Striking Options

[forameus]

2 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

I wouldn't say it's all his fault, but he's the main reason.  I'd say about 80% of it.  Glad you agree with the majority on here on that point.

It's like your posts are coming out of some P+B generator.  It's cute.

Most will be familiar with who I'd assign blame to for the last couple of years.  I'd say it again, but I wouldn't want you completely seething that I like to believe players should be more accountable when they put in lamentable performances, not just a manager you don't like.

[54_and_counting]

53 minutes ago, forameus said:

The wonderful thing about the "wanting to win" argument is that it's effectively unable to be proved.  That way it can be trotted out to suit arguments about how awful we are, or mainly how awful Strachan is.  Because, I mean, Ireland beat Germany when they weren't expected to, and we didn't, so obviously they wanted to win and we didn't.

It couldn't possibly be that we wanted to as well, but just weren't up to it.  I must have imagined us coming from behind (twice) against the World Champions, particularly after a result that, at that point in particular, looked like it would completely sink our entire campaign.  

But aye, we just didn't want to win.  It's all Strachan's fault.  Etc etc.

If we wanted to win and "just weren't up to it" then are we not better trying to find players that might actually be up to it? Because turning a tight loss against big teams into a point or 3 might just be the result that gets us qualifying or even playoff slots 

[forameus]

8 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

If we wanted to win and "just weren't up to it" then are we not better trying to find players that might actually be up to it? Because turning a tight loss against big teams into a point or 3 might just be the result that gets us qualifying or even playoff slots 

So who was missing from the squad that faced Georgia and Germany then that was so much better and would have given those pesky Germans the bloody nose we wanted to give them then?

It's all very well saying "let's go find better players", but that's an incredibly empty statement.  Who are these better players?  Who should have been called up?

[TheScarf]

19 minutes ago, forameus said:

It's like your posts are coming out of some P+B generator.  It's cute.

Most will be familiar with who I'd assign blame to for the last couple of years.  I'd say it again, but I wouldn't want you completely seething that I like to believe players should be more accountable when they put in lamentable performances, not just a manager you don't like.

Well no, Scotland have better players than at least 3 of the teams who made it to France.  So they're not really the problem are they?  The way they're motivated and the formations and mind set instilled in them is.

You and that Arbroath/Celtic fan just don't want to admit where the problem lies.  You're another who gets roundly ridiculed on Scotland threads.

[Officer Barbrady]

1 hour ago, forameus said:

The wonderful thing about the "wanting to win" argument is that it's effectively unable to be proved.  That way it can be trotted out to suit arguments about how awful we are, or mainly how awful Strachan is.  Because, I mean, Ireland beat Germany when they weren't expected to, and we didn't, so obviously they wanted to win and we didn't.

It couldn't possibly be that we wanted to as well, but just weren't up to it.  I must have imagined us coming from behind (twice) against the World Champions, particularly after a result that, at that point in particular, looked like it would completely sink our entire campaign.  

But aye, we just didn't want to win.  It's all Strachan's fault.  Etc etc.

When was the last time we actually led the top seed in our group (discounting Croatia, as they were friendlies given our exit) never mind 'coming back against'...France? Then before that, the Czechs away? I accept that this makes the argument look like a player mentality issue more than managerial ineptitude, but only Brown, Fletcher and Gordon played in Paris nine years ago.....this mindset has been inherited, and pointedly not dealt with, due to the arrogance of managers and players believing the 'other', 'lesser' teams are there to be rolled over.

 

The players of course are the only constant here, and yes they need to be brought to task over repeated failure.....yet, we continue hearing of why its so important to build a system to shield these poor wee lambs from the harsh reality of the sport which pays them astronomically well. It's easier to blame the manager, and sack him....it works more often than trying to find twenty new players who don't exist. 

[MarkoRaj]

I was referencing the Germany games.  Jesus, you're having a disaster here. 

So they only wanted to win the Germany game? Or they looked like the wanted to win the Germany game? But they didn't look like they wanted to win the game against us, or they looked like they were set up not to?

You are an idiot

[TheScarf]

7 minutes ago, MarkoRaj said:

 

So they only wanted to win the Germany game? Or they looked like the wanted to win the Germany game? But they didn't look like they wanted to win the game against us, or they looked like they were set up not to?

You are an idiot

 

A potential detachment of cranium from shoulders from this guy, lads.  The personal insults have begun.  All because two posters called you out on your bizarre claims.

[forameus]

48 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

Well no, Scotland have better players than at least 3 of the teams who made it to France.  So they're not really the problem are they?  The way they're motivated and the formations and mind set instilled in them is.

You and that Arbroath/Celtic fan just don't want to admit where the problem lies.  You're another who gets roundly ridiculed on Scotland threads.

Roundly ridiculed 

People disagree with me, I've no issue with that, but ridicule?  Jesus, take things a little less seriously for a change.  It seems that it really matters to you.  That's a wee shame.

34 minutes ago, Officer Barbrady said:

When was the last time we actually led the top seed in our group (discounting Croatia, as they were friendlies given our exit) never mind 'coming back against'...France? Then before that, the Czechs away? I accept that this makes the argument look like a player mentality issue more than managerial ineptitude, but only Brown, Fletcher and Gordon played in Paris nine years ago.....this mindset has been inherited, and pointedly not dealt with, due to the arrogance of managers and players believing the 'other', 'lesser' teams are there to be rolled over.

 

The players of course are the only constant here, and yes they need to be brought to task over repeated failure.....yet, we continue hearing of why its so important to build a system to shield these poor wee lambs from the harsh reality of the sport which pays them astronomically well. It's easier to blame the manager, and sack him....it works more often than trying to find twenty new players who don't exist. 

I see your point, but only including leading those teams is a bit misleading (no pun intended).  I'd say we looked alright against Germany both times, considering they were world champions, but some absolutely woeful defending cost us both times.  Is the fact that we battled back twice to draw level at Hampden any better or worse than being pegged back twice?  Maybe slightly worse, but there's not much in it.  In fact, it'd probably show more character than had we been pegged back ourselves twice.  It's splitting hairs though.

One final point on that though, I don't see anything inherently wrong with having the games against the top seeds not being the key ones.  If we were second seeds, brilliant.  We should be looking to those ones as our bread and butter.  But are we really looking to the next campaign and drawing big circles around the England games as must-win?  Maybe a poor example, and obviously we're going to go out there with the will to win, but losing to top seeds has never really been where we've fallen over, has it?  I find it hard to complain about what happened against Germany when we failed to beat Georgia.  We could say that it was poor we didn't beat Spain when we had a chance at Hampden, but then that was the group where Levein laid down and treated the Czech's like they were far, far better than they were.  Once we start sweeping aside the teams in pots 4-6, we can concentrate on the pot 2 team, make sure we beat them more often than they do us.  For example, it would be brilliant if we beat England home and away, but if we lose away to the lesser teams, it's not going to matter.  Just like if we beat Georgia, the impact of other results - particularly Ireland in Germany - lessens massively.

I understand why the manager gets it more often than not, but it doesn't mean I agree with it.  You say it's easier to blame and sack him, and you're right, but it still doesn't make it the right decision.  If we fail to do anything better than a narrow failure to qualify in the next group, Strachan will be out, no question.  Then we'll probably scrabble about, appoint someone that seems pretty positive early on, before we struggle, and a lot turn on him.  And to be honest, your final sentence is probably one of the most spot-on ones there's been on here in a while unfortunately.  Strachan will most likely pay for it with his job in a year or so (oh noes, negativity!  For the benefit of dear Kenny, I dearly hope I'm wrong, but I can be pragmatic) and that'll be that.  On to the next sacrifice.

[1320Lichtie]

We won't want to win against England just like we didn't want to win against Germany

Lol

[Officer Barbrady]

21 minutes ago, forameus said:

Roundly ridiculed 

People disagree with me, I've no issue with that, but ridicule?  Jesus, take things a little less seriously for a change.  It seems that it really matters to you.  That's a wee shame.

I see your point, but only including leading those teams is a bit misleading (no pun intended).  I'd say we looked alright against Germany both times, considering they were world champions, but some absolutely woeful defending cost us both times.  Is the fact that we battled back twice to draw level at Hampden any better or worse than being pegged back twice?  Maybe slightly worse, but there's not much in it.  In fact, it'd probably show more character than had we been pegged back ourselves twice.  It's splitting hairs though.

One final point on that though, I don't see anything inherently wrong with having the games against the top seeds not being the key ones.  If we were second seeds, brilliant.  We should be looking to those ones as our bread and butter.  But are we really looking to the next campaign and drawing big circles around the England games as must-win?  Maybe a poor example, and obviously we're going to go out there with the will to win, but losing to top seeds has never really been where we've fallen over, has it?  I find it hard to complain about what happened against Germany when we failed to beat Georgia.  We could say that it was poor we didn't beat Spain when we had a chance at Hampden, but then that was the group where Levein laid down and treated the Czech's like they were far, far better than they were.  Once we start sweeping aside the teams in pots 4-6, we can concentrate on the pot 2 team, make sure we beat them more often than they do us.  For example, it would be brilliant if we beat England home and away, but if we lose away to the lesser teams, it's not going to matter.  Just like if we beat Georgia, the impact of other results - particularly Ireland in Germany - lessens massively.

I understand why the manager gets it more often than not, but it doesn't mean I agree with it.  You say it's easier to blame and sack him, and you're right, but it still doesn't make it the right decision.  If we fail to do anything better than a narrow failure to qualify in the next group, Strachan will be out, no question.  Then we'll probably scrabble about, appoint someone that seems pretty positive early on, before we struggle, and a lot turn on him.  And to be honest, your final sentence is probably one of the most spot-on ones there's been on here in a while unfortunately.  Strachan will most likely pay for it with his job in a year or so (oh noes, negativity!  For the benefit of dear Kenny, I dearly hope I'm wrong, but I can be pragmatic) and that'll be that.  On to the next sacrifice.

The reasoning behind treating the games against the top pot of teams as the same as the bottom pot, is because a) few teams elsewhere prioritise results in that manner, and b) the gap isn't so huge it requires a different mindset. Of course no two games are the same, but there is an enormous duplicity in how we approach games. When expected to win (Georgia at home especially) they looked a bag of nerves.....contrast this obvious lack of belief in the team, when the manager changes his entire MO based on the opponents. Even if and when we acquire newer, better players, the lack of playing identity is bound to dispirit those who either don't get to play their natural game, if they play at all. 

 

Every Scotland game should be treated as must-win. England, or San Marino, in my opinion it makes no difference. The crucial.point here, is that you could ask, did the South or Poland circle Germany as must win games? I'll bet you my fucking house that they did. Perhaps the fixtures fell kindly for them, getting them at home on matchdays 2 and 9, but still....everyone knew how tight that group was, and arguably we had anadvantage in that by the time we faced the Germans, it probably was must-win for us too. 

 

I don't think it's misleading to only highlight leading in three or four matches over 17 years against top-seeds (i forget if it was Belgium or Croatia in 2001?) when we have come back from conceding against this quality of opponent almost a dozen times in that period. Character, yes....foresight, no. We've looked like a bunch of strangers against these sides, then turned into the fucking Hurricanes for ten minutes, which as a tactic, certainly fucks with opponents heads a good bit....Pique and Hummels went to pieces as a result of the turnarounds, but both still walked out with the three points. If the players are as limited as we, and more importantly they are told, then they need to be armed with more ammunition, not less....and a manager's belief would supply that. That's why Eire score goals in the 95th minute of every second match, and it's usually us who concede at that point in the match. 

[54_and_counting]

1 hour ago, forameus said:

So who was missing from the squad that faced Georgia and Germany then that was so much better and would have given those pesky Germans the bloody nose we wanted to give them then?

It's all very well saying "let's go find better players", but that's an incredibly empty statement.  Who are these better players?  Who should have been called up?

who knows, we'll never know who's good enough to be up for it against the top dogs because we continue to use players that have been knocked down to levels where "try your best and dont worry" is deemed acceptable

is it the manager? or is it the players? we didnt fear the french in paris when faddy battered in that screamer, f**k we even went to wembley in the playoffs and beat them (yeah we still lost overall but we didnt just roll over and take it up the arse)

we either have a bad manager who cannot get the players up for a fight, or we have a group of players so resigned to being the bitches of the top dogs, and given the current lot are on their 4th manager and have steadily gotten worse over the years, id argue that the players just dont have the mentality anymore to get the results we require

honest question here, in a must win game against ANY half decent side (none of this gibraltar pish) do you trust the current squad to get the win we require?

[Officer Barbrady]

1 hour ago, 1320Lichtie said:

We won't want to win against England just like we didn't want to win against Germany

Lol

Let me nip this in the bud, right away. It's one thing wanting to win....but the preparation, planning and attitude displayed, makes it crystal clear that it's not seen as an achievable target in those games. And the fact other teams do see them as winnable, sets us further back than ever, and also makes a mockery of the notion we shouldn't 'do what other teams do'. It's football, not nuclear fucking science. 

[1320Lichtie]

Let me nip this in the bud, right away. It's one thing wanting to win....but the preparation, planning and attitude displayed, makes it crystal clear that it's not seen as an achievable target in those games. And the fact other teams do see them as winnable, sets us further back than ever, and also makes a mockery of the notion we shouldn't 'do what other teams do'. It's football, not nuclear fucking science. 

Ok then....

Think foreamus already showed the stats from the games Ireland played against them

You're havering utter shite. I was at both games and I was actually surprised at how much we went for it in Germany, at Hampden though Germany just turned up and absolutely blitzed it, still managed to score 2 mind you

[Officer Barbrady]

Germany blitzed f**k all. They never got out of second gear, because they never had to....we're the dicks for not exploiting it. As for 'going for it', have a day off would you. Perhaps not conceding shite goals, might make three goals against the World champions worth something other than getting misty-eyed about. 

 

If we were so great in those two games, we should be perhaps more annoyed at the failure then....but, in hindsight, perhaps those performances were because the pressure was off....like it is in friendlies. Because that's how they're treated. 

 

[54_and_counting]

1 hour ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

 

Ok then....

Think foreamus already showed the stats from the games Ireland played against them

You're havering utter shite. I was at both games and I was actually surprised at how much we went for it in Germany, at Hampden though Germany just turned up and absolutely blitzed it, still managed to score 2 mind you

stats mean f**k all, if thats the case then half the scotland squad arent good enough right now, mind how stats were tossed out the window in the fletcher v rhodes debate

as it stands, ireland had the belief in the 90th minute they could still nick the winner against the germans, can you imagine us acting the same in that situation , we'd be hiring bricklayers to build a wall in front of our goal in a desperate attempt to nick a point

[F_T_Y]

McCormack off the mark with his first goal for villa.

[kenny131]

42 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

stats mean f**k all, if thats the case then half the scotland squad arent good enough right now, mind how stats were tossed out the window in the fletcher v rhodes debate

as it stands, ireland had the belief in the 90th minute they could still nick the winner against the germans, can you imagine us acting the same in that situation , we'd be hiring bricklayers to build a wall in front of our goal in a desperate attempt to nick a point

This sums up our mentality over the last few decades,  unless were playing total minnows like GIBRALTAR our mentality is try to nick the 1st goal then shut up shop and hope we don't concede. The last time I seen us go at a team from 1st minute till last was our qualifying game against Latvia when we destroyed them.  Since then against teams of that ilk were so parinod about not winning were shite

[RandomGuy.]

No International team on the planet goes all out attack from the first minute. Literally of them understand that the team that scores first generally wins the match.

[1320Lichtie]

No International team on the planet goes all out attack from the first minute. Literally of them understand that the team that scores first generally wins the match.

Exactly

It's fucking mental

Scotland fans are absolutely deluded

[Officer Barbrady]

38 minutes ago, kenny131 said:

This sums up our mentality over the last few decades,  unless were playing total minnows like GIBRALTAR our mentality is try to nick the 1st goal then shut up shop and hope we don't concede. The last time I seen us go at a team from 1st minute till last was our qualifying game against Latvia when we destroyed them.  Since then against teams of that ilk were so parinod about not winning were shite

Nah, i can't have that. Not only did we NOT have it all our own way (as 2-0 suggests), we have also played many, many good matches since...they have just gotten lesser and lesser. 

 

Despite not qualifying, until 2007, we were generally very competitive and took games and campaigns right to the end....on the road, Bosnia, England, Croatia, Norway and Slovenia away, were all excellent results; good performances away in Czech Republic and Germany ultimately yeilded f**k all. At home, in 2001, the collapse against Belgium was unfortunate, Croatia were more than matched, as were Germany and Italy later on; the Ukraine win in 2007 was imo the last time we genuinely dished out a Telt to a side worth gloating about, but what gets me is that other teams in our boat have learned how to deal with this, and are regularly taking points from the big guns. We, have unquestionably regressed, despite our players still deemed of the standard they generally always played at.