Gordon Strachan

[ScotSquid]

If we offer the right salary we'd get Michael O'Neill. TFS is still a micro job and won't be paying a significant salary.

Lives in Edinburgh and we could quadruple his wages. He'd take it. Whether he's right for the job is another question.

As long as Strachan goes, at least that's a start.

[theoriginalhedge]

8 minutes ago, ScotSquid said:

If we offer the right salary we'd get Michael O'Neill. TFS is still a micro job and won't be paying a significant salary.

Lives in Edinburgh and we could quadruple his wages. He'd take it. Whether he's right for the job is another question.

As long as Strachan goes, at least that's a start.

Would our establishment be able to handle his professionalism ? 

[Allan Jacobsen]

What about Walter Smith then?  Was he not a dentist, or maybe he was an astronaut?

Perhaps I'm mixing him up with someone else.

I got him mixed up with someone else. No need to be a dick about it.

[No_Problemo]

9 hours ago, pandarilla said:

 

If you don't think that the last 25 minutes of that game was done then you have no clue how football works.

They big team had their comfortable lead and held the ball. They were confident and just knocked it about.

 

And we allowed them too; it was pathetic and embarrassing. If pressurised England aren't remotely good enough to play keep ball for half an hour. 

[pandarilla]

I am absolutely shocked that Pandarilla is talking utter shite and yet again defending Strachan tbh.

I don't think Strachan is doing a good job - no-one does. The results are shit and things are incredibly bleak.

But folk throw out a fair amount of nonsense on here without any sort of rational perspective.

That team gave everything they had tonight. Their best was pretty much matching England and then we concede. For me the reason we concede was that Scott Brown was danced round very easily in the midfield, allowing a very good pass, cross, and header from some very talented players. Scott Brown came back into the squad because we badly needed him and his best wasn't good enough. If we didn't have brown in that position we may have conceded more.

All 3 goals were headers and it's clear that our defence isn't good enough - but that's the best we have (give or take). Berra came in and hardly improved things, because the replacements we have are roughly at the same level.

Plenty have attacked Strachan for not playing Griffiths. I thought he did quite well tonight but had a couple of big moments and fluffed them. He bangs them in against teams in Scotland but I've yet to see evidence that he's got the ability to go to the next level.

Yes there are decisions that folk don't agree with, but that literally is the case with every single manager at every single club when things start to go wrong. Leicester fans phoning in to 5live criticising ranieri's decisions this season.

But he's not ignoring a raft of stand out players. They simply don't exist.

So let's blame him, and get someone else in. Nothing is going to change until we get better players, or we start to get some momentum through big moments going our way. Goals change games, and if we were going to get a result tonight we needed things to break for us. They didn't, and actually broke the other way.

[Monkey Tennis]

We did obviously miss some chances.

See if we'd scored them though, the likelihood is that it would have been like the last friendly at Wembley, or the games in the last campaign against Germany.

The opposition would just have upped their game for a few minutes and forced a goal of their own.

[Monkey Tennis]

24 minutes ago, Allan Jacobsen said:

I got him mixed up with someone else. No need to be a dick about it.

No need, you're right.

I enjoy it though.

[pandarilla]

We did obviously miss some chances.

See if we'd scored them though, the likelihood is that it would have been like the last friendly at Wembley, or the games in the last campaign against Germany.

The opposition would just have upped their game for a few minutes and forced a goal of their own.

Probably. But that's what happens when a small team takes on a big team. The small team needs things to go their way.

They need to play to the top of their ability and rely on the big team not delivering.

[eez-eh]

28 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

All 3 goals were headers and it's clear that our defence isn't good enough - but that's the best we have (give or take). Berra came in and hardly improved things, because the replacements we have are roughly at the same level.

Has it ever occurred to you that when 4/5 of the goals we've conceded in the past two games are from the exact same faults at defending cross balls, then the manager needs to take a lot of the blame for failing to organise the defence? Naw?

12 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Probably. But that's what happens when a small team takes on a big team. The small team needs things to go their way.

They need to play to the top of their ability and rely on the big team not delivering.

Absolute shitebag behaviour. Content with the way things are going because we're just a "wee team", we were unlucky, things just didn't "go our way".

Wake up.

[pandarilla]

Absolute shitebag behaviour. Content with the way things are going because we're just a "wee team", we were unlucky, things just didn't "go our way".

Wake up.

Firstly, I think it's on this thread but maybe an other. I genuinely don't know how much you can work with average defenders to get them organised. I'd love a Gary Neville type analysis of our defending frailties in the last few games. I genuinely don't know how much is down to lack of ability and how much can be coached in the limited time available to a national manager.

Secondly, wake up and do what? Get really angry on a forum? Demand a new manager? You have to look at realistic change and whether that would be better. Fans 'not accepting' the standard of the national team is meaningless. England fans rage every two years about their lack of progress in tournaments. Rage alone achieves nothing.

[BrigtonClyde]

First of all, the SFA must've been aware for some time that a change was possibly on the cards.  This is where they'll be tested, have they been busy sourcing the right kind of options, or will they be caught standing still.  If that's the case, we'll end up with something no better, and probably worse than what's already there.

As for Strachan, I think he's tried his best and when he first came in did make an improvement.  He had an idea of the way he wanted to play, the personnel, a plan.  But the signs are there, time's up 

* It's a results based industry, all managers know that

* Recently he's been chopping & changing his line up which suggests he doesn't really know his best team.  Even allowing for injuries, that's indecisive 

* Did he play Griffiths because he thought it was the best option, or because of public pressure?  If the latter, that's Levein territory at the end of his time. 

* Last night was the example of our main problem, and any manager is going to have to address it 

I hoped we would press England and take the game to them.  It was a must win, but also they are weak defensively and are suspect against sides who do that.  To be fair, they took that approach, created chances and even the English pundits said they were surprised as most teams sit back.  So we did cause them problems, but of course didnt take the chances.

But you have to match approach with tactics. Look at the goals we lost.  For years, pre-dating Strachan, against any opposition the number of balls crossed into our box is ridiculous.  It's because we don't have international class fullbacks.  OK, Tierney and Roberston have emerged but we still don't have a right back, and until one's found we cannot play a back 4.  

How a guy of Strachan's experience sticks rigidly to that system I don't understand, even to the point he plays an attacking left sided player (Anya) at right back and knows Wallace isn't up to that level.  Drop Martin for Hanley?  Just don't get it, and it cost us, and it's cost us in several games. We have options in all positions meaning we should be doing better than this.

 

[pandarilla]

First of all, the SFA must've been aware for some time that a change was possibly on the cards.  This is where they'll be tested, have they been busy sourcing the right kind of options, or will they be caught standing still.  If that's the case, we'll end up with something no better, and probably worse than what's already there.

As for Strachan, I think he's tried his best and when he first came in did make an improvement.  He had an idea of the way he wanted to play, the personnel, a plan.  But the signs are there, time's up 

* It's a results based industry, all managers know that

* Recently he's been chopping & changing his line up which suggests he doesn't really know his best team.  Even allowing for injuries, that's indecisive 

* Did he play Griffiths because he thought it was the best option, or because of public pressure?  If the latter, that's Levein territory at the end of his time. 

* Last night was the example of our main problem, and any manager is going to have to address it 

I hoped we would press England and take the game to them.  It was a must win, but also they are weak defensively and are suspect against sides who do that.  To be fair, they took that approach, created chances and even the English pundits said they were surprised as most teams sit back.  So we did cause them problems, but of course didnt take the chances.

But you have to match approach with tactics. Look at the goals we lost.  For years, pre-dating Strachan, against any opposition the number of balls crossed into our box is ridiculous.  It's because we don't have international class fullbacks.  OK, Tierney and Roberston have emerged but we still don't have a right back, and until one's found we cannot play a back 4.  

How a guy of Strachan's experience sticks rigidly to that system I don't understand, even to the point he plays an attacking left sided player (Anya) at right back and knows Wallace isn't up to that level.  Drop Martin for Hanley?  Just don't get it, and it cost us, and it's cost us in several games. We have options in all positions meaning we should be doing better than this.

 

I agree with a lot of that - except the last bit. Yes we have options, but they're all much of a muchness. You can shuffle them about but there's no easy solution that's being missed.

[Malcolm Malcolm]

10 hours ago, Caley Shaun said:

He raged at poor Chris McLaughlin in media room, it is the narkiest I have heard him yet.

This rant can be heard on Sky Sports News HQ every hour.

Chris McLaughlin is a pish journalist.

[Malcolm Malcolm]

3 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

What about Walter Smith then?  Was he not a dentist, or maybe he was an astronaut?

Perhaps I'm mixing him up with someone else.

He was an electrician or an electrical engineer, I think.

[Alan Stubbs]

10 hours ago, dogmc said:

In last two games Strachan has afforded more game time to an spfl championship midfielder than a guy who is contributing to the side joint top of bundesliga n we have lost both games 3 nil....

Indeed. I rate McGinn as a prospect but it goes without saying that he isn't anywhere near the finished article.

Bumping a guy who is involved most weeks for a team at the top of the Bundesliga because he's inexperienced, then giving game time to a guy who's not even on form in the Scottish Championship. LOL.

2 hours ago, pandarilla said:

So let's blame him, and get someone else in. Nothing is going to change until we get better players, or we start to get some momentum through big moments going our way.

 

 

Actually, something will change before any good players come through. Scotland will be further down the seedings thanks to inexcusable results like Lithuania and Georgia.

If a decent crop of players do pop out of nowhere, they'll have an even harder job qualifying thanks to our last few clown managers not even achieving the mediocrity that the players at their disposal are capable of.

[54_and_counting]

3 hours ago, eez-eh said:

Has it ever occurred to you that when 4/5 of the goals we've conceded in the past two games are from the exact same faults at defending cross balls, then the manager needs to take a lot of the blame for failing to organise the defence? Naw

Not much strachan can do if his defenders suffer constant lapses on concentration at crucial times, we havent got much else at that position 

Look at weir at rangers, lots of goals from slack defending yet he was one of scotlands best defenders, you can polish a big shite like hanley but he'll always be a big shite 

[Polomoney]

In a weak group with an aging Slovakia, much weaker than expected England and three other teams most of us would anticipate finishing above, we are second bottom. How much worse can it get? Crap manager and crap players is a disastrous combination. The SFA have to take a lot of the blame.

[eez-eh]

23 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

Not much strachan can do if his defenders suffer constant lapses on concentration at crucial times, we havent got much else at that position 

Look at weir at rangers, lots of goals from slack defending yet he was one of scotlands best defenders, you can polish a big shite like hanley but he'll always be a big shite 

How about not playing him? It's Strachan's job to play our best players and to get the best out of every last one of them - which includes organising them in such a way that mistakes are minimised and when such mistakes do occur there is appropriate cover in place. It is absolutely baffling that your way of defending the manager is to point to the same simple mistakes happening time and time again.

Yourself and pandarilla will accept any old shite though because we're just wee and unlucky - somehow thinking it's acceptable that in our last three games we've picked up one point and been on the end of two 3-0 pumpings despite our opponents not even playing that well. It's complete shitebag behaviour.

[Officer Barbrady]

The biggest problem i have with how shite we are, isn't that we're playing crap and getting beaten by shite; it's that those idiots, bungling along trying to be 'positive' and intently finding comfort in abject pishness, are still in the fucking majority. 

 

I'm an extremely positive person, as are many of Strachan's critics, i'm sure, who have been ground down by claims of negativity and downtalking despite blatant evidence that observing and discussing those shortcomings is seen as unsupportive or anti-Strachan. The real downtrodden, negative b*****ds are those clinging to excuses about 'big team/wee team', 'not taking our chances' and best of all, 'ignore that bit of the game'. 

 

I watched the game with friends, two of them ex-Army English. I apologised to both for our failure to offer their team (which they both thought were shite, btw) a proper test, befitting the status of the match. A new low. 

[pandarilla]

How about not playing him? It's Strachan's job to play our best players and to get the best out of every last one of them - which includes organising them in such a way that mistakes are minimised and when such mistakes do occur there is appropriate cover in place. It is absolutely baffling that your way of defending the manager is to point to the same simple mistakes happening time and time again.

Yourself and pandarilla will accept any old shite though because we're just wee and unlucky - somehow thinking it's acceptable that in our last three games we've picked up one point and been on the end of two 3-0 pumpings despite our opponents not even playing that well. It's complete shitebag behaviour.

I don't think the last 3 results have been acceptable. I think Strachan will go and that's probably about right now - but I'm pretty certain we'll be back here in 18-24 months. I genuinely hope I'm wrong.