Moving forward, what should be our system in defence?

[bazmidd]

2 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Players like Naismith's generation have had their chances. They've failed. So for the playoffs i'd promote the likes of Johnston, Hornby, Gilmour, Porteous, Campbell, maybe even one or two from the u19s.

If these players shrink at playing at such a stage then they shouldn't be footballers, don't use age as a barometer. Age is inconsequential.

If nothing else, the playoffs will show who has the mettle. If we get to final we'll play Norway. In my opinion, Norway will qualify for Euro 2020. So either way we'll lose.

I'd rather experiment, and lose, with kids than go with the players who have failed in the Euro qualification, and lose.

Age is inconsequential? Is experience inconsequential? Experience is vitally important. A team is only as good as its senior pros. The way they, train, the way they behave, the commitment, the mentality. They set the standards. Ok you say they failed, ultimately they didn't qualify, but they also did not let anyone down or fall below the level at which they were ranked. They did not go below what was expected. They always finished where they were expected to finish as 3rd or 4th seeds. Sometimes a sense of realism is needed here. We have no divine right to finish above a team ranked higher than us because we qualified for tournaments 20 years ago. We are where we are, we have the players that we have and at times whilst they have let themselves down there have been other times where they have exceeded expectations. That team Strachan had for the level of player we had and where we were ranked as a team were very very close to achieving something. And that was down to the spirit and togetherness Strachan forged and the system and style of play he put in place. The baton had to be carried forward with the introduction of newer talented players who could enter the national team and compliment the senior pros we had. Not completely rip it up and start again because that is why we are where we are now

[The_Dark_Knight]

4 minutes ago, bazmidd said:

Age is inconsequential? Is experience inconsequential? Experience is vitally important. A team is only as good as its senior pros. The way they, train, the way they behave, the commitment, the mentality. They set the standards. Ok you say they failed, ultimately they didn't qualify, but they also did not let anyone down or fall below the level at which they were ranked. They did not go below what was expected. They always finished where they were expected to finish as 3rd or 4th seeds. Sometimes a sense of realism is needed here. We have no divine right to finish above a team ranked higher than us because we qualified for tournaments 20 years ago. We are where we are, we have the players that we have and at times whilst they have let themselves down there have been other times where they have exceeded expectations. That team Strachan had for the level of player we had and where we were ranked as a team were very very close to achieving something. And that was down to the spirit and togetherness Strachan forged and the system and style of play he put in place. The baton had to be carried forward with the introduction of newer talented players who could enter the national team and compliment the senior pros we had. Not completely rip it up and start again because that is why we are where we are now

Age doesn't automatically bring experience. Besides, there are degrees of experience. Cooper, for one, hasn't played in England's top league. What is he? 29? McTominay is only 22 and i'd say that he's more experienced than Cooper, etc.

They did not let anyone down?! So, losing 3:0 to Kazakhstan didn't let us down? Only beating San Marino and Cyprus in a 6 team group isnt letting anyone down? 

I'd say that, not only have they let us down, they've also embarrassed us. I mean, beating Cyprus by means of a last minute goal... It's not exactly something that makes us proud.

[bazmidd]

6 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Age doesn't automatically bring experience. Besides, there are degrees of experience. Cooper, for one, hasn't played in England's top league. What is he? 29? McTominay is only 22 and i'd say that he's more experienced than Cooper, etc.

They did not let anyone down?! So, losing 3:0 to Kazakhstan didn't let us down? Only beating San Marino and Cyprus in a 6 team group isnt letting anyone down? 

I'd say that, not only have they let us down, they've also embarrassed us. I mean, beating Cyprus by means of a last minute goal... It's not exactly something that makes us proud.

Jesus wept you only see what you want to see don't you. We weren't talking about the team that played Kazakhstan were we, or at least I certainly wasn't. I was talking about Strachans team and the senior pros in that team and the point that I was making was that team and system should not have been completely ripped apart and replaced by the team we currently have it should have been a gradual change and the senior pros we had in Strachans squad were integral to the development of the players we have in our squad now but they were discarded by McLeish. As usual I think you have completely missed the point of everything I have said to suit your own blinkered views. 

Edited November 14, 2019 by bazmidd

[Paulus]

It's been a while since I posted but I've been watching with interest and this is an interesting thread.

Good managers produce good teams by making the most of their best players not by sticking to a team shape that means some of the best players are left out and play crap players because they fit in an existing structure.  At the moment Scotland potentially (if they turn up) have 2 excellent wingbacks about half a dozen decent midfielders some crap central defenders and virtually nothing up top, oh and no stand out goalkeeper.  Recent performances have been poor.  Few chances created, leaky defence midfield ineffective.

In goal - Marshall seems best placed, just keep praying for someone else to come along soon.

Defence - 3 at the back Arguably Devlin and McKenna seem the best of a mediocre bunch but as there are no stand outs it doesn't really matter, they have the advantage of playing together which is not to be sniffed at. Then, controversially, for a third I would try McTominay in the middle of a three.  Why, because his natural game is a destroyer, he'll tackle anything that moves he's big enough to be useful in that position but he's already showing he's got the football brain to be adaptable. he has the ability to be the quarterback with the security of 2 centre backs alongside him.  An example of how this can work is Conor Coady at Wolves, midfielder all through his youth development at Liverpool, now established as the glue that makes Wolves' defence stick and McTominay is a miles better player at this stage than Coady was.

Wingbacks - This system now allows Robertson and Tierney to play in the role they excel at, ok one of them is on the wrong side but that's a small price to play for the threat they will bring.

Flat 3 in midfield, sod attacking or defensive midfields, diamonds or whatever else you want, midfielders should be able to do the lot in my book but because the wingbacks will create the width no specialist wide player needed and fortunately there's a number to choose from.  On what I've seen I'd go McGinn, Fleck and Fraser, first 2 definitely Fraser I'm open to alternatives.

Now gloriously we can play 2 up front, problem is not many options, a big and little one would be my preference but its all a bit thin on the ground.  I think if fit you have to go with McBurnie and Griffiths.  I'm the first to say that this season McBurnie has been a massive disappointment but I think he would be effective in a team that actually has a structure and produces some decent opportunities.  Griffiths doesn't look like happening any time soon so maybe Shankland has an opportunity, failing this put an attacking mid to play no.10.  Maybe Shinnie or Armstrong in the middle and push Fraser up.

Now before I get ripped for picking so many English based players, I'm basing this on players I've actually seen and I watch predominantly English matches; you guys may well be right that better options exist in the Scottish game, tbh It doesn't matter to me the key thing that has to happen in my view is that you need a shape to fit the guys available and it seems a no brainer to me that at present that shape should be 352.

 

[The_Dark_Knight]

1 minute ago, bazmidd said:

Jesus wept you only see what you want to see don't you. We weren't talking about the team that played Kazakhstan were we, or at least I certainly wasn't. I was talking about Strachans team and the senior pros in that team and the point that I was making was that team and system should not have been completely ripped apart and replaced by the team we currently have it should have been a gradual change and the senior pros we had in Strachans squad were integral to the development of the players we have in our squad now. As usual I think you have completely missed the point of everything I have said to suit your own blinkered views. 

The collect Scotland teams/players of the last 20 years have let us down. I'm not going to mention Strachan's team or Smith's team, etc. I'm talking about them as a collective.

As far as this current team, we'll sleep walk into the playoffs final and then lose 5:0 to Norway, with Naismith, etc, leading the charge.

[The_Dark_Knight]

15 minutes ago, Paulus said:

It's been a while since I posted but I've been watching with interest and this is an interesting thread.

Good managers produce good teams by making the most of their best players not by sticking to a team shape that means some of the best players are left out and play crap players because they fit in an existing structure.  At the moment Scotland potentially (if they turn up) have 2 excellent wingbacks about half a dozen decent midfielders some crap central defenders and virtually nothing up top, oh and no stand out goalkeeper.  Recent performances have been poor.  Few chances created, leaky defence midfield ineffective.

In goal - Marshall seems best placed, just keep praying for someone else to come along soon.

Defence - 3 at the back Arguably Devlin and McKenna seem the best of a mediocre bunch but as there are no stand outs it doesn't really matter, they have the advantage of playing together which is not to be sniffed at. Then, controversially, for a third I would try McTominay in the middle of a three.  Why, because his natural game is a destroyer, he'll tackle anything that moves he's big enough to be useful in that position but he's already showing he's got the football brain to be adaptable. he has the ability to be the quarterback with the security of 2 centre backs alongside him.  An example of how this can work is Conor Coady at Wolves, midfielder all through his youth development at Liverpool, now established as the glue that makes Wolves' defence stick and McTominay is a miles better player at this stage than Coady was.

Wingbacks - This system now allows Robertson and Tierney to play in the role they excel at, ok one of them is on the wrong side but that's a small price to play for the threat they will bring.

Flat 3 in midfield, sod attacking or defensive midfields, diamonds or whatever else you want, midfielders should be able to do the lot in my book but because the wingbacks will create the width no specialist wide player needed and fortunately there's a number to choose from.  On what I've seen I'd go McGinn, Fleck and Fraser, first 2 definitely Fraser I'm open to alternatives.

Now gloriously we can play 2 up front, problem is not many options, a big and little one would be my preference but its all a bit thin on the ground.  I think if fit you have to go with McBurnie and Griffiths.  I'm the first to say that this season McBurnie has been a massive disappointment but I think he would be effective in a team that actually has a structure and produces some decent opportunities.  Griffiths doesn't look like happening any time soon so maybe Shankland has an opportunity, failing this put an attacking mid to play no.10.  Maybe Shinnie or Armstrong in the middle and push Fraser up.

Now before I get ripped for picking so many English based players, I'm basing this on players I've actually seen and I watch predominantly English matches; you guys may well be right that better options exist in the Scottish game, tbh It doesn't matter to me the key thing that has to happen in my view is that you need a shape to fit the guys available and it seems a no brainer to me that at present that shape should be 352.

 

And you are correct!

Top post!

Trouble is, though, it appears that written into the Scotland contract is an obligation to play with a back four, even though evidence would suggest that there is no way that our defenders are able to cope at the highest level in that system. It's maddening.

Not just the defence, people say that the center of midfield is where we excel... And then they go on about playing a system that have zero central midfielders. It makes no sense.

And i agree about the midfielders. Roy Keane was on SKY recently and he said that these days midfielders are asked to be good at one thing, and that's it. As opposed to doing the lot, like he used to. 

And as far as the strikers go, it's not fun seeing our sole striker run around like a rabit rabbit. It happened with Miller, Fletcher, Griffiths, McBurnie, etc. Play TWO strikers and lighten the load.

Saying all that, Clarke will play 4-2-3-1... Or what it turns into, 6-3-1.

Edited November 14, 2019 by The_Dark_Knight

[Paulus]

4-2-3-1 is a god awful formation, it only ever works well where the front 4 are bordering on genius level eg Chelsea under Jose, where they were rock solid at the back but still able to open most defences.  With the back 4 that Scotland play it's highly suspect in the centre and it nullifies the attacking strength of the fullbacks.  Even if the defence is well drilled and the full backs in particular are disciplined, its still so weak the coach feels obliged to play two defensive mids.  The sad reality is that Scotland haven't got any combination of just 4 players to be effective in midfield and attack.  It rules out a high press because it won't work with 4 at International level, if they try it they will get bypassed and the defence exposed.  Invariably, the midfield spend all match chasing around with little structured attacking play and the poor old lone striker has to feed off scraps and then have to beat the two centre halves who will invariable have him in their pocket(s).  Maybe they scrape a goal but in the meantime most decent International teams will have scored 2 or 3.

[The_Dark_Knight]

11 minutes ago, Paulus said:

4-2-3-1 is a god awful formation, it only ever works well where the front 4 are bordering on genius level eg Chelsea under Jose, where they were rock solid at the back but still able to open most defences.  With the back 4 that Scotland play it's highly suspect in the centre and it nullifies the attacking strength of the fullbacks.  Even if the defence is well drilled and the full backs in particular are disciplined, its still so weak the coach feels obliged to play two defensive mids.  The sad reality is that Scotland haven't got any combination of just 4 players to be effective in midfield and attack.  It rules out a high press because it won't work with 4 at International level, if they try it they will get bypassed and the defence exposed.  Invariably, the midfield spend all match chasing around with little structured attacking play and the poor old lone striker has to feed off scraps and then have to beat the two centre halves who will invariable have him in their pocket(s).  Maybe they scrape a goal but in the meantime most decent International teams will have scored 2 or 3.

Simple fact is, we need a proactive manager. I had high hopes for Clarke, but he's shown that he's as stubborn as our previous few managers.

[ceudmilefailte]

12 hours ago, Paulus said:

 

 

Wingbacks - This system now allows Robertson and Tierney to play in the role they excel at, ok one of them is on the wrong side but that's a small price to play for the threat they will bring.

 

 

 

Have I been sleeping and missed those two as wing backs.

Robertson has said he hates it and Tierney has never even done it on the right any way

There are some arguments for three at the back but that is just silly.

On the other hand McTominay in central defence is some thing that might not be as daft as some on here will no doubt think just depends on how much important you regard defending

 

[The_Dark_Knight]

12 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Have I been sleeping and missed those two as wing backs.

Robertson has said he hates it and Tierney has never even done it on the right any way

There are some arguments for three at the back but that is just silly.

On the other hand McTominay in central defence is some thing that might not be as daft as some on here will no doubt think just depends on how much important you regard defending

 

Liverpool played Sheffield United to a three for 45 mins, with Robertson at wing back. Didn't seem to bother him

Also, has anyone actually watched Liverpool? Look at Robertson's heat-map against Leicester City . He's practically a wing-back/winger with Liverpool. I've said this a million times.

No. McTominay has the potential to be our Roy Keane. But we don't play with a midfield anyway, so sure, why not.

Edited November 15, 2019 by The_Dark_Knight

[ceudmilefailte]

5 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Liverpool played Sheffield United to a three for 45 mins, with Robertson at wing back. Didn't seem to bother him

Also, has anyone actually watched Liverpool? Look at Robertson's heat-map against Leicester City . He's practically a wing-back/winger with Liverpool. I've said this a million times.

No. McTominay has the potential to be our Roy Keane. But we don't play with a midfield anyway, so sure, why not.

Robertson got taken off on the hour mark in Genk when Liverpool changed to three at the back. 

If you want to talk heat maps check his one against Man City

[The_Dark_Knight]

3 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Robertson got taken off on the hour mark in Genk when Liverpool changed to three at the back. 

If you want to talk heat maps check his one against Man City

Robertson got taken off because he can't even train Liverpool are so spooked that he'll be get injured. 

Genk? Yeah, must win game...

You mean the match where he snuck in at the far post and scored? Yes, he was all the way at left back... He's the Flash.

Yes, against Manchester City it was pretty much the same. Helps to watch matches, too.

[The_Dark_Knight]

12 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Robertson got taken off because he can't even train Liverpool are so spooked that he'll be get injured. 

Genk? Yeah, must win game...

You mean the match where he snuck in at the far post and scored? Yes, he was all the way at left back... He's the Flash.

Yes, against Manchester City it was pretty much the same. Helps to watch matches, too.

 

20 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Robertson got taken off on the hour mark in Genk when Liverpool changed to three at the back. 

If you want to talk heat maps check his one against Man City

Oh wait, you said Man City? My bad: Here we go.

No idea why we're talking about Robertson as a wing-back. I would play Taylor there.

[ceudmilefailte]

1 minute ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

 

Oh wait, you said Man City? My bad: Here we go.

No idea why we're talking about Robertson as a wing-back. I would play Taylor there.

As you can see there he spent more of his time in his own half and further back than in the Leicester game, I would call that an attacking left back as opposed to a wing back.

I'd play Fraser as a wing back, he has played as a full back on the left and the right in the past or we could just wait for Rangers to have a third choice player we can use.

[The_Dark_Knight]

Just now, ceudmilefailte said:

As you can see there he spent more of his time in his own half and further back than in the Leicester game, I would call that an attacking left back as opposed to a wing back.

I'd play Fraser as a wing-back, he has played as a full back on the left and the right in the past or we could just wait for Rangers to have a third choice player we can use.

In fairness, it was Manchester City. They're no mugs. Did Robertson actually say that he was uncomfortable as a wing-back? That makes no sense, as he pretty much plays there at Liverpool.

Agreed. I'd actually think about Burke on the right. I don't think he's as lazy as some make out.

[gaz7]

19 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

 

Oh wait, you said Man City? My bad: Here we go.

No idea why we're talking about Robertson as a wing-back. I would play Taylor there.

You would play taylor over robertson?

Away and lie doon that is the most idiotic statement ever !

Ill presume taylor is related to you or your drunk!

[ceudmilefailte]

11 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

In fairness, it was Manchester City. They're no mugs. Did Robertson actually say that he was uncomfortable as a wing-back? That makes no sense, as he pretty much plays there at Liverpool.

Agreed. I'd actually think about Burke on the right. I don't think he's as lazy as some make out.

Looked at the heat maps for Scotland's nations league games and it would appear that he is trying to get forward as much for us as Liverpool, close to being a wing back even.

I am afraid we need the one that played against Man City.

[ceudmilefailte]

1 minute ago, gaz7 said:

You would play taylor over robertson?

Away and lie doon that is the most idiotic statement ever !

Ill presume taylor is related to you or your drunk!

Or the most sarcastic  

[The_Dark_Knight]

5 minutes ago, gaz7 said:

You would play taylor over robertson?

Away and lie doon that is the most idiotic statement ever !

Ill presume taylor is related to you or your drunk!

*sigh*

For the millionth and one time. I'd play Robertson as an anchorman. Want to know why? Read my "formation" thread.

Yeah. Mature rebuttal.

Edited November 15, 2019 by The_Dark_Knight

[The_Dark_Knight]

3 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Looked at the heat maps for Scotland's nations league games and it would appear that he is trying to get forward as much for us as Liverpool, close to being a wing back even.

I am afraid we need the one that played against Man City.

Leaving us exposed at the back in the process, which is the reason there should be three centerbacks to cover him.

Yes. Because Cyprus and Kazakhstan are the international equivalent of Manchester City...

[gaz7]

yes i understand that dark knight but seriously if robeetson wasnt playing as anchorman in midfield would you play taylor over him.

[ceudmilefailte]

2 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Leaving us exposed at the back in the process, which is the reason there should be three centerbacks to cover him.

Yes. Because Cyprus and Kazakhstan are the international equivalent of Manchester City...

I think you are nearly there. Scotland are an international equivalent of Cyprus and Kazakhstan.

Against Man City their club equivalent he had to do more defensively and the same will happen when they play games later in the champions league.

We need a four man defence to cover our midfield not a five man midfield to cover our defence.

Robertson might be a better player but Tierney might be a better left back fit (not if fit) for Scotland. Now you can play Robertson in your midfield.

[The_Dark_Knight]

1 hour ago, ceudmilefailte said:

We need a four man defence to cover our midfield not a five man midfield to cover our defence.

Robertson might be a better player but Tierney might be a better left back fit (not if fit) for Scotland. Now you can play Robertson in your midfield.

Why does a defence last to cover the midfield? It's the other way round. The defence is the last line of... Defence.

When we play 4-2-3-1 it turns into a perpetual 6-3-1 as we lose the ball so much and the midfielder are inches from the defencive line.

[Taylor1996]

On 11/14/2019 at 7:57 PM, The_Dark_Knight said:

Over the past couple of days I've been encouraged by how many people want to break free from four at the back and want give a three/five a crack of the whip.

So, going forward, and taking into account our defensive deficiencies, what system should we go forward with?

This is a telling statistic:

12.5% of this board wanted our current system of 3/5 at the back. (Which has propelled up to top of our Nations League group and within one match from Euro 2020.

87.5% of this board wanted the system that has failed us in the past: 4-4-2. The system that failed for 18 years and 9 qualification campaigns.

If we kept the template that Craig Brown left behind, the likes of Barry Ferguson, Darren Fletcher, James McFadden would have qualified for a tournament.

Who's laughing now?

[Taylor1996]

3 hours ago, Taylor1996 said:

This is a telling statistic:

12.5% of this board wanted our current system of 3/5 at the back. (Which has propelled up to top of our Nations League group and within one match from Euro 2020.

87.5% of this board wanted the system that has failed us in the past: 4-5-1. The system that failed for 18 years and 9 qualification campaigns.

If we kept the template that Craig Brown left behind, the likes of Barry Ferguson, Darren Fletcher, James McFadden would have qualified for a tournament.

Who's laughing now?

Edit.