Gordon Strachan

[Beano 3d]

1 hour ago, WATTOO said:

 

Maybe a coincidence as I'm also an Ayr fan but super Ally managed to get the most out of mediocre players, he managed to get the fans "believing" and he basically created a feel good positive atmosphere. On the flip side, Strachan has managed to divide the support, he's scunnered umpteen of our players and he's shown nothing but contempt for the paying fans with all his snide remarks and cringeworthy arrogant dross that he tends to spout when challenged. Personally I think it's time that he went..........

Ally McLeod was good at motivating players and inspiring supporters. But Argentina 1978 was the nadir of Scottish football management nonetheless. He took a good squad of players to the world cup and through utterly shambolic mis-management, he f**ked it up. Royally.

[resk]

1 hour ago, Casagolda said:

Was just thinking, if we lose tonight and Strachan does walk/gets the bullet, does that mean McGhee will be in charge for the game at Wembley next month? 

Scenes if true. 

Final score England 9-0 Scotland.  Scotland manager - "it's only three points".  

 

[forameus]

1 hour ago, Casagolda said:

Was just thinking, if we lose tonight and Strachan does walk/gets the bullet, does that mean McGhee will be in charge for the game at Wembley next month? 

Scenes if true. 

Depends whether the SFA manage to find their good football man/next sacrificial lamb in time for that fixture.  I'd imagine yes.  Means people can get a good head-start in the rollercoaster of "aye he's a no bad appointment" to "he's the worst one we've ever had, get him out, anyone would be better"

[German Jag]

1 hour ago, Casagolda said:

Was just thinking, if we lose tonight and Strachan does walk/gets the bullet, does that mean McGhee will be in charge for the game at Wembley next month? 

Scenes if true. 

Should select an interim manager by an online poll like they did for the goal music!

[Terry_Tibbs]

Bring back Alex McLeish..

[Jamaldo]

I said from the start that if we didn't get six points from the first two games he should be sacked. I was willing to forget that....until his post-match comments.

It's getting to the point where you think he's actually trying to sabotage the team. How the f**k can he play Chris Martin on his own up front? He's pish and we were at home to Lithuania ffs.

[forameus]

3 minutes ago, Jamaldo said:

I said from the start that if we didn't get six points from the first two games he should be sacked. I was willing to forget that....until his post-match comments.

It's getting to the point where you think he's actually trying to sabotage the team. How the f**k can he play Chris Martin on his own up front? He's pish and we were at home to Lithuania ffs.

Particularly on the age-old "on his own up front" argument...so say we decided to play two.  Presumably Bannan drops out, as Fletcher was captain, and I don't think you could realistically take out Snodgrass, leaving Ritchie and Burke out wide.  What would that extra forward have done given that Martin got pretty much zero service from the players behind him?  It's not as if we had some forward on the bench who can drop deep and create.  We had Fletcher - essentially the same as Martin but arguably better - and Griffiths, who requires the service just as much as Martin does.

[Nowhereman]

1 hour ago, Beano 3d said:

Ally McLeod was good at motivating players and inspiring supporters. But Argentina 1978 was the nadir of Scottish football management nonetheless. He took a good squad of players to the world cup and through utterly shambolic mis-management, he f**ked it up. Royally.

Nadir?

[Beano 3d]

17 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

Nadir?

Yes - what happened in Argentina was the nadir (so far) of management. His shortcomings as a manager were not exposed to the same extent through the  four-match qualifying campaign but in Argentina it was brutal. You had to feel sorry for him he was so far out of his depth.

[theoriginalhedge]

32 minutes ago, forameus said:

Particularly on the age-old "on his own up front" argument...so say we decided to play two.  Presumably Bannan drops out, as Fletcher was captain, and I don't think you could realistically take out Snodgrass, leaving Ritchie and Burke out wide.  What would that extra forward have done given that Martin got pretty much zero service from the players behind him?  It's not as if we had some forward on the bench who can drop deep and create.  We had Fletcher - essentially the same as Martin but arguably better - and Griffiths, who requires the service just as much as Martin does.

What do you mean by leaving players out?   It would have been pretty simple to move Snodgrass up alongside Martin then resort to a 5-3-2 formation with the wing backs pushing forward and everyone pressing higher up the pitch. I am no manager but I have watched Brechin City  resort to this simple tactic and they now sit top of the league after struggling to avoid relegation last season.    

[forameus]

1 minute ago, theoriginalhedge said:

What do you mean by leaving players out?   It would have been pretty simple to move Snodgrass up alongside Martin then resort to a 5-3-2 formation with the wing backs pushing forward and everyone pressing higher up the pitch. I am no manager but I have watched Brechin City  resort to this simple tactic and they now sit top of the league after struggling to avoid relegation last season.    

The argument is usually used in relation to Griffiths being on the bench.  To get him in, someone needs to come out.

You say it's pretty simple to move Snodgrass up to make it 5-3-2...who's the extra center back?  Fletcher?  Bannan?  So in your case, you'd need to leave someone out to add in another player at the back.  A 4-4-1-1 would have been workable with the players involved on Saturday, but I doubt it would have made much difference.  

People get far too fixated on formation.  There were plenty of times you could see us lining up with effectively a line of four up front, Snodgrass alongside Martin with Ritchie and Burke advanced.  You can talk about moving Snodgrass up beside Martin, but that's effectively what his role was.  He was just pretty shite on Saturday.

[dogmc]

Minor quibble but it's annoying to hear Strachan conceding first place to England on ssn today (especially when we still have to play them twice). Not asking him to say anything outlandish like 'aye we'll batter England' but at least don't seem defeatist when they're in such poor form. Of course 1st place is very unlikely but there really isnt any need to manage fan expectations anymore, they are virtually rock bottom. The 'top seed is a free hit' thing grates on most fans so why play that same record again. Surely better to simply say we will be as competitive as we can in every game and see where it takes us.

[forameus]

Just now, dogmc said:

Minor quibble but it's annoying to hear Strachan conceding first place to England on ssn today (especially when we still have to play them twice). Not asking him to say anything outlandish like 'aye we'll batter England' but at least don't seem defeatist when they're in such poor form. Of course 1st place is very unlikely but there really isnt any need to manage fan expectations anymore, they are virtually rock bottom. The 'top seed is a free hit' thing grates on most fans so why play that same record again. Surely better to simply say we will be as competitive as we can in every game and see where it takes us.

He can't really win in this case.  Personally I wouldn't like it if he did go out saying we'd beat England.  Although I don't really care what he says in public, it's what he says to the players that really matters.  I imagine these two lines are often pretty far apart. 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, dogmc said:

Minor quibble but it's annoying to hear Strachan conceding first place to England on ssn today (especially when we still have to play them twice). Not asking him to say anything outlandish like 'aye we'll batter England' but at least don't seem defeatist when they're in such poor form. Of course 1st place is very unlikely but there really isnt any need to manage fan expectations anymore, they are virtually rock bottom. The 'top seed is a free hit' thing grates on most fans so why play that same record again. Surely better to simply say we will be as competitive as we can in every game and see where it takes us.

Totally agree, the Premiership is way way overated as are the majority of the England team. They can't defend and their players with the exception of one or two are all playing at bottom half clubs and some aren't even first choice picks. Let's face it, there aint no David Silva's, Sergio Aguero's or Kevin De Bruyne's in that English side and the one quality player that they do have is a target of their boo boys and has now been dropped.

Basically it's defeatist crap from Strachan similar to what he said before we played both Germany and Belgium and yet a truly pathetic Ireland team managed to take points from them due to a little self belief and a Manager who actually had a clue and believed in his players.

[theoriginalhedge]

8 minutes ago, forameus said:

The argument is usually used in relation to Griffiths being on the bench.  To get him in, someone needs to come out.

You say it's pretty simple to move Snodgrass up to make it 5-3-2...who's the extra center back?  Fletcher?  Bannan?  So in your case, you'd need to leave someone out to add in another player at the back.  A 4-4-1-1 would have been workable with the players involved on Saturday, but I doubt it would have made much difference.  

People get far too fixated on formation.  There were plenty of times you could see us lining up with effectively a line of four up front, Snodgrass alongside Martin with Ritchie and Burke advanced.  You can talk about moving Snodgrass up beside Martin, but that's effectively what his role was.  He was just pretty shite on Saturday.

Aye, on reflection you are probably right. Possibly Anya coming in would give you that option.   I was just thinking back to earlier posts about us playing to our strengths that the 5-3-2 is a relatively simple way to push pressure on the opposition as hardly anyone plays with 2 wing backs and it's harder to defend against .  

However I think on Saturday the objective was just not to lose. Strachan tried to pack the midfield to stifle Lithuania .  There was very little incentive to attack .......until they scored and the panic set in. 

 

[forameus]

Just now, theoriginalhedge said:

Aye, on reflection you are probably right. Possibly Anya coming in would give you that option.   I was just thinking back to earlier posts about us playing to our strengths that the 5-3-2 is a relatively simple way to push pressure on the opposition as hardly anyone plays with 2 wing backs and it's harder to defend against .  

However I think on Saturday the objective was just not to lose. Strachan tried to pack the midfield to stifle Lithuania .  There was very little incentive to attack .......until they scored and the panic set in. 

 

I'd like to see it tried out, but not sure qualifiers are the right place.  I'm wary to try and fix our terrible defenders by throwing one that can't even get a start in amongst the two usual suspects, but it would give our better full backs a licence to get forward more, which can only be a good thing.  It also means we're dropping a midfielder too.  Presumably we'd be playing one of the holding midfielders (perhaps two in harder games) then dropping one or two of the more attacking ones.  Would Burke work in that kind of system?  Ritchie?  Snodgrass should be fine, and you can play him further forward I suppose, but if we're really going to play a formation ending in a two, we may as well just play two out and out forwards, Martin/Fletcher and Griffiths.

[dogmc]

He can't really win in this case.  Personally I wouldn't like it if he did go out saying we'd beat England.  Although I don't really care what he says in public, it's what he says to the players that really matters.  I imagine these two lines are often pretty far apart. 

Yeah like I said I'm not asking for him to overtly bullish, just be less concerned with managing down fan expectations. Fan expectations are pretty low now already. He just needs to say we will compete in every game. I'd hope like you that he is more positive with the players but think that fans could do with hearing less defeatism as well. The last 2 campaigns have been pretty uninspiring and so far we haven't seen much to encourage fans that the exorbitant ticket prices are worthwhile. By conceding 1st place he makes it sound like we have given up before even playing a bang average England side twice.

[theoriginalhedge]

1 minute ago, forameus said:

I'd like to see it tried out, but not sure qualifiers are the right place.  I'm wary to try and fix our terrible defenders by throwing one that can't even get a start in amongst the two usual suspects, but it would give our better full backs a licence to get forward more, which can only be a good thing.  It also means we're dropping a midfielder too.  Presumably we'd be playing one of the holding midfielders (perhaps two in harder games) then dropping one or two of the more attacking ones.  Would Burke work in that kind of system?  Ritchie?  Snodgrass should be fine, and you can play him further forward I suppose, but if we're really going to play a formation ending in a two, we may as well just play two out and out forwards, Martin/Fletcher and Griffiths.

The main objective is to have the wing backs as your main asset,  firing in as many crosses as possible and trying to win as many corners and set pieces as possible.   Lithuania were not comfortable with cross balls on Saturday but we only tested them two or 3 times at most .  Strachan surely saw that as he is the qualified one. 

The midfield is important as you need an option when play breaks down or the wingers have been sussed out. A couple of battlers like Bannan and possibly Ritchie to break up any breaks from the opposition is vital.  You mention Burke .  The game kind of passed him by on Saturday because there was very little in the way of attacking play .  This system would allow him to back up the strikers as it is more direct.  Let him have a free role behind the strikers to pick up any loose balls .   Also the strikers need to work their arse off to win corners , throws etc .....anything to keep the pressure on the opposition. 

An attacking team gets the crowd going which can be a huge morale booster when legs are tired.    Saturday was just awful, atmosphere wise .  I would never want to witness that again at a home match. 

[forameus]

9 minutes ago, theoriginalhedge said:

The main objective is to have the wing backs as your main asset,  firing in as many crosses as possible and trying to win as many corners and set pieces as possible.   Lithuania were not comfortable with cross balls on Saturday but we only tested them two or 3 times at most .  Strachan surely saw that as he is the qualified one. 

The midfield is important as you need an option when play breaks down or the wingers have been sussed out. A couple of battlers like Bannan and possibly Ritchie to break up any breaks from the opposition is vital.  You mention Burke .  The game kind of passed him by on Saturday because there was very little in the way of attacking play .  This system would allow him to back up the strikers as it is more direct.  Let him have a free role behind the strikers to pick up any loose balls .   Also the strikers need to work their arse off to win corners , throws etc .....anything to keep the pressure on the opposition. 

An attacking team gets the crowd going which can be a huge morale booster when legs are tired.    Saturday was just awful, atmosphere wise .  I would never want to witness that again at a home match. 

But then you're mentioning three midfielders in that, one of which you've put up behind the forwards.  That's us sitting with two midfielders shielding our weak center backs, and neither of them are particularly defensive.

I think there's several systems you could try out, but we don't have enough strength across the entire team to make them definitely successful.  Ideally we build one where we take advantage of wing-backs and attacking midfielders, as they're probably our strongest areas, but then you're weakening areas where you're really weak.  It becomes a balance then about whether you want to try and protect those weaknesses to stop us conceding too often, or play to our strengths to try and see us score more.  Obviously there's a balance to be had there, but therein lies the problem.

[Monkey Tennis]

47 minutes ago, forameus said:

He can't really win in this case.  Personally I wouldn't like it if he did go out saying we'd beat England.  Although I don't really care what he says in public, it's what he says to the players that really matters.  I imagine these two lines are often pretty far apart. 

Is there not a middle ground between saying we'll beat them and conceding defeat beforehand?

What he says in public definitely matters.  The only defence for his idiotic ramblings would be if they were accompannied by results that point to an expertise lurking beneath the infantile bluster.

There is no such accompaniment.