Loyalty or In form !!

[Big Ramy 1314]

So here is my question, regardless of what Clarke may do, what is your thoughts on this topic, as it will definately happen...

Do you stick with the players that got us to the World Cup, or do you take a chance on an in form player who has outperformed some of Clarke's regulars? 

I am torn in both. This is the biggest tournament of a players career, something they would never want to miss. It seems harsh to drop or not included the players that got us here, but at the end of the day, Clarke HAS to bring the best and most talented players at his disposal...  Especially up front, we are very weak.....

Thoughts... Alba Gu Brath 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

[Arbroath1320]

Jock Stein said that, sometimes, the best thing to do was to select the players who would win one particular match. (Not an exact quote.) But since none of our strikers look world class, sticking with Old Faithful is probably fair enough. 

[glasgow jock]

It's a tricky one Ramy, Clarke will absolutely be loyal to the largest bulk of the squad who got us there, I just wish he was a bit more positive in his outlook

For me tournament football is completely different from a qualifying campaign, you have to go for it and plan your team with tactics to win, the pragmatic approach at tournaments by our manager has been tried twice at our last two tournaments and failed (miserably) twice

I would add two who haven't played in the qualifiers, however time will tell.

[Big Ramy 1314]

3 minutes ago, Arbroath1320 said:

Jock Stein said that, sometimes, the best thing to do was to select the players who would win one particular match. (Not an exact quote.) But since none of our strikers look world class, sticking with Old Faithful is probably fair enough. 

That's our problem, we nondecent strikers up front, but Clarke has not exactly changed it over the years. Adams and Dykes are I hate to say it, pish, at this level. Then you have the likes of Hanley, who will probably play as Clarke likes him, but he is a bomb scare....

Sometimes a manager has to grab a set of baws, and change it, I just don't see Clarke doing this, and he will, as you say, stick with old Faithfull. Old Faithfull is mince, there has to be better options, not necessarily World Class, but we need someone up front who can poach. I would rate Shankland before Dykes and Adams, but SC won't.. Even McBurnnie FFS !! 

I originally just wanted to go to this World Cup, get pyshed, party, and not bothered about our results.. 

I genuinely want Scotland to succeed more than anything now, it matters, and SC has to give others a chance in certain matches that might suit their style of play...

[Big Ramy 1314]

2 minutes ago, glasgow jock said:

It's a tricky one Ramy, Clarke will absolutely be loyal to the largest bulk of the squad who got us there, I just wish he was a bit more positive in his outlook

For me tournament football is completely different from a qualifying campaign, you have to go for it and plan your team with tactics to win, the pragmatic approach at tournaments by our manager has been tried twice at our last two tournaments and failed (miserably) twice

I would add two who haven't played in the qualifiers, however time will tell.

Agree 100 percent mate. Good point, this is not qualifying, lose, you go home.. Great point !!

[Fairbairn]

This is what was infuriating about the last friendlies.  Clarke had the chance to have a look at some in form fringe players and see what they had to offer but instead we got the same players playing the same formation being replaced by the same substitutes.

[Big Ramy 1314]

2 minutes ago, Fairbairn said:

This is what was infuriating about the last friendlies.  Clarke had the chance to have a look at some in form fringe players and see what they had to offer but instead we got the same players playing the same formation being replaced by the same substitutes.

Exactly FB !!

[glasgow jock]

54 minutes ago, Fairbairn said:

This is what was infuriating about the last friendlies.  Clarke had the chance to have a look at some in form fringe players and see what they had to offer but instead we got the same players playing the same formation being replaced by the same substitutes.

100% This

[AAAfather]

1 hour ago, Fairbairn said:

This is what was infuriating about the last friendlies.  Clarke had the chance to have a look at some in form fringe players and see what they had to offer but instead we got the same players playing the same formation being replaced by the same substitutes.

exactly

[saintsparky]

I count about 22 players, who you could say contributed regularly to our qualification.

That leaves 3 or 4 spots available for in form wildcards. 

Edited April 29 by saintsparky

[Hertsscot]

It's a difficult one. We often frame it as loyalty v form but maybe it's better to think of trust rather than loyalty. He'll trust certain players (Hanley, Mclean, Dykes) because they've done it for him in the past. He feels they've got experience and not let him down previously so it's not exactly blind loyalty.

On a human level I'd hate to turn around to someone who's been a stalwart of the qualifying campaign and tell them they were going to miss out on the opportunity of a lifetime. However, I hope I'd do it.

 

 

[vanderark14]

16 minutes ago, Hertsscot said:

It's a difficult one. We often frame it as loyalty v form but maybe it's better to think of trust rather than loyalty. He'll trust certain players (Hanley, Mclean, Dykes) because they've done it for him in the past. He feels they've got experience and not let him down previously so it's not exactly blind loyalty.

On a human level I'd hate to turn around to someone who's been a stalwart of the qualifying campaign and tell them they were going to miss out on the opportunity of a lifetime. However, I hope I'd do it.

 

 

I agree with the first part. Loyalty is the wrong word, trust is far more apt

On the 2nd part, thats the job of a manager. He has to make these decisions

For me there are only one or two players who maybe deserve a chance above the players already in the squad. For example, Ross Stewart could've been given a chance instead of Hirst or conway

[romanticscot]

2 hours ago, Hertsscot said:

It's a difficult one. We often frame it as loyalty v form but maybe it's better to think of trust rather than loyalty. He'll trust certain players (Hanley, Mclean, Dykes) because they've done it for him in the past. He feels they've got experience and not let him down previously so it's not exactly blind loyalty.

On a human level I'd hate to turn around to someone who's been a stalwart of the qualifying campaign and tell them they were going to miss out on the opportunity of a lifetime. However, I hope I'd do it.

 

 

I think you have accurately portrayed Clarke's position, it is trust.  I raised this in the other forum, what exactly does a player need to do in order to lose Clarke's trust? And for our forward's, what exactly are they being trusted to do?  track back, and be defensive - Dykes can do that, but we then lose any attacking thread and largely be ineffectual. If that's what he is asking them to do, I would rather we pack the midfield and then have someone who has a higher chance of finishing from the odd chance, so that would be Shankland or one of others not named Adams or Hirst and likely termed wildcards.  Wildcards, because they haven't done anything but because they haven't been given an opportunity recently - Stewart x 2, McBurnie, Ure etc. 

[broraboy]

It’s a tough one to call but everything says Clarke is Loyal regardless of Form !! 

Learnt heehaw from the March friendlies really, so we go back 5 months to the Qualifiers and base our World Cup squad on that ? 

Clarke hasn’t got the cutting edge or the balls to cut / axe - Dykes Hanley and/or Ralston ?? 

And if we’re being honest, they are prob the biggest x3 passengers possibly going to be selected over players more on form 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

[ceudmilefailte]

59 minutes ago, broraboy said:

It’s a tough one to call but everything says Clarke is Loyal regardless of Form !! 

Learnt heehaw from the March friendlies really, so we go back 5 months to the Qualifiers and base our World Cup squad on that ? 

Clarke hasn’t got the cutting edge or the balls to cut / axe - Dykes Hanley and/or Ralston ?? 

And if we’re being honest, they are prob the biggest x3 passengers possibly going to be selected over players more on form 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Not sure who you can take ahead of Ralston. 

[Ally Bongo]

Alan McInally signed for Bayern Munich in 1989

In the 1989/90 season he scored 10 goals in in 31 appearances - 1 goal every 3 games - deemed to be in form

Roxburgh went left field and selected him for the game against Costa Rica splitting up Johnston and McCoist who had started in most of the qualifiers 

He was utter shite 

 

[romanticscot]

12 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Alan McInally signed for Bayern Munich in 1989

In the 1989/90 season he scored 10 goals in in 31 appearances - 1 goal every 3 games - deemed to be in form

Roxburgh went left field and selected him for the game against Costa Rica splitting up Johnston and McCoist who had started in most of the qualifiers 

He was utter shite 

 

Come on now, that's not a rule though, is it? 

[bdgsct]

19 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Alan McInally signed for Bayern Munich in 1989

In the 1989/90 season he scored 10 goals in in 31 appearances - 1 goal every 3 games - deemed to be in form

Roxburgh went left field and selected him for the game against Costa Rica splitting up Johnston and McCoist who had started in most of the qualifiers 

He was utter shite 

 

Had Johnston an McCoist done as little as Adams and Dykes?

[Ally Bongo]

17 minutes ago, romanticscot said:

Come on now, that's not a rule though, is it? 

Just saying there is no rhyme or reason to playing those that have got us there or replacing them with those that are in club form 

It's a gamble either way 

[Goozay]

Name the players that were "in form" just prior to the March friendlies that didn't get a sniff.

[Diamond Scot]

The problem with in form is more often than not that they also lack ability which is shown up when they play at a higher level.

Tried and trusted has shown over a period of time what they can do which has been the basis for our relative success. 

Thats not to say the tried and trusted shouldnt get replaced if a better player comes along but how often have we seen people calling for X player to be called up. Fast forward 6 months and that player has fallen off a cliff.

[romanticscot]

18 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

Just saying there is no rhyme or reason to playing those that have got us there or replacing them with those that are in club form 

It's a gamble either way 

There is a decision to be made for sure, and the risk gets higher in correlation with the stakes. Knowing what you can get is predictable, if it was me I would take a risk on 2-3 players and give those to form players even without previous international experience. I want an element of surprise and I want options. For every Mcinally, there's a Billy Gilmour (2021), well maybe not 1:1 but my point is it can work in your favor. 

[McFadders]

On current from this season Dykes, Adams & Hanley would be nowhere near the squad to name a few.

We need to win games not play the old pals act.

[kumnio]

There should be a mix of both tried and trusted, and those in form.

Some of us that have issues with Clarke as his tried and trusted are always called on, and other players dont get a chance to prove what they can do, even in friendlies. 

The recent friendlies are a clear example of this.

The Japan game for example, did we really need to see Ferguson and McLean get 90 minutes? Dykes start and Adams replace him? McGinn start and Christie replace him? McTominay start and Gilmour replace him? The only relatively new players were Conway played out of position, and replaced by Curtis for a nine minute cameo.

Can post similar about the Ivory Coast game, yet more minutes for the good old tried and trusted. Lets bring on McLean, McGinn and Ferguson, lets stick Dykes on for the final 13 minutes.

The only two players who were given a chance was Conway out of position and Hirst who barely a single Scotland fan would have in the squad.

[mccaughey85]

20 minutes ago, McFadders said:

On current from this season Dykes, Adams & Hanley would be nowhere near the squad to name a few.

We need to win games not play the old pals act.

Adams plays at the highest level of all our strikers. He's also consistently played at the top level for 6/7 seasons. He's our only striker that has done that.

His form isn't that bad either when you consider he plays in top 5 league.