Gordon Strachan

[kenny131]

2 minutes ago, forameus said:

Go read Barbrady's post.  That's how to actually argue a point without resorting to smashing your face off the keyboard.  

Exactly my point now go back under your bridge

[forameus]

1 minute ago, kenny131 said:

Exactly my point now go back under your bridge

I'm the one discussing points, champ.  Only one troll here it seems.

[1320Lichtie]

I'm the one discussing points, champ.  Only one troll here it seems.

Don't let them get to you bud

If you disappear from these threads then this place will end up worse than the BRALT

[kenny131]

1 hour ago, forameus said:

Well done for actually managing to reply to a point, rather than just fling shit like most do.

The first part about my opinion being "damaging"...come on.  Even if it was widely held - and I don't particularly care whether it is or not - the views of fans don't amount to a hill of beans.  They mean the square root of f**k all largely.  Booing and berating players every time they touch a ball is probably the most say a fan has in anything.  I have my opinion, I fully accept the right for everyone to put forward theirs (and also reserve the right to tell them it's pish and why, as you have the right to do the same for mine).  But they mean largely nothing at the end of the day.

I'm not really sure what you mean by your first point, the one about the two forwards.  I think you're saying - correct me if I'm wrong - that me saying two forwards are different means that I'm saying we should stick to one because it plays to our strengths.  If so, absolutely, and I stand by that.  If we're a great side with great players, we can probably afford to have several different approaches.  However, I think Griffiths and Rhodes especially need the sorts of players we don't really have in midfield.  We're blessed with a larger number of attacking midfielders who like to get into the box.  We don't have that creative midfielder who is going to play in the likes of Rhodes or Griffiths.  That is why I'll always say that at the moment Fletcher is our best option.  I'd love to have someone better, of course I would, but it is what it is.  I don't have any understanding why people would want to play someone else just for the sake of it when we're unlikely to be able to play to their strengths.

Second point, one about Weiss.  I can see where you're coming from, but again it comes down to what we have at our disposal.  Robertson is probably always going to be our best option all round, but do we have someone that has the defensive quality to be able to cope with Mad Vlad, while at the same time not leaving us camped in our own half with no width?  I'd love us to have a full-back who has the engine to attack while also able to get back and do his defensive job properly.  And playing devil's advocate, if we play someone whose game is defend first, attack later, and he still gets ripped apart, what then?  At least with Robertson, it's possible that Weiss will be given something else to think about, and perhaps get penned further back.  Putting in a pure full-back will just mean he can push further and further up.  Not where we want him to be playing.

You're starting to lose me at the third one.  Saying someone "embraces mediocrity" is a wonderful little soundbite, but it means absolutely nothing.  Me saying that this is the best system we can put together based on the players we have available is simply being realistic.  If someone comes along and outlines a system that would be better based on the current squad, brilliant.  But no-one has.  Those that have put things forward include suggesting we pap out every "old" player and replace them with players who have less quality.  That would be the very definition of accepting mediocrity.

I'm not a supporter of Strachan.  I'm not a supporter of Fletcher.  I'm not a supporter of any player, coach or manager currently involved.  I just support Scotland.  I want them to do well, and I'm pragmatic enough to 

2nd last paragraph  "the best system we can put together based on players",  This is quote I would expect from strachan. 1. He ain't tried any other system so how do you know it's best. 2. He never picks our best players imo.

We all would love our Nation to qualify I get that who wouldn't.

I just have 20 yrs of frustration watching backs to the wall mentality of trying to scrape over the line into a playoff and fail. I would not be as dejected about it all if we for once looked to go into a campaign and actually came out swining attempted to win every game on the front foot. If we failed I could handle it, least we give it a good go. This fascination of 2 def mid every match just kills us for creating chances,  which in turn makes us look honking against bang average sides.

 

 

[forameus]

15 minutes ago, kenny131 said:

2nd last paragraph  "the best system we can put together based on players",  This is quote I would expect from strachan. 1. He ain't tried any other system so how do you know it's best. 2. He never picks our best players imo.

We all would love our Nation to qualify I get that who wouldn't.

I just have 20 yrs of frustration watching backs to the wall mentality of trying to scrape over the line into a playoff and fail. I would not be as dejected about it all if we for once looked to go into a campaign and actually came out swining attempted to win every game on the front foot. If we failed I could handle it, least we give it a good go. This fascination of 2 def mid every match just kills us for creating chances,  which in turn makes us look honking against bang average sides.

 

 

Aww, he's learning!  Isn't it much better to actually argue points?

I don't know it's best.  It's my opinion it's best.  From, you know, looking at the players we have and what their strengths are.  I assume you believe the opposite, so how do you know it isn't the best?  How do you know that another system would be better?  Is it by any chance "this one is pure shite, anything else must be better?", because that doesn't really work.

The reason we play 2 holding midfielders is to allow our better attacking midfielders to get into the game further forward without having to worry overly about getting back to defend.  And also because our defenders are relatively shite.  It does't stop us creating chances, that's just a lazy comparison thrown out by the people who believe that one striker is negative and that two holding midfielders are overly defensive.  They can be, or they can not be.  It's nowhere near as simple as one way or the other.

[Ira Gaines]

You complain about people who give put downs yet act like a patronising c**t to the one who tries to have a discussion. There's no point in being nice about it with that.

[Officer Barbrady]

2 hours ago, forameus said:

Well done for actually managing to reply to a point, rather than just fling shit like most do.

The first part about my opinion being "damaging"...come on.  Even if it was widely held - and I don't particularly care whether it is or not - the views of fans don't amount to a hill of beans.  They mean the square root of f**k all largely.  Booing and berating players every time they touch a ball is probably the most say a fan has in anything.  I have my opinion, I fully accept the right for everyone to put forward theirs (and also reserve the right to tell them it's pish and why, as you have the right to do the same for mine).  But they mean largely nothing at the end of the day.

I'm not really sure what you mean by your first point, the one about the two forwards.  I think you're saying - correct me if I'm wrong - that me saying two forwards are different means that I'm saying we should stick to one because it plays to our strengths.  If so, absolutely, and I stand by that.  If we're a great side with great players, we can probably afford to have several different approaches.  However, I think Griffiths and Rhodes especially need the sorts of players we don't really have in midfield.  We're blessed with a larger number of attacking midfielders who like to get into the box.  We don't have that creative midfielder who is going to play in the likes of Rhodes or Griffiths.  That is why I'll always say that at the moment Fletcher is our best option.  I'd love to have someone better, of course I would, but it is what it is.  I don't have any understanding why people would want to play someone else just for the sake of it when we're unlikely to be able to play to their strengths.

Second point, one about Weiss.  I can see where you're coming from, but again it comes down to what we have at our disposal.  Robertson is probably always going to be our best option all round, but do we have someone that has the defensive quality to be able to cope with Mad Vlad, while at the same time not leaving us camped in our own half with no width?  I'd love us to have a full-back who has the engine to attack while also able to get back and do his defensive job properly.  And playing devil's advocate, if we play someone whose game is defend first, attack later, and he still gets ripped apart, what then?  At least with Robertson, it's possible that Weiss will be given something else to think about, and perhaps get penned further back.  Putting in a pure full-back will just mean he can push further and further up.  Not where we want him to be playing.

You're starting to lose me at the third one.  Saying someone "embraces mediocrity" is a wonderful little soundbite, but it means absolutely nothing.  Me saying that this is the best system we can put together based on the players we have available is simply being realistic.  If someone comes along and outlines a system that would be better based on the current squad, brilliant.  But no-one has.  Those that have put things forward include suggesting we pap out every "old" player and replace them with players who have less quality.  That would be the very definition of accepting mediocrity.

I'm not a supporter of Strachan.  I'm not a supporter of Fletcher.  I'm not a supporter of any player, coach or manager currently involved.  I just support Scotland.  I want them to do well, and I'm pragmatic enough to 

I see your Robertson, and i raise you a Tom Boyd v Andrei Kanchelskis back in '95. Tam was given the strict order not to even let the Ukrainian b*****d go for a piss on his own in Moscow, and turned in what i'd describe as probably the best full-back performance from a Scotland player as i've seen. After five or six attempts at shutting him down, the Russians just stopped using him; i'm sure he was subbed for a right-back, such was his ineffectiveness, and Boyd's success in multi-tasking, which included three crosses right across their box. A 0-0 was seen as a dissapointing result, on balance of play. 

 

Broon obviously fully expected him to be a major outlet for them. He didn't camp areas of the pitch with shit players, he just gave TB and Alan McLaren strict marking jobs, (very unlike him, as we never did it again despite its success) and didn't do anything like the same for Shearer, Sheringham, Gascoigne, Bergkamp, Rivaldo or Ronaldo  (far superior players) because it rendered us one or two men down if we conceded. And, we ended up the better side playing our (his) own way. 

 

Using Robertson in the position he has supposedly mastered, ie defending, is not the invite to mad Vlad to run over the top of him. Ultimately, he's part of a four; he can't just go wandering about from that position because he's one of two outlets; in possession, he probably will though, whether or not his 1v1 is going his way. Having played the game as long as he has (and i know he's still one of our younger players), it's alarmingly naive to think that first and foremost defending isn't his main MO; there's also probably a competent right back behind Weiss, and likely a link-man just inside feeding them, who he should worry about  his teammates shutting down too, if he is to be a success in this game. 

 

Does Strachan come across as being savvy enough to even think about this, or is he just downing tools because the ones he has aren't good enough?

[kenny131]

15 minutes ago, Randy Giles said:

You complain about people who give put downs yet act like a patronising c**t to the one who tries to have a discussion. There's no point in being nice about it with that.

I fail too see your point here regarding the team. Or maybe your referring to a Strachan after match analysis 

[forameus]

59 minutes ago, Randy Giles said:

You complain about people who give put downs yet act like a patronising c**t to the one who tries to have a discussion. There's no point in being nice about it with that.

What can I say.  You get what you give.

51 minutes ago, Officer Barbrady said:

I see your Robertson, and i raise you a Tom Boyd v Andrei Kanchelskis back in '95. Tam was given the strict order not to even let the Ukrainian b*****d go for a piss on his own in Moscow, and turned in what i'd describe as probably the best full-back performance from a Scotland player as i've seen. After five or six attempts at shutting him down, the Russians just stopped using him; i'm sure he was subbed for a right-back, such was his ineffectiveness, and Boyd's success in multi-tasking, which included three crosses right across their box. A 0-0 was seen as a dissapointing result, on balance of play. 

 

Broon obviously fully expected him to be a major outlet for them. He didn't camp areas of the pitch with shit players, he just gave TB and Alan McLaren strict marking jobs, (very unlike him, as we never did it again despite its success) and didn't do anything like the same for Shearer, Sheringham, Gascoigne, Bergkamp, Rivaldo or Ronaldo  (far superior players) because it rendered us one or two men down if we conceded. And, we ended up the better side playing our (his) own way. 

 

Using Robertson in the position he has supposedly mastered, ie defending, is not the invite to mad Vlad to run over the top of him. Ultimately, he's part of a four; he can't just go wandering about from that position because he's one of two outlets; in possession, he probably will though, whether or not his 1v1 is going his way. Having played the game as long as he has (and i know he's still one of our younger players), it's alarmingly naive to think that first and foremost defending isn't his main MO; there's also probably a competent right back behind Weiss, and likely a link-man just inside feeding them, who he should worry about  his teammates shutting down too, if he is to be a success in this game. 

 

Does Strachan come across as being savvy enough to even think about this, or is he just downing tools because the ones he has aren't good enough?

That's fair enough.  Were the more attacking full-backs really much of a thing back then though?  Side point, of course.

I can definitely see the benefit in just putting in a player who can defend first and foremost, but what if it doesn't go the way it did with Kanchelskis?  Robertson at least does give their defenders and wide players something to think about going forward, if we sacrifice that, we lose more width.  If we've lost that but keep a clean sheet, then I'd be comfortable enough in the rest of our players being able to do something.  But if the guy's getting torn apart anyway, then we're fucked either way.

Defending definitely should be his first thought, absolutely agree with that, but he has a particular strength in getting forward, as does/did Hutton.  It's how we're built at the moment, as we don't really have wingers either (unless we're playing Anya).  We have inside forwards who want to cut inside and help out whoever is in the middle.  In fact, mentioning Anya, he's probably our best option to support Robertson at left back.  He can get forward well, but if he is, then Anya - a fairly decent full-back, although not great - gets back and covers.  Unless we're absolutely routing a team, the two of them should never be charging forward.  One or the other.

No-one is going to know what his thinking is, but I'd be amazed if he hasn't thought of every angle.  I'm of the opinion though that he's trying to play to our strengths.  It's clear from the way we set up that he's identified a core group of players and a system that fits them.  He's identified that Anya has his electric pace.  He's seen that Ritchie and pals can cut in to support a forward.  Then he realises that that forward will probably have to do a lot more to bring those into the game.  Personally I would rather he always thought like that, rather than playing a side to make sure we don't get beat.  Ideally both of them tie up, but hasn't happened so far.

[troopio]

if Strachan has thought of every angle why does he continue to play the same formation regardless? Why, just because we conceded a goal, did he suddenly decide that 352 was not worth persisting with for at least the remainder of a game? Is that looking at every angle? Is once saying he will not select players who aren't playing regularly for their clubs yet he then goes on to completely contradict himself on the matter with pretty much every squad selection ever since look at every angle? Is constantly moaning about the lack of a "Bale", who was not a superstar at the start of his career, whilst not actually doing anything to look for our own version and or give opportunities to younger players progress looking at every angle? Is constantly moaning to the Media about how we lack the players yet he himself continues to select the same players time and time again thinking of every angle?

All it is with him is excuses and whinging, he isn't inspirational, he doesn't give off a positive vibe when talking about the team. We need someone more positive in charge.

I have said before I do not necessarily disagree with everything you ever say but the fact of the matter is Strachan is HUGE part of the present problems we face and until he has been sacked or quit we are not going to be pulling up trees any time soon.

I will stand by this statement I make now however if we get more than 14 points In this next stage I will be amazed, I have absolutely no faith In his ability to lead us and select the correct team and players.

[Officer Barbrady]

You serious? Were attacking full-backs 'a thing' in 1995? They've been a feature since 1958, but whatever. In any case, Boyd played at wing-back, and did very well too. Better than Robertson has ever managed, anyway. 

 

I've tried, against my better judgement, but you can't help yourself falling into smartarse mode in every post. 

 

To the point, no, we're not 'fucked' either way. This blue-sky, eggs-in-basket thinking is causing more harm. Whether Robertson wins his battle, or not, is only one of ten on the pitch. It's the job of his teammates to help him, if he isn't by doing their job. I know i made the example, and you've answered it exactly how i thought....by pouncing upon it as being contrary to what is likely to happen, and attempting to justify why we ought not to bother.

 

Gordon Strachan is not, i repeat NOT a prophet. Stop treating him like one. 

 

 

[forameus]

16 minutes ago, troopio said:

if Strachan has thought of every angle why does he continue to play the same formation regardless? Why, just because we conceded a goal, did he suddenly decide that 352 was not worth persisting with for at least the remainder of a game? Is that looking at every angle? Is once saying he will not select players who aren't playing regularly for their clubs yet he then goes on to completely contradict himself on the matter with pretty much every squad selection ever since look at every angle? Is constantly moaning about the lack of a "Bale", who was not a superstar at the start of his career, whilst not actually doing anything to look for our own version and or give opportunities to younger players progress looking at every angle? Is constantly moaning to the Media about how we lack the players yet he himself continues to select the same players time and time again thinking of every angle?

All it is with him is excuses and whinging, he isn't inspirational, he doesn't give off a positive vibe when talking about the team. We need someone more positive in charge.

I have said before I do not necessarily disagree with everything you ever say but the fact of the matter is Strachan is HUGE part of the present problems we face and until he has been sacked or quit we are not going to be pulling up trees any time soon.

I will stand by this statement I make now however if we get more than 14 points In this next stage I will be amazed, I have absolutely no faith In his ability to lead us and select the correct team and players.

Presumably because he believes he's picking the right one, rightly or wrongly.  Just because we lose playing one way doesn't mean we'll win playing another, and chopping and changing for every game isn't likely to breed much confidence within the side given we only get about 10 games a year, if that.  

And anyway, like I said, I have no idea what he's thinking.  I only gave what I presumed he would think given that he is a football manager taking a salary.  I know that everyone on this board could totes do a better job though.

And don't give the "we need a positive guy" schtick, because Strachan got the same pelters when he said we deserved to be at the Euros.  Some people just don't like him, and he won't win no matter what he says.

[Officer Barbrady]

18 minutes ago, troopio said:

if Strachan has thought of every angle why does he continue to play the same formation regardless? Why, just because we conceded a goal, did he suddenly decide that 352 was not worth persisting with for at least the remainder of a game? Is that looking at every angle? Is once saying he will not select players who aren't playing regularly for their clubs yet he then goes on to completely contradict himself on the matter with pretty much every squad selection ever since look at every angle? Is constantly moaning about the lack of a "Bale", who was not a superstar at the start of his career, whilst not actually doing anything to look for our own version and or give opportunities to younger players progress looking at every angle? Is constantly moaning to the Media about how we lack the players yet he himself continues to select the same players time and time again thinking of every angle?

All it is with him is excuses and whinging, he isn't inspirational, he doesn't give off a positive vibe when talking about the team. We need someone more positive in charge.

I have said before I do not necessarily disagree with everything you ever say but the fact of the matter is Strachan is HUGE part of the present problems we face and until he has been sacked or quit we are not going to be pulling up trees any time soon.

I will stand by this statement I make now however if we get more than 14 points In this next stage I will be amazed, I have absolutely no faith In his ability to lead us and select the correct team and players.

Magnificent, Sir. 

[Officer Barbrady]

3 minutes ago, forameus said:

Presumably because he believes he's picking the right one, rightly or wrongly.  Just because we lose playing one way doesn't mean we'll win playing another, and chopping and changing for every game isn't likely to breed much confidence within the side given we only get about 10 games a year, if that.  

And anyway, like I said, I have no idea what he's thinking.  I only gave what I presumed he would think given that he is a football manager taking a salary.  I know that everyone on this board could totes do a better job though.

And don't give the "we need a positive guy" schtick, because Strachan got the same pelters when he said we deserved to be at the Euros.  Some people just don't like him, and he won't win no matter what he says.

Complete pish. He wasn't being positive, he was disparaging other teams. There is a huge difference. And he can win......by shutting the f**k up, and focusing on his own job. 

 

Levein was a far more positive manager, in that he had a vision and extreme belief in it. Now, we know it was misplaced, and verged on the fucking mental at times, but it was far more honest and crystal clear than what we have now. Some might point to 4-6-0, my pre-emptive answer will be that he was correct....it has become a mainstream, regular formation and it was NOT a bad thing that it was tried out, or when it was played. Had it been a success, he would not have been crucified for it. His problem was, he tried it with players who weren't ready for it. Never mind the extremely thick, backward nation, who despite creating half of the modern world for the last 400 years, can't think for itself in Sturgeon's 'victim dependency' utopia.

 

Strachan couldn't stumble on a jobby by accident, let alone a new way of thinking about the game. Which is the least he should be doing, for his salary. 

[forameus]

Just now, Officer Barbrady said:

Complete pish. He wasn't being positive, he was disparaging other teams. There is a huge difference. And he can win......by shutting the f**k up, and focusing on his own job. 

 

Levein was a far more positive manager, in that he had a vision and extreme belief in it. Now, we know it was misplaced, and verged on the fucking mental at times, but it was far more honest and crystal clear than what we have now. Some might point to 4-6-0, my pre-emptive answer will be that he was correct....it has become a mainstream, regular formation and it was NOT a bad thing that it was tried out, or when it was played. Had it been a success, he would not have been crucified for it. His problem was, he tried it with players who weren't ready for it. Never mind the extremely thick, backward nation, who despite creating half of the modern world for the last 400 years, can't think for itself in Sturgeon's 'victim dependency' utopia.

 

Strachan couldn't stumble on a jobby by accident, let alone a new way of thinking about the game. Which is the least he should be doing, for his salary. 

Ok, poor example, but there have been times where he has been positive and people criticise him for it.  And you say shutting up, and for a lot of people that would suit.  But then I guarantee some would criticise him for not saying anything.

And I wouldn't agree Levein was positive.  Not sure how you can with those pair of draws being proclaimed as decent results, when in fact it pretty much sunk our campaign before we'd even played an away game.

Then you say that he was correct in playing 4-6-0.  I'm not sure how you can say that with a straight face.  It was a bad thing it was tried out, exactly because he used it with players who were clearly not good enough to perform it effectively.  Are we really praising him because he tried something different and got beat by an absolutely dreadful Czech Republic side, purely because it was "different"?  Of course it's a valid formation, but there's a reason very few sides play it.  He mentioned Rubin Kazan doing it against Barcelona, without then admitting that they did it because they were up against a huge side, and we were up against a team we absolutely should have been beating.  It was an absolutely terrible decision, made worse by his "I don't give a f**k" attitude afterwards.  He was an incredibly dull, negative manager, something we moved away from apparently when Strachan was appointed.  Until he becomes the new pariah, and we look for the next cycle to start.

Say what you like about Strachan, most people do, but to hold Levein up as some kind of shining light in comparison is, as you said, complete pish.  

[Raidernation]

So. One world class player, eh. Gordon? Three words for you......

Brazil. Olympics. Neymar.

 

Now just f**k off and admit you know f**k all!

 

[troopio]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/gordon-strachan-made-huge-error-8661879

Why is this muppet still the Manager of our National Team? When a Proud Englishman who is a fan of our game is talking us up more it tells its own story. Does not matter if he is right or not he should still be doing more.

 

[TheScarf]

Sutton is definitely a 'your father' type of guy with this neck breaking-ly cringey jokes and quips sometimes,  but he definitely takes time to research the game up here and seems quite knowledgeable on it.  A bare minimum for a pundit you would think.  Not in Scotland of course.

[1320Lichtie]

Sutton really grown on me. Really like him now. Strachan silly and pointless comments again, deserves to be moaned at for that.

[Officer Barbrady]

What a disgusting little dick.