Ryan Gauld

[Third Lanark]

On 5/20/2021 at 3:45 PM, Texas Pete said:

Andy Gray is a tit.

Completely irrelevant to your post but I haven’t said that for a while and thought it was time. 

I'm sure you are referring to his performance as a pundit, not as a player. He was a regular goalscorer unlike the JCB that was Joe Jordan. I liked Jordan but his best season at Leeds he only got about 10 goals .

[Third Lanark]

On 5/23/2021 at 9:35 AM, Caledonian Craig said:

Probably a good job given his calamitous error V USSR in 1982 that ultimately cost us qualification.

He kept getting blamed for his mix-up with Miller but really he was a world-class player, nearest we got to a Beckenbauer. McLeish and Miller were preferred because they were a club partnership. A dilemma not unlike the Tierney/Robbie one.

[Orraloon]

26 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

He kept getting blamed for his mix-up with Miller but really he was a world-class player, nearest we got to a Beckenbauer. McLeish and Miller were preferred because they were a club partnership. A dilemma not unlike the Tierney/Robbie one.

He was a world class Liverpool player but he never really did it for Scotland. He didn't really fit the system that Scotland played. Scotland played a totally different system to Liverpool. Mind you, nobody else could play the way Liverpool did at that time. There were questions over his commitment as well, which is why he didn't make the 1986 squad. And that goal against USSR was his fault, 100%. Miller had the situation under control and Hansen fucked it up.

 

[Malcolm]

On 5/23/2021 at 10:46 AM, Third Lanark said:

I think Clarke made it clear why Taylor is in: it's so he can field two full teams in training; since Tierney will play centre back he needs an authentic left back for the other team. I get that totally. If Gauld had been selected instead of Turnbull - as he easily coud have  - then we would all have been moaning that Turnbull was omitted, despite the fact he was quite poor in recent games av Rangers.

this reminds me of the story Kenny dalglish used to tell about World Cup squads and training matches.  At the 82 World Cup he realised he was out of the team for the Brazil game as he played for the “mugs” team, ie the team not playing and to provide practice.  I’m sure he said that roughie played up front for the mugs team and scored in a two nil win 😂

 

[Texas Pete]

2 hours ago, Third Lanark said:

I'm sure you are referring to his performance as a pundit, not as a player. He was a regular goalscorer unlike the JCB that was Joe Jordan. I liked Jordan but his best season at Leeds he only got about 10 goals .

Not so much as a pundit. I’m met him a few times and I found him to be a bit of a tit. He’s also a sexist womaniser.

Good footballer though. I remember seeing him a few times at Ibrox when I was young and he was still decent then even though he was at the end of his career. 

[Bobby Russell's Lovechild]

See that England have a 33 man squad, to be trimmed next week, so Southgate can see fringe players. Still can't see why Clarke didn't do this, let's just hope we don't get an injury or two during the friendlies

[Texas Pete]

5 minutes ago, Bobby Russell's Lovechild said:

See that England have a 33 man squad, to be trimmed next week, so Southgate can see fringe players. Still can't see why Clarke didn't do this, let's just hope we don't get an injury or two during the friendlies

Clarke obviously felt he knew his 26 man squad and was happy with it. He actually stated he had more or less finalised his 23 man squad before the increase was announced and injuries hit so he actually had to pick another 6 players already. 

Injured players can be replaced up until the first match of the tournament so it wouldn’t  be a complete disaster if we do pick up some injuries (depending on who the injured players are obviously). 

[Tartan blood]

1 hour ago, Texas Pete said:

Clarke obviously felt he knew his 26 man squad and was happy with it. He actually stated he had more or less finalised his 23 man squad before the increase was announced and injuries hit so he actually had to pick another 6 players already. 

Injured players can be replaced up until the first match of the tournament so it wouldn’t  be a complete disaster if we do pick up some injuries (depending on who the injured players are obviously). 

Imagine saying that at pretty much any point in the last 25 years? The squad depth we have at the moment is so strong that we are able to keep players of the quality of Gauld, Griffiths, Paterson, Palmer, Shankland, Russell, Morgan, M.Johnston, Welsh etc etc at home and not feel like it was a massive oversight. 

We have really quality backup in quite a few positions now. Obviously we have some superstars that are irreplaceable, but I think if a striker, attacking mid, or centre back got injured, it wouldn't be panic stations trying to find cover. (Touch wood)

[ParisInAKilt]

16 minutes ago, Tartan blood said:

Imagine saying that at pretty much any point in the last 25 years? The squad depth we have at the moment is so strong that we are able to keep players of the quality of Gauld, Griffiths, Paterson, Palmer, Shankland, Russell, Morgan, M.Johnston, Welsh etc etc at home and not feel like it was a massive oversight. 

We have really quality backup in quite a few positions now. Obviously we have some superstars that are irreplaceable, but I think if a striker, attacking mid, or centre back got injured, it wouldn't be panic stations trying to find cover. (Touch wood)

Most of those players have shown nothing to suggest they are any good at international level, least at the level required for the euros. Griffiths did but he’s not reached that level again for a few years now. 

[Taylor1996]

1 hour ago, Bobby Russell's Lovechild said:

See that England have a 33 man squad, to be trimmed next week, so Southgate can see fringe players. Still can't see why Clarke didn't do this, let's just hope we don't get an injury or two during the friendlies

Same with Croatia. 

Clarke should've done the same thing and incorporate a few more players into the fold, just in case one or two of them have to be included in the final squad on 1st June.

[Toepoke]

2 hours ago, Bobby Russell's Lovechild said:

See that England have a 33 man squad, to be trimmed next week, so Southgate can see fringe players. Still can't see why Clarke didn't do this, let's just hope we don't get an injury or two during the friendlies

What would be worse for the players, to be called up only to be dropped a week later or not get the call at all?

We don't have any games to try out players before June 1st anyway.

There will be plenty of training sessions for any injury replacements to be integrated over the next month.

 

 

[Tartan blood]

7 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Most of those players have shown nothing to suggest they are any good at international level, least at the level required for the euros. Griffiths did but he’s not reached that level again for a few years now. 

My point was that we currently have the luxury of leaving players like that at home. They all have question marks over them, which is obviously why they weren't selected. 

I'd say at least half of the names I mentioned would have been shoe ins for the majority of the past 2 decades, not least Gauld.

To be clear, I'm not saying of them deserve to be in the final 26, just that they are all good quality backups.

[vanderark14]

2 hours ago, Texas Pete said:

Clarke obviously felt he knew his 26 man squad and was happy with it. He actually stated he had more or less finalised his 23 man squad before the increase was announced and injuries hit so he actually had to pick another 6 players already. 

Injured players can be replaced up until the first match of the tournament so it wouldn’t  be a complete disaster if we do pick up some injuries (depending on who the injured players are obviously). 

I'm happy with the way Clarke has done it. Make.the decisions early on who's going. Get the lads together and get them gelled together in the Portugal and Luxembourg camps. No distractions like who's making the cut or not. 

 

[ParisInAKilt]

Just now, Tartan blood said:

My point was that we currently have the luxury of leaving players like that at home. They all have question marks over them, which is obviously why they weren't selected. 

I'd say at least half of the names I mentioned would have been shoe ins for the majority of the past 2 decades, not least Gauld.

To be clear, I'm not saying of them deserve to be in the final 26, just that they are all good quality backups.

I admire your positivity but leaving guys like Johnston, Palmer and shankland at home isn’t filling me with extra confidence when we’ll still have one of the weakest squads at the tournament. 

[ParisInAKilt]

Just now, vanderark14 said:

I'm happy with the way Clarke has done it. Make.the decisions early on who's going. Get the lads together and get them gelled together in the Portugal and Luxembourg camps. No distractions like who's making the cut or not. 

 

Agreed, plus we probably don’t have enough good players to justify picking 33

[Caledonian Craig]

3 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

I'm happy with the way Clarke has done it. Make.the decisions early on who's going. Get the lads together and get them gelled together in the Portugal and Luxembourg camps. No distractions like who's making the cut or not. 

 

Yes it makes perfect sense to me. Why wait until later where players will suffer anxiety and worry when all games have been played now anyway. Announce the squad and let the players relax in the knowledge they have been selected and get them all together to gel. Why add another half a dozen for training camp and risk angst from those that miss out causing upset and potential unrest in the camp.

[Caledonian Craig]

6 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Agreed, plus we probably don’t have enough good players to justify picking 33

Yes I agree and it would just be stringing those extra seven along giving them false hope. I am sure they prefer knowing one way or another sooner rather than later. In any case Clarke knows the players he has left out such as Griffiths, Shankland, Paterson and the rest. They hold no surprises for him.

[Texas Pete]

17 minutes ago, Taylor1996 said:

Same with Croatia. 

Clarke should've done the same thing and incorporate a few more players into the fold, just in case one or two of them have to be included in the final squad on 1st June.

I’m not sure if I agree that Clarke “should’ve” done that. The choice was his. He possibly felt there was no point in selecting people he knew he wasn’t going to include in his final squad anyway. What’s the point in messing people about like that unless it was necessary?

If Clarke was undecided on his final 26 then yes, it would have been a good opportunity to see the players up close and make his final decision but if he already knew his final squad I can see why he didn’t pick a larger squad. 

We are more likely to suffer injuries in our warm up games (both after 01 June) than training sessions and Clarke can replace any players that get injured anyway. 

[Caledonian Craig]

Just now, Texas Pete said:

I’m not sure if I agree that Clarke “should’ve” done that. The choice was his. He possibly felt there was no point in selecting people he knew he wasn’t going to include in his final squad anyway. What’s the point in messing people about like that unless it was necessary?

If Clarke was undecided on his final 26 then yes, it would have been a good opportunity to see the players up close and make his final decision but if he already knew his final squad I can see why he didn’t pick a larger squad. 

We are more likely to suffer injuries in our warm up games (both after 01 June) than training sessions and Clarke can replace any players that get injured anyway. 

Spot on.

I'd understand that move if Clarke had just walked into the job a couple of weeks ago - he hasn't. He knows his best squad by now and those left out hold no surprises to him. Why feed them false hope and then cause greater hurt further down the line.

[Texas Pete]

9 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

I'm happy with the way Clarke has done it. Make.the decisions early on who's going. Get the lads together and get them gelled together in the Portugal and Luxembourg camps. No distractions like who's making the cut or not. 

 

Yeah I’d agree. 

The 26 players can relax and show what they can do in training without the stress of potentially being cut from the squad. 

If Clarke had already decided on his final squad of 26 there would be no point in selecting additional players just to tell them to leave the camp at the end of May. 

[Taylor1996]

Just now, Texas Pete said:

I’m not sure if I agree that Clarke “should’ve” done that. The choice was his. He possibly felt there was no point in selecting people he knew he wasn’t going to include in his final squad anyway. What’s the point in messing people about like that unless it was necessary?

If Clarke was undecided on his final 26 then yes, it would have been a good opportunity to see the players up close and make his final decision but if he already knew his final squad I can see why he didn’t pick a larger squad. 

We are more likely to suffer injuries in our warm up games (both after 01 June) than training sessions and Clarke can replace any players that get injured anyway. 

If the squad is bigger it'll mean the potential replacement players will train and acclimatise themselves to the group... as opposed to being drafted in at the 11th  hour, not knowing tactics, not knowing the process, etc.

This is why most of the other countries are picking larger squads.

[ceudmilefailte]

Not sure it's a great idea, any potential replacements will already be in wind down mode so not sure how valuable any call ups would be.

Callum Paterson has already put a stone on if previous close seasons are any thing to go by.

[Tartan blood]

30 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

I admire your positivity but leaving guys like Johnston, Palmer and shankland at home isn’t filling me with extra confidence when we’ll still have one of the weakest squads at the tournament. 

We don't even have the weakest squad in our group, nevermind the tournament. The Czech squad is weaker than ours, in my opinion. I'm not saying we are necessarily better than them, but we are on the rise, and have a good chance against

Anyway, I'm comparing our current squad to our previous squads, not other countries. I really don't want to get into a debate about how much better other teams are than us. But we are on the ascendancy. The squad depth is one of many indicators of that. 

 

[ParisInAKilt]

7 minutes ago, Tartan blood said:

We don't even have the weakest squad in our group, nevermind the tournament. The Czech squad is weaker than ours, in my opinion. I'm not saying we are necessarily better than them, but we are on the rise, and have a good chance against

Anyway, I'm comparing our current squad to our previous squads, not other countries. I really don't want to get into a debate about how much better other teams are than us. But we are on the ascendancy. The squad depth is one of many indicators of that. 

 

Don’t see any evidence of that. Performance wise we’ve been average since deserving to beat Serbia. 

[Taylor1996]

11 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Not sure it's a great idea, any potential replacements will already be in wind down mode so not sure how valuable any call ups would be.

Callum Paterson has already put a stone on if previous close seasons are any thing to go by.

Bingo!

Having them integrated in the squad is definitely better than dragging off a beach somewhere as they're in party mode.