Gordon Strachan

[troopio]

he holds the ball up well? quite sure in a recent game it was his horrific touch and hold up play that resulted in a counter attack which resulted in a goal or near goal for the opposition? Cant remember which game it was exactly but I am sure it happened.

 

How is expecting a Striker to score goals "retro" exactly? I thought the ultimate point of the game is to win it and to do that you need to put the ball into the net? granted doesn't have to be the 1 same player who does that, you have 11 players but seriously to try and justify his horrific lack of potency in front of goal by stating that people are living in an another era for judging a striker for their lack of goals is laughable.  The cold hard facts are that, as I say, he is slow, cumbersome, weak, and offers very little threat against teams of a standard higher than Minnows such as ourselves. I would say the belief that having a big lump up top to hold the ball up in EVERY game is more "Retro" an attitude than wanting someone more Mobile or more instinctive in the Box.  I cant believe I am saying this but I would rather we went back to the days of Kenny Miller because at least he moved about and was Mobile, Steven Fletcher turning is slower than a container ship at sea.

 

There are plenty alternatives, the names of Scottish Strikers who actually Play for a Club side 9 times out of 10 and actually score have been discussed to death on here, Rhodes, Griffiths, McCormack, you could even argue the case for the likes of Greg Stewart and even Tony Watt.  The reality is the two clowns in charge are in love with their system and cannot see past it, hence why that other useless lump Chris Martin will be the go to guy ahead of better players who can actually run and control a football because he fits the hallowed "Strachan system". This obsession in modern football with 4231 is mind numbing. The game is about trying to win and scoring, playing 1 up front is the epitome of negative. I would rather play with 0 strikers than 1 because that is effectively what we are with that useless lump up front anyway he is that bad.

 

If Fletcher is the first choice Striker in the next campaign, and we know he will be, we have no chance, simple as that as I cannot see the likes of England or Slovakia being frightened of facing him.

[1320Lichtie]

Put simply, he brings the three that play behind him - who are often our best players - into the game. It's really not that hard to see that. We don't have the players to keep measured possession and await our chance to slip a pacey striker through - we don't have creative midfielders like that, and we don't have a striker like that. What we do have is someone who can hold the ball up and bring others into the game. And he does it well.

Too many just fall into the tired, retro trap of only looking at his goal tally, when fortunately forwards are judged by more than just that these days. Again though, as I've always said, if someone comes up who is better, he'll be in the squad instead.

You're up against it. I wouldn't even bother. I'd just stay well clear of this thread and let all the usuals haver absolute pish on their own and to each other.

You'll get nowhere.

[forameus]

he holds the ball up well? quite sure in a recent game it was his horrific touch and hold up play that resulted in a counter attack which resulted in a goal or near goal for the opposition? Cant remember which game it was exactly but I am sure it happened.

 

How is expecting a Striker to score goals "retro" exactly? I thought the ultimate point of the game is to win it and to do that you need to put the ball into the net? granted doesn't have to be the 1 same player who does that, you have 11 players but seriously to try and justify his horrific lack of potency in front of goal by stating that people are living in an another era for judging a striker for their lack of goals is laughable.  The cold hard facts are that, as I say, he is slow, cumbersome, weak, and offers very little threat against teams of a standard higher than Minnows such as ourselves. I would say the belief that having a big lump up top to hold the ball up in EVERY game is more "Retro" an attitude than wanting someone more Mobile or more instinctive in the Box.  I cant believe I am saying this but I would rather we went back to the days of Kenny Miller because at least he moved about and was Mobile, Steven Fletcher turning is slower than a container ship at sea.

 

There are plenty alternatives, the names of Scottish Strikers who actually Play for a Club side 9 times out of 10 and actually score have been discussed to death on here, Rhodes, Griffiths, McCormack, you could even argue the case for the likes of Greg Stewart and even Tony Watt.  The reality is the two clowns in charge are in love with their system and cannot see past it, hence why that other useless lump Chris Martin will be the go to guy ahead of better players who can actually run and control a football because he fits the hallowed "Strachan system". This obsession in modern football with 4231 is mind numbing. The game is about trying to win and scoring, playing 1 up front is the epitome of negative. I would rather play with 0 strikers than 1 because that is effectively what we are with that useless lump up front anyway he is that bad.

 

If Fletcher is the first choice Striker in the next campaign, and we know he will be, we have no chance, simple as that as I cannot see the likes of England or Slovakia being frightened of facing him.

 

Judging a striker purely on his goals is retro.  As in, it comes from days when admittedly that was what they were for.  Defenders defended.  Midfielders sat in the middle and provided ammo for strikers who scored.  That was how it is.  Now the lines are blurred far more and forwards are expected to do a hell of a lot more.  For example, see Jordan Rhodes.  Fantastic goalscorer consistently at Championship level, but never fancied at International level and no club has ever really taken a serious punt at him at a higher level.  We'll of course see how he does this year, but it's telling as an example.

 

Rhodes I've already covered, Griffiths isn't really the type of player we can give reliable enough service to, and I'm not even sure he's got what it takes to move to the higher level we need him to (although I hope I'm wrong).  McCormack, admittedly I haven't seen much of him, but again he's a completely different player to Fletcher who is in the team because...well, read the previous post I made.  

 

Chris Martin point is irrelevant to the Fletcher one, as they're in the squad to do different things.  I feel sorry for the guy, as he's relegated to "player-we-call-upon-with-five-minutes-to-go".  Usually we're losing, and usually he looks shit because he's given nothing to work with.  I imagine it'd be a different story if he was actually given the time to do something other than chase long, hopeless balls.

 

And then you fall into the old cliched trap of bleating about 1 up front, looking at the formation that Sky puts out on the screen and taking it as gospel.  It's nowhere near as simple as that.  I imagine some of the people that call for 2 up front were delighted when Griffiths and Fletcher both played against Denmark.  You know, despite the fact that it was still 4-2-3-1 in structure.  There's a reason the vast majority of nations use it, and there's a reason we use it.  It isn't going to change any time soon, nor should it.

 

 

 

If Fletcher is the first choice Striker in the next campaign, and we know he will be, we have no chance, simple as that as I cannot see the likes of England or Slovakia being frightened of facing him.

 

 

 

Aye, because they'll be shitting themselves at the prospect of facing the might of Leigh Griffiths, Ross McCormack or Jordan Rhodes

[TheScarf]

You're up against it. I wouldn't even bother. I'd just stay well clear of this thread and let all the usuals haver absolute pish on their own and to each other.

You'll get nowhere.

 

^ ^ ^ verge of tears.

[Officer Barbrady]

Some tinfoil hat stuff here.

Has he or has he not raised the issues of 'a long, hard season' on several occasions, particularly when naming his Italy and France squads? How's banging on about this, any suitable preparation for any tournaments we ever actually qualify for? It seems more important to him to keep his personal relations with his former clubs than succeeding in his current job. Not qualifying at all, made this so much easier.

[forameus]

Has he or has he not raised the issues of 'a long, hard season' on several occasions, particularly when naming his Italy and France squads? How's banging on about this, any suitable preparation for any tournaments we ever actually qualify for? It seems more important to him to keep his personal relations with his former clubs than succeeding in his current job. Not qualifying at all, made this so much easier.

 

So you're genuinely saying that he sabotaged qualifying so that he could keep good relations with clubs?  As in, failing in his current job, so he can...em...succeed in his current job?

 

Like, honestly 100% suggesting it?

[kenny131]

To the idiots who say judging a striker by his goals is retro......wtf you guys been smoking.  A striker is deployed as a striker to score goals or am i missing something.

 

Going by previous posts of the ilk he brings people into the game behind him.... Yes every Striker should be doing this anyway as its a team game after all.  But the striker is there to bag the goals from chances provided by the players he so called brings into the game.

 

So as far as Steven Fletcher is concerned he has failed miserably to provide us with goals simple.

[1320Lichtie]

To the idiots who say judging a striker by his goals is retro......wtf you guys been smoking. A striker is deployed as a striker to score goals or am i missing something.

Going by previous posts of the ilk he brings people into the game behind him.... Yes every Striker should be doing this anyway as its a team game after all. But the striker is there to bag the goals from chances provided by the players he so called brings into the game.

So as far as Steven Fletcher is concerned he has failed miserably to provide us with goals simple.

Except for the one away in Germany, the one at home to Poland, one away in Poland and the 6 against Gibraltar.

Directly involved in 8 of the 22 goals we scored though scoring or assists. And played a huge part in the great goal we scored away in Poland.

Involved in nearly half of them.

Eta: if you take the 12 out we scored against Gibraltar we only scored 10.

[1320Lichtie]

Other than Lewandowski (7), Muller (7) and Milik (4) the highest scorer in games (excluding the Gibraltar ones) was Maloney with 3.

Goals scored as a team excluding Gibraltar was.

Poland - 18

Germany - 13

Scotland - 10

Ireland - 8

Georgia - 3

IMO the area we are struggling badly in is centre half and RB. Our defence is the worst area of our team. No point moaning about Fletcher and our attack. He can't even get a game for Sunderland I know but sadly he's the best we've got.

[1320Lichtie]

Stevie Fletcher signs for Sheffield Wednesday.

[craigkillie]

Strikers shouldn't only be judged on goals, but the supposed benefits which Fletcher brings to the team have taken on a mythical quality.  He has had some moments where he has held the ball up well and brought teammates into play, but he is nowhere near consistent enough or good enough at it.  For games like the England ones, he might be the best option, but I would much rather have a busy player like Naismith or Griffiths up front against the likes of Slovakia and Slovenia.

[troopio]

Unlucky for Sheffield Wednesday and us, ruins their chances of Promotion and means he will be nailed on first choice.........what a terrible day this is.

[forameus]

Unlucky for Sheffield Wednesday and us, ruins their chances of Promotion and means he will be nailed on first choice.........what a terrible day this is.

 

Deary me...if only they'd consulted you first, rather than drawing on their experience in football.  Put the sandwich board away and calm down a bit, jesus.

 

To the idiots who say judging a striker by his goals is retro......wtf you guys been smoking.  A striker is deployed as a striker to score goals or am i missing something.

 

Going by previous posts of the ilk he brings people into the game behind him.... Yes every Striker should be doing this anyway as its a team game after all.  But the striker is there to bag the goals from chances provided by the players he so called brings into the game.

 

So as far as Steven Fletcher is concerned he has failed miserably to provide us with goals simple.

 

Did you even read any of it or just take that part and start mashing your face off the keyboard?  I said judging one solely on it is retro.  Because it is.  Strikers do a lot more in the game than they used to.

 

Strikers shouldn't only be judged on goals, but the supposed benefits which Fletcher brings to the team have taken on a mythical quality.  He has had some moments where he has held the ball up well and brought teammates into play, but he is nowhere near consistent enough or good enough at it.  For games like the England ones, he might be the best option, but I would much rather have a busy player like Naismith or Griffiths up front against the likes of Slovakia and Slovenia.

 

Fair enough, and points for actually putting a point across well rather than devolving into hyperbole.  I would say he's had more than moments.  He wasn't as good early on in the campaign, but after Georgia - particularly Germany and Poland - he played very well, and did a lot of work that doesn't often get noticed.  I know it's not palatable to some, and they'd rather have a forward banging in ten goals a campaign.  Believe me, I'd rather have that too, but we don't have that kind of player. 

 

I'm also not that convinced on Griffiths, and think he might prove to be out of his depth.  He certainly doesn't suit the type of game we're likely to play.  I'll even say "system" because I know it'll get some riled up.  I imagine he'd suit us sitting deeper and hitting on the counter, with someone in midfield able to play accurate balls over the top for him to run on to.  But unfortunately we don't really have those kind of midfielders.  So he'd probably just be left chasing defenders, getting balls pinged at him that he's got little chance of catching, and generally looking poorer than he actually is.  Our hope would be that his busy nature would force mistakes, but that's not really what we should be relying on.

 

To be honest I'd like to see how Fletcher looks playing behind a main striker.  Griffiths had a poor game against Denmark, but for the opening of that game Fletcher looked a lot more comfortable picking it up from deep and doing his holding role, while still having a focal point further forward.  Of course, there's then a question of who we play further forward.  Perhaps Rhodes if he makes a good start to life in the EPL, although he'd need to start offering a little more than just his movement.

[AyrExile]

Strikers shouldn't only be judged on goals, but the supposed benefits which Fletcher brings to the team have taken on a mythical quality. He has had some moments where he has held the ball up well and brought teammates into play, but he is nowhere near consistent enough or good enough at it. For games like the England ones, he might be the best option, but I would much rather have a busy player like Naismith or Griffiths up front against the likes of Slovakia and Slovenia.

Has Griffiths played well in a game or even scored a goal or two at a level above SPL? Even in Europa cup games he looked like a fish out of water. Can't see why he gets touted for Scotland other than playing for Celtic and getting his photo in the daily record often.

[kenny131]

Foreuranus if you actually read my post I said clearly every striker should be brining others into the game that's nothing new or Old. However a striker is chosen to bang the fucking goals.

[RandomGuy.]

Foreuranus if you actually read my post I said clearly every striker should be brining others into the game that's nothing new or Old. However a striker is chosen to bang the fucking goals.

 

Not anymore, which is why Walter Smith regularly dropped Kris Boyd and why Jordan Rhodes has never played above the Championship.

 

Steven Fletcher is our best all round striker, its not even worth debating. Naismith is close but isn't suited to being the main forward at all, while Griffiths is miles from being good enough. The likes of Martin and Rhodes are too one-dimensional to be any good as a lone striker aswell.

[Gordopolis]

Chris Martin point is irrelevant to the Fletcher one, as they're in the squad to do different things. I feel sorry for the guy, as he's relegated to "player-we-call-upon-with-five-minutes-to-go". Usually we're losing, and usually he looks shit because he's given nothing to work with. I imagine it'd be a different story if he was actually given the time to do something other than chase long, hopeless balls.

Have heard this '5 mins to go' argument from a few posters on here but I think that's a myth. He has mainly been a sub but he's also had a few starts (England and Gibraltar) and most of his sub appearances have been before the 80th minute IIRC. He's just never ever looked dangerous in a Scotland shirt as I see it that's why I don't understand his current and continued place in the pecking order.

[Rabinho]

Have heard this '5 mins to go' argument from a few posters on here but I think that's a myth. He has mainly been a sub but he's also had a few starts (England and Gibraltar) and most of his sub appearances have been before the 80th minute IIRC. He's just never ever looked dangerous in a Scotland shirt as I see it that's why I don't understand his current and continued place in the pecking order.

I was looking forward to seeing him start and see what he was all about(due to his decent scoring record in the Championship).

Sadly I thought he was awful against England and Gibraltar, looked like he was running in treacle.

It'll be interesting to see how his goal tally compares to Fletch when they're both in the same division.

[Rabinho]

Not anymore, which is why Walter Smith regularly dropped Kris Boyd and why Jordan Rhodes has never played above the Championship.

Steven Fletcher is our best all round striker, its not even worth debating. Naismith is close but isn't suited to being the main forward at all, while Griffiths is miles from being good enough. The likes of Martin and Rhodes are too one-dimensional to be any good as a lone striker aswell.

This is particularly relevant for a nation like ours when we don't get many goal scoring opportunities.

An out and out poacher starting for us would be a complete waste of time.

[Dunning1874]

Strikers shouldn't only be judged on goals, but the supposed benefits which Fletcher brings to the team have taken on a mythical quality.  He has had some moments where he has held the ball up well and brought teammates into play, but he is nowhere near consistent enough or good enough at it.  For games like the England ones, he might be the best option, but I would much rather have a busy player like Naismith or Griffiths up front against the likes of Slovakia and Slovenia.

 

I realise it was only one game, but by a considerable distance Scotland's best performance under Strachan was the 2-0 win at home to Croatia. What was fundamental to our outstanding attacking play that night was Naismith's movement as lone striker, dragging the Croat defence all over the place and creating space for the midfield three behind him.

 

I realise that doing that in one game doesn't mean he'd be capable of doing it every time, and Snodgrass having a tremendous game behind him was also crucial to our performance that night, but since that night Strachan hasn't played Naismith as a striker once, which is just bizarre. Fletcher clearly isn't capable of the same type of movement and running, and our failure to create space up front with a static Fletcher was a clear problem in the second half of the last campaign. He needs to try Naismith there again.