Steve Clarke Fuck Off

[Caledonian Craig]

Just now, Scotty2Hotty said:

Fair points but Steve Clarke has made some errors IMO when picking the team that have already been spoken about in this thread but of course not everyone will agree

The crux of the matter is we have a far smaller pool of quality players to call upon than the European superpowers so to compete if our very best players are not available and/or off-form we have problems. I do not think any manager is able to sort problems like that barring increasing our international standard player pool which just is not there at present.

[Toepoke]

10 hours ago, Scotty2Hotty said:

Yeah it was a draw so apologies, forgot to add that in but seemed to remember at the time that we were disappointed not to get a win

No worries.

Can't wait to see this thread after we get knocked out the Euros 🫣

[Scotty2Hotty]

6 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

No worries.

Can't wait to see this thread after we get knocked out the Euros 🫣

I'll be in Germany and probably too pished to post lol

However, as long as put up a good showing and don't get pumped I won't be too despondent 

[Scotty2Hotty]

17 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

The crux of the matter is we have a far smaller pool of quality players to call upon than the European superpowers so to compete if our very best players are not available and/or off-form we have problems. I do not think any manager is able to sort problems like that barring increasing our international standard player pool which just is not there at present.

Clarke has done well so far to fit in a strong 11 and get us playing well barring the odd game here and there which can happen to all football teams. 

He sorted the Tierney/Roberston issue very well but recently in the past few games in particular, it is clear the striker area is a real area of concern and no team will do well unless they have someone to put the ball in the onion bag and midfield for me is now becoming an issue as we are becoming so slow and one dimensional in our build up play now and we need Clarke to sort this out IMO

[Caledonian Craig]

1 minute ago, Scotty2Hotty said:

Clarke has done well so far to fit in a strong 11 and get us playing well barring the odd game here and there which can happen to all football teams. 

He sorted the Tierney/Roberston issue very well but recently in the past few games in particular, it is clear the striker area is a real area of concern and no team will do well unless they have someone to put the ball in the onion bag and midfield for me is now becoming an issue as we are becoming so slow and one dimensional in our build up play now and we need Clarke to sort this out IMO

Actually, I disagree. On our good run of form and results our goals were chiefly coming from midfield with McGinn and then McTominay weighing in with our goals with the odd goal from strikers and it got us by. I do not care who scores and it really doesn't matter who does as long as we do.

[Scotty2Hotty]

1 minute ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Actually, I disagree. On our good run of form and results our goals were chiefly coming from midfield with McGinn and then McTominay weighing in with our goals with the odd goal from strikers and it got us by. I do not care who scores and it really doesn't matter who does as long as we do.

As well as the midfielders have been scoring goals, we need the strikers to be contributing regularly as it's unlikely the likes of McT and McGinn will be in the sort of form they have been in the qualifying campaign, it's just not sustainable.

Most chances will fall to the striker so we need to be trying out as many options as we can here

[Caledonian Craig]

9 minutes ago, Scotty2Hotty said:

As well as the midfielders have been scoring goals, we need the strikers to be contributing regularly as it's unlikely the likes of McT and McGinn will be in the sort of form they have been in the qualifying campaign, it's just not sustainable.

Most chances will fall to the striker so we need to be trying out as many options as we can here

As I said we have shown we can get big results with goals from all over the pitch. It is far more important to score goals less important who scores them. We simply do not have the greatest strikers available to us but as long as goals come from other sources we can still be competitive. At present I'd say we should start with Shankland up front in the June friendlies and go from there.

[Scotty2Hotty]

11 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

As I said we have shown we can get big results with goals from all over the pitch. It is far more important to score goals less important who scores them. We simply do not have the greatest strikers available to us but as long as goals come from other sources we can still be competitive. At present I'd say we should start with Shankland up front in the June friendlies and go from there.

and what happens when the midfielders top scoring? When strikers continually missing sitters? You can look all over the world in any league or international game that it is the strikers that usually bang them in as they are the ones with the most chances to score as they're further forward player. 

Your theory is short sighted 

[Caledonian Craig]

1 minute ago, Scotty2Hotty said:

and what happens when the midfielders top scoring? When strikers continually missing sitters? You can look all over the world in any league or international game that it is the strikers that usually bang them in as they are the ones with the most chances to score as they're further forward player. 

Your theory is short sighted 

No its called playing to our strengths and being realistic.

Our midfield is our strength. McGinn almost has as many goals for us as Ally McCoist. After Dykes our next top scorer is McTominay. Our attackers are what they are. They try their very best but we cannot rely on them to transform into prolific international goalscorers. Harsh but realistic. The closest we have to it I'd say is Shankland but would you bank on him scoring a hatful in Germany?

[Scotty2Hotty]

1 minute ago, Caledonian Craig said:

No its called playing to our strengths and being realistic.

Our midfield is our strength. McGinn almost has as many goals for us as Ally McCoist. After Dykes our next top scorer is McTominay. Our attackers are what they are. They try their very best but we cannot rely on them to transform into prolific international goalscorers. Harsh but realistic. The closest we have to it I'd say is Shankland but would you bank on him scoring a hatful in Germany?

I just disagree, it's unrealistic to expect our midfield to continually score and then not have a goalscoring forward in the team is just limiting our chances of winning games. 

[Caledonian Craig]

6 minutes ago, Scotty2Hotty said:

I just disagree, it's unrealistic to expect our midfield to continually score and then not have a goalscoring forward in the team is just limiting our chances of winning games. 

You do not seem to grasp we do not have a goalscoring forward at international level. The nearest we have will be Shankland who I think will start in Germany but I do not expect bucket loads of goals from him. When we were on a winning streak last year it was without a prolific goalscorer and if we refind that form then similarly, unless Shankland surprises me, we will do it again via goals from largely midfield with the odd goal from strikers and defence.

[Scotty2Hotty]

20 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

You do not seem to grasp we do not have a goalscoring forward at international level. The nearest we have will be Shankland who I think will start in Germany but I do not expect bucket loads of goals from him. When we were on a winning streak last year it was without a prolific goalscorer and if we refind that form then similarly, unless Shankland surprises me, we will do it again via goals from largely midfield with the odd goal from strikers and defence.

If anything that isn't grasping anything then it is yourself, I haven't said once we have a prolific goalscorer in our team... I cba debating this point anymore 

[Grim Jim]

12 hours ago, Scotty2Hotty said:

Yeah it was a draw so apologies, forgot to add that in but seemed to remember at the time that we were disappointed not to get a win

Disappointed of course, but Norway were much stronger in '98 than now (undefeated in qualifying, though in a weak group as top seeds).   Again a draw for us was punching above.

I was mightily pissed off at a Craig Brown interview before the Morocco game though, in which he sounded as if 3 points were in the bag.   You'd have loved his positivity 😋

As an old guy I go now with hope rather than expectation now for the good of my health 😄

[er yir macaroon]

I wonder if McTominay has been considered up front. I'm not massively in favour but I don't see the harm in trying. He's got the pace and strength and his youth years as a winger would be helpful. He's not always the most influential in midfield in terms of dictating play but his goals and energy are. These may be transferable skills and a good way to fit Ferguson or McGregor into the team. Probably a bit late now to test for the Euros. 

[Scotty2Hotty]

1 minute ago, Grim Jim said:

Disappointed of course, but Norway were much stronger in '98 than now (undefeated in qualifying, though in a weak group as top seeds).   Again a draw for us was punching above.

I was mightily pissed off at a Craig Brown interview before the Morocco game though, in which he sounded as if 3 points were in the bag.   You'd have loved his positivity 😋

As an old guy I go now with hope rather than expectation now for the good of my health 😄

Norway had a cracking team then but I remember us having a really good team back then also. We were in the same pot as them so wouldn't say we were punching above getting a draw with them. Them beating Brazil shows how well of a team we had IMO to be getting a draw with Norway.

The Morocco game was a complete disaster that no one saw coming though

[Scotty2Hotty]

4 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

I wonder if McTominay has been considered up front. I'm not massively in favour but I don't see the harm in trying. He's got the pace and strength and his youth years as a winger would be helpful. He's not always the most influential in midfield in terms of dictating play but his goals and energy are. These may be transferable skills and a good way to fit Ferguson or McGregor into the team. Probably a bit late now to test for the Euros. 

Totally agree, we should of gave one of our attacking midfielders a go to see if this could work as a false 9, I genuinely think this would improve our team. Even at Bologna, Ferguson is playing just behind Joshua Zirkzee but is often further forward than him as Zirkzee drops very deep to act as another attacking midfielder and then Ferguson makes a lot of forward runs. This would work very well for us if we could do something similar IMO. Can't see Clarke ever doing this unfortunately.

I wonder if in the next year or so, Doak will be tried there since we don't play with wingers and sure he's played CF for the youth team.

 

[BryanBlessed]

2 hours ago, Scotty2Hotty said:

I just disagree, it's unrealistic to expect our midfield to continually score and then not have a goalscoring forward in the team is just limiting our chances of winning games. 

I can see both points of view but despite his miss against the Netherlands (which was very close) I want our chances falling to Shankland. I don't really trust Dykes and Adams in front of goal but I think, on current form, Dykes is 3rd choice at best.

[Third Lanark]

After watching that you tube analysis of Ferguson the whole way through ( can't find who posted it but thanks for doing it), I now think we should build around Ferguson, even it means - leaving out Tierney or Robertson. He is the ideal no. 10 and should bring out the best in Shankland.  How about: 

Gunn: Hickey, Hanley, McKenna, Robertson/Tierney; Gilmour, McGregor; McTom, Ferguson, McGinn: Shankland.

 

 

[Scotty2Hotty]

17 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

After watching that you tube analysis of Ferguson the whole way through ( can't find who posted it but thanks for doing it), I now think we should build around Ferguson, even it means - leaving out Tierney or Robertson. He is the ideal no. 10 and should bring out the best in Shankland.  How about: 

Gunn: Hickey, Hanley, McKenna, Robertson/Tierney; Gilmour, McGregor; McTom, Ferguson, McGinn: Shankland.

 

 

You're welcome brother.

We have come to a point where another big change is probably required, i'm not so sure about taking out one of Tierney or Robo as they give us an extra dimension to the team that work well down our left side but on the right we seem to be struggling a bit so could do something there. Even when Hickey is playing, we don't seem to create a lot down that flank.

You could stick Ferguson in instead of Shankland and play without a recognised striker, Ferguson and McT and McGinn can all rotate and we can use our wing backs to bomb forward up the sides to give play off also

[mccaughey85]

2 hours ago, Scotty2Hotty said:

Norway had a cracking team then but I remember us having a really good team back then also. We were in the same pot as them so wouldn't say we were punching above getting a draw with them. Them beating Brazil shows how well of a team we had IMO to be getting a draw with Norway.

The Morocco game was a complete disaster that no one saw coming though

We were a good team but still very much short of quality attacking players and very limited in other areas as well. Going to a world cup with Donnelly, booth, Jackson and Gallacher(only decent striker)as your strikers is brutal. 

Dunno where you got this idea that we were tipped to qualify. I remember Martin o Neill slating our team before one of our games and saying we would be lucky to do anything. I would say the majority of football fans from other countries probably thought we had a less than 50 percent chance of qualifying.

Alot of the older generation of Scotland fans were cautious due to how weak our squad was compared to the 70s and 80s. I remember my grandad always slating the standard of player we had available in 90s and described our squads as average at best. 

[todd]

23 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

We were a good team but still very much short of quality attacking players and very limited in other areas as well. Going to a world cup with Donnelly, booth, Jackson and Gallacher(only decent striker)as your strikers is brutal. 

Dunno where you got this idea that we were tipped to qualify. I remember Martin o Neill slating our team before one of our games and saying we would be lucky to do anything. I would say the majority of football fans from other countries probably thought we had a less than 50 percent chance of qualifying.

Alot of the older generation of Scotland fans were cautious due to how weak our squad was compared to the 70s and 80s. I remember my grandad always slating the standard of player we had available in 90s and described our squads as average at best. 

I remember that cock, Martin O'Neil, saying we didn't deserve to be there (because we qualified via the best second place spot) Never liked him anyway but loathed him after that, absolute throbber of a man

[DoonTheSlope]

This thread has turned into something from Monty Python

[Scotty2Hotty]

4 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

We were a good team but still very much short of quality attacking players and very limited in other areas as well. Going to a world cup with Donnelly, booth, Jackson and Gallacher(only decent striker)as your strikers is brutal. 

Dunno where you got this idea that we were tipped to qualify. I remember Martin o Neill slating our team before one of our games and saying we would be lucky to do anything. I would say the majority of football fans from other countries probably thought we had a less than 50 percent chance of qualifying.

Alot of the older generation of Scotland fans were cautious due to how weak our squad was compared to the 70s and 80s. I remember my grandad always slating the standard of player we had available in 90s and described our squads as average at best. 

It was from memory we were expected to get to knock outs and our group was favourable but whatever, it doesnt really matter either way.

O'Neill is a sasij also.

[Toepoke]

5 hours ago, mccaughey85 said:

We were a good team but still very much short of quality attacking players and very limited in other areas as well. Going to a world cup with Donnelly, booth, Jackson and Gallacher(only decent striker)as your strikers is brutal. 

Gordon Durie was there too.

Should have taken McCoist for one last hurrah, Craig Brown later admitted so himself. Billy Dodds may have made a difference but I think he wasn't considered due to his sister's tragic death.

We really missed Gary McAllister who had dragged us to the finals with some great performances.

 

[mccaughey85]

15 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

Gordon Durie was there too.

Should have taken McCoist for one last hurrah, Craig Brown later admitted so himself. Billy Dodds may have made a difference but I think he wasn't considered due to his sister's tragic death.

We really missed Gary McAllister who had dragged us to the finals with some great performances.

 

Lol Billy Dodds and Gordon durie. That just illustrates my point about how poor our striking options were. 

Craig brown did a pretty good job when you consider how weak we were in some areas.

We missed McAllister for sure and mccoist really should have went but his career was starting to fade pretty bad at that point.

Edited March 29 by mccaughey85