Striking Options

[54_and_counting]

7 minutes ago, Officer Barbrady said:

We, have unquestionably regressed, despite our players still deemed of the standard they generally always played at. 

 

 

yet apparently these players that have regressed along with our performances are still deemed the best we have? it reminds me of the old manager merry go round in england, where the same failed managers would get jobs elsewhere due to their experience, not many clubs tried the inexperienced managers or up and coming managers,

the fact that we will likely start the next campaign with seasoned failures like brown, both fletchers, hutton, maloney etc is quite demoralising, do we have anything to give the follow home and away brigade something to get off their seat about

[Officer Barbrady]

23 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

yet apparently these players that have regressed along with our performances are still deemed the best we have? it reminds me of the old manager merry go round in england, where the same failed managers would get jobs elsewhere due to their experience, not many clubs tried the inexperienced managers or up and coming managers,

the fact that we will likely start the next campaign with seasoned failures like brown, both fletchers, hutton, maloney etc is quite demoralising, do we have anything to give the follow home and away brigade something to get off their seat about

No, the players haven't regressed that badly....their management and mentality have. 

[54_and_counting]

6 hours ago, Officer Barbrady said:

No, the players haven't regressed that badly....their management and mentality have. 

Pretty difficult for a manager to change much when some of the fans mentality is that we stick to the failures as at least we know what they give us

[Officer Barbrady]

Well, aye....just look at the disparaging remarks that are often made about Broon, Smith or Eck's teams, and how they went about their business. That is only accounting for a tiny percent, though....supporters generally aren't there to spit blood at the team from the word go, and will always be the first to offer consolation/excuses when things go wrong. The manager isn't supposed to endorse this thinking, he's meant to come up with ways of making things better, getting people interested and committed behind everyone's national team.

 

The players also don't trudge back to their clubs to play the same way they just did for us, if anything i've witnessed great performances for clubs on the back of shite ones for us three days before.....again, they have the tools for it not to be this way, but Uncle Gordon shields the flak, takes the derry and keeps the lads smiling, so who gives a f**k, huh?

[TheScarf]

Stats against South Ireland are brilliant until you look at the group table.  They finished in the play off spot with a game to spare.  I don't care if Scotland beat them 10-0, it would have been an utter irrelevance, much like a lot of the posters on this thread.  Namely the ones who believe Strachan isn't to blame for not making it to France.

Over the group, with a worse squad than Scotland, South Ireland had the confidence and belief that they were good enough, and they got the job done when it mattered, via a clear game plan, great management, and organisation.

[forameus]

15 hours ago, Officer Barbrady said:

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. 

 

But the thing about this "mindset" is that it's largely imagined, or at least can't be proven.  Did we have that mindset when we beat France twice, or did we just get "lucky" and get two very, very good results?  It's going back to hindsight - had Ireland lost narrowly like we did (twice) then no-one would be lauding their spirit and never-say-die attitude.  Now in hindsight it's easy to point to them and say how great they were, and how we never really wanted it.  It's a pretty circular argument though, I admit.

I was trying to look back for any pre-match comments particularly around the Germany vs Ireland away game, and our game at Hampden.  MON started off saying that "they weren't good enough to get carried away" but then admittedly did go on to say they would try and cause them problems.  I can't find anything from before our game at Hampden, or the one in Dortmund (it was there, wasn't it?) right at the start.  But obviously any of those comments aren't really comparable because of the times the games came at. 

Can't really argue staunchly against any of your other points, even if I disagree at times. 

 

14 hours ago, 54_and_counting said:

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?

That's what watching the players at club level is for.  It would be ideal if we had 30 international games every two years so that we could try these things out, but we don't have that option.  Throwing in any old player is alright if you're either the absolute top of the tree, or the absolute bottom.  And the former may not work.  Putting any new player who isn't already proven at that level is going to be a risk, and it's all about managing that risk.  That's why many great club managers end up being shite at international level, because it's a completely different atmosphere and skill set.  It's about balancing the risk and reward.  Admittedly that's not a balance he's ever got right, just like a lot of international managers.

It's both the manager and the players in my opinion, as I've always said.  Both sides have made mistakes.  We can point to results in the past, but there's so many variables at play that it isn't a comparison.  You say 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", but it's nowhere near as black and white as that.  We don't have the best manager we could have (there are better foreign options out there certainly) and we don't have players that combine well enough together to make up for a shortfall in quality against better teams.  We also have one of the worst collection of defenders in years.  It's nowhere near as black and white as throwing blame at one camp or the other.

And to answer your honest question, yes.  Georgia proved they were "half decent" at the very least, and we beat them once.  And if we hadn't put in an absolutely fucking woeful performance we would've done twice.  We beat Ireland, who went on to the Euros.  If our defence reaches the level of "competent" then we would have at least gotten a win against Poland at Hampden.  In the next qualifying cycle, I fully expect us to beat Malta home and away and Slovenia at least at home.  I fancy us to beat Slovakia at home too.  Key matches will be away to the Slovs, with the England ones probably going against us.   

To be honest, with all due respect, it's not a very good question.  Again, it isn't as black and white as that.  

[Officer Barbrady]

45 minutes ago, forameus said:

 

But the thing about this "mindset" is that it's largely imagined, or at least can't be proven.  Did we have that mindset when we beat France twice, or did we just get "lucky" and get two very, very good results?  It's going back to hindsight - had Ireland lost narrowly like we did (twice) then no-one would be lauding their spirit and never-say-die attitude.  Now in hindsight it's easy to point to them and say how great they were, and how we never really wanted it.  It's a pretty circular argument though, I admit.

I was trying to look back for any pre-match comments particularly around the Germany vs Ireland away game, and our game at Hampden.  MON started off saying that "they weren't good enough to get carried away" but then admittedly did go on to say they would try and cause them problems.  I can't find anything from before our game at Hampden, or the one in Dortmund (it was there, wasn't it?) right at the start.  But obviously any of those comments aren't really comparable because of the times the games came at. 

Can't really argue staunchly against any of your other points, even if I disagree at times. 

 

That's what watching the players at club level is for.  It would be ideal if we had 30 international games every two years so that we could try these things out, but we don't have that option.  Throwing in any old player is alright if you're either the absolute top of the tree, or the absolute bottom.  And the former may not work.  Putting any new player who isn't already proven at that level is going to be a risk, and it's all about managing that risk.  That's why many great club managers end up being shite at international level, because it's a completely different atmosphere and skill set.  It's about balancing the risk and reward.  Admittedly that's not a balance he's ever got right, just like a lot of international managers.

It's both the manager and the players in my opinion, as I've always said.  Both sides have made mistakes.  We can point to results in the past, but there's so many variables at play that it isn't a comparison.  You say 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", but it's nowhere near as black and white as that.  We don't have the best manager we could have (there are better foreign options out there certainly) and we don't have players that combine well enough together to make up for a shortfall in quality against better teams.  We also have one of the worst collection of defenders in years.  It's nowhere near as black and white as throwing blame at one camp or the other.

And to answer your honest question, yes.  Georgia proved they were "half decent" at the very least, and we beat them once.  And if we hadn't put in an absolutely fucking woeful performance we would've done twice.  We beat Ireland, who went on to the Euros.  If our defence reaches the level of "competent" then we would have at least gotten a win against Poland at Hampden.  In the next qualifying cycle, I fully expect us to beat Malta home and away and Slovenia at least at home.  I fancy us to beat Slovakia at home too.  Key matches will be away to the Slovs, with the England ones probably going against us.   

To be honest, with all due respect, it's not a very good question.  Again, it isn't as black and white as that.  

I think it can be proven.....listen to James McClean after the Italy win, and tell me the last time you heard such passion or pride (again, not easy things to measure) coming from a Scotland player. Anya greetin' like a wean in Dortmund (correct) at least displayed a bit of human condition, but McClean spoke of knowing, just KNOWING, they'd get their chances, and focused their whole game on making sure that it mattered when they did....following MO'N's instructions, in other words. 

 

This might not even be a football thing.....i suspect that as much as our ideas on football are polar opposites, the social and political views of ours would be even further apart, and in my opinion, the fortunes of not just football, but most other exclusively Scottish representative team sports, carry a slightly disturbingly victim-dependancy mentality which has swept the place since Devolution. The national team will, indirectly, be seen and used as a vehicle for promoting the national sentiments, and given that in that landscape 'everything's every other c***s' fault', it's easy for mere sportsmen to get innocently caught up in the zeitgeist. 

 

When we failed in 74, 78, 82, 90 and 98, fingers were pointed at our arrogance in assuming we'd stroll through the tournaments.  Look at some of the teams we've sent, and you can see why we thought we'd breeze the groups, and maybe do some damage....we bloody should have, at least once or twice. Over the last 20 years, this mentality has definitely come full circle, for the worse....the rise in strength of political feeling, has definitely had an enormous impact on how Scots, in Scotland, whatever their leanings feel about it, and how it's expressed. 

 

Or perhaps we're just shite altogether. 

[forameus]

12 minutes ago, Officer Barbrady said:

I think it can be proven.....listen to James McClean after the Italy win, and tell me the last time you heard such passion or pride (again, not easy things to measure) coming from a Scotland player. Anya greetin' like a wean in Dortmund (correct) at least displayed a bit of human condition, but McClean spoke of knowing, just KNOWING, they'd get their chances, and focused their whole game on making sure that it mattered when they did....following MO'N's instructions, in other words. 

 

This might not even be a football thing.....i suspect that as much as our ideas on football are polar opposites, the social and political views of ours would be even further apart, and in my opinion, the fortunes of not just football, but most other exclusively Scottish representative team sports, carry a slightly disturbingly victim-dependancy mentality which has swept the place since Devolution. The national team will, indirectly, be seen and used as a vehicle for promoting the national sentiments, and given that in that landscape 'everything's every other c***s' fault', it's easy for mere sportsmen to get innocently caught up in the zeitgeist. 

 

When we failed in 74, 78, 82, 90 and 98, fingers were pointed at our arrogance in assuming we'd stroll through the tournaments.  Look at some of the teams we've sent, and you can see why we thought we'd breeze the groups, and maybe do some damage....we bloody should have, at least once or twice. Over the last 20 years, this mentality has definitely come full circle, for the worse....the rise in strength of political feeling, has definitely had an enormous impact on how Scots, in Scotland, whatever their leanings feel about it, and how it's expressed. 

 

Or perhaps we're just shite altogether. 

I'd wager had we beaten Italy in a European Championship, even our players would sound passionate and prideful

It's chicken and egg - do we never see that because we never win, or do never win because we never see it?

[kenny131]

The setting up to win discussion is missing the point, every manager we have had sets up to win apart from Levens 6-4-0 debacle. The winning mentality that our managers should instill is the problem,  When our team are continually hearing were too wee, we don't have Bale we have no class players coming from our manager it's no wonder they are bereft of confidence in matches. Against the bigger nations WGS never comes out and says we can do this all he does is gloat how good they are,  no wonder we can't raise our game. This is my biggest hate about our team at the moment.

Big deal if we lose its expected but for Christmas sake at least get the guys pumped up believing we can do it.

[Officer Barbrady]

33 minutes ago, forameus said:

I'd wager had we beaten Italy in a European Championship, even our players would sound passionate and prideful

It's chicken and egg - do we never see that because we never win, or do never win because we never see it?

Definitely never win because we never see it. I think the majority of football fans are happy to accept 100% effort, application and attitude, regardless of results....and the fact other teams seem to manage it, only adds to the overall failure. 

 

They know they don't need to work all that hard to keep their place, they know poor results will be accepted because everyone wants to use every excuse going for inevitable defeat, and they know this has the unconditional support of the majority who believe this shite as well. That's why we never hear it. 

[TheScarf]

47 minutes ago, kenny131 said:

The setting up to win discussion is missing the point, every manager we have had sets up to win apart from Levens 6-4-0 debacle. The winning mentality that our managers should instill is the problem,  When our team are continually hearing were too wee, we don't have Bale we have no class players coming from our manager it's no wonder they are bereft of confidence in matches. Against the bigger nations WGS never comes out and says we can do this all he does is gloat how good they are,  no wonder we can't raise our game. This is my biggest hate about our team at the moment.

Big deal if we lose its expected but for Christmas sake at least get the guys pumped up believing we can do it.

That's one of his 2 main problems as a manager; his constant fawning over the opposition and how brilliant and wonderful they are, showing far too much respect.  This 'free hits' bollocks he comes out with is a terrible trait for a manager to possess.  It's such a defeatist attitude.

[forameus]

2 minutes ago, Officer Barbrady said:

Definitely never win because we never see it. I think the majority of football fans are happy to accept 100% effort, application and attitude, regardless of results....and the fact other teams seem to manage it, only adds to the overall failure. 

 

They know they don't need to work all that hard to keep their place, they know poor results will be accepted because everyone wants to use every excuse going for inevitable defeat, and they know this has the unconditional support of the majority who believe this shite as well. That's why we never hear it. 

I disagree, but fair enough

[Officer Barbrady]

2 minutes ago, forameus said:

I disagree, but fair enough

Any chance of hearing why, seeing as i've pretty much answered every point of yours? I'm genuinely interested to hear a different perspective on the things i believe are root causes. 

[54_and_counting]

3 hours ago, forameus said:

 

That's what watching the players at club level is for.  It would be ideal if we had 30 international games every two years so that we could try these things out, but we don't have that option.  Throwing in any old player is alright if you're either the absolute top of the tree, or the absolute bottom.  And the former may not work.  Putting any new player who isn't already proven at that level is going to be a risk, and it's all about managing that risk.  That's why many great club managers end up being shite at international level, because it's a completely different atmosphere and skill set.  It's about balancing the risk and reward.  Admittedly that's not a balance he's ever got right, just like a lot of international managers.

It's both the manager and the players in my opinion, as I've always said.  Both sides have made mistakes.  We can point to results in the past, but there's so many variables at play that it isn't a comparison.  You say 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", but it's nowhere near as black and white as that.  We don't have the best manager we could have (there are better foreign options out there certainly) and we don't have players that combine well enough together to make up for a shortfall in quality against better teams.  We also have one of the worst collection of defenders in years.  It's nowhere near as black and white as throwing blame at one camp or the other.

And to answer your honest question, yes.  Georgia proved they were "half decent" at the very least, and we beat them once.  And if we hadn't put in an absolutely fucking woeful performance we would've done twice.  We beat Ireland, who went on to the Euros.  If our defence reaches the level of "competent" then we would have at least gotten a win against Poland at Hampden.  In the next qualifying cycle, I fully expect us to beat Malta home and away and Slovenia at least at home.  I fancy us to beat Slovakia at home too.  Key matches will be away to the Slovs, with the England ones probably going against us.   

To be honest, with all due respect, it's not a very good question.  Again, it isn't as black and white as that.  

you mention watching players at club level, yet clearly club level matters not a jot given last season we continued to use a striker who wasnt getting a strip on matchdays for his club, while we knocked back another who was scoring quite regularly albeit in a division lower because he "doesnt fit our system" and thats just one player

and we don't have players that combine well enough together to make up for a shortfall in quality against better teams

if thats the case, when why do we stick with these same players, as for saying its the worst defenders weve had in years, we only conceded 3 more than germany and 2 more than poland, now given we conceded one against gibraltar and germany didnt, and that one didnt affect the outcome whatsoever, we only conceded 2 more than the world champions, thats not too shabby for the worst defenders in years,

as for the answer to my question, you use 2 games (ireland and georgia at home) but arguably in another 3 of they games we shat it again (ireland and georgia away and poland at home) as we have done for years now, we have a mentality of simply trying hard against teams above us, only problem is that there are more and more teams going above us now that we are in danger of becoming international minnows

also why would the england ones probably go against us, do you honestly think any other home nation would line up against them with that attitude, england arent anything special, iceland fucking showed them up, yet here we are already with the mindset that they will go against us

 

[forameus]

30 minutes ago, Officer Barbrady said:

Any chance of hearing why, seeing as i've pretty much answered every point of yours? I'm genuinely interested to hear a different perspective on the things i believe are root causes. 

I would've thought people were sick of my long posts, but agreed, you've actually debated the point unlike some.

I disagree on the chicken and egg argument I put.  Or probably more accurately, it's a bit of both.  It's fairly circular for me - we lose games, and our general Scottish pessimistic nature sends us further into our shell, which sees us fail, which sends us further...etc etc.  I maintain that we weren't far off qualifying, or at least getting the chance to via a playoff.  Had we done that and gone through to the tournament, pride and passion would rise.  Would that be enough to get us out of the cycle?  Maybe, maybe not.  It certainly would've been better than what we got though.

I'm not sure there really is a "root cause" either.  We have relatively poor players in key positions, we're a pessimistic bunch at the best of times, there's too many playstations, not enough pitches, coaching is shit, the Old Firm...pick your poison.  I don't think we're no-hopers for qualifying for any tournament.  WC2018 may be beyond us, but 2020 is definitely achievable through one of the routes.

[forameus]

25 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

you mention watching players at club level, yet clearly club level matters not a jot given last season we continued to use a striker who wasnt getting a strip on matchdays for his club, while we knocked back another who was scoring quite regularly albeit in a division lower because he "doesnt fit our system" and thats just one player

 

 

if thats the case, when why do we stick with these same players, as for saying its the worst defenders weve had in years, we only conceded 3 more than germany and 2 more than poland, now given we conceded one against gibraltar and germany didnt, and that one didnt affect the outcome whatsoever, we only conceded 2 more than the world champions, thats not too shabby for the worst defenders in years,

as for the answer to my question, you use 2 games (ireland and georgia at home) but arguably in another 3 of they games we shat it again (ireland and georgia away and poland at home) as we have done for years now, we have a mentality of simply trying hard against teams above us, only problem is that there are more and more teams going above us now that we are in danger of becoming international minnows

also why would the england ones probably go against us, do you honestly think any other home nation would line up against them with that attitude, england arent anything special, iceland fucking showed them up, yet here we are already with the mindset that they will go against us

 

 

Your first point makes little sense.  The management team will have watched most players at club level.  They watched Steven Fletcher, and realised that he is the sort of forward who can bring midfielders into the game.  They want to play that way.  There isn't a player that can play that way any better.  They pick him.  Is that really hard to understand?  Take away the fact that you don't agree with it.  It doesn't change that that is how they're thinking.  I imagine it's the same with Rhodes - they've watched him actually play and in their minds he can't play the way they want to play.

You then ask why we stick with these players.  Probably because we don't have any better defenders.  If we did, they'd probably be playing instead.  I think it's generally accepted that our defenders aren't great.  We may not have conceded that many, but how many of those conceded were avoidable?  Both goals at home to Poland were pretty poor, and I seem to remember pretty much every Germany goal being preventable. 

We didn't "shit it" against Ireland away.  I've always said that that only becomes a bad result in hindsight.  Georgia, absolutely.  We shat it royally.  Poland at home isn't quite the same - we switched off totally at the end and should have won it, but it was a good performance otherwise against a team that is arguably better than us.  We're not in danger of becoming international minnows.  That's pish.  Minnows are teams from the bottom two pots, and that's being generous.  We're likely to always hover around pot 3, maybe some years dipping into pot 2, sometimes dipping down to pot 4.  We're in a huge group of nations that can consider themselves to be average.  

The England ones will probably go against us because England are a typical team who absolutely steamroller everyone in qualifying.  Looking at it totally pragmatically, I don't see that changing.  Looking at it as a Scotland fan, I really hope we do get something.  I expect the games to be closer than England perhaps expect, but I'm not going in with unrealistic expectations.  Anything we get from those games will be a bonus.  And honestly?  I don't really think any of the mindsets of people who post here really matter too much.  Just because I say they probably won't win doesn't mean they won't, or that the players agree. 

[1320Lichtie]

That's one of his 2 main problems as a manager; his constant fawning over the opposition and how brilliant and wonderful they are, showing far too much respect.  This 'free hits' bollocks he comes out with is a terrible trait for a manager to possess.  It's such a defeatist attitude.

Not think that's maybe just for the press no.... To take the pressure off us?

You've no idea what he's saying to the players before or during a match at training or in the changing room

[kenny131]

2 hours ago, Officer Barbrady said:

Any chance of hearing why, seeing as i've pretty much answered every point of yours? I'm genuinely interested to hear a different perspective on the things i believe are root causes. 

That dude disagrees with everyone on here I wouldn't read too much into it.

[TheScarf]

51 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

Not think that's maybe just for the press no.... To take the pressure off us?

You've no idea what he's saying to the players before or during a match at training or in the changing room
 

 

If it is, he's literally the only manager I've ever seen do this.  And it's working handsomely isn't it.

[kenny131]

53 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

Not think that's maybe just for the press no.... To take the pressure off us?

You've no idea what he's saying to the players before or during a match at training or in the changing room
 

 

Deriding your players ability on TV is his plan,  sure that's the way to do it.