Formation myth.

[Peppino Impastato]

 

I agree with placidcasual here, we're shite. No point getting too worked up about it, we just don't have the players.

 

But we do though that's the point, N Ireland have one player out of their 23 that would get in our squad and 22 that wouldn't. We are easily good enough to qualify for tournaments regularly, easily.

[Blootoon87]

Yes, we have a better squad than Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland don't qualify for tournaments regularly, they were put in a piss poor qualifying group and made the most of it.

[Gordopolis]

Yes, we have a better squad than Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland don't qualify for tournaments regularly, they were put in a piss poor qualifying group and made the most of it.

They bossed Ukraine for much of the game today. They certainly don't look out of place at a tourney.

[Officer Barbrady]

Stumbled upon this lately, and on the evidence we have watched, decided to offer an alternative suggestion.

I've given this Euros a chance to prove to me that we had absolutely no right to complain about missing the party. My patience has snapped, and frankly i'm more convinced than ever that with the correct guidance and foresight, and motivation, we could have easily made it out of a group, instead of the shite we've been putting up with.

Being far from an attack-minded tournament, and given our options of good goalies, poor centre-halves, pacy width and fullbacks, reasonably strong centre midfield, and a couple of potential strike pairings as yet untried, i don't see why the options aren't explored fully.

Home against Gibraltar, Strachan opted for a 3-5-2, with Hutton and Robertson as attacking fullbacks either side of Martin. Because we conceded their first ever goal, it was automatically deemed a disaster. In typically Scottish fashion. Given how poor we are in central defence, i don't particularly see why the solution is to play more shite centre-halves, and not more focus geared to trying to keep the ball as far away from the one fairly decent one we have as is possible. Utilising our numerous midfield options, to press and harangue opponents, whilst having two players from a decent selection in Fletcher (WITH a strike partner, a different animal altogether), Rhodes, Griffiths and McCormack, looking to take full advantage.

From what i've seen, the slow, laborious play from many of the sides this summer is asking to be shaken up and exploited, not fawned over and feared. The likes of Fletcher, Adam, McArthur, Naismith, Morrison, Bryson and even Brown, are getting nowhere sitting waiting on piss poor teams steamrollering us, instead of having their natural skills utilised. In front of a back three (left, centre and right), employing a combination of those in a pack of three, with at least one pressing hard alongside the front two, would be a lot more encouraging than the current blase, clueless to instruction bullshit.

In wide areas, the likes of Anya, Snodgrass, Ritchie, and the aforementioned attacking fullbacks, can more than aid the pressing, thus forcing mistakes all over the pitch. Take the fixture against Slovakia, if for example they play 4-3-3 as they have done, whereby first and foremost either their lone striker is up against three, and their backline exposed to three high-pressuring attackers, whilst man-for-man across the midfield. Or, they play devil's advocate and take us on one v one all over the pitch.....somehow, i don't think so. They'd be good enough to, i have no doubt....but it's not in the DNA of current international football to do so. We, on the other hand, have absolutely nothing to lose whatsoever.

I wouldn't necessarily say Hutton and Robertson's attacking instincts are the way to protect Martin, but the likes of Bardsley and even Wallace are better defensive options to play those roles.

This is a lot more defensive than the Strachan apologists will probably slate me for....i believe our limited players need all the protection they can get, and a 3-5-2, with good defensive fullbacks, a hungry pack in midfield, and pace out wide is fundamentally one way to do this which has not been explored. After three years, that's a fucking disgrace.

[RandomGuy.]

^ Mixu

[oneteaminglasgow]

You want us to try playing 1 centre back and then have Lee Wallace and Phil Bardsley to protect him?

Have you ever watched football before?

[Officer Barbrady]

Right now you have 92 year old Gordon Greer, and 23 year old Grant Hanley who plays like he's 92. Or, Childcare Charlie Mulgrew, who fucks off the park when he likes. I didn't make the options up.

I'm sure if someone told Puskas and Di Stefano that in 60 years time, only one of them would be getting a game, you'd have been sectioned. And quite rightly too. But the game changes. Our players limitations are exposed time after time, by the advancements other countries players can make and adapt to much sooner. About time we tried one of our fucking own.

Maybe trying to be a bit better, instead of just less shite might get somewhere.

[No_Problemo]

I'm sorry if I am misinterpreting but are you suggesting we play a back three of Wallace, Bardsley and another..... Not taking into account that Wallace is hopeless defensively.

[Officer Barbrady]

I'm advocating it's time to look at different things. Going generally man for man, except for a spare body at the back, like 90% of teams do these days, has palpably failed....we lack so many particles of a succesful 4-2-3-1, that we lose too many individual battles, before the ball even gets near our exceptionally poor pairing in central defence. The considerable options we have further up the pitch, should then be utilised better.

Would the spare man for US being ahead of the midfield, chasing down opponenets who otherwise get to stroll around in all the space in the world to launch attacks, be of as much use, or more, than simply waiting on the inevitable collapse when the defence is actually called upon? I'd rather avoid that as a repeat outcome, personally, as we'll just keep getting skelped.

The individuals named were merely examples, made as that just because our full-backs are SO ATTACKING, it determines our whole line-up. There isn't a team on the planet who consider their full-backs as their most important players, as largely they are among the weakest. Poor wingers, who can at least tackle, or pacy, or slightly short players who failed at centre half.

The full-back's first job is to defend. If he can't do that, he's simply no fuckin good to a team in which our centre-forward has to be our first defender. Clearly, it's not something seen as a priority, again because 'foreign fullbacks' rampage all over the place. Good. Let them. It doesn't make ours any better trying the same. Hutton's been at it for ten years now, for fucks sake.

When playing 3-5-2 in the nineties, Broon regularly played Tom Boyd in the back three, and utilised basically all his full-back abilities in linking up with either McKinlay on the left or Burley down the right, dependant on opponents. It's npt a new thing, to have one (or two) of three defenders being a little more expansive than simply jobbing at centre-back.

O''Neill's Celtic in the early days had Boyd or Mahe (fullback) and Mjallby (def mid) alongside Valgaeren, and it didn't do them any harm over a regular enough period. Given internatonals are essentially one-off games, if we can find skilled enough fullbacks to operate as part of a three, i see no reason why it can't be tried out. We certainly can't be worse off than we are trying to copy everyone else, just because the manager is a lazy wee b*****d.

[MarkoRaj]

Nurse!

[LiviLion]

Meds gone.