HuttonDressedAsLahm

Agreed. Same with Mackhail-Smith, and Chris Martin. There are a few midfielders in the bracket as well. The Championship is an odd league - stats and appearances can make some players look like superstars, but then can't make the step up to the Premier League and/or international football. I suppose it should hardly be surprising when you have Toney/Mitrovic/H.Barnes playing at times when they really shouldn't be, placed alongside goalscorers and playmakers from Rotherham and Huddersfield. Obviously some players can have reasonable stats, and still do very well at international level - Dykes, Adams, Kieffer Moore etc - but it's notoriously hard to identify who is a big fish in a small pond, and who is just using at a stepping stone to better things. I - for one - am only just too happy that we don't have to trawl the Championship for players any longer. Those that we do call up, are either 'temporarily' competing, or proven at a higher level (or in Dykes' case, simply has attributes that transfer well to the type of game we play).

Scoring more goals than an injured player? Yes, that's true. You've quoted half the point. Two caps is entirely measurable, identifiable by the virtue of being counted. The element you ignored, which was why the caps point matters, is that he's been part of a squad and we'd imagine SC has a better idea of Stewart's abilities than Hardie's. Had he not been injured, he's likely have been capped further. In my view, neither is ahead of much tbh. At best one of them is 6th choice for a side that plays one striker. Hopefully one can really kick on, but I don't think either is an answer to any question SC is asking.

Besides the fact that Stewart has 2 caps, and SC will have a much better view of his relative capabilities? There's a year difference between them, and their best seasons in L1 are comparable. All thing being equal, Stewart would likely be ahead of Hardie, unless Hardie has something to his game beyond goals. It's a bit of an academic discussion, since they're almost definitely not going to be called up, but it would be nice to see them both bang in the goals for the rest of the season.

There's probably something to be said for form and experience. I'm not sure 20 goals in the Championship for a player unknown/unproven at international level is going to be enough to get in ahead of more experience players of a very similar (if not better) level. Having a solid/good/decent season at the Championship is not going to be enough if you haven't already been in the squad by now.

I'd bite your hand off for a striker to start scoring. It's quite amazing how few we currently have, pretty much at any level (youth teams aside).

I’m prepared to bet my mortgage on McLean being included. He’s never let us down, can play a few positions, and one of SC’s favourite subs to close out a match. I suspect he’s also a positive presence around the squad. I’d imagine there’s a couple of defenders, alongside Brown/Nisbet/Jack/Shankland who’ll end up missing out. I’d say the midfield has been remarkably consistent across the last 12-18 months. Only the likes of Turnbull and McCrorie have had more than one call up, but haven’t had any/real game time. McTominay, McGregor, McGinn, Gilmour, Ferguson, McLean, and Armstrong are all dead certs. According to Wikipedia, Anderson is the only midfielder we’ve called up in the last 12 months who didn’t make the last squad. We’ve played/called up a fair number of defenders, mainly due to injuries, and there not being as many out-and-out strongest options like we have in midfield. A couple will lose out just simply because we’ll run out of spaces, and injury at the wrong time, or just struggling for fitness (Souttar, Cooper, McKenna, Doig, Taylor, Hanley). I don’t see any names coming from left field in time for June. The only plausible (we can debate how likely, fair, sensible, or justified separately) options would be Barnes and Doak. Otherwise, it’s only a coin toss between a couple of defenders, and our much-of-a-muchness up front. It would be a nice problem to have if someone could suddenly make a last ditch effort, but it looks unlikely.

I’d agree with that. After the absolute failure of 2002, they seem to have become that unstoppable train. They never seem to have a squad full of no-marks. I’d have once said that about the Italians (regardless of their recent qualification faux pas) but honestly I’ve no idea who most of their players are these days. Similar story for the Germans, Belgians, and Dutch. France and England are absolute streets ahead, though the former seems to have a much better organisation and collective agreement on a way to play. In some ways, despite their results, England seem to play within themselves quite often.

Of course Wales get the home draw for the final. Georgia/Luxembourg, and Ukraine/Bosnia also get the home draw for the final. Georgia v Greece could be some game.

I'd quite fancy a playoff winner in Pot 4, if only that it A) avoids Italy, and B) we can watch the playoffs in March with some interest. Guess there's a 50/50 chance. I wouldn't mind putting Georgia back in their place with a fully fit and available side.

I think that's fair. I'd say that the 24 sides can probably be split something like this: - Tier 1/1.5: France; England; Portugal - Tier 2/2.5: Spain; Italy; Germany; Belgium; Netherlands; Croatia; Hungary; Switzerland; Denmark - Tier 3/3.5: Austria; Czechia; Scotland; Serbia; Albania; Turkey; Slovenia; Slovakia; Romania (Wales/Ukraine/Finland/Poland et) - Tier 4/4.5: Georgia/Iceland/Luxembourg etc A few teams will underperform (Austria almost had a near-perfect qualification record for 2016 then went out scoring once), whilst others will do something special. Some of that is down to luck, but I'd want to avoid Hungary and Austria for those reasons. Difficult to know how good Serbia, Turkey, Czechia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Denmark and Romania are right now. They all made heavy weather of qualifying, with some even struggling with really quite average groups.

Great app! Wish you hadn’t shared. Every group permutation is brutal.

Sweden definitely a good shout. We're otherwise restricted to sides not in the playoffs - Norway? Lithuania/Latvia etc. If it has to be a side not qualified and not in playoffs, the list is very short. I see little value in playing another Tier 1 side. World Ranking matters for the WCQ draw, and we'll have plenty of those games in September - November of 2024. June friendlies could be almost anyone, including outwith Europe if an African/Asian team sets up camp in London/Portugal etc.

Ah. I'm just recalling Euro 2020. Fair point

The one element I'd suggest 26 allows (which seems self-evident, and aligned with those claims) is the possibility of wildcards, or players included for experience. It's the same (strong) argument for why 9/11/13 named subs is much better for youth development than 5 is. 13 subs doesn't guarantee that youth players will get a game, but 5 pretty much ensures they never can. Given the choice, I'd pick 26 every time. Can't see any downside, beyond higher hotel bills and three players not making the matchday squad for each game.

Surely it'll be 4? 2 in March, and 2 in June? Perhaps the calendar is too condensed, but most sides play 2 or more friendlies ahead of normal summer Championships.

Supposedly it was confirmed in mid-October (and was widely reported as such), but recent reporting implies it's not yet confirmed, It's certainly not impossible that UEFA might reverse their current stance. The BBC are reporting this week that injuries in the Premier League are up 15% year-on-year. That may be the result any number of issues (some systemic/result of additional time etc, others very much temporary such a winter World Cup). If the major competing nations start pushing for larger squads, then it might happen, otherwise 23 will be the number.

I'd tend to agree - I'd also argue that belief/confidence comes from the last year or two of results, dating all the way back to September 2021. I thought England/France was a mis-step, due to there being limited upside, made especially more difficult due to the forced changes. Nevertheless, they'll be nothing more than a footnote in history. Looking forward to the March friendlies, which - odd as it seems - I expect to be more competitive and enjoyable than these two November games were.

There's a couple of statos in here, but I'd imagine McGinn has more goals than some our entire starting XI at points in the last decade. McTominay and McGinn will have close to, or more goals than most squads we had. Of all our most likely sides, only Hickey is missing a goal now. Can't imagine he'll do a Hutton, and complete his career without at least a few. Who is our highest scoring defender ever?

That’s incredibly bad planning from their perspective. I presume he has a poor yellow card in his locker, as that pointless lunge against us on Thursday must not have been out of character. Their draw will likely be kind enough that it shouldn’t be terminal (likely Kazakhstan or Luxembourg), but they’re going to need everything they have to get past Greece.

I'd be surprised if he can make the 30 - finding another 12 against our likely opposition over the next 2-3 years could be tricky. I suspect time may just run out. I agree with the above - he's not built like McGregor who looks like he could do a Modric and play at a high level until 37/38. He's more in the Rooney-esq build, and whilst he's more disciplined, less attacking, and relies less on pace, you would think that his drop off could happen quickly. That said, though his record is 0.29 goals a game, if you remove his first 15 games before he scored and started to be used further up the pitch, it's a goal every 0.38 games. Split the difference and keep it going and he needs 36 games for another 12. Assuming he plays all our minimum number of games next year, he'll get 13 matches and would need to score 4 to stay on track. A fun consideration no doubt. The other element is that he's not a flat track bully, and tends to score single goals against decent opposition.

No England. No France please. No England because they’re just really good, have our card marked, and I just can’t be fucked with the circus that the stupid fixture creates. No France because they’re probably the best team in the world. There will be better/worse options across the rest, but if Italy can be confirmed as Pot 3 tomorrow, that would at least remove one catastrophic draw from the possibilities.

Disappointing result, but that’s partly down to the standards we’ve set in the last couple of years. The rest due to changes forced by injury, and SC making some unforced changes that proved either to be ineffective, or were as ineffective as he expected. Clark isn’t anywhere near good enough for international level. Taylor is fine if needed, but a huge drop off from Robertson/Hickey/Tierney. McLean/Armstrong absolutely fine, but I wouldn’t want to start with them. I certainly don’t want to be starting with them both or a combination of either and Jack. It’s too slow, too one-dimensional, and too easy to defend. Gilmour is streets ahead further back, and Christie/McTominay/McGinn are better in the forward position. Brown doesn’t look close to the level of Dykes or Adams. Shankland probably the best of the rest of the strikers, and probably has a role to play depending on what we need, and who we are playing. We’ve often debated 4atb/5atb, but we’ve looked very vulnerable these last two games. Difficult to know how much is due to personnel, and how much due to players not working well in the formation. 4/5 goals came from down the left, and we look a lot weaker with only two in the middle. We’ve learned a lot this last year or so. One thing we’ve yet to really resolve is an attacking option to change a game (pace/guile/dribbling?), and our current strikers just seem imperfect. There’s no ace up our sleeves currently. A Doak, Barnes, Fraser is a different type of player, and we would benefit from being able to change things. We could no doubt debate who best to play in friendlies, but we need wins and momentum so ideally a Tier 1 side can wait until June. The playoffs and Finals draw will determine how small the pool of options is for March.

No changes. What did SC see in that first half?

McLean and Armstrong in attacking areas really isn’t what any team wants. McGinn supporting Taylor well, but nothing on the right. Gilmour>Shankland>Christie on. Doig for Taylor later on.

No surprise with Brown starting. Thought the Shankland love-in over the last couple of days was a bit much. Looks like a fairly one-dimensional side. Shankland starting would mean the only pace in the side is Patterson. Would expect Shankland>Brown; Gilmour>McLean; and Ferguson>Armstrong second half. Patterson probably won’t make the full 90. Pick whoever else changes something/deserves some time. Team isn’t particularly inspirational, but that’s a combination of injuries and sharing the experience/trying something different. Would happily win by a single goal. Edit: Ryan Jack is getting on. No doubt