behind them anchoring. McGinn and McTominay would be my central two every single game, with Fleck coming in as an anchor against better sides and McGregor or Christie coming in against sides we need to break down. 

Well Celtic seem to think Macgregor is good enough to play for them against top level opposition. And what you seem to be describing with 2 box to box midfielders I described in a post above as “kamikaze” runs which nearly always result in Scotland losing the ball without the team having the opportunity to push up the pitch and relieve the pressure on the defence. We need to be able to play up the pitch as a team when the “transition” or counter-attack obviously isn’t on. We need to play up the pitch and allow our defence to push up to near the half-way line and then build attacks from there, then try and “sit” in the opposition half. If you watch any half-decent football team that Scotland play against, that is how they play.

[bazmidd]

47 minutes ago, RabS said:

Well Celtic seem to think Macgregor is good enough to play for them against top level opposition. And what you seem to be describing with 2 box to box midfielders I described in a post above as “kamikaze” runs which nearly always result in Scotland losing the ball without the team having the opportunity to push up the pitch and relieve the pressure on the defence. We need to be able to play up the pitch as a team when the “transition” or counter-attack obviously isn’t on. We need to play up the pitch and allow our defence to push up to near the half-way line and then build attacks from there, then try and “sit” in the opposition half. If you watch any half-decent football team that Scotland play against, that is how they play.

No punting the ball up to a striker who can't hold up the ball or punting the ball in that general direction and giving it straight back to the opposition is what doesn't allow our players to get up the pitch. I am all for building attacks through Midfield which will allow our Defence to push up which is when McGregor would come into his own, but our central Defenders are so bad they can't be trusted to come anywhere near the half way line. They have no pace and make piss poor decisions, they can't handle opposition Attackers on their own, they need help. They need protected. They are really that bad. They are no where near the standard of even Celtics central Defenders who have the pace and ability to push further up the pitch. We might get away with playing that way against San Marino fine but against Russia or especially in Kazakhstan when we got destroyed. The quick transitions I am talking about aren't Kamikaze runs from central Midfield, it is sitting deeper, 3 men in midfield, one anchor and two who are ball winning central Midfielders  who can also go box to box who can win the ball and move it quickly to fast wide men before joining in an attack. There are many ways to defend and attack but it ultimately comes down to the personnel you have available

[bazmidd]

In my opinion our central Defenders aren't good enough to allow us to play a high pressing game, which is unfortunate for us as our best attacking players all play a high pressing game for their clubs, that is our conundrum right here. Our central Defenders are whats letting us down. Even having 2 decent EPL quality centre halves like N. Ireland have would u prove us ten fold

[Guest RabS]

Punting the ball up to 1 CF surrounded by opposition players is one way in which we fail to retain possession, but it’s not the only way. Our midfielders are prone to launch themselves into counter-attacks when opposition attacks breakdown, these counter-attacks almost all invariably fail because we have the midfielder running with the ball and our 1 CF in front of him against 4 or 5 opposition players. The midfielder loses the ball, the opposition are back on top of us before we can push up the pitch. If you look at my  earlier posts in this thread you will see I’ve went with a 3/5/2 formation. I’ve also written about how playing two up front will help us defensively, by allowing us to constantly and effectively allow us to harass the opposition back line forcing them into playing at a pace they would rather not, which will result in fewer effective attacks against us. It’s not all the fault of the centre-halves. And I think we have some decent centre-halves with decent pace that would allow us to sit near the half-way line. If the rest of the team is functioning properly, and using a bit of intellect to recognise when counter-attacks are feasible and when we should be holding and recycling the ball around the team to allow us to push up the pitch, we begin to reduce opportunities for the opponent to attack us. We can sit near the half-way line and keep possession in the opposition half, we do have the players to do this against most teams and still be relatively solid at the back.

[Farcity]

You are boring. 

[Guest RabS]

8 minutes ago, Farcity said:

You are boring. 

Think you’re on the wrong forum, I’m sure if you look on the internet you can find a place where you and other like-minded boys can talk about the length of their tadgers.

[Farcity]

1 minute ago, RabS said:

Think you’re on the wrong forum, I’m sure if you look on the internet you can find a place where you and other like-minded boys can talk about the length of their tadgers.

However big mine is can come nowhere near to the one sprouting out from your forehead. 

Remember to log back to your other username when replying to your own posts. 

[ceudmilefailte]

39 minutes ago, bazmidd said:

In my opinion our central Defenders aren't good enough to allow us to play a high pressing game, which is unfortunate for us as our best attacking players all play a high pressing game for their clubs, that is our conundrum right here. Our central Defenders are whats letting us down. Even having 2 decent EPL quality centre halves like N. Ireland have would u prove us ten fold

It's not far of the point that the weakness of our central defenders effects the ability off all our best attacking midfielders and full backs to perform any were near club standard.

Almost come to the point that McTominay and Tierney should be our central defence for the next 10 years.

[bazmidd]

27 minutes ago, RabS said:

Punting the ball up to 1 CF surrounded by opposition players is one way in which we fail to retain possession, but it’s not the only way. Our midfielders are prone to launch themselves into counter-attacks when opposition attacks breakdown, these counter-attacks almost all invariably fail because we have the midfielder running with the ball and our 1 CF in front of him against 4 or 5 opposition players. The midfielder loses the ball, the opposition are back on top of us before we can push up the pitch. If you look at my  earlier posts in this thread you will see I’ve went with a 3/5/2 formation. I’ve also written about how playing two up front will help us defensively, by allowing us to constantly and effectively allow us to harass the opposition back line forcing them into playing at a pace they would rather not, which will result in fewer effective attacks against us. It’s not all the fault of the centre-halves. And I think we have some decent centre-halves with decent pace that would allow us to sit near the half-way line. If the rest of the team is functioning properly, and using a bit of intellect to recognise when counter-attacks are feasible and when we should be holding and recycling the ball around the team to allow us to push up the pitch, we begin to reduce opportunities for the opponent to attack us. We can sit near the half-way line and keep possession in the opposition half, we do have the players to do this against most teams and still be relatively solid at the back.

Can you honestly name these decent centre halves with decent pace who can play in man for man situations to allow us to play a high line up the pitch? Because I can't. Our best centre halves are McKenna and..... Hmm I honestly don't know they are all utter crap lol. And McKenna is only really decent at best right now unproven at a higher level, he is best at doing the basics, heading, positioning, holding a line, but he doesn't have great pace, he isn't comfortable playing high up the pitch he is comfortable defending his box. As for the rest Hanley is similar to McKenna so the same applies to him as McKenna, Mulgrew would probably prefer to play higher up the pitch starting attacks as he is useless at defending his box but he has no pace and basically can't defend in one on one situations. Who else is there? 

[bazmidd]

I do take your point about two up front though, we give these teams nothing to think about, it is too comfortable for them, at least two strikers would occupy their defenders

[Guest RabS]

This is my only account, and judging from the level of intellect on here, don’t think I’ll be using it much. 
Anyway since when did they allow internet access to the special unit in Peterhead?

[Guest RabS]

7 minutes ago, bazmidd said:

I do take your point about two up front though, we give these teams nothing to think about, it is too comfortable for them, at least two strikers would occupy their defenders

Sorry mate, I just joined this forum last night and I seem to have some  sort of troll commenting on my posts. If you look back at my earlier posts you’ll see my team selection with some names in centre halve positions. But you are correct in the regard that all our potential centre halves are relatively young and inexperienced, I’d drop Mulgrew, so there are no real stick ons for the roles. But potentially I’d have a back 3 along the lines of Souttar/Gallagher, Hacklett as Captain, McKenna/Tierney

[er yir macaroon]

35 minutes ago, bazmidd said:

Can you honestly name these decent centre halves with decent pace who can play in man for man situations to allow us to play a high line up the pitch? Because I can't. Our best centre halves are McKenna and..... Hmm I honestly don't know they are all utter crap lol. And McKenna is only really decent at best right now unproven at a higher level, he is best at doing the basics, heading, positioning, holding a line, but he doesn't have great pace, he isn't comfortable playing high up the pitch he is comfortable defending his box. As for the rest Hanley is similar to McKenna so the same applies to him as McKenna, Mulgrew would probably prefer to play higher up the pitch starting attacks as he is useless at defending his box but he has no pace and basically can't defend in one on one situations. Who else is there? 

McKenna was, and may still be, the quickest player in the Aberdeen squad. 

[The_Dark_Knight]

1 hour ago, RabS said:

Sorry mate, I just joined this forum last night and I seem to have some  sort of troll commenting on my posts. If you look back at my earlier posts you’ll see my team selection with some names in centre halve positions. But you are correct in the regard that all our potential centre halves are relatively young and inexperienced, I’d drop Mulgrew, so there are no real stick ons for the roles. But potentially I’d have a back 3 along the lines of Souttar/Gallagher, Hacklett as Captain, McKenna/Tierney

Yeah. Farcity probably thinks that we're the same person since I'm the only one who has ever been beating the 3 or 5 at the back drum.

The person is so obsessed with me that they dedicated a thread to me. Yeah. Creepy stuff. Best to ignore him/her and don't let allow them to run you off the board.

[Guest RabS]

2 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Yeah. Farcity probably thinks that we're the same person since I'm the only one who has ever been beating the 3 or 5 at the back drum.

The person is so obsessed with me that they dedicated a thread to me. Yeah. Creepy stuff. Best to ignore him/her and don't let allow them to run you off the board.

Cheers mate, I was wondering why he was saying I had more than 1 account.

[The_Dark_Knight]

13 minutes ago, RabS said:

Cheers mate, I was wondering why he was saying I had more than 1 account.

Very welcome.

See, this is the kind of thing that I've been dealing with for God knows how long.

You should've seen the reaction when i first brought up five or three at the back, it resembed the reaction people had when Galileo said that the Earh revolves around the sun...

Edited October 13, 2019 by The_Dark_Knight

[Guest RabS]

1 minute ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Very welcome.

See, this is the kind of thing that I've been dealing with for God knows how long.

You should've been the reaction when i first brought up five or three at the back, it resembed the reaction people had when Galileo said that the Eartch revolves around the sun...

Right, i guess they brought up the defeat in Israel as to why it should never be allowed. But that was down to us going down to 10 men, with a unjustified red card for Souttar, in my opinion, not the formation. If you look at the game against Albania it showed promise. That was with just 1 game in the formation.

[The_Dark_Knight]

Just now, RabS said:

Right, i guess they brought up the defeat in Israel as to why it should never be allowed. But that was down to us going down to 10 men, with a unjustified red card for Souttar, in my opinion, not the formation. If you look at the game against Albania it showed promise. That was with just 1 game in the formation.

Yeah. The Israel game is used continuously for why 3 at the back doesn't work (ignoring the fact that Israel played 3 and ripped us a new one)

People here somehow put more stock in that Israel match than 17 years of playing with a four and having nothing but failure.

Oh, also forgetting about that we drew 2-2 against England playing with a 3. That's the match that must not be named... Like Voldermort... But in a more football way.

[Guest RabS]

4 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Yeah. The Israel game is used continuously for why 3 at the back doesn't work (ignoring the fact that Israel played 3 and ripped us a new one)

People here somehow put more stock in that Israel match than 17 years of playing with a four and having nothing but failure.

Oh, also forgetting about that we drew 2-2 against England playing with a 3. That's the match that must not be named... Like Voldermort... But in a more football way.

It’s also one of the ways to get our 2 best players into the side. And I’d like to see how they would perform down the left after 10,15 games in the formation 

Edited October 13, 2019 by RabS

[The_Dark_Knight]

4 minutes ago, RabS said:

It’s also one of the ways to get our 2 best players into the side. And I’d like to see how they would perform down the left after 10,15 games in the formation 

Me, too.

You're wasting your time with everyone else here, I'm afraid, I've spent years beating this particular drum and i don't think I've convinced more than one person (according to my decent poll). It's clear that people here would rather lose in a four than experiment, and maybe win and improve, with a three/five.

Edited October 13, 2019 by The_Dark_Knight

[Guest RabS]

4 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Me, too.

You're wasting your time with everyone else here, I'm afraid, I've spent years beating this particular drum and i don't think I've convinced more than one person (according to my decent poll). It's clear that people here would rather lose in a four than experiment, and maybe win and improve, with a three/five.

Isn’t there a famous quote about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Speaking of results, regardless of how terrible they have been, especially this past year, Scotland are really dull, boring and hard to watch. Surely that in itself is an indication that something isn’t right.

[The_Dark_Knight]

1 minute ago, RabS said:

Isn’t there a famous quote about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Speaking of results, regardless of how terrible they have been, especially this past year, Scotland are really dull, boring and hard to watch. Surely that in itself is an indication that something isn’t right.

Yeah, some unknown person called Einstein said it.  it doesn't cut any ice, though. People here are just so intellectually stubborn that it's bordering on insanity. Hell, you witnessed that person thinking you were me, this isn't the safest of places.

Exactly. If a change would improve us, even by as little as 5%, we should take it. But generally, talking about tactics and formations in this place isn't the done thing.

I mean, people keep saying that our central midfielders are the strongest part of our squad... And yet they want to play with a system (4-2-3-1) that plays with ZERO central midfielder. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

[Guest RabS]

4 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Yeah, some unknown person called Einstein said it.  it doesn't cut any ice, though. People here are just so intellectually stubborn that it's bordering on insanity. Hell, you witnessed that person thinking you were me, this isn't the safest of places.

Exactly. If a change would improve us, even by as little as 5%, we should take it. But generally, talking about tactics and formations in this place isn't the done thing.

I mean, people keep saying that our central midfielders are the strongest part of our squad... And yet they want to play with a system (4-2-3-1) that plays with ZERO central midfielder. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

We do have some good midfielders, we are just missing a holding, anchorman. That’s why I have suggested Lamie, I guarantee that if we can ably fill that position, whoever it maybe, the rest of the midfield will click into place. That’s one of the reasons Clarke’s squad selections are disappointing to me,  he doesn’t seem to be able to see the problem then find a solution. He doesn’t seem to recognise how important this is for the balance of the midfield and the team. He is trying the same players that have been proven to be unsuitable, same with the lone striker.

[bazmidd]

This does suspiciously seem like the same person chatting to themselves on an internet forum, quite creepy actually haha literally far too much back slapping and agreement going on there. Anyway a back 3 with even more mediocre SPL defenders playing at the half way line fills me with even more dread. 

[The_Dark_Knight]

2 minutes ago, RabS said:

We do have some good midfielders, we are just missing a holding, anchorman. That’s why I have suggested Lamie, I guarantee that if we can ably fill that position, whoever it maybe, the rest of the midfield will click into place. That’s one of the reasons Clarke’s squad selections are disappointing to me,  he doesn’t seem to be able to see the problem then find a solution. He doesn’t seem to recognise how important this is for the balance of the midfield and the team. He is trying the same players that have been proven to be unsuitable, same with the lone striker.

Do we, though? We won't be able to judge McGregor and Christie till they quit Scottish football. McGinn is growing on me and I've always liked McTominay. So it's something to build on.

Agreed about the anchorman situation. People see McTominay play in that position and see him as an anchorman, yeah, he is not.