Tartan Blood

I did read it all. I only bothered to quote the one word because I wanted to emphasise it. I'll concede though, no one should be undroppable. With maybe the exception of our captain. But McTominay has done plenty in a Scotland shirt (and plenty in a Man Utd shirt) to show he deserves to be in the first 11 most of the time when he is fit. It would be bold of Clarke to leave him out, but I really doubt he will.

"Nothing"? That is ridiculously harsh. He's had plenty of good games. Has he replicated his Europa league final performance? No. Has he played a pivotal role in a dozen games for Scotland? Yes. Some of which in the wrong position. I personally would have Gilmour, McTominay and McGinn as the midfield 3. McGregor is a near miss. Unless we are being ultra-defensive and want a very deep lying anchorman, I really don't see Jack getting back in the team. And, to be honest, I'd happily put a Tierney, Hendry or Souttar in the anchorman role. (No disrespect to Jack, who I do like)

Although I agree that we have lacked a true anchorman lately, would Ryan Jack get back in the first 11 anyway? Gilmour, McGregor, McTominay, McLean are all likely ahead of him. I'm not even convinced Gerrard will put him straight back into the Rangers first 11. I'd say there are 6 or 7 undroppable players at the moment: Robertson, Tierney, Hanley, Gilmour, McTominay, McGinn and Gordon. Trying to accommodate them is hard enough without adding Jack to the dillemma.

I just wiki'd it and apparently he got subbed on in the 86th minute in a friendly for his one cap. I did think of him. He was one that I was genuinely excited by. I was astounded Rangers let him go. Then he was ravaged by injuries, which could be the reason he never ended up with any caps.

You're absolutely right. Even more damning is that Rangers spent a large portion of the last decade in the lower leagues, which would have been prime time to nurture young talent. Besides that being bad business for Rangers themselves, it obviously hasn't done the national team any favours. I'm struggling to think of any young talent that Rangers developed during that time that went on to win caps. I'm genuinely interested in hearing some names. Say, 2010 onwards. I don't want to bash Rangers only because, as you say, the numbers for Celtic are probably lower than they should be as well.

As I said, I don't give Celtic credit for developing the likes of Robertson or O'Donnell, for the same reason I don't give Rangers credit for Gilmour. I just mentioned those 3 in the interest of fairness, and to boost Rangers number. I wasn't aware Hanley or Taylor were on the books at Rangers! Good bit of trivia. But regarding Ferguson and McLean, I was only talking about the Euros squad, which is why I didn't include them. I would be curious to see what the overall figures are over the last decade for Celtic and Rangers though.

I'd be keen to know the answer to your previous question: "How many Celtic developed players compared to Rangers in the last decade?". Patterson is by far the best prospect they've had in years, and he may even slip through their fingers and leave, if rumours of bids are to be believed.

I don't really, I just wanted to include Gilmour to give Rangers a bit of credit. Didn't he leave Rangers just days/weeks after he turned 16? Obviously he wasn't deemed surplus to requirements, like Robertson, but a lot of his development has been the result of the 4 years at the performance schools and at Chelsea. Anyway, if you want to exclude Gilmour, then Rangers only had Patterson and Fleck as players they developed in the Euros squad. (Neither of which were/have become regulars at Rangers.) And McLaughlin was signed as their backup keeper. If you exclude O'Donnell and Robertson from Celtic, that's still 11-3. It really should be more balanced than that.

17 year old Josh Adam scored 4 goals for Man City yesterday. Only u18s but that is still highly encouraging. He's down as a midfielder, but maybe will be a striker long term? Who knows. It's been so long since we've had any promising young strikers breaking through anywhere.

In the same world where Rangers get credit for Gilmour - 4 years performance school, and gone at 16. I included them to give Rangers recognition for Gilmour. But you can remove him from Rangers impressive count of 4 if you want. Edit: Robertson left Celtic at around 15. Hendry left Celtic at 16. O'Donnell left at 19. Gallagher left at 20. If they don't count then Gilmour definitely doesn't count.

I'm not sure I agree the u21s are the weakest they've been in decades. Partly because Patterson and Gilmour are still eligible, but are too good for that level. It would look far stronger with them in it. Welsh started the season very well, but has unfortunately been dropped. He may turn out to be a player. Even just looking at the Euros squad alone, you have 8 players that were developed at Celtic: Marshall, Tierney, Robertson, Forrest, Gallagher, Hendry, O'Donnell, McGregor. Then another 5 that were signed by Celtic: Gordon, Taylor, Armstrong, Christie, Turnbull. 13 players directly related to Celtic. Rangers had 4 in total: McLaughlin, Patterson, Gilmour, Fleck. None of which have been regulars for them (yet). And, yes, Rangers deserve some credit for Gilmour and Patterson, but I think the Performance Schools should get a lot of credit, too. A pretty shocking disparity between the 2 "biggest" teams in Scotland.

Those were the 2 I was referring to as "unexpected". Adams, because we didn't even know he was willing, and Turnbull, because we didn't know if he could recover fully and fulfill his potential. You can also add in player renaissance like Hanley and Hendry. Who knows what "known" entities will pop their head up as well. My money would be on Souttar.

Great point. We are quickly moving away from padding out the squad with guys who are just available. Even getting a game for Celtic these days doesn't guarantee you a place, the way it always has in the past. With the exception of 1 or 2 positions (backup GK, backup striker), it's become incredibly difficult to break into the squad. A purple patch of form (e.g Ralston, Welsh, Morgan, Henderson, Hickey, Gauld) doesn't result in a knee jerk reaction to getting them in. Our standards have risen significantly just in the last couple of years. Lewis Ferguson had to play consistently well for a long period before he got in. Although you are saying there is no one to be excited about, there always seems to be unknown or unexpected guys to emerge during the season. Think about this time last year. Gilmour, Patterson, Adams and Turnbull were no where near the national team. Ramsey is the most recent new star, but there will be more.

He also set up by far our best chance in the 2nd half, that Christie should have buried.

You're not wrong with anything you say, but these are deep seated problems that can't really be fixed with a few days of prep. The poor decision making, movement, and instinctual finishing are things that should be coached and practised at club level. The problem is that we are expecting strikers to be banging in loads of goals when they don't even do that at their clubs. Saying that, apparently Gilmour still has coaches at Chelsea watching his games and analysing his performances to give him feedback on how to improve at Norwich. If we could have a striker coach at Scotland who will continue to work with them inbetween internationals as well, I'd be happy with that.

I'd love to be able to play Armstrong, Gilmour, McTominay, McGinn and Fraser. Unfortunately they can't all fit in. But I'm not going to tell Clarke who to choose. Especially since McGregor and Christie will likely be in the mix as well. I also think the midfield used in the Czech game might be very different from the England game. That's the exact back 3 I'd play. There really isn't much between Hendry, Cooper, Hanley, Gallagher and McKenna though. Hendry edges it for his height, composure on the ball, passing, and will have sky high confidence after his season at Oostende, not to mention his goal against the Dutch. But, in terms of actual defending, they are all pretty much equal, in my eyes.

I'm not sure how much benefit that rouse would really give us. Playing one of our best midfielders out of position won't exactly strike fear into the hearts of our enemies. If anything, it'll give them confidence. If there is any rouse, it might be that the Czechs expect McGregor to play, but we surprise them with Gilmour and he tears them apart. Honestly, at this point, it feels like it's almost a bigger risk not to play Gilmour. Say, for example, we don't qualify for a tournament again for a while, and we don't play Gilmour now, we might look back and realise we made a huge mistake not playing a (potentially) world class player when it mattered most.

Great post. The only thing I disagree with is that "Adams is comfortably our best striker". That may well turn out to be true, but on the evidence in a Scotland shirt so far, there is very little between Adams and Dykes. As we all know, Dykes brings so much more than just goals, which he has demonstrated in big games. Not taking any credit away from Adams, but he hasn't really had the same test Dykes has. 2 goals against the Faroes and Luxembourg isn't enough to say he should definitely be the number 1 striker (yet) especially with the amount of chances he should have buried. Though Dykes was guilty of that too. I do wonder if Nesbit has a bit more of an instinctive poacher element to his game that Adams and Dykes lack. Maybe he would have walked away with a hattrick if he'd started. Who knows. I personally would play 1 striker. I'd be happy with either Dykes or Adams. At the moment, Dykes edges it for me. But time will tell.

That's a myth, that I thought had been put to bed a long time ago. I've not seen him much in the SPFL, but when he plays for Scotland, he takes it up a level. In fact, he's probably one of our most consistent performers. O'Donnell will know that he is probably one bad performance away from being hounded out by the Tartan Army and potentially replaced by Patterson, so he can't afford to let his performances slip. Other than a couple of nervy early caps, he's been solid. I'd say he is very low risk compared to the likes of Forrest, Fraser, Fleck, Christie or McGregor who have been unfit/off-form. Where as Gilmour (back on topic) is seemingly no risk at all. He doesn't seem phased by anything.

If the choice is Gilmour or McGregor, then it should be Gilmour. In my opinion it is a bigger risk to start McGregor than Gilmour. McGregor's lack of man marking and inability to tackle are our achilles heel in the middle. Patterson looked good going forward, but he really has barely been tested defensively at all in his entire career (that I've seen). I think he looks cracking going forward, but I just simply have no idea if he can manage the defensive side. Whereas we know O'Donnell can. That is why Patterson is a bigger risk than Gilmour - the unknown.

I think this would be the perfect match to test out McTominay, Gilmour and McGinn in the middle together. They are arguably our best centre mids and may be a taster of the future of our midfield, if not for the Euros. You never know, they might be an instant hit, and force Clarke's hand.

Spot on. Yes, he is not being played in his best position for Celtic or Scotland. But if he was playing in his best position he'd be much further down the pecking order. If he was seen as a central attacking midfielder only (his best position), he'd not even be in the Scotland squad. And as a defensive midfielder, he is really just in there through a lack of options and reputation. He did "well" there under Rodgers because he really wasn't expected/needed to do any defending. And when he was expected to, in Europe, Celtic got obliterated. (Not only his fault, I know) Scott Brown has carried him for years. McGregor himself stated in an interview that his intensity is lower than all other players because he is just there to give the ball to others. So he knows his role, and seems happy to not push himself in either defense or attack. International football really can't afford passengers. Which he kind of is. I hope he doesn't start. But probably will.