Slovakia v Scotland

[ceudmilefailte]

1 hour ago, Taylor1996 said:

Well, that feel-good factor lasted a whole two days...

Get things into perspective:

We made 8 changes and we still managed to outplay a team who are 37th in the world.

We created around 5 or 6 really good chances. From open play. We had 10 shots inside the box. When is the last time that happened?

We played some really good stuff.

I really don't get why anyone can find the negative in all that. Fine, we lost, but It's about the big picture.

Yes, McBurnie missed about 3 chances to score, but there's no point getting on his back. We should be supporting him, not berating him. His confidence is down.

He isn't a goal scorer. A look at his under 21 goal ratio will tell you that.

We can't just blame him for losing. Their keeper made a great save from McLean and Griffiths. Their keeper got motm. There's a reason for that.

For me, this was a worthwhile exercise and I'm taking the positives out of it. As will Steve Clarke.

I'm more positive about that performance than the first two games using a back three even though the end results were better.

We were the better team,  and got beat it happens.

You will probably know more than me about this formation but do many teams play without a striker that can win the ball in the oppositions half. That is what Dykes and McBurnie do.

McBurnie might have missed chances and I don't think Dykes actually had any attempts at goal in the Serbia game, end of the day neither of them will score many goals but both of them contribute more than some of our supposedly more prolific strikers

 

[Toepoke]

It was thoughtful of the Slovaks to use a Scottish band as their goal celebration music 😖

 

[Tartan blood]

1 hour ago, bossman4 said:

Christ, one defeat in 9, after making 8 changes from Thursday and the doom mongering has set in again.

One thing I took today was maybe our depth isn’t as good as we think it is. I’d imagine Wednesday will pretty much be the same team that played last Thursday except maybe Robbo to Tierney and Cooper possibly keeps his place.

I took away the exact opposite. I thought today's performance proved that we do have great squad depth. 8 changes, plus Fraser and Forrest missing, and we really didn't look weaker at all. On another day, it would be 3 or 4 goals. Which might have happened if Griffiths and/or Dykes had started.

I think we are overdue giving a team of Israel's calibre a hiding. No disrespect to Israel, but the last few games we have shown that we are generally solid at the back, and capable of creating lots of chances at the top. A big victory is on the cards. Maybe not on Wednesday, but soon, if we can maintain this upward trajectory.

[gkm_vancouver]

we've made great progress in the last year but to get to the higher level we now need to be more clinical in front of goal and finish games off earlier or be more comfortable in games to avoid results like this. Perhaps with the likes of Robertson, Dykes, and McGregor back on Wed we can get that comfortable result against Israel.  Then with Fraser and Forrest back the goal tally will increase. 

[Taylor1996]

2 hours ago, ceudmilefailte said:

I'm more positive about that performance than the first two games using a back three even though the end results were better.

We were the better team,  and got beat it happens.

You will probably know more than me about this formation but do many teams play without a striker that can win the ball in the oppositions half. That is what Dykes and McBurnie do.

McBurnie might have missed chances and I don't think Dykes actually had any attempts at goal in the Serbia game, end of the day neither of them will score many goals but both of them contribute more than some of our supposedly more prolific strikers

 

It's a strange one. We played better yesterday that we did against Serbia, which is saying a lot, and we got beat. But that's football.

Good question. Atalanta almost shocked Italy last season by winning Serie A. They played 3-4-1-2. They have a striker who is 6 foot 2 and two second strikers that are 5 foot 5 and 5 foot 9. They exclusively play/ed the ball on the deck and their front three was fluid. They managed to outscore everyone, even Juventus.

But saying that, they're the exception to the rule. Most teams who play this system have a focal point. Dykes is a blessing.

People seem to forget that McBurnie is still young. He was the joint second youngest player yesterday.

I feel for him. He never oncce pulled out of an 21 squad, or the senior team, his father travelled everywhere to watch him play for Scotland. He's trying. Maybe he's trying too hard.

[Clyde1998]

It was a disappointing result, but I still feel positive. We made eight chances, were the better side and did everything short of putting the ball in the net.

Of the chances I can remember: McBurnie had three good chances, Armstrong and Christie each had a good chance, Palmer had a couple, McLean forced a good save, Griffiths nearly earned a draw at the end. On a different day, we'd have scored at least one of them and we could've been two or three up before Slovakia got their goal; that's without thinking about the times it was only the final ball letting us down.

Defensively, we limited Slovakia to shots from outside the area and the goal was unfortunate with the deflection. I can't remember Slovakia creating a clear cut chance throughout the game. This is, of course, partly down to the quality of Slovakia, but does say a lot about our defence not allowing Slovakia chances in the penalty box.

Considering this is with a second string XI, to a large extent, I have confidence our strongest team would have won this game; if this is our second string XI, then we can say we've got a strong squad. Assuming we revert to our strongest team against Israel, I believe we can win there to win the group - despite our problems with Israel over the past few games.

The one thing I would say, the referee was poor; didn't allow the game to flow and seemed overly card happy at points. I doubt it had any impact on our chances of getting an equaliser though.

[Burj_Alba]

4 hours ago, Taylor1996 said:

It's a strange one. We played better yesterday that we did against Serbia, which is saying a lot, and we got beat. But that's football.

Good question. Atalanta almost shocked Italy last season by winning Serie A. They played 3-4-1-2. They have a striker who is 6 foot 2 and two second strikers that are 5 foot 5 and 5 foot 9. They exclusively play/ed the ball on the deck and their front three was fluid. They managed to outscore everyone, even Juventus.

But saying that, they're the exception to the rule. Most teams who play this system have a focal point. Dykes is a blessing.

People seem to forget that McBurnie is still young. He was the joint second youngest player yesterday.

I feel for him. He never oncce pulled out of an 21 squad, or the senior team, his father travelled everywhere to watch him play for Scotland. He's trying. Maybe he's trying too hard.

This is my view. Just one regulation goal from him and who knows? Would he really have tried to take three touches with that one on one with the keeper ( Armstrong's pass) with Sheff U? Seen him score club goals with more difficult headers than the one yesterday.

Think if he had scored before yesterday then Clarke would have hooked him late on, he looked knackered. 

Clarke obviously rates him and will give him as many chances as possible. 

[ErsatzThistle]

Here's one for you ....

If we get a penalty against Israel and McBurnie is on the pitch at the time, should he take it ?

Thoughts ?

[Burj_Alba]

11 minutes ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Here's one for you ....

If we get a penalty against Israel and McBurnie is on the pitch at the time, should he take it ?

Thoughts ?

Not if the match is in the balance and Christie is on the pitch. In the unlikely situation of us being 3-0 up then yes I would go for that.

[Taylor1996]

1 hour ago, Burj_Alba said:

This is my view. Just one regulation goal from him and who knows? Would he really have tried to take three touches with that one on one with the keeper ( Armstrong's pass) with Sheff U? Seen him score club goals with more difficult headers than the one yesterday.

Think if he had scored before yesterday then Clarke would have hooked him late on, he looked knackered. 

Clarke obviously rates him and will give him as many chances as possible. 

I don't know, probably not, to be honest.

A few matches ago he hit the bar twice. Against Israel and the Czechs, I think. If either or both of those went in, it would've been great for his confidence and he would've been able to relax. And those weren't even half-chances.

Yeah. If Clarke didn't trust him then he wouldn't be giving him chances.

Everyone here should give McBurnie, and all of the players, our full support. That's what I'll be doing.

[Taylor1996]

1 hour ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Here's one for you ....

If we get a penalty against Israel and McBurnie is on the pitch at the time, should he take it ?

Thoughts ?

I said that to my Nephew yesterday.

100% yes.

[Rolling hIlls]

9 hours ago, Diamond Scot said:

Griffiths chance came from McBurnie winning the ball back and laying him in. Only for Griffiths to delay taking his shot and allowing the defender back in.

McBurnie was better tonight. Won alot in the air and linked up alot better than previously. He struggles as he doesnt have pace to turn defenders.

Ive no issue with people not rating McBurnie but what are the alternatives.

Griffiths is better but unfit to play more than 20 mins.

People were raving about Shankland. He was going to tear up the Scottish prem. People were saying judge him then. Well he has done zero this season.

Now the flavour of the month is Nisbet. 

 

 

I thought McBurnie linked the play well at times.  But you need more from him.  McGinn was a bit disappointing for me.  To be fair to Slovakia they harried and hounded us all day and scored a good goal.  But on to Wednesday.  It wouldn't be Scotland if we made it easy for ourselves!!

[mccaughey85]

I am happy enough to keep mcburnie in around the squad but theres no way I would play him unless we are completely fucked by injuries and suspensions. 

[Caledonian Craig]

The hardcore fact here os we are woefully short in one area - in attack. We cannot hide from that fact. I have heard many of our fans deride McBurnie and Shankland and before that Burke so lets say fans get what they want and are axed from.the squad then who replaces them? 

[ErsatzThistle]

18 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

The hardcore fact here os we are woefully short in one area - in attack. We cannot hide from that fact. I have heard many of our fans deride McBurnie and Shankland and before that Burke so lets say fans get what they want and are axed from.the squad then who replaces them? 

Some idiot will probably suggest a couple of granny rule players no doubt.

[mccaughey85]

17 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

The hardcore fact here os we are woefully short in one area - in attack. We cannot hide from that fact. I have heard many of our fans deride McBurnie and Shankland and before that Burke so lets say fans get what they want and are axed from.the squad then who replaces them? 

I wouldn't axe mcburnie from the squad but theres no way I would play him unless we desperate and have no other strikers. I would prefer Clarke to give shankland, Burke, Griffiths and Nisbet the chance to impress. Even naismith would be better even though he's getting old. 

[Caledonian Craig]

21 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

I wouldn't axe mcburnie from the squad but theres no way I would play him unless we desperate and have no other strikers. I would prefer Clarke to give shankland, Burke, Griffiths and Nisbet the chance to impress. Even naismith would be better even though he's getting old. 

Shankland and Burke have already been lambasted as not good enough too. I guarantee fans will not be able to come up with three other strikers to replace them with which would be an improvement. I mean can Hornby even be considered given he is not even playing club football?

Edited November 16, 2020 by Caledonian Craig

[er yir macaroon]

I’d really like the Scottish management team to concentrate on getting something from Oliver Burke. He’s the wild card player in the squad who could potentially be a match winner in otherwise stuffy games such as the one yesterday. I think he is a credible alternative to McBurnie when Dykes is unavailable. He’s got an immense leap on him for a start.

I would also be very interested to see (at least for 25 min) if he could be the one in receipt of the flick ons from Dykes. In theory at least, a combination of Dykes and Burke could be a fearsome prospect for opposition defenders. They are both powerful and quick, Burke exceptionally quick. Burke is also best when running into open spaces rather than receiving it tight on the wing. We need to at least use him otherwise why is he in the squad?

So we could think about Burke and Christie (when Dykes unavailable) and Dykes and Burke (for 25 minutes of a game). 

[mccaughey85]

5 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Shankland and Burke have already been lambasted as not good enough too.

Not by me they haven't. Burkes been ok but I feel he hasn't played much recently and deserves a chance to prove himself in this new system. Shankland hasn't been lambasted by anyone, he's not really started great this season but I would happy give him some chances to impress as well. Both should be given mcburnies chances from now on and see how they get on. 

[mccaughey85]

1 minute ago, er yir macaroon said:

I’d really like the Scottish management team to concentrate on getting something from Oliver Burke. He’s the wild card player in the squad who could potentially be a match winner in otherwise stuffy games such as the one yesterday. I think he is a credible alternative to McBurnie when Dykes is unavailable. He’s got an immense leap on him for a start.

I would also be very interested to see (at least for 25 min) if he could be the one in receipt of the flick ons from Dykes. In theory at least, a combination of Dykes and Burke could be a fearsome prospect for opposition defenders. They are both powerful and quick, Burke exceptionally quick. Burke is also best when running into open spaces rather than receiving it tight on the wing. We need to at least use him otherwise why is he in the squad?

So we could think about Burke and Christie (when Dykes unavailable) and Dykes and Burke (for 25 minutes of a game). 

Totally agree, burkes pace is a weapon at international level. The game yesterday and the Serbia game was crying out for a guy like burke to come on and run at defenders and make runs beyond the defence. I would love to see dykes and burke upfront together. As you said dykes flick ons and link up play could be deadly with burke. 

[Rolling hIlls]

10 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

I am happy enough to keep mcburnie in around the squad but theres no way I would play him unless we are completely fucked by injuries and suspensions. 

 

29 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

I wouldn't axe mcburnie from the squad but theres no way I would play him unless we desperate and have no other strikers. I would prefer Clarke to give shankland, Burke, Griffiths and Nisbet the chance to impress. Even naismith would be better even though he's getting old. 

I would retire Naismith from club football and just keep him for Scotland!

[mccaughey85]

1 minute ago, Rolling hIlls said:

 

I would retire Naismith from club football and just keep him for Scotland!

Why? 

[Caledonian Craig]

4 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Not by me they haven't. Burkes been ok but I feel he hasn't played much recently and deserves a chance to prove himself in this new system. Shankland hasn't been lambasted by anyone, he's not really started great this season but I would happy give him some chances to impress as well. Both should be given mcburnies chances from now on and see how they get on. 

No not by you but others have. I've had discussions on here with others about Shankland and when I point out stuff like he has scored for us all I got was pffft against crap teams no he isn't good enough. And I can see it happening - one 45 minutes where he plays and we don't create much and people here will have their next scapegoat. The same would happen with Burke of that I am sure. Their faces just do not fit. But I say again to people - name the creditable alternatives? My point here is those being selected just now ae the best that are available to us.

[mccaughey85]

1 minute ago, Caledonian Craig said:

No not by you but others have. I've had discussions on here with others about Shankland and when I point out stuff like he has scored for us all I got was pffft against crap teams no he isn't good enough. And I can see it happening - one 45 minutes where he plays and we don't create much and people here will have their next scapegoat. The same would happen with Burke of that I am sure. Their faces just do not fit. But I say again to people - name the creditable alternatives? My point here is those being selected just now ae the best that are available to us.

I think most would be happy to see burke and griffiths given chances ahead of mcburnie. I certainly would. I would probably give shankland and Nisbet chances ahead of mcburnie so theres four options off the bat. 

[Rolling hIlls]

1 minute ago, mccaughey85 said:

Why? 

Only kidding.  I have always liked Naismith as he is aggresive, good in the air and can score.  But getting on a bit and injury prone now.  I thought McBurnie showed a bit of improvement yesterday though.  He needs to learn to shoot rather than pass.  Don't think I have ever seen Griffiths pass a ball in his life.  When he gets the ball his first thought is shooting.  McBurnie needs to think like that.