Scotlands last genuine world class player?

[YassinMoutaouakil]

Alex Ferguson has said that he only ever had 4 WORLD CLASS players during his time at United: Cantona, Ronaldo, Giggs and Scholesunsurprisingly no mention of Darren Fletcher in this group

He then added that he had great players who werent quite at the level of the previous 4: Rooney, Beckham, Keane, Schmichael, Tevez and Ferdinandunsurprisingly no mention of Darren Fletcher once again.

Face facts Darren Fletcher has never been, never will, and never even approached any reasonable definition of world class and doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as any of the previous players.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34311859

Paul Scholes

[Swampy]

Steven fletcher passed to anya a year n bit ago......hes therefore world class n no one is allowed to doubt debate or argue this point he will lead us to the euros despite idiots wanting forwards who play regularly n score goals every week

Another TAMB bumpkin found. Please stop posting here and go back there, at least until you learn how to read. Nobody is calling Fletcher world class.

[Swampy]

It is a serious point: the quality of this subforum has decreased markedly since the TAMB hillbillies found their way over. What was once a world-class forum has now been diluted by complete doylums. It's fair to say we've barely had a world-class thread since 2010 or so.

[dogmc]

Another TAMB bumpkin found. Please stop posting here and go back there, at least until you learn how to read. Nobody is calling Fletcher world class.

Aye right you are chief....fwiw I've never been on tamb and as for my ability to read....I've certainly failed to read the announcement that you were in charge of giving permission to people who want to post....as it goes it goes I reckon I'll post whenever I fancy and if you don't like that feel free to make use of the ignore function. I was clearly being sarcastic on the fletcher being world class issue to highlight that there are some who cling to the odd shred of decent play in the past to justify his selection now when he is desperately lacking in fitness form and confidence. He was a liability in the last cpl of games and whatever flaws our other forwards have I fail to see how any of them could have been a poorer option. Despite this some still won't see past him and your hysterical reaction merely highlights the point I was making

[forameus]

Aye right you are chief....fwiw I've never been on tamb and as for my ability to read....I've certainly failed to read the announcement that you were in charge of giving permission to people who want to post....as it goes it goes I reckon I'll post whenever I fancy and if you don't like that feel free to make use of the ignore function. I was clearly being sarcastic on the fletcher being world class issue to highlight that there are some who cling to the odd shred of decent play in the past to justify his selection now when he is desperately lacking in fitness form and confidence. He was a liability in the last cpl of games and whatever flaws our other forwards have I fail to see how any of them could have been a poorer option. Despite this some still won't see past him and your hysterical reaction merely highlights the point I was making

Liability suggests he was actively hindering the team. For use in a sentence, see "James Forrest was a liability against Germany". Fletcher didn't have a good game against Georgia. But then again, and this is super important, everyone on the pitch was shit, nullified by a Georgia side that played their part perfectly. He did his job well enough against Germany, infinitely better than a few days earlier.

If you can't see why he's the best option we've got, then you're not looking hard enough. So I'll say it again. WGS wants us to play a certain way. That way maximises the chances of our best players - our midfielders - having an impact on the game. It leaves two players to shield our relatively weak back 4, with three further forward as our main attacking input. Ahead of those 3, you sit a forward whose role it is to bring the three behind into the game. I know that doesn't fit into the 1980s version of a striker, but them's the breaks.

It would be all well and good if we had some hot-shot striker who was banging them in at EPL level. Someone who wanted to get in behind at every opportunity and make runs. Oh no, wait, it wouldn't, because we don't really have the players to make use of that. If we had a creative playmaker who could pick out runs in behind, this hypothetical player would be great. I could even see Griffiths being useful in that role. But we don't have those players. We have Maloney, Naismith, Ritchie, Anya, Morrison etc. They're much better served by someone like Fletcher who can bring them into the game.

Griffiths cannot do that, at least not as well as Fletcher.

Rhodes cannot do that, and Griffiths is a lot more mobile than he is, despite Rhodes, IMO, being a better finisher.

Chris Martin could do it with his physical presence, but hasn't so far.

Surely that's not too hard to see, right? It's pretty basic stuff.

And to close, I'd say that yes, I'd much rather point to "shreds of decent play" (you know, against the two best teams in our group) than just demand anyone but him. Because everyone knows what'll happen - the next guy that comes in will just get the same treatment when he fails to score 500 goals in qualifying.

Edited September 25, 2015 by forameus

[Gordopolis]

Liability suggests he was actively hindering the team. For use in a sentence, see "James Forrest was a liability against Germany". Fletcher didn't have a good game against Georgia. But then again, and this is super important, everyone on the pitch was shit, nullified by a Georgia side that played their part perfectly. He did his job well enough against Germany, infinitely better than a few days earlier.

If you can't see why he's the best option we've got, then you're not looking hard enough. So I'll say it again. WGS wants us to play a certain way. That way maximises the chances of our best players - our midfielders - having an impact on the game. It leaves two players to shield our relatively weak back 4, with three further forward as our main attacking input. Ahead of those 3, you sit a forward whose role it is to bring the three behind into the game. I know that doesn't fit into the 1980s version of a striker, but them's the breaks.

It would be all well and good if we had some hot-shot striker who was banging them in at EPL level. Someone who wanted to get in behind at every opportunity and make runs. Oh no, wait, it wouldn't, because we don't really have the players to make use of that. If we had a creative playmaker who could pick out runs in behind, this hypothetical player would be great. I could even see Griffiths being useful in that role. But we don't have those players. We have Maloney, Naismith, Ritchie, Anya, Morrison etc. They're much better served by someone like Fletcher who can bring them into the game.

Griffiths cannot do that, at least not as well as Fletcher.

Rhodes cannot do that, and Griffiths is a lot more mobile than he is, despite Rhodes, IMO, being a better finisher.

Chris Martin could do it with his physical presence, but hasn't so far.

Surely that's not too hard to see, right? It's pretty basic stuff.

And to close, I'd say that yes, I'd much rather point to "shreds of decent play" (you know, against the two best teams in our group) than just demand anyone but him. Because everyone knows what'll happen - the next guy that comes in will just get the same treatment when he fails to score 500 goals in qualifying.

Nicely, if sarcastically, explained.

I 'understand' the System ©, though I'm not as enamoured by it as some seem to be. Yes, we've made a decent fist of contending for 3rd place with it, but it's all been a bit desperate at times, with a fair few trundling OGs winning or snatching draws for us. I'd buy into it more if the three behind had a decent tally to balance out Fletcher's zero goals (leaving Gibraltar out of it), but instead we have (again leaving Gibraltar out of the equation):

Anya: 1 goal

Maloney: 2 goals

Naismith: 1 goal

OG: 3 goals

That's very poor IMO. I don't expect each of them to be in double figures, but that tally above is really bare minimum stuff.

It kind of feels to me like the System (Ltd) is:

a) easier on the eye than the Levein tosh

b) more steady than the Levein era (not hard to achieve)

but

c) while we have the players we do, it'll never be more than a treading water approach.

Going for something bolder would be a massive risk and could shatter the morale (though that's already feeling a bit shaky) that WGS has built up.

I'd still love to see us develop the 4-4-1-1 that saw us play Croatia off the park 2-0, Naismith and Snodgrass linking up as the two forward players. That just felt a lot more dangerous without being a massive shift from the 4-2-3-1... probably because it meant that at least one striker could spend his time looking forward while the other offered the defensive/hold up stuff.

[Swampy]

Aye right you are chief....fwiw I've never been on tamb and as for my ability to read....I've certainly failed to read the announcement that you were in charge of giving permission to people who want to post....as it goes it goes I reckon I'll post whenever I fancy and if you don't like that feel free to make use of the ignore function. I was clearly being sarcastic on the fletcher being world class issue to highlight that there are some who cling to the odd shred of decent play in the past to justify his selection now when he is desperately lacking in fitness form and confidence. He was a liability in the last cpl of games and whatever flaws our other forwards have I fail to see how any of them could have been a poorer option. Despite this some still won't see past him and your hysterical reaction merely highlights the point I was making

Yes, clearly I'm the hysterical one here.

Fletcher is a good player who has a proven track record of making the difference against stronger teams in our group. He's never been a 'liability' for Scotland. Yes, his confidence is shot and he's probably not match sharp, that is very true, so Naismith will probably get the nod, but the reason that Fletcher continues to rank above the likes of Rhodes and whatever Aberdeen player you presumably want to see called up is that he's simply miles better.

[killienick]

I will get some slagging for this but, IMO mainly from the type of people who get their footie information from Facebook.

Gary Mcallister is among the best players to have played for Scotland in the last 20 years. He was unfairly targeted by some for poor team performances but he was played out of position for Scotland and was surrounded by some really rank players.

Anyone who thinks he was pap really doesn't understand football.

[Swampy]

Does anyone think McAllister was pap?

[forameus]

Nicely, if sarcastically, explained.

I 'understand' the System ©, though I'm not as enamoured by it as some seem to be. Yes, we've made a decent fist of contending for 3rd place with it, but it's all been a bit desperate at times, with a fair few trundling OGs winning or snatching draws for us. I'd buy into it more if the three behind had a decent tally to balance out Fletcher's zero goals (leaving Gibraltar out of it), but instead we have (again leaving Gibraltar out of the equation):

Anya: 1 goal

Maloney: 2 goals

Naismith: 1 goal

OG: 3 goals

That's very poor IMO. I don't expect each of them to be in double figures, but that tally above is really bare minimum stuff.

It kind of feels to me like the System (Ltd) is:

a) easier on the eye than the Levein tosh

b) more steady than the Levein era (not hard to achieve)

but

c) while we have the players we do, it'll never be more than a treading water approach.

Going for something bolder would be a massive risk and could shatter the morale (though that's already feeling a bit shaky) that WGS has built up.

I'd still love to see us develop the 4-4-1-1 that saw us play Croatia off the park 2-0, Naismith and Snodgrass linking up as the two forward players. That just felt a lot more dangerous without being a massive shift from the 4-2-3-1... probably because it meant that at least one striker could spend his time looking forward while the other offered the defensive/hold up stuff.

I'm not really enamoured by the system, just I can see why it's considered our best one. We should always have a plan B, and a plan C even to back it up. Not convinced we have that, but then the only two times we've actually properly needed a plan B, I'm not sure it would've helped anyway. Ireland is probably the strongest case. We should have won that one. Georgia...well, I think whatever plan we changed to, it would've made no difference. Georgia played 100% to perfection, and showed exactly how a severely limited side should. They did us good and proper. Plan B, C, D, straight through to Z would've probably been useless against Germany (twice) and Poland. Plus I'd argue that plan A didn't do too badly there.

You make a fair point about the goal tally. BUT, if you lump MacArthur in there, then our midfielders have scored all of our goals in competitive games this campaign, excluding the three own goals, and Fletcher's three (because he's pure shit ken). I also think discounting the own goals is slightly harsh. Maloney's against Ireland wasn't going in, but it's still creating danger. The Germany one was an extremely dangerous ball. I can't quite remember the Georgia one though. So with our midfielders contributing over half of our goals, and Fletcher with the remaining ones that weren't OGs, I don't think it's that bad. We don't score enough though, and we've always struggled with that.

I wouldn't be anywhere near against small changes in THESYSTEM. 4-4-1-1 isn't a massive shift away like you say, although to be honest at times we already play that with one of the forward three staying up to support while the others drop back. Minor tweaks are fine.

[John Lambies Doos]

Does anyone think McAllister was pap?

Nope. But he did miss that pen. Grrrrr

[MarkoRaj]

Nicely, if sarcastically, explained.

I 'understand' the System ©, though I'm not as enamoured by it as some seem to be. Yes, we've made a decent fist of contending for 3rd place with it, but it's all been a bit desperate at times, with a fair few trundling OGs winning or snatching draws for us. I'd buy into it more if the three behind had a decent tally to balance out Fletcher's zero goals (leaving Gibraltar out of it), but instead we have (again leaving Gibraltar out of the equation):

Anya: 1 goal

Maloney: 2 goals

Naismith: 1 goal

OG: 3 goals

That's very poor IMO. I don't expect each of them to be in double figures, but that tally above is really bare minimum stuff.

It kind of feels to me like the System (Ltd) is:

a) easier on the eye than the Levein tosh

b) more steady than the Levein era (not hard to achieve)

but

c) while we have the players we do, it'll never be more than a treading water approach.

Going for something bolder would be a massive risk and could shatter the morale (though that's already feeling a bit shaky) that WGS has built up.

I'd still love to see us develop the 4-4-1-1 that saw us play Croatia off the park 2-0, Naismith and Snodgrass linking up as the two forward players. That just felt a lot more dangerous without being a massive shift from the 4-2-3-1... probably because it meant that at least one striker could spend his time looking forward while the other offered the defensive/hold up stuff.

Naismith missed 3 sitters against Georgia. I wish people would stop holding him up as the answer to our problems because he isn't that prolific either

[Gordopolis]

Naismith missed 3 sitters against Georgia. I wish people would stop holding him up as the answer to our problems because he isn't that prolific either

I don't remember him missing 3 sitters in that game but I agree he's never going to be our goalscorer (5 in 39 caps sounds terrible, tho most of those caps he's played off the front or on the wing).

my point with the 4411 is that you can afford have one of the front two being slightly off it on terms of sharpshooting. I'd see Naismith as the more withdrawn of the two (but with interchange when opportunities arise) as he can disrupt opposition defences very effectively, making space for others.

[Monkey Tennis]

Paul Scholes

Scholes was a magnificent footballer.

The notion of ranking Fletcher alongside him is hilarious.

[Monkey Tennis]

He was before my time, but I suppose Steve Archibald might be in with a shout. A league title with Aberdeen, two FA Cups and the Cup Winners' Cup with Spurs and La Liga and a European Cup runners-up medal with Barca - not a bad haul, really. Am I right in thinking Barca signed him to replace Maradona? If so, that speaks volumes for how he was rated at the time.

This is intended as a comic offering, I take it?

And he didn't win the Cup Winners' Cup. Spurs won the UEFA Cup in 1984, which is presumably what you're referring to.

[YassinMoutaouakil]

Scholes was a magnificent footballer.The notion of ranking Fletcher alongside him is hilarious.

Do you happen to be ginger?

[Monkey Tennis]

Do you happen to be ginger?

No, no I don't.

I do however happen to be someone who can recognise genuine class, as well as its absence, in footballers.

[Gordopolis]

No, no I don't.

Hmm. And what are your thoughts on Ed Sheeran - world class musician?

[Monkey Tennis]

Hmm. And what are your thoughts on Ed Sheeran - world class musician?

Nah, not a fan.

[Gordopolis]

Nah, not a fan.

Well played. Now I can't tell if you're not a ginger, or just a tactically astute ginger.