Ryan Gauld

[The Moonster]

10 hours ago, 53_and_counting said:

mind the absolute shambles bertie vogts inherited because the craig brown era hit their pension age and we had nothing else on the brink of coming through because brown decided that playing over 35's was a better toption because they were already in the squad

why dont scotland try something, well i dunno completely radical, miles out there, completely bonkers, and plan for the future, all we do is fight fires every qualifying campaign instead of trying to prevent the same fires cropping up in the future

the scotland squad for the recent friendlies contained 3 defenders with over 20 caps, 2 of them are 30, the next highest capped player was a 35yo with 11 caps, over the last 12 months (outwith the recent friendlies) our highest capped defenders were aged 31, 31 and 32

the only other defender selected within the last 12 months with double figure caps is robertson (who was an amateur 4 years ago) and he has 10, the rest have barely any caps between them

this scenario is repeated throught the squad (in the last 12 months we had one striker under the age of 25 yet our 3 main strikers who are all 29yo have scored a grand total of 16 goals between them)

our squad is getting older, and lets be honest arent close to qualifying for any tournament, once these guys retire for international football in say 4 or 5 years (for the majority of them) we'll then be forced into throwing inexperienced 26-29yo's into the deep end, expecting them to qualify for tournaments and the cycle will simply repeat itself

Look I think our national team could be ran in a better way, I think the sport nationally could be done in a better way. But just picking players and dropping them in when they've got the slightest potential is nonsensical. You end up, as Vogts did, with no consistency. Just teams of young players that might make it but in reality were never going to be good enough. I've no problem getting players in for experience at friendlies but when the crunch games come round you want your best players playing at the best level in our squad. At the moment that doesn't include Ryan Gauld.

[Enigma]

I think the reality is somewhere in the middle really. Calling up Greer and not playing him serves no purpose when there must surely be a player 27 or younger who could be in that squad. Same applies for a couple of other players.

I think what happened with Brown is there was a gap with players of quality coming through. I believe the players that came through in the early to mid 00s were largely great buy we were quite unfortunate. I wonder what would have happened if McFadden, Fletcher, Gordon and Brown (maybe even Kennnedy) had not had injury problems and had Riordan and O'Connor not been bams and that's before you consider the two Scottish born players who choose to play for ROI.

[RandomGuy.]

9 hours ago, DAVIDB69 said:

The dads army will all be back for the first qualifier we have an average age of pushing 30 oldest in Europe

 

 

I've absolutely no idea why the age matters tbh. Our best players get picked. Its that simple.

[haggisbeastie]

Look I think our national team could be ran in a better way, I think the sport nationally could be done in a better way. But just picking players and dropping them in when they've got the slightest potential is nonsensical. You end up, as Vogts did, with no consistency. Just teams of young players that might make it but in reality were never going to be good enough. I've no problem getting players in for experience at friendlies but when the crunch games come round you want your best players playing at the best level in our squad. At the moment that doesn't include Ryan Gauld.

What annoys me is that Gauld does not even get a chance in recent friendlies, when Strachan would rather pick average championship players, such as Craig Bryson (never going to pull up any trees) in his squad.

That was ideal opportunity. Who realky cares if he was playing in Sporting B team? That's still a higher technical level that a lot of those he did pick in the squads.

He has more ability than any of the current midfielders we have & his physical strength has significantly improved since Strachan last "spot judged" him....

[LinkinFighter]

Pick the best regardless of age, it's that simple.

[sergie's no1 fan]

It is not down to the National Manager to develop young players it's down to their respective clubs.

Throwing guys like Gauld, McGinn and Paterson in the deep end could pay off Wales style if they turn into a Gareth Bale or we could nose dive like Wales originally did and not recover. Also,Wales success has coincided with Swansea and Cardiff (for a short spell) doing well in the EPL. 

Imagine if Izzaguire didn't get injured last summer? Or if Celtic actually signed another left back, would Tierney have got a chance? Now we have 3 cracking prospects at left back.

Remember the same ones touting Jack Harper for the National team because he played with the Madrid C team are now writing him off because he plays for Brighton reserves.

[Deeboy]

He's only at Brighton because Gordon Strachan never started him.

[Dunning1874]

On 7/8/2016 at 0:22 PM, The Moonster said:

Mind that time Berti Vogts gave stars such as Steven Saunders, Kevin Kyle, Warren Cummings, Graeme Murty, Andy Gray, Robbie Stockdale & Scott Dobie caps? That really helped them go on to have sparkling Scotland careers.

Players should get in the squad if they're good enough, not because they are new or old.  Can we stop this eyesore of an argument now?

 

Completely agree, but for the sake of pedantry Saunders was actually Levein while Murty was McLeish.

As has been said a million times, Wales is a silly comparison because none of their players were picked when they were young just for the sake of picking young players. Gareth Bale was straight into the Wales team at left back as a 16 year old because he was already the best left back they had, as they were at the time one of the worst teams in Europe. It's the same with every country: Eden Hazard didn't become a guaranteed starter for Belgium at 20 because they just decided to throw youngsters in, it was because his performances at club level proved him to be Belgium's best player in his position. Prior to that, despite clearly having the potential to become a world class player, he was in and out the team with most of his competitive appearances from the bench - when his form didn't merit being picked, he wasn't. It was all based on how good he was at the time, not the potential he had.

 

In our case, Ryan Gauld isn't the best player in his position, John Souttar isn't the best player in his position, John McGinn isn't the best player in his position, therefore they aren't being picked for competitive games. The one young player who is undoubtedly our best player in his position is Andy Robertson, and it's right that we criticise Strachan when he picks clearly inferior players like Whittaker or Mulgrew ahead of him, but it's not like Robertson has been completely ignored.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Dunning1874

[sergie's no1 fan]

4 minutes ago, Deeboy said:

He's only at Brighton because Gordon Strachan never started him.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/ricky-sbragia-relives-abuse-over-jack-harper-saga-1-3864757

I blame Ricky Sbragia

[Moo]

 

Completely agree, but for the sake of pedantry Saunders was actually Levein while Murty was McLeish.

As has been said a million times, Wales is a silly comparison because none of their players were picked when they were young just for the sake of picking young players. Gareth Bale was straight into the Wales team at left back as a 16 year old because he was already the best left back they had, as they were at the time one of the worst teams in Europe. It's the same with every country: Eden Hazard didn't become a guaranteed starter for Belgium at 20 because they just decided to throw youngsters in, it was because his performances at club level proved him to be Belgium's best player in his position. Prior to that, despite clearly having the potential to become a world class player, he was in and out the team with most of his competitive appearances from the bench - when his form didn't merit being picked, he wasn't. It was all based on how good he was at the time, not the potential he had.

 

In our case, Ryan Gauld isn't the best player in his position, John Souttar isn't the best player in his position, John McGinn isn't the best player in his position, therefore they aren't being picked for competitive games. The one young player who is undoubtedly our best player in his position is Andy Robertson, and it's right that we criticise Strachan when he picks clearly inferior players like Whittaker or Mulgrew ahead of him, but it's not like Robertson has been completely ignored.

Great post.

[haggisbeastie]

 

Completely agree, but for the sake of pedantry Saunders was actually Levein while Murty was McLeish.

As has been said a million times, Wales is a silly comparison because none of their players were picked when they were young just for the sake of picking young players. Gareth Bale was straight into the Wales team at left back as a 16 year old because he was already the best left back they had, as they were at the time one of the worst teams in Europe. It's the same with every country: Eden Hazard didn't become a guaranteed starter for Belgium at 20 because they just decided to throw youngsters in, it was because his performances at club level proved him to be Belgium's best player in his position. Prior to that, despite clearly having the potential to become a world class player, he was in and out the team with most of his competitive appearances from the bench - when his form didn't merit being picked, he wasn't. It was all based on how good he was at the time, not the potential he had.

 

In our case, Ryan Gauld isn't the best player in his position, John Souttar isn't the best player in his position, John McGinn isn't the best player in his position, therefore they aren't being picked for competitive games. The one young player who is undoubtedly our best player in his position is Andy Robertson, and it's right that we criticise Strachan when he picks clearly inferior players like Whittaker or Mulgrew ahead of him, but it's not like Robertson has been completely ignored.

This is all about opinions, so I would challenge that Robertson is our best left back.

Kingsley & Tierney (maybe others) could prove themselves to be better for Scotland in the next campaign.

In addition, what specific midfield position do you see as Gaulds? I would like to understand which specific midfield players in current team are better than him?

[LinkinFighter]

He wouldn't get in our strongest 11.

[kenny131]

7 hours ago, The Grass Is Greener. said:

People keep coming out with the same shite idea, lets drop our best players for, erm, worse players.

Young players need to be introduced at the right time, throwing them in and getting hammered isn't going to be any good for their development.

The standouts or top young players should always be in the squad though I think, get them used to be around the set up. Coming on for sub appearances ect. Not just thrown in at the deep end and heaping pressure on them to save our International team. There's clearly no quick fix here but dropping everyone and playing all the young guys isn't the answer.

Throwing youth in would probably see us get a few drubbing yes I agree but over time it will reap the rewards.

 

WALES prime example humped a good few times 7 nil of Serbia but they stuck with it and believed in there plan.  

The fact they had/have a plan and belief in it has reaped rewards.  Giving debuts to 16yr old school boys ffs but they trusted in what they were trying to do.

 

What sort of plan or structure do we have.....wait till the man in each position retires from international football even though they have produced absolutely nothing.

[Mastermind]

 

Completely agree, but for the sake of pedantry Saunders was actually Levein while Murty was McLeish.

As has been said a million times, Wales is a silly comparison because none of their players were picked when they were young just for the sake of picking young players. Gareth Bale was straight into the Wales team at left back as a 16 year old because he was already the best left back they had, as they were at the time one of the worst teams in Europe. It's the same with every country: Eden Hazard didn't become a guaranteed starter for Belgium at 20 because they just decided to throw youngsters in, it was because his performances at club level proved him to be Belgium's best player in his position. Prior to that, despite clearly having the potential to become a world class player, he was in and out the team with most of his competitive appearances from the bench - when his form didn't merit being picked, he wasn't. It was all based on how good he was at the time, not the potential he had.

 

In our case, Ryan Gauld isn't the best player in his position, John Souttar isn't the best player in his position, John McGinn isn't the best player in his position, therefore they aren't being picked for competitive games. The one young player who is undoubtedly our best player in his position is Andy Robertson, and it's right that we criticise Strachan when he picks clearly inferior players like Whittaker or Mulgrew ahead of him, but it's not like Robertson has been completely ignored.

A very good post

[54_and_counting]

4 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

 

in our case, Ryan Gauld isn't the best player in his position, John Souttar isn't the best player in his position, John McGinn isn't the best player in his position, therefore they aren't being picked for competitive games. The one young player who is undoubtedly our best player in his position is Andy Robertson, and it's right that we criticise Strachan when he picks clearly inferior players like Whittaker or Mulgrew ahead of him, but it's not like Robertson has been completely ignored.

the problem is, when the next batch of international players do become the best in their position, they have absolutely no experience at that level whatsoever, and are thrown in at the deep end and told to qualify from 3rd or 4th seeds against teams that actually have a future plan

also, given scotland have watched the last 18 years of major finals on the telly, isnt it time we try something different instead of asking the same batch of failures to try again, i know the old saying is if at first you dont succeed, try again, but we are ripping the c**t out of it now lol

gauld is clearly one of the best prospects for scotlands midfield given where he is developing etc, lets get him in now (and any others that are our next best prospects) and get them started now, not when they are 26-28 and have barely any decent time in the international team to their name

[Frankie S]

Reading this forum and the TAMB, I am bemused by the, increasingly frequent, suggestion that Strachan is somehow 'holding back' a bunch of uber-talented kids, that are apparently making an irresistible case for selection, by clogging his squads up with past-it players, mainly from the much-derided English Championship. Culprits-in-chief seem to be (the currently in vogue scapegoat) Craig Bryson, who rarely makes a squad, and the even more frequently-demonised (though not much more frequently-used), Chris Martin. 

The thing about football is, it's not a conspiracy, it's a meritocracy. The market dictates that the better players will find themselves, eventually and inevitably, at the better clubs, and in their first elevens if they are good enough. The Peter Principle applies - as we've seen with Scott Brown and numerous others - players will eventually gravitate to the level of their own incompetence, and Strachan (or even the Old Fim, who I'd ordinarily happily blame for world poverty, Brexit and global warming) can hardly be blamed for restricting the progress of a golden generation of budding Scottish superstars.

If Jack Harper was the new messiah, it's almost certain that he wouldn't currently be languishing in Brighton's development squad. Similarly Gauld, GMS, Armstrong, Allan and all those other slightly-underachieving (at least compared to our inflated expectations) 'prodigies' would find their way to the top, eventually, despite the seemingly regressive influences of Strachan, the Old Fim and the wider Conspiracy of Restricted Opportunities that seems, uniquely, to afflict Scottish players.

It is simply not in Strachan's best interests not to select the best available players, just as it is not in the interests of professional football clubs not to sign the best available players, consistent with their budget, and then play them, if they are good enough.

If Scottish players were consistently under-valued by the market, they would represent excellent value to potential clubs, become increasingly attractive commodities and the market would adjust accordingly, resulting in more Scottish players rising to the top levels of the game. The fact that so few have done so in the last 20 years, suggests that the hardly-booming market in Scottish players is a fairly reliable indicator of limited value.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Frankie S

[Dunning1874]

13 hours ago, 53_and_counting said:

the problem is, when the next batch of international players do become the best in their position, they have absolutely no experience at that level whatsoever, and are thrown in at the deep end and told to qualify from 3rd or 4th seeds against teams that actually have a future plan

also, given scotland have watched the last 18 years of major finals on the telly, isnt it time we try something different instead of asking the same batch of failures to try again, i know the old saying is if at first you dont succeed, try again, but we are ripping the c**t out of it now lol

gauld is clearly one of the best prospects for scotlands midfield given where he is developing etc, lets get him in now (and any others that are our next best prospects) and get them started now, not when they are 26-28 and have barely any decent time in the international team to their name

That's the thing, it's not like players should be having no competitive experience at all by the time they become first team regulars. If you're thinking ahead to the 2020 campaign by which point the likes of Brown, Hutton, Martin, Maloney, Morrison & Darren Fletcher will be retired and looking at who's going to replace them, it should be a gradual process rather than just launching someone in at the deep end.

Taking Gauld as the example, if he's going to be good enough to be part of our strongest XI by the 2020 qualifying campaign, you'd expect him to perform at club level and be good enough to be making squads over the course of the 2018 campaign. That will bring sub appearances and potentially starts when better players are injured, giving him some experience prior to becoming a regular. If he's not good enough to get any game time throughout the whole 2018 campaign, the chances of him suddenly improving so much he'll be thrust into the starting eleven for the following campaign are extremely slim.

This isn't a Brown to Vogts scenario where we're going to have to blood close to an entire squad over the course of one campaign. Of the current regular starters Marshall has another couple of campaigns in him, Ritchie is 26, Hanley is only 24, Robertson is only 22, there are plenty of players 28 or under who have been in and around the squad getting caps and can feature for at least another two campaigns.

Additionally, if a lack of experience is such a concern and we want to avoid throwing players in at the deep end, surely that's even more of a reason to gradually introduce the likes of Gauld, McGinn and Watt alongside more experienced players rather than ditching everyone over the age of 28 at once?

[kenny131]

15 hours ago, Frankie S said:

Reading this forum and the TAMB, I am bemused by the, increasingly frequent, suggestion that Strachan is somehow 'holding back' a bunch of uber-talented kids, that are apparently making an irresistible case for selection, by clogging his squads up with past-it players, mainly from the much-derided English Championship. Culprits-in-chief seem to be (the currently in vogue scapegoat) Craig Bryson, who rarely makes a squad, and the even more frequently-demonised (though not much more frequently-used), Chris Martin. 

The thing about football is, it's not a conspiracy, it's a meritocracy. The market dictates that the better players will find themselves, eventually and inevitably, at the better clubs, and in their first elevens if they are good enough. The Peter Principle applies - as we've seen with Scott Brown and numerous others - players will eventually gravitate to the level of their own incompetence, and Strachan (or even the Old Fim, who I'd ordinarily happily blame for world poverty, Brexit and global warming) can hardly be blamed for restricting the progress of a golden generation of budding Scottish superstars.

If Jack Harper was the new messiah, it's almost certain that he wouldn't currently be languishing in Brighton's development squad. Similarly Gauld, GMS, Armstrong, Allan and all those other slightly-underachieving (at least compared to our inflated expectations) 'prodigies' would find their way to the top, eventually, despite the seemingly regressive influences of Strachan, the Old Fim and the wider Conspiracy of Restricted Opportunities that seems, uniquely, to afflict Scottish players.

It is simply not in Strachan's best interests not to select the best available players, just as it is not in the interests of professional football clubs not to sign the best available players, consistent with their budget, and then play them, if they are good enough.

If Scottish players were consistently under-valued by the market, they would represent excellent value to potential clubs, become increasingly attractive commodities and the market would adjust accordingly, resulting in more Scottish players rising to the top levels of the game. The fact that so few have done so in the last 20 years, suggests that the hardly-booming market in Scottish players is a fairly reliable indicator of limited value.

Ross mccormack sold for 11million,  Rhodes 9m,   how much would Griffiths be worth 500k max.  Those first 2 can't get a sniff when they are clearly better than Griffiths and heeehaawww Martin.

Your point pished out the water.

[54_and_counting]

2 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

That's the thing, it's not like players should be having no competitive experience at all by the time they become first team regulars. If you're thinking ahead to the 2020 campaign by which point the likes of Brown, Hutton, Martin, Maloney, Morrison & Darren Fletcher will be retired and looking at who's going to replace them, it should be a gradual process rather than just launching someone in at the deep end.

Taking Gauld as the example, if he's going to be good enough to be part of our strongest XI by the 2020 qualifying campaign, you'd expect him to perform at club level and be good enough to be making squads over the course of the 2018 campaign. That will bring sub appearances and potentially starts when better players are injured, giving him some experience prior to becoming a regular. If he's not good enough to get any game time throughout the whole 2018 campaign, the chances of him suddenly improving so much he'll be thrust into the starting eleven for the following campaign are extremely slim.

This isn't a Brown to Vogts scenario where we're going to have to blood close to an entire squad over the course of one campaign. Of the current regular starters Marshall has another couple of campaigns in him, Ritchie is 26, Hanley is only 24, Robertson is only 22, there are plenty of players 28 or under who have been in and around the squad getting caps and can feature for at least another two campaigns.

Additionally, if a lack of experience is such a concern and we want to avoid throwing players in at the deep end, surely that's even more of a reason to gradually introduce the likes of Gauld, McGinn and Watt alongside more experienced players rather than ditching everyone over the age of 28 at once?

nobody is saying ditch all the over 28's, maybe the over 32's lol, but this is really about gauld, no one else, sporting lisbon have a fantastic record of young players, the fact they chose to spend 3million was it? on a scottish boy instead of one of their own tells us what they think of gaulds prospects, we should try and get the lad experience the now instead of waiting till he's 26 and throwing him in at the deep end

hell even the gibralter competitive, sure its basically a training session on the park, but why did we start with so many seasoned veterans in a meaningless game, 3 or 4 of our best future prospects, and im not meaning the current young guys getting game time like robertson etc, i mean the 4 best guys in the u21's should have started that game, let them see what the full squad pre is like, matchdays etc

 

[RandomGuy.]

26 minutes ago, 53_and_counting said:

 

hell even the gibralter competitive, sure its basically a training session on the park, but why did we start with so many seasoned veterans in a meaningless game, 3 or 4 of our best future prospects, and im not meaning the current young guys getting game time like robertson etc, i mean the 4 best guys in the u21's should have started that game, let them see what the full squad pre is like, matchdays etc

 

Because Gibraltar are better than most U21 International sides, and gave Germany a proper fucking scare. Whats the point in taking any risks in a type of match where we're notorious for fucking up?

Gauld will be waned in, as will the rest of the younger players, over the course of the next three years. This is how it works. You don't have a squad of 23 who all vanish at the same time and need replaced.