Your Ideal Team For The Playoffs? - Page 9 - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Your Ideal Team For The Playoffs?


Guest ElChris04

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, dohadeer said:

Talk about playing to our weaknesses!

We really struggle to find central defenders and attackers, and you’re suggesting a formation that requires FIVE players in those positions, rather than the usual three. 

Also, James Forrest is a liability/passenger for us, even in his usual, strongest position. I wouldn’t trust him to play out of position at wing-back, in a million years. Remember there is a huge difference between playing there for Celtic, against other Scottish teams, and playing there for Scotland, against decent international teams.

 

Would another centre half not aid the em... centre halfs

Is someone who is playing every week for his club in a position, if did same for us, playing out of position?

Is playing two strikers together up front who both flourish when playing with another striker, playing to a weakness?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bino's said:

Would another centre half not aid the em... centre halfs

Is someone who is playing every week for his club in a position, if did same for us, playing out of position?

Is playing two strikers together up front who both flourish when playing with another striker, playing to a weakness?

 

Obviously, three centre backs are better than two. Unfortunately that means we lose a player elsewhere in the team. Exchanging a quality midfielder (English Premiership level) for a Scottish Premiership defender, would not be a good move.

 

Yes, James Forrest is not a wing back. You know that as well as I do. Him playing there for Celtic for the past month or so does not change that.

 

And again, yes, playing two strikers is not a luxury we can afford. That only leaves 8 other outfield players. We need 9 other players and one striker. We are not good enough to play two strikers, and we barely have two decent strikers to play even if we did.

We have an abundance of quality midfielders, as we have done for years and years. We are lacking in attack and defence. We have to play 5 midfielders, Andy Robertson, and makeshift the other 4 players in whatever way we can.

As I said earlier, not playing 5 midfielders is clearly playing to our weaknesses. Every single Scotland manager plays with 5 midfielders as that is the only option for us. They know far better than you or I, surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dohadeer said:

Obviously, three centre backs are better than two. Unfortunately that means we lose a player elsewhere in the team. Exchanging a quality midfielder (English Premiership level) for a Scottish Premiership defender, would not be a good move.

 

Yes, James Forrest is not a wing back. You know that as well as I do. Him playing there for Celtic for the past month or so does not change that.

 

And again, yes, playing two strikers is not a luxury we can afford. That only leaves 8 other outfield players. We need 9 other players and one striker. We are not good enough to play two strikers, and we barely have two decent strikers to play even if we did.

We have an abundance of quality midfielders, as we have done for years and years. We are lacking in attack and defence. We have to play 5 midfielders, Andy Robertson, and makeshift the other 4 players in whatever way we can.

As I said earlier, not playing 5 midfielders is clearly playing to our weaknesses. Every single Scotland manager plays with 5 midfielders as that is the only option for us. They know far better than you or I, surely?

Mcginn and mctominay are injured maybe just returning

Christie and Armstrong don't start for their clubs

At present only jack Fleck and McGregor are playing regularly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Bino's said:

Mcginn and mctominay are injured maybe just returning

Christie and Armstrong don't start for their clubs

At present only jack Fleck and McGregor are playing regularly

Stuart Armstrong has been a pretty regular starter for Southampton during their recent good run.

I guess the proof will be in the pudding, in terms of what Steve Clarke goes with, but I’d be surprised if he goes with two up front at home to Israel, let alone away to Norway or Serbia. I think it would be suicide for Scotland to play with two up front against a decent team - as all of our managers have agreed.

Your formation that only allows for 3 midfielders, instead of 5, and has James Forrest at wing back, is a crazy suggestion. I don’t know enough about Norway or Serbia to know their particular players in each position, but I can guarantee that either of those teams’ left-sided players would have a field day playing against James Forrest at wing back. Surely you can see the differences that allow Forrest to play that position for Celtic, but not for Scotland?

 

The one positive for your suggested formation is that Andy Robertson would surely be more suited to playing with three centre backs, instead of two, as he’s so attack-minded. However, the negatives which outweigh this one positive are frightening - playing with two up front, which only leaves 8 players elsewhere, playing James Forrest at wing back, having to select three non-Old Firm Scottish Premiership centre backs, only being able to select three of our quality midfielders. 

 

At the end of the day, Steve Clarke knows better than you or I. I know which formation I’d put big money on him going with though, and it’s very different to the one you have suggested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am leaning towards something like this

                           Marshall

Palmer    Cooper    McKenna  Robertson

                McTominay   Fleck

McGregor                                Fraser

               McBurnie     Griffiths

Id be looking for the full backs to provide the width with Fraser and especially McGregor drifting inside to create from there. If McGinn doesn't make it which doesn't look likely we need goals from somewhere else and Griffiths and McBurnie have goals in them as a partnership. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, dohadeer said:

 

 

The one positive for your suggested formation is that Andy Robertson would surely be more suited to playing with three centre backs, instead of two, as he’s so attack-minded. However, the negatives which outweigh this one positive are frightening - playing with two up front, which only leaves 8 players elsewhere, playing James Forrest at wing back, having to select three non-Old Firm Scottish Premiership centre backs, only being able to select three of our quality midfielders. 

 

 

Robertson was nothing special in the games he played wing back  for us and I'm pretty sure he came out and said so himself.

He know's he's far more effective as a full back and dislikes playing as a wing back. They are no were near as alike positions as many would have us think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, dohadeer said:

Stuart Armstrong has been a pretty regular starter for Southampton during their recent good run.

I guess the proof will be in the pudding, in terms of what Steve Clarke goes with, but I’d be surprised if he goes with two up front at home to Israel, let alone away to Norway or Serbia. I think it would be suicide for Scotland to play with two up front against a decent team - as all of our managers have agreed.

Your formation that only allows for 3 midfielders, instead of 5, and has James Forrest at wing back, is a crazy suggestion. I don’t know enough about Norway or Serbia to know their particular players in each position, but I can guarantee that either of those teams’ left-sided players would have a field day playing against James Forrest at wing back. Surely you can see the differences that allow Forrest to play that position for Celtic, but not for Scotland?

 

The one positive for your suggested formation is that Andy Robertson would surely be more suited to playing with three centre backs, instead of two, as he’s so attack-minded. However, the negatives which outweigh this one positive are frightening - playing with two up front, which only leaves 8 players elsewhere, playing James Forrest at wing back, having to select three non-Old Firm Scottish Premiership centre backs, only being able to select three of our quality midfielders. 

 

At the end of the day, Steve Clarke knows better than you or I. I know which formation I’d put big money on him going with though, and it’s very different to the one you have suggested.

Tbf he won't go with anything other than his 433 which he plays every game regardless of opponents or personnel

But I would have liked to seen that formation tried in a friendly at least

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bazmidd said:

I am leaning towards something like this

                           Marshall

Palmer    Cooper    McKenna  Robertson

                McTominay   Fleck

McGregor                                Fraser

               McBurnie     Griffiths

Id be looking for the full backs to provide the width with Fraser and especially McGregor drifting inside to create from there. If McGinn doesn't make it which doesn't look likely we need goals from somewhere else and Griffiths and McBurnie have goals in them as a partnership. 

I don’t see us playing with two strikers, as I think it leaves us well short elsewhere on the pitch.

It might be an outside possibility for a formation against Israel, but no way we can go away to Norway or Serbia with two strikers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Robertson was nothing special in the games he played wing back  for us and I'm pretty sure he came out and said so himself.

He know's he's far more effective as a full back and dislikes playing as a wing back. They are no were near as alike positions as many would have us think.

In that case, there are no positives whatsoever to playing with 3 centre backs and 2 strikers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bino's said:

Tbf he won't go with anything other than his 433 which he plays every game regardless of opponents or personnel

But I would have liked to seen that formation tried in a friendly at least

That’s the correct way for us to play, 4-2-3-1, which I assume is the same as the 4-3-3 you have referred to. (Two centre backs and one striker.)

As I said, Steve Clarke knows better than you and me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dohadeer said:

That’s the correct way for us to play, 4-2-3-1, which I assume is the same as the 4-3-3 you have referred to. (Two centre backs and one striker.)

As I said, Steve Clarke knows better than you and me!

Clarke only plays a 433, not a 4231

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bino's said:

Clarke only plays a 433, not a 4231

They’re the same thing aren’t they?

The roles of the midfielders are defined/interpreted slightly differently, but 4-5-1, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 are all used to mean the same thing.

 

I wouldn’t use 4-3-3, to define the Scotland formation, I’d call it 4-5-1 as Christie, Forrest etc are midfielders. 4-3-3 to me would be something like Liverpool, where Firmino, Mane, Salah are all strikers.

We’re both talking about the same formation though (One striker, two centre backs, two full backs.) We’re just defining the midfield roles slightly differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dohadeer said:

That’s the correct way for us to play, 4-2-3-1, which I assume is the same as the 4-3-3 you have referred to. (Two centre backs and one striker.)

As I said, Steve Clarke knows better than you and me!

I'm not convinced about that yet, no evidence what so ever.

Only advantage he has over you or any one else is that he has physical contact with the players.

So far he has shown a failing in relying on familiarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dohadeer said:

They’re the same thing aren’t they?

The roles of the midfielders are defined/interpreted slightly differently, but 4-5-1, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 are all used to mean the same thing.

 

I wouldn’t use 4-3-3, to define the Scotland formation, I’d call it 4-5-1 as Christie, Forrest etc are midfielders. 4-3-3 to me would be something like Liverpool, where Firmino, Mane, Salah are all strikers.

We’re both talking about the same formation though (One striker, two centre backs, two full backs.) We’re just defining the midfield roles slightly differently.

I wouldn't say they're the same

Why they are given a different description

One has two dm's, screeners in front of the back 4

Then a number 10 behind the striker

433 just has three central midfielders

No deeper dm's or no 10

Both really 451's as you say but they are different

From what I've seen and he's said, Clarke plays the 433

Edited by Bino's
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bino's said:

I wouldn't say they're the same

Why they are given a different description

One has two dm's, screeners in front of the back 4

Then a number 10 behind the striker

433 just has three central midfielders

No deeper dm's or no 10

Both really 451's as you say but they are different

From what I've seen and he's said, Clarke plays the 433

I don’t think it should be defined as a 4-3-3, as that shows no distinction between the central striker, and the two wide players, who are clearly more defensive-minded than the lone striker.

As I said, 4-3-3 is an appropriate description in Liverpool’s case, where Salah and Mane are as attacking as Firmino, but not appropriate in our case, when the wide roles are filled by midfielders. There has to be some distinction between the wide players and the striker, when describing our formation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ceudmilefailte said:

I'm not convinced about that yet, no evidence what so ever.

Only advantage he has over you or any one else is that he has physical contact with the players.

So far he has shown a failing in relying on familiarity.

I’m going to hope that I’ve misunderstood your point. If not, I think this one post sums up the problem with a lot of football fans.

You think that some - and I’ll speak for myself here - ‘mug punter’ on a forum might know as much as an international manager?!!

In any field in life, including football, someone with decades and decades of experience, qualifications, and who spends their working week striving towards a particular project, obviously knows more than the random person on the street. 

Even if results don’t work out for Steve Clarke, he is the best placed person in Scotland, who is interested in the job, to be picking the national team.

 

’Only advantage he has over you or anyone else is contact with the players.’

His 40+ years in football count for nothing then? You don’t think he might have gained just a little bit more knowledge about football than you or me in that time? The hours he spends all week studying our players’ club games, and the opposition, they don’t give him a more informed perspective than you or me?

Come on, have a bit of common sense in what you’re saying!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dohadeer said:

I don’t think it should be defined as a 4-3-3, as that shows no distinction between the central striker, and the two wide players, who are clearly more defensive-minded than the lone striker.

As I said, 4-3-3 is an appropriate description in Liverpool’s case, where Salah and Mane are as attacking as Firmino, but not appropriate in our case, when the wide roles are filled by midfielders. There has to be some distinction between the wide players and the striker, when describing our formation.

Depends how attack minded the coach is

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dohadeer said:

I don’t see us playing with two strikers, as I think it leaves us well short elsewhere on the pitch.

It might be an outside possibility for a formation against Israel, but no way we can go away to Norway or Serbia with two strikers.

Why not? Why not just give it a go. We basically play with two up front when McGinn plays anyway. In all honesty watching us sit back and offer nothing in attack and just waiting for us to concede and eventually get beaten is a movie we have seen time and time again away from home. I'm actually fed up of us being far to cautious away from home and offering nothing. Why not actually go for it for once. We aren't playing Spain, France or Germany here. We need to give their defenders something to think about as well not just make it an easy night for them. We have one shot at this, I say go for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazmidd said:

Why not? Why not just give it a go. We basically play with two up front when McGinn plays anyway. In all honesty watching us sit back and offer nothing in attack and just waiting for us to concede and eventually get beaten is a movie we have seen time and time again away from home. I'm actually fed up of us being far to cautious away from home and offering nothing. Why not actually go for it for once. We aren't playing Spain, France or Germany here. We need to give their defenders something to think about as well not just make it an easy night for them. We have one shot at this, I say go for it. 

I totally agree with your sentiment but I don’t think we need to play 2 up front to have a go at Israel. Overpowering their midfield would be far more effective in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bazmidd said:

Why not? Why not just give it a go. We basically play with two up front when McGinn plays anyway. In all honesty watching us sit back and offer nothing in attack and just waiting for us to concede and eventually get beaten is a movie we have seen time and time again away from home. I'm actually fed up of us being far to cautious away from home and offering nothing. Why not actually go for it for once. We aren't playing Spain, France or Germany here. We need to give their defenders something to think about as well not just make it an easy night for them. We have one shot at this, I say go for it. 

I think this is a common mistake that we as fans make. ‘Just have a go.’ 

Playing an extra striker doesn’t necessarily equate to ‘having a go.’ It just means we have less players elsewhere, less of the ball, more problems in defence etc, etc. An extra striker isn’t much use to us away to Norway or Serbia. We need to take care of matters elsewhere on the pitch, and a second striker is a luxury we can’t afford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2020 at 11:46 AM, Bino's said:

Could use the Celtic recent formation

May solve a few of the problems

                      Marshall

        Souttar Gallagher McKenna

Forrest                                    Robertson

               Jack   Fleck  McGregor

              Mcburnie  Griffiths

That is fucking terrifying!!!

I'd play none of those centre halfs

forrest  is bad enough on the wing never mind throwing defending into it

jack although decent will not be a starter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, dohadeer said:

I think this is a common mistake that we as fans make. ‘Just have a go.’ 

Playing an extra striker doesn’t necessarily equate to ‘having a go.’ It just means we have less players elsewhere, less of the ball, more problems in defence etc, etc. An extra striker isn’t much use to us away to Norway or Serbia. We need to take care of matters elsewhere on the pitch, and a second striker is a luxury we can’t afford.

I totally get this I understand the fascination with 3 attacking players in behind a centre forward but only if you have 3 real high quality attacking midfielders who can create and score and an outstanding centre forward who can basically do it all. We don't have that we offer literally nothing against decent sides. We have one striker scurrying about up top chasing lost causes, whilst the midfield 3 behind him offer no support they just sit in to create a five man midfield and protect our defence, we make it so easy for the opposition defenders to play against us its embarrassing. We offer nothing against semi decent sides. Like it or not, and it goes completely against the grain of the modern way of playing the game, but scottish football in the majority still plays with two up front. It is the way we play, the way the majority of our clubs play, the way the majority of our players have been taught to play. The 433 and 4231 are great when we're sitting watching Liverpool or Man City play it but until we have players of that quality playing for us I just don't think we are good enough to get results against good sides playing that way. We will beat San Marino or Cyprus, just, but we need to offer more in attack, occupy their defenders give them something to think about, we are too easy to play against. You can literally see the same old story unravel before it happens playing with 1 up front. If we had Lewandowski or Lukaku or Suarez fine but we don't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bazmidd said:

I totally get this I understand the fascination with 3 attacking players in behind a centre forward but only if you have 3 real high quality attacking midfielders who can create and score and an outstanding centre forward who can basically do it all. We don't have that we offer literally nothing against decent sides. We have one striker scurrying about up top chasing lost causes, whilst the midfield 3 behind him offer no support they just sit in to create a five man midfield and protect our defence, we make it so easy for the opposition defenders to play against us its embarrassing. We offer nothing against semi decent sides. Like it or not, and it goes completely against the grain of the modern way of playing the game, but scottish football in the majority still plays with two up front. It is the way we play, the way the majority of our clubs play, the way the majority of our players have been taught to play. The 433 and 4231 are great when we're sitting watching Liverpool or Man City play it but until we have players of that quality playing for us I just don't think we are good enough to get results against good sides playing that way. We will beat San Marino or Cyprus, just, but we need to offer more in attack, occupy their defenders give them something to think about, we are too easy to play against. You can literally see the same old story unravel before it happens playing with 1 up front. If we had Lewandowski or Lukaku or Suarez fine but we don't. 

I’m going to assume that Smith, McLeish, Burley, Levein, Strachan, Clarke and most of football can’t all be wrong on this one though. 

There must be some reason why you have to play with one up front, and to my untrained eye, I’d assume that with two up front, it leaves you a man down elsewhere, and therefore you lose the midfield battle and therefore lose the match?

I’d love to hear the educated explanation, but it can’t just be a coincidence that all underdogs, as well as most big teams play this way.

I’m not sure that you’re correct in saying that Scottish football is played mostly with two up front. If you are, then that would go a long way to explaining why we’ve fallen so far behind the rest of Europe!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bazmidd said:

I totally get this I understand the fascination with 3 attacking players in behind a centre forward but only if you have 3 real high quality attacking midfielders who can create and score and an outstanding centre forward who can basically do it all. We don't have that we offer literally nothing against decent sides. We have one striker scurrying about up top chasing lost causes, whilst the midfield 3 behind him offer no support they just sit in to create a five man midfield and protect our defence, we make it so easy for the opposition defenders to play against us its embarrassing. We offer nothing against semi decent sides. Like it or not, and it goes completely against the grain of the modern way of playing the game, but scottish football in the majority still plays with two up front. It is the way we play, the way the majority of our clubs play, the way the majority of our players have been taught to play. The 433 and 4231 are great when we're sitting watching Liverpool or Man City play it but until we have players of that quality playing for us I just don't think we are good enough to get results against good sides playing that way. We will beat San Marino or Cyprus, just, but we need to offer more in attack, occupy their defenders give them something to think about, we are too easy to play against. You can literally see the same old story unravel before it happens playing with 1 up front. If we had Lewandowski or Lukaku or Suarez fine but we don't. 

A quick check just now through recent Scottish Premiership fixtures (using LiveScore.com as reference), there are very few Scottish Premiership sides playing with two up front, around 3 teams out of 12.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dohadeer said:

I’m going to assume that Smith, McLeish, Burley, Levein, Strachan, Clarke and most of football can’t all be wrong on this one though. 

There must be some reason why you have to play with one up front, and to my untrained eye, I’d assume that with two up front, it leaves you a man down elsewhere, and therefore you lose the midfield battle and therefore lose the match?

I’d love to hear the educated explanation, but it can’t just be a coincidence that all underdogs, as well as most big teams play this way.

I’m not sure that you’re correct in saying that Scottish football is played mostly with two up front. If you are, then that would go a long way to explaining why we’ve fallen so far behind the rest of Europe!

Well I think I'm right in saying that not one of them have qualified us for a tournament playing that way have they... They have all played exactly the same way. The last time we did qualify we did so with two up front...

Look I like the 433 I think it is the future for us, all our youth teams currently play that way and if, as you say most of out top flight clubs are now playing that way, then I hope these clubs can help  these boys develop into a higher calibre of player than we have now so we can play that system properly in an attack minded way. The problem for us right now is it isn't 433 it is 451 and the 1 we have up front is doing nothing to affect the game and he is getting no support from the midfield against decent sides. We just invite pressure and have nothing for the opposition to worry about. I am only suggesting we do more to occupy the opposition defenders as currently it is far far too easy for the opposition to play against us. I like the examples of Burnley and Sheff Utd who play two up front and show it can still be done in the modern game. 

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...