Steve Clarke: "Work in progress" - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Steve Clarke: "Work in progress"


Taylor1996

Recommended Posts

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/steve-clarke-offers-scotland-work-23825219

Statistically, Scotland are improving.

We're shipping in a lot less goals and we're harder to beat. We're more resilient than we have been ever since I can remember.

Has switching to a three made a difference? It's made a massive difference. (If you look around, more and more teams are choosing to play a variant of the three. If we had been playing like system all along, our evolution would be light years ahead of where we are currently.)

If you look at the numbers, they bear that out. Yes, the performance against Israel was probably our worst performance for a while, we could not string 4 passes together without resorting to punting it forward. 

The positive side is that we got a point. Getting a point from playing so badly isn't usually a Scotland trait, especially away.

The next step in the evolution is to be more attacking and expansive. Can we evolve? We'll see, but it's hardly the time for pessimism. 

Steve Clarke made a mistake when he named this squad: Palmer should've been dropped, same with Considine, McLean, too, Amstrong with them, and Adams is just a faster Oliver McBurnie. And Jack? He was never going to realistically be fir. We already have one Oliver McBurnie. That's six positions that should have been filled by: Gilmour, Turnbull, Gauld, Shinnie and two more.

If we keep to the same system, I see a 4-0 win tonight.

Edited by Taylor1996
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the lack of anything decent upfront is killing us personally. Time to admit the Dykes expirement hasn’t worked. I’m now thinking we should just stick McGinn upfront on his own or with Adam’s in the mean until someone with quality comes along. McGinn loves a one touch finish and can spin and out muscle players for fun. Time to get Tierney in midfield to replace McGinn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most encouraging thing for me was that Clarke changed it up relatively quickly in both games. Most other managers are too stubborn to do that. Another positive is that he switched personnel. I think we all assumed Gallagher would have started, but he (probably) rightly put Hendry and Hanley in the back 3.

I was going to say I like that we have a 'Plan B', but I'd rather call it 'Plan A 2.0'. The 4231 suits our more attacking minded players and should be what we play against mid-level opposition. The back 5 is great against the elite teams, but not so much against the likes of Israel. I think/hope Clarke has learned from that. 

My biggest concern with Clark is his squad selection. I don't really have a problem with anyone that was called up. But the fact he was so reluctant to call up youngsters is a big worry. I don't know if it is related to their age, inexperience, or just that he doesn't rate them, but there really was no excuse to leave so many players behind. It makes me think he has very short term ambitions. If he does a McLeish/Smith, and leave straight after the Euros, I don't think I would forgive him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JECK said:

I think the lack of anything decent upfront is killing us personally. Time to admit the Dykes expirement hasn’t worked. I’m now thinking we should just stick McGinn upfront on his own or with Adam’s in the mean until someone with quality comes along. McGinn loves a one touch finish and can spin and out muscle players for fun. Time to get Tierney in midfield to replace McGinn.

The striking dilemma is a huge issue. No doubt.

As far as Tierney in midfield, I definitely agree. I used to champion Robertson to play that role, but Tierney is the better all round player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the work in progress bit but it has to be done so there is that constant gradual improvement and tweaking to get results when we need them. That wasn't there certainly in recent matches against Israel because of this fixation on 3-5-2. The work should have begun on working with formations to make us more dynamic in attack and quit the obsession with 3-5-2. It is friggin' embarrassing to set up in such a negative way against a team we have to set out our stall to win and that Israel match was an example. Whats more packing the midfield with too negative a midfield is blunting us even more.Clarke needs to show the ability now to get us winning games we should be winning instead of being more of the mindset of making sure we don't lose - we have, or should have, progressed (the magic word) past that stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hendry is a reasonable passer of the ball but I don't recall him coming out of defence wand hitting a pass the way McTominay would do when he was in the back three. I think that was a big difference in the last two games and perhaps, although McTominay is probably our best midfielder, we need him back in defence until someone better/suitable emerges. 

To me that was the main difference between the better earlier performances (Serbia, even Slovakia and the last Israel game) and the last two performances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed against McTominay. When he plays in defence he does break the lines incredibly well with his passing. Hendry was subdued, but I do think he's capable.

The midfield is the main thing for me that needs to be sorted. The amount of times that McGinn and McTominay sat off and ball watched against Austria, and McTominay and McGregor against Israel was peculiar. 

I've seen McTominay do it almost every match for Manchester United, so I wouldn't completely blame Clarke for the midfielder standing off.

If we're to play with a double-pivot then it has to be more intense and press higher, particularly if neither of the 3 midfielders that I mentioned are that good defensively. 

Edited by Taylor1996
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Taylor1996 said:

Agreed against McTominay. When he plays in defence he does break the lines incredibly well with his passing. Hendry was subdued, but I do think he's capable.

The midfield is the main thing for me that needs to be sorted. The amount of times that McGinn and McTominay sat off and ball watched against Austria, and McTominay and McGregor against Israel was peculiar. 

I've seen McTominay do it almost every match for Manchester United, so I wouldn't completely blame Clarke for the midfielder standing off.

If we're to play with a double-pivot then it has to be more intense and press higher, particularly if neither of the 3 midfielders that I mentioned are that good defensively. 

I actually think Hendry did show he was capable of coming out of defence and playing forward balls, against Austria at least. If we persist with a 3, I'd prefer him to be the RCB.

You are dead right about the lack of an anchorman. Regardless of which defensive strategy we choose, an anchorman that closes down, and makes tackles is vital. McGregor should be no where near the midfield again. If it's not Jack then Clarke should be drilling McTominay/McGinn to do it properly. Or use Tierney in that role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tartan blood said:

I actually think Hendry did show he was capable of coming out of defence and playing forward balls, against Austria at least. If we persist with a 3, I'd prefer him to be the RCB.

You are dead right about the lack of an anchorman. Regardless of which defensive strategy we choose, an anchorman that closes down, and makes tackles is vital. McGregor should be no where near the midfield again. If it's not Jack then Clarke should be drilling McTominay/McGinn to do it properly. Or use Tierney in that role.

He does have good passing range. I've seen him a few times this season and that's probably the main part of his game that sneak him ahead of Gallagher, etc.

Completely agree.

I said a few days ago that the only reason McGinn and McGregor and McTominay survive in a double-pivot at club level Is because they have an anchorman beside then. And it's true. Those three are so much better when they have license to get forward.

I would definitely favour Tierney as the anchorman at this moment in time. In terms of McTominay, lets just hope he matures into a more aggressive midfielder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tartan blood said:

McGregor should be no where near the midfield again. 

Controversial opinion: I thought McGregor had a good game against Israel. Normally think he's a waste of a position but he did well whilst McTominay and McGinn were a disappointment.

That said I'd have Jack and McTominay together when fit and Gilmour as soon as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SkyBlueScot said:

Controversial opinion: I thought McGregor had a good game against Israel. Normally think he's a waste of a position but he did well whilst McTominay and McGinn were a disappointment.

That said I'd have Jack and McTominay together when fit and Gilmour as soon as possible.

He had 1 very good forward pass, plenty of 8 yard passes sideways and backwards and marked no one. The only tackles he ever makes are stand up, face to face, scrappy toe taps. I watched him for about 5mins in the first half and had to physically stop myself from doing it because I was going to burst a blood vessel. Compared to his other performances, you could say it was better, but still no more than a 5 out of 10. 2 of our last 3 goals conceded came from the area of the pitch where he should have been closing down/marking someone. There are far more examples over the years than that. But I'm not going to go back and look because I need to give myself peace.

Granted, McTominay and McGinn didn't do much better, but they at least have bought a bad performance from previous great ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The decision to appoint McLeish was a disaster that we all saw coming.  It set us back years!

But, we've gone from losing 4-0 to Belgium and Russia; and 3-0 to Kazakhstan and Belgium in a single campaign to being harder to beat, and able to compete with teams that I would say have slightly stronger squads.

Making Euro 2020 was so important and Clarke has to take a lot of the credit.  I just wish we'd got over the line in the Nations League because that play-off insurance would be so useful to us.

One issue Clarke had to solve was finding a way to get our best players on the pitch at the same time.  We has largely managed that.  I think he was far too loyal to some players that were part of the November squad and it has been costly this month.  

The next big issue for Clarke is goal scoring. He knows it and that is why he brought Adams in.  He's a bit unlucky that Griffiths, Burke, McBurnie and Dykes are all out of form.  Shankland and Nisbit are in better form but unproven over a long period of time at the top level.  Forrest is also a loss, no matter what folk say on here.  I'm not sure there is anyone in the under 21s to get too excited about, although I'm not writing Hornby off just yet.  

If your forwards aren't scoring, you need your midfielders to help out.  McGinn has done that.  I personally think getting the best out of Fraser is key to us going forward - I think he is superb despite this indifferent club form.  Christie and McGregor have had tough seasons too.  

If Clarke takes anything away from this campaign, I hope it is that he realises that international squads need to keep evolving.  Gauld, Turnbull and Gilmour could have made a difference - even if they just put pressure on players that aren't playing well but are still getting called up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Taylor1996 said:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/steve-clarke-offers-scotland-work-23825219

Statistically, Scotland are improving.

We're shipping in a lot less goals and we're harder to beat. We're more resilient than we have been ever since I can remember.

Has switching to a three made a difference? It's made a massive difference. (If you look around, more and more teams are choosing to play a variant of the three. If we had been playing like system all along, our evolution would be light years ahead of where we are currently.)

If you look at the numbers, they bear that out. Yes, the performance against Israel was probably our worst performance for a while, we could not string 4 passes together without resorting to punting it forward. 

The positive side is that we got a point. Getting a point from playing so badly isn't usually a Scotland trait, especially away.

The next step in the evolution is to be more attacking and expansive. Can we evolve? We'll see, but it's hardly the time for pessimism. 

Steve Clarke made a mistake when he named this squad: Palmer should've been dropped, same with Considine, McLean, too, Amstrong with them, and Adams is just a faster Oliver McBurnie. And Jack? He was never going to realistically be fir. We already have one Oliver McBurnie. That's six positions that should have been filled by: Gilmour, Turnbull, Gauld, Shinnie and two more.

If we keep to the same system, I see a 4-0 win tonight.

Faroes have only lost four goals to Spain over their last 30 games. 2-0 is probably a reasonable score to expect, and it will be hard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally thought the players in midfield were on a bit of a hiding to nothing.  With the wingbacks getting pinned back if they pressed their midfield then there was loads of space in the pocket that the Israel front three kept using; if they stood off Israel put it down the channels with 2v1’s and; if they stood in front of the back five we had to resort to launching it to Ryan Fraser. 

 

I hate watching Chelsea play because it’s so boring but in terms of three at the back and wingbacks they manage with a midfield 2 because, not just they’re super fit, but because of how condensed they are.  Even if Kante had a Scottish granny no way could he cover the gap between front and back we had even with three in midfield. 

 

As soon as we pushed their fullbacks back they looked every inch the 80+ ranked side they are rather than what we’ve continually allowed them to show

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, PASTA Mick said:

The decision to appoint McLeish was a disaster that we all saw coming.  It set us back years!

But, we've gone from losing 4-0 to Belgium and Russia; and 3-0 to Kazakhstan and Belgium in a single campaign to being harder to beat, and able to compete with teams that I would say have slightly stronger squads.

Making Euro 2020 was so important and Clarke has to take a lot of the credit.  I just wish we'd got over the line in the Nations League because that play-off insurance would be so useful to us.

One issue Clarke had to solve was finding a way to get our best players on the pitch at the same time.  We has largely managed that.  I think he was far too loyal to some players that were part of the November squad and it has been costly this month.  

The next big issue for Clarke is goal scoring. He knows it and that is why he brought Adams in.  He's a bit unlucky that Griffiths, Burke, McBurnie and Dykes are all out of form.  Shankland and Nisbit are in better form but unproven over a long period of time at the top level.  Forrest is also a loss, no matter what folk say on here.  I'm not sure there is anyone in the under 21s to get too excited about, although I'm not writing Hornby off just yet.  

If your forwards aren't scoring, you need your midfielders to help out.  McGinn has done that.  I personally think getting the best out of Fraser is key to us going forward - I think he is superb despite this indifferent club form.  Christie and McGregor have had tough seasons too.  

If Clarke takes anything away from this campaign, I hope it is that he realises that international squads need to keep evolving.  Gauld, Turnbull and Gilmour could have made a difference - even if they just put pressure on players that aren't playing well but are still getting called up.  

Pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Our squad need to continue to evolve and that should have begun with this squad with Turnbull and Gilmour definitely and perhaps even Patterson. The squad has decent strength in depth but needs in-form quality in to replace a bit of deadwood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it becomes even more bizarre that we never had Turnbull, Gilmour, Gauld and Patterson in this squad. Jeez even if just to sample the squad atmosphere and Clarke to have a closer look at them. After all we have also had a number of players in this squad who have made up the numbers such as Fleck, Taylor, Jack (who pulled out of the squad injured), Palmer and McBurnie. It was a no-brainer for me and you cannot convince me otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He took a group of average Killie players to 3rd in the league just by making them hard to beat and every player knowing their job. 

Killie never blew teams away, but ground out results- and a lot of results depended on making formation and substitution changes to countenance what was happening during the match. You could argue that he is reactive rather than proactive.

He seems to still be trying to suss out everyones strenghths and weaknesses.

Scotland are a bit like Killie in that they are not superstars, but he will know how to get the best out of the talent pool available. Its just a matter of it knitting together.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Taylor1996 said:

Agreed against McTominay. When he plays in defence he does break the lines incredibly well with his passing. Hendry was subdued, but I do think he's capable.

The midfield is the main thing for me that needs to be sorted. The amount of times that McGinn and McTominay sat off and ball watched against Austria, and McTominay and McGregor against Israel was peculiar. 

I've seen McTominay do it almost every match for Manchester United, so I wouldn't completely blame Clarke for the midfielder standing off.

If we're to play with a double-pivot then it has to be more intense and press higher, particularly if neither of the 3 midfielders that I mentioned are that good defensively. 

The thing is, we don't need a Defender to break the lines with passes if a Midfielder is capable of it, and we literally have no Midfielder in there who loves to get on the ball and dictate play apart from, step forward Billy Gilmour. He would completely change the way we play. McTomimay and McGinn are good Midfielders but they aren't like a Pirlo or Xavi, I'm not saying Gilmour is as good as them but he is that type, who will dictate the play or are even particularly comfortable in possession in tight areas, they both get away with it at times due to McTominays strength and physique and McGinns big fat arse gets him out of tight spots but none of them like receiving the ball deep on the half turn and opening up the play creating passing angles, neither of them are even as capable of making those passes as Gilmour. I've seen enough of the kid already to know he could be a vital part of this team, he should be the main man in there, protected by McGinn and McTominay either side of him who should alternate box to box. Sometimes I would only play two Gilmour and one other depending who we play. Tonight is a prime example of when he should have been given a chance to show what he can offer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bazmidd said:

The thing is, we don't need a Defender to break the lines with passes if a Midfielder is capable of it, and we literally have no Midfielder in there who loves to get on the ball and dictate play apart from, step forward Billy Gilmour. He would completely change the way we play. McTomimay and McGinn are good Midfielders but they aren't like a Pirlo or Xavi, I'm not saying Gilmour is as good as them but he is that type, who will dictate the play or are even particularly comfortable in possession in tight areas, they both get away with it at times due to McTominays strength and physique and McGinns big fat arse gets him out of tight spots but none of them like receiving the ball deep on the half turn and opening up the play creating passing angles, neither of them are even as capable of making those passes as Gilmour. I've seen enough of the kid already to know he could be a vital part of this team, he should be the main man in there, protected by McGinn and McTominay either side of him who should alternate box to box. Sometimes I would only play two Gilmour and one other depending who we play. Tonight is a prime example of when he should have been given a chance to show what he can offer

True, but having a ball playing center back is always a good thing to have in your armoury, especially if you want to build from the back.

Yep. Totally agree with you. And the main  thing that Manchester United fans moan about with McTominay is that he doesn't dictate matches and that his passing is limited. I suppose, it is, but he'd still get into England's first XI.

Agreed about Gilmour. Same with Gauld and even Turnbull. This would've been an idea chance to bed them in. Chance gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, adamntg said:

Faroes have only lost four goals to Spain over their last 30 games. 2-0 is probably a reasonable score to expect, and it will be hard. 

Looking at their results, it looks like it could be tricky. 

If we score in the first 30 minutes, it'll be quite easy going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bazmidd said:

The thing is, we don't need a Defender to break the lines with passes if a Midfielder is capable of it, and we literally have no Midfielder in there who loves to get on the ball and dictate play apart from, step forward Billy Gilmour. He would completely change the way we play. McTomimay and McGinn are good Midfielders but they aren't like a Pirlo or Xavi, I'm not saying Gilmour is as good as them but he is that type, who will dictate the play or are even particularly comfortable in possession in tight areas, they both get away with it at times due to McTominays strength and physique and McGinns big fat arse gets him out of tight spots but none of them like receiving the ball deep on the half turn and opening up the play creating passing angles, neither of them are even as capable of making those passes as Gilmour. I've seen enough of the kid already to know he could be a vital part of this team, he should be the main man in there, protected by McGinn and McTominay either side of him who should alternate box to box. Sometimes I would only play two Gilmour and one other depending who we play. Tonight is a prime example of when he should have been given a chance to show what he can offer

Yes, the clamour for him will only increase as the Euros get closer. Turnbull I'm not so sure as the only place he can realistically take is Christie's.

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...