Scottish players in action 21/22

[Diamond Scot]

1 hour ago, gonzohiggy said:

I agree with this being the reason Shankland is 3rd of those 3. Other than having a squad of good players, Clarke places a high importance on continuity and closeness between the squad and he shows great loyalty to those players.
 

From a footballing perspective it’s pretty obvious that Shankland is a better all round striker than Dykes and Adams at the moment. He’s a far far better goal scorer than both, stronger than both and I’d argue as good link up as both. He’s not as dynamic as Adams but I’d say he’s on a par with Dykes from that perspective.
 

I don’t expect him to overtake either come the Euros but I’d be staggered if he doesn’t make the squad. 

Totally agree with your initial point regarding Clarke. He has shown that in order to take somebodys place in the squad / team then you need to be clearly better than them. This is probably because the current occupant knows the setup, systems, phases of play etc and have done a job. I think this way of thinking is a big part of our success as there has been way less chopping and changing. It feels like getting a call up is much more of a thing now, more earned than previously.

It comes with frustrations for fans though. Many including myself think Ferguson should have had more chances, especially late in games or friendlies but instead Clarke brings on guys like Christie and Armstrong. Its a similar thing with Shankland.

Im not sure I agree with your assessment of Shankland though. He is a much more natural and better finisher but he is nowhere near as strong as Dykes or Adams. He can hold the ball up much better than he used to and lay off others but this tends to be more around the half way line than in and around the box. The one thing that the other 2 do better in my opinion is occupy the centre backs either by bullying them or running them out of position. Thus allowing space for midfielders.  Imo this is the main reason why Shankland will only be used as an impact sub.

[Caledonian Craig]

10 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

Totally agree with your initial point regarding Clarke. He has shown that in order to take somebodys place in the squad / team then you need to be clearly better than them. This is probably because the current occupant knows the setup, systems, phases of play etc and have done a job. I think this way of thinking is a big part of our success as there has been way less chopping and changing. It feels like getting a call up is much more of a thing now, more earned than previously.

It comes with frustrations for fans though. Many including myself think Ferguson should have had more chances, especially late in games or friendlies but instead Clarke brings on guys like Christie and Armstrong. Its a similar thing with Shankland.

Im not sure I agree with your assessment of Shankland though. He is a much more natural and better finisher but he is nowhere near as strong as Dykes or Adams. He can hold the ball up much better than he used to and lay off others but this tends to be more around the half way line than in and around the box. The one thing that the other 2 do better in my opinion is occupy the centre backs either by bullying them or running them out of position. Thus allowing space for midfielders.  Imo this is the main reason why Shankland will only be used as an impact sub.

Good post. I generally agree with all of this.

Clarke needs to start thinking for the future too. It is a bit like the tail-end of Craig Brown's era I feel where players are being stuck with perhaps too long and a time will come when our younger players haven't been given a chance and a vacuum is left once likes of Armstrong, Dykes and more are past it or retired. I'd like to see the likes of Ferguson and Shankland given chances now and if they do well it creates healthy competition and forces first team regulrs to not be complacent and needed to up their levels to keep their place in the side.

[ceudmilefailte]

14 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Good post. I generally agree with all of this.

Clarke needs to start thinking for the future too. It is a bit like the tail-end of Craig Brown's era I feel where players are being stuck with perhaps too long and a time will come when our younger players haven't been given a chance and a vacuum is left once likes of Armstrong, Dykes and more are past it or retired. I'd like to see the likes of Ferguson and Shankland given chances now and if they do well it creates healthy competition and forces first team regulrs to not be complacent and needed to up their levels to keep their place in the side.

Shankland and Dykes are pretty much the same age.

[Caledonian Craig]

25 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Shankland and Dykes are pretty much the same age.

Okay players that can take us to another level.

[Diamond Scot]

48 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Good post. I generally agree with all of this.

Clarke needs to start thinking for the future too. It is a bit like the tail-end of Craig Brown's era I feel where players are being stuck with perhaps too long and a time will come when our younger players haven't been given a chance and a vacuum is left once likes of Armstrong, Dykes and more are past it or retired. I'd like to see the likes of Ferguson and Shankland given chances now and if they do well it creates healthy competition and forces first team regulrs to not be complacent and needed to up their levels to keep their place in the side.

Im not overly concerned about that aspect atm. Clarke has shown that he is more than willing to play youth when the time is right. 

By the time Armstrong and Christie are winding down, Ferguson will have been in the squad for years, have a decent amount of caps and im sure Clarke will start to gradually increase his game time, probably after this Euros.

We finally seem to be producing a steady stream of players. Maybe not all top top class but you can pick pretty much any position except GK and CF and see a good few potential replacements. There was a time when a big player retiring or getting injured would have meant a massive drop off in quality. Thats not the case anymore.

Our 4th or 5th choice left backs are either playing in Italy or for Celtic. We have multiple CBs all around the same standard. 2 solid RBs and then another 2 or 3 with potential. Midfield we are strong with a good few potentials in and around 1st team football.

My bigger fear is what happens after Clarke. I really hope we are looking at managers with similar approaches.

[thesaint]

15 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Just to clarify it is the 'bit of a fan' - just a bit? And they've and not we. If you listen to any Scots they refer to Scotland as we when talking about our matches.

Aye. An odd turn of phrase indeed. A bit of a fan and they. Doesn't sound like a guy who feels a real connection to Scotland. Anyway unless we have a real midfield injury crisis he isn't going anywhere. 

. 

[gonzohiggy]

1 hour ago, Diamond Scot said:

Totally agree with your initial point regarding Clarke. He has shown that in order to take somebodys place in the squad / team then you need to be clearly better than them. This is probably because the current occupant knows the setup, systems, phases of play etc and have done a job. I think this way of thinking is a big part of our success as there has been way less chopping and changing. It feels like getting a call up is much more of a thing now, more earned than previously.

It comes with frustrations for fans though. Many including myself think Ferguson should have had more chances, especially late in games or friendlies but instead Clarke brings on guys like Christie and Armstrong. Its a similar thing with Shankland.

Im not sure I agree with your assessment of Shankland though. He is a much more natural and better finisher but he is nowhere near as strong as Dykes or Adams. He can hold the ball up much better than he used to and lay off others but this tends to be more around the half way line than in and around the box. The one thing that the other 2 do better in my opinion is occupy the centre backs either by bullying them or running them out of position. Thus allowing space for midfielders.  Imo this is the main reason why Shankland will only be used as an impact sub.

I understand on the frustration part - I likewise think Ferguson should have had more time but suspect his time will come soon enough.

Re Shankland - I think there’s a bit of a misconception that he is a Kris Boyd type player ie a goal scorer who does little else. Yes he’s a great finisher but he has terrific instincts and movement. He’s always getting across defenders or making good runs which combined with his shooting ability technically results in regular goals. 
 

I think he’s more than capable of occupying defenders in much the same way as Dykes. Look at his recent goal against Hibs - jumps into the defender while isolated to create a half chance which he takes brilliantly.
 

He doesn’t have the same explosiveness as Adams granted so won’t have the same success running channels.

Ive seen him in the flesh twice this season and he had stood out an absolute mile and it’s been more for his all round game rather than his goals.

[Orraloon]

2 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Good post. I generally agree with all of this.

Clarke needs to start thinking for the future too. It is a bit like the tail-end of Craig Brown's era I feel where players are being stuck with perhaps too long and a time will come when our younger players haven't been given a chance and a vacuum is left once likes of Armstrong, Dykes and more are past it or retired. I'd like to see the likes of Ferguson and Shankland given chances now and if they do well it creates healthy competition and forces first team regulrs to not be complacent and needed to up their levels to keep their place in the side.

I'm pretty sure this is the youngest squad we have ever had and Shankland is older than both Dykes and Adams. 

I still want Shankland in the team ahead of either Dykes or Adams though. I think this might be his time. 

[theabsentee]

1 hour ago, thesaint said:

Aye. An odd turn of phrase indeed. A bit of a fan and they. Doesn't sound like a guy who feels a real connection to Scotland. Anyway unless we have a real midfield injury crisis he isn't going anywhere. 

. I do not

I do know what you mean, he certainly doesn't make himself sound like he has been glued to the TV watching all of our qualifiers over the years of non selection. 

  I used to rate him, thought he was a creative midfielder with a good shot , maybe playing like a better version of David Turnbull. Though I haven't watched a Fulham game in years so I'm not really sure which of our midfielders  would have to get injured for him to have even a have a chance of being called up as a direct replacement . Probably take 2 injuries to give him a decent shout.

[bigfingers]

2 hours ago, Diamond Scot said:

Im not overly concerned about that aspect atm. Clarke has shown that he is more than willing to play youth when the time is right. 

By the time Armstrong and Christie are winding down, Ferguson will have been in the squad for years, have a decent amount of caps and im sure Clarke will start to gradually increase his game time, probably after this Euros.

We finally seem to be producing a steady stream of players. Maybe not all top top class but you can pick pretty much any position except GK and CF and see a good few potential replacements. There was a time when a big player retiring or getting injured would have meant a massive drop off in quality. Thats not the case anymore.

Our 4th or 5th choice left backs are either playing in Italy or for Celtic. We have multiple CBs all around the same standard. 2 solid RBs and then another 2 or 3 with potential. Midfield we are strong with a good few potentials in and around 1st team football.

My bigger fear is what happens after Clarke. I really hope we are looking at managers with similar approaches.

Likely will go for the Kilmarnock manager again would be my guess. 

[Tartan blood]

1 hour ago, gonzohiggy said:

I understand on the frustration part - I likewise think Ferguson should have had more time but suspect his time will come soon enough.

Re Shankland - I think there’s a bit of a misconception that he is a Kris Boyd type player ie a goal scorer who does little else. Yes he’s a great finisher but he has terrific instincts and movement. He’s always getting across defenders or making good runs which combined with his shooting ability technically results in regular goals. 
 

I think he’s more than capable of occupying defenders in much the same way as Dykes. Look at his recent goal against Hibs - jumps into the defender while isolated to create a half chance which he takes brilliantly.
 

He doesn’t have the same explosiveness as Adams granted so won’t have the same success running channels.

Ive seen him in the flesh twice this season and he had stood out an absolute mile and it’s been more for his all round game rather than his goals.

I totally agree that Shankland has demonstrated that he is much more than just a good finisher. In fact, I'd say that was a big part of why he was getting called up to squads in the past, because he hasn't always had prolific seasons. However, this season he has raised his game multiple levels and is scoring top class goals every week.

I've mentioned this a few times now, but football is a psychological battle as much as it is a physical one. If opposition defenders are told they are up against a championship defender with 3 goals to his name, or a guy with 18 goals playing for the 3rd best team in Scotland, who do you think they'd be more wary of?

Yes, I know the SPFL standard vs championship standard is an ongoing debate, but I'd still think the uber-confident striker that is racking up dozens of goals should be the first pick.

[Squirrelhumper]

1 hour ago, Orraloon said:

I'm pretty sure this is the youngest squad we have ever had and Shankland is older than both Dykes and Adams. 

I still want Shankland in the team ahead of either Dykes or Adams though. I think this might be his time. 

It is, folk are just lazy when it comes down to Clarke though. Have a stereotype of how he plays etc and stick with it. His team at Killie was young too, with a few older heads. 

 

[Squirrelhumper]

58 minutes ago, bigfingers said:

Likely will go for the Kilmarnock manager again would be my guess. 

I think with the money banked through the Euros etc and sold out Hampden's that we'd be aiming higher than that. 

SC was/is a far higher level of coach than DM will ever be.

[scotlad]

7 hours ago, BryanBlessed said:

Does he play a similar role for QPR as he does for us or is he more of a classic striker?

 

I wonder what  it is about Shankland that means he should be third choice and not first choice? Is it the lack of pace (is Dykes that quick and does he rely on pace for us?) or the league he plays in? I can't see it being hold-up play as he's really improved that part of his game. 

I think if Shankland had pace he wouldn't be playing for Hearts, because he has just about everything else you'd want a centre-forward to have. I suspect that's why Clarke is ambivalent towards him (or has been so far).

[scotlad]

7 hours ago, wanderer said:

Cairney has always been a odd one, but I do not think his agent spouting his mouth on a "Come and get me Southgate" plea, and Fulham's yo-yo league form in recent years has helped him in any way.

3 separate Scotland managers have called him up, and in Eck and Clarke's case, both have been critical of their predecessor for over looking him.... used him in one game, and then he is never spoken of again.

Clarke in one of his first interviews was even talking about building his midfield around him, but I think with the emergence of both Gilmour and McTominay, plus McGregor finding his form of late, and the thought of dropping McGinn being unthinkable, at best he would be up against Jack for a place in the squad.

When did his agent say that? I can remember Southgate saying years ago that he wasn't interested in selecting him (or words to that effect) and good though Cairney is, he has virtually no chance of making it into England's midfield. Christ, he'd struggling to make it into ours, barring an injury crisis!

He's a good player and he's on form at the moment but the fact he was overlooked for years - including during times we were struggling for players - led me to assume he just wasn't interested in international football. 

Like Shankland, though, he lacks pace, which is another reason he might have been overlooked. Then again, Clarke picked Alan Campbell a couple of years ago!

[BryanBlessed]

51 minutes ago, Tartan blood said:

 

I've mentioned this a few times now, but football is a psychological battle as much as it is a physical one. If opposition defenders are told they are up against a championship defender with 3 goals to his name, or a guy with 18 goals playing for the 3rd best team in Scotland, who do you think they'd be more wary of?

 

Excellent point and related to why I thought Doak might end up being called up (clearly that's not going to happen) as the Hungarian under-21 defence were clearly terrified of him. So if the game is that our striker distracts defenders for our midfielders to have space, wouldn't Shankland be considered an option?

 

They might be worried about Dykes as he's quite a physical player but Shankland has this side to his game too (see his goal against Geogia and the one against Hibs) and is only slightly smaller than Dykes anyway.  

[BryanBlessed]

14 minutes ago, scotlad said:

I think if Shankland had pace he wouldn't be playing for Hearts, because he has just about everything else you'd want a centre-forward to have. I suspect that's why Clarke is ambivalent towards him (or has been so far).

Do our forwards need to be quick or is it absolutely essential? I've only ever really seen Dykes get in behind once and that was when he missed a chance against Spain.

[Tartan blood]

26 minutes ago, BryanBlessed said:

Excellent point and related to why I thought Doak might end up being called up (clearly that's not going to happen) as the Hungarian under-21 defence were clearly terrified of him. So if the game is that our striker distracts defenders for our midfielders to have space, wouldn't Shankland be considered an option?

 

They might be worried about Dykes as he's quite a physical player but Shankland has this side to his game too (see his goal against Geogia and the one against Hibs) and is only slightly smaller than Dykes anyway.  

I concur regarding Doak. Maybe this was just me, but when I saw we were lining up against a Man City player (Oscar Bobb) it did give me pause. Even though he had only played a handful if games for them. You immediately think he must have something about him if he is in their squad. Turns out he was their best player that night. Doak would have the same effect.

And, you're right, even if Shankland is only up there to distract defenders, I'd rather it was someone you know is sharp in front of goal that can net the odd half chance. Adams especially is terrible at that. Dykes has shown it in glimpses, but it's too few and far between.

[scotlad]

37 minutes ago, BryanBlessed said:

Do our forwards need to be quick or is it absolutely essential? I've only ever really seen Dykes get in behind once and that was when he missed a chance against Spain.

It's a huge advantage at international level, especially for a team like Scotland who don't generally create a lot of chances.

[Hertsscot]

I see Patterson has been dropped at the first opportunity by Everton now that Coleman's back 

[BryanBlessed]

2 hours ago, scotlad said:

It's a huge advantage at international level, especially for a team like Scotland who don't generally create a lot of chances.

It's an advantage everywhere but if our strikers are there to link up play and hold up the ball, I don't think it's an essential part of that.

[csinclair]

23 minutes ago, Hertsscot said:

I see Patterson has been dropped at the first opportunity by Everton now that Coleman's back 

I've asked the Everton fans I know what they think of Patterson and they're all bemused why Dyche only plays him when Young & Coleman aren't available.

I watched him against Man City the other week and he had an excellent game against Grealish.

[ceudmilefailte]

4 hours ago, Tartan blood said:

I concur regarding Doak. Maybe this was just me, but when I saw we were lining up against a Man City player (Oscar Bobb) it did give me pause. Even though he had only played a handful if games for them. You immediately think he must have something about him if he is in their squad. Turns out he was their best player that night. Doak would have the same effect.

And, you're right, even if Shankland is only up there to distract defenders, I'd rather it was someone you know is sharp in front of goal that can net the odd half chance. Adams especially is terrible at that. Dykes has shown it in glimpses, but it's too few and far between.

Pretty sure Adams has scored more goals at a decent level than Shankland even if you include Ross County and Livingston as decent opposition.

[bdgsct]

1 hour ago, csinclair said:

I've asked the Everton fans I know what they think of Patterson and they're all bemused why Dyche only plays him when Young & Coleman aren't available.

I watched him against Man City the other week and he had an excellent game against Grealish.

I expect a bit of squad rotation given its a cup tie and Coleman will need minutes. Patterson hasn't fully established himself as first choice but I think its heading that way. They have lost 3 in a row too.

[thesaint]

27 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

Pretty sure Adams has scored more goals at a decent level than Shankland even if you include Ross County and Livingston as decent opposition.

He scored 25 in 124 games in the premier league.Trouble is he is playing in the league below now and has scored 6 from 22.Take from that what you will i suppose.