Gordon Strachan

[1320Lichtie]

From what I can remember... Everyone looked forward to Vogts. Everyone looked forward to Burley, he'd made noises about being attacking and playing 2 up top etc. Everyone looked forward to Levein getting it, young manager, new ideas had done well with United/Hearts. Everyone looked forward to Strachan, experienced guy, perfect age for the job, good Scotland career and done decent with Celtic in Europe.

Hindsight is a good thing but I agree with Pandarilla here.

[Dunning1874]

2 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

From what I can remember... Everyone looked forward to Vogts. Everyone looked forward to Burley, he'd made noises about being attacking and playing 2 up top etc. Everyone looked forward to Levein getting it, young manager, new ideas had done well with United/Hearts. Everyone looked forward to Strachan, experienced guy, perfect age for the job, good Scotland career and done decent with Celtic in Europe.

Hindsight is a good thing but I agree with Pandarilla here.

The vast majority were happy with Strachan's appointment, you're right there. However, there were plenty of people warning that Burley and Levein would be disasters. Of course, they were shouted down at the time they were appointed for being too negative and told they had to give them a chance, then when they turned out to be useless they were told to wind their necks in because no one complained when they were appointed.

No one disputes that there are problems with the national set up that go beyond the position of manager. However, it is evidently preposterous nonsense to suggest that we couldn't have qualified if we'd had a better manager at any point in the last 8 years. The results that have stopped us reaching the playoffs in that time have been losing to Macedonia, drawing with Lithuania, losing to Wales twice plus drawing with Macedonia, and losing to Georgia. The suggestion that no manager could have bettered those results with the squads we had is really absolute drivel.

[pandarilla]

Aye but we can't change any of that unless and until the fans just stay in the house during Scotland games, ain't going to happen as they appear to enjoy themselves too much regardless of the football on show.

That's nonsense.

England fans can get as irate as they like every two years but that anger doesn't bring about change.

The fans of Iceland didn't suddenly start protesting that things had to change before they miraculously did.

We have systemic problems at the heart of our game. Stomping our feet and hurling faeces at the team won't solve anything.

[dogmc]

The vast majority were happy with Strachan's appointment, you're right there. However, there were plenty of people warning that Burley and Levein would be disasters. Of course, they were shouted down at the time they were appointed for being too negative and told they had to give them a chance, then when they turned out to be useless they were told to wind their necks in because no one complained when they were appointed.

No one disputes that there are problems with the national set up that go beyond the position of manager. However, it is evidently preposterous nonsense to suggest that we couldn't have qualified if we'd had a better manager at any point in the last 8 years. The results that have stopped us reaching the playoffs in that time have been losing to Macedonia, drawing with Lithuania, losing to Wales twice plus drawing with Macedonia, and losing to Georgia. The suggestion that no manager could have bettered those results with the squads we had is really absolute drivel.

Exactly this. Vogts Strachan Levein n burley all failed to get the best out of the players available to them. Sometimes by not having a clear idea of who should play or how to line them up, sometimes by making strange, bizarre or outright spiteful selections, sometimes by being tactically naive, sometimes through sheer bloody incompetence. Whether fans looked forward to those appointments or not is frankly irrelevant. All four have been failures. Mewling about the quality of players available doesn't mitigate for bad management. Ni Hungary Iceland etc have similarly limited squads of players but achieve positive results and performances by having competent managers. The long term improvement of Scottish football certainly needs a myriad number of problems to be addressed but in the short term even a competent manager would see better than we are currently seeing.

[pandarilla]

The vast majority were happy with Strachan's appointment, you're right there. However, there were plenty of people warning that Burley and Levein would be disasters. Of course, they were shouted down at the time they were appointed for being too negative and told they had to give them a chance, then when they turned out to be useless they were told to wind their necks in because no one complained when they were appointed.

No one disputes that there are problems with the national set up that go beyond the position of manager. However, it is evidently preposterous nonsense to suggest that we couldn't have qualified if we'd had a better manager at any point in the last 8 years. The results that have stopped us reaching the playoffs in that time have been losing to Macedonia, drawing with Lithuania, losing to Wales twice plus drawing with Macedonia, and losing to Georgia. The suggestion that no manager could have bettered those results with the squads we had is really absolute drivel.

There are people that actively thrive on negativity at the football. All they do is berate their teams, their managers, tactics, team selections, referees decisions, the suits at the sfa.

I think the latest 'down with the kids' phrase is 'haters gonna hate'. Those people can't be listened to at all times or no-one would be appointed.

I also think you're showing a huge disrespect when you talk about the likes of Macedonia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Wales. These teams have shown they are better than us time and time again in the last 15 years. They're not getting freak results against us.

[vikingTON]

3 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

 

There are people that actively thrive on negativity at the football. All they do is berate their teams, their managers, tactics, team selections, referees decisions, the suits at the sfa.

I think the latest 'down with the kids' phrase is 'haters gonna hate'. Those people can't be listened to at all times or no-one would be appointed.

I also think you're showing a huge disrespect when you talk about the likes of Macedonia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Wales. These teams have shown they are better than us time and time again in the last 15 years. They're not getting freak results against us.




 

 

^^^ gormless happy-clapper

Georgia, Macedonia and Lithuania are pub teams: football isn't even remotely the biggest sport in Lithuania. None of them have even close to the number of professional footballers as Scotland by nationality, nor do they have a peculiar, golden generation: so they're utter pish that any competent international side should roll over. Scotland are themselves pish, but clearly underperform against those countries as a result of managerial incompetence. 

[pandarilla]

^^^ gormless happy-clapper

Georgia, Macedonia and Lithuania are pub teams: football isn't even remotely the biggest sport in Lithuania. None of them have even close to the number of professional footballers as Scotland by nationality, nor do they have a peculiar, golden generation: so they're utter pish that any competent international side should roll over. Scotland are themselves pish, but clearly underperform against those countries as a result of managerial incompetence. 

We've been a pub team for a while now. And your use of the word gormless is making chuckle.

Did you approve of any Scotland manager in the last 15 years?

[pandarilla]

Exactly this. Vogts Strachan Levein n burley all failed to get the best out of the players available to them. Sometimes by not having a clear idea of who should play or how to line them up, sometimes by making strange, bizarre or outright spiteful selections, sometimes by being tactically naive, sometimes through sheer bloody incompetence. Whether fans looked forward to those appointments or not is frankly irrelevant. All four have been failures. Mewling about the quality of players available doesn't mitigate for bad management. Ni Hungary Iceland etc have similarly limited squads of players but achieve positive results and performances by having competent managers. The long term improvement of Scottish football certainly needs a myriad number of problems to be addressed but in the short term even a competent manager would see better than we are currently seeing.

How long did NI and Iceland go with shite managers before they stumbled across a competent one? Were they just as shit at picking them as we've been?

[vikingTON]

Because of managerial failure; not because Lithuania and Georgia are of a comparable standard.

And of course, Scotland's record over the past fifteen years stomps all over the record of those, genuine pub teams.
They're not "better than Scotland" at all.

The bottom line is that you're wildly deflecting from a series of short-term failures to argue about longer-term issues. Both exist at the same time, but longer-term issues don't actually explain why your outfit failed to beat a gubbins team from the Baltic States at home: that's an obvious failure of first team management.

[pandarilla]

Because of managerial failure; not because Lithuania and Georgia are of a comparable standard.

And of course, Scotland's record over the past fifteen years stomps all over the record of those, genuine pub teams.
They're not "better than Scotland" at all.

The bottom line is that you're wildly deflecting from a series of short-term failures to argue about longer-term issues. Both exist at the same time, but longer-term issues don't actually explain why your outfit failed to beat a gubbins team from the Baltic States at home: that's an obvious failure of first team management.

When does a series of short term failures become a long term failure?

And there were plenty who were extremely critical of Scotland in the 90s. It was hardly the glory days.

[dogmc]

How long did NI and Iceland go with shite managers before they stumbled across a competent one? Were they just as shit at picking them as we've been?

No idea why their past managerial selections are relevant to the point other than to illustrate their improvements under competent managers. That said ni have wc qfs on their cv. When they have had decent managers they have performed well. When they have had poor managers they have tanked. Apart from the odd best they have had a pretty much static calibre of player to pick from. Surely you can accept the premise that vogts levein Strachan and burley failed to get anywhere near the best possible level of performance from our players? Its irrelevant whether the appointments were applauded or not in advance. Whats relevant is that when you have a relatively limited group to pick from you a) pick your players wisely b ) select tactics which both suit your players and make life difficult for opponents c) that you engage and communicate with players in a way that builds their confidence and motivates them. All 4 managers have failed on all 3 points.

[pandarilla]

All 4 managers have failed on all 3 points?

Smith got us hard to beat (before leaving in quite annoying circumstances) and grabbed some momentum but let's not forget mcleish led us to failure in Georgia too.

I think the history of those other countries does matter. I think far too much emphasis is placed on the manager in these situations. It's just not that simple.

We are talking about football. Sport, not science. Do this and that happens is not how this works. Do this and you give yourself a better chance of that happening is closer to the truth.

[dogmc]

All 4 managers have failed on all 3 points?

Smith got us hard to beat (before leaving in quite annoying circumstances) and grabbed some momentum but let's not forget mcleish led us to failure in Georgia too.

I think the history of those other countries does matter. I think far too much emphasis is placed on the manager in these situations. It's just not that simple.

We are talking about football. Sport, not science. Do this and that happens is not how this works. Do this and you give yourself a better chance of that happening is closer to the truth.

Hundred per cent agree on your last para. I'm not trying say that there aren't dozens even hundreds of issues aside from the manager.. .but a bad manager makes a massive short term difference. Mcleish did indeed lose in Georgia (if I felt so inclined I could point to it being the 2nd game of a double header and some key players being missed). He also took us right up the rankings and into pot 2 by beating some very good sides. The 4 mgrs I'm moaning about have very few competitive wins between them and most of those wins were against minnows like faroes and Liechtenstein. Strachan has the Croatia wins, but even then they had qualified. Macedonia Gibraltar Malta and roi are his only other wins. 3 minnows and a meh side that still nearly nicked a draw. Mcleish beat the world cup finalists away from home, stuck 3 on the wc qfs at hampden and even put 3 past the erm might of Lithuania, all games which were live rubbers. The ranking system isn't perfect but it shows clearly that mcleish / smith achieved better performances and results with quite possibly poorer players. Georgia was probably the only bad result that mcleish had. Fixating on that doesn't mitigate for the other mgrs not getting the best out of their squads. One bad result for one mgr isn't same as a run of poor results / performances for the others.

[1320Lichtie]

The vast majority were happy with Strachan's appointment, you're right there. However, there were plenty of people warning that Burley and Levein would be disasters. Of course, they were shouted down at the time they were appointed for being too negative and told they had to give them a chance, then when they turned out to be useless they were told to wind their necks in because no one complained when they were appointed.

No one disputes that there are problems with the national set up that go beyond the position of manager. However, it is evidently preposterous nonsense to suggest that we couldn't have qualified if we'd had a better manager at any point in the last 8 years. The results that have stopped us reaching the playoffs in that time have been losing to Macedonia, drawing with Lithuania, losing to Wales twice plus drawing with Macedonia, and losing to Georgia. The suggestion that no manager could have bettered those results with the squads we had is really absolute drivel.

I agree with all of this

But managers need to be near enough perfect for us to qualify with what we have at our disposal. It's not an easy job

[pandarilla]

I agree with all of this

But managers need to be near enough perfect for us to qualify with what we have at our disposal. It's not an easy job

That's my point too really.

I think we had a strong defence in that 07 group. Hartley holding as well.

An awful lot came together, including France going into a downward spiral at the right time, and the faddy strike in Paris. But yeah it was based on a brilliantly organised team.

Managers always carry the can, it's the way it's always been. But I don't necessarily think it's always right.

[Officer Barbrady]

Cast your mind back to those events in Paris in 2007, and you'll recall that the French wanted Domenech hung for losing to us in particular, and being shite in general. Does our defeat of them, equate to our defeats in Georgia, Macedonia, Lithuania etc for us? On balance, probably. But this isn't just about losing matches. There are ways to lose games, and very few of ours these days fall the right side of acceptable. At least, acceptable in terms of required action. 

[forameus]

45 minutes ago, Officer Barbrady said:

Cast your mind back to those events in Paris in 2007, and you'll recall that the French wanted Domenech hung for losing to us in particular, and being shite in general. Does our defeat of them, equate to our defeats in Georgia, Macedonia, Lithuania etc for us? On balance, probably. But this isn't just about losing matches. There are ways to lose games, and very few of ours these days fall the right side of acceptable. At least, acceptable in terms of required action. 

I'd disagree.  France losing to us twice was a top tier nation losing to one from tier 2 or 3 or whatever you believe.  Fast forward to us drawing/losing to Macedonia, Georgia, Lithuania, and the gap that existed between ourselves and France is a lot, lot larger than the one that now exists between us and the nations we used to be able to count on as diddies.  

Sad fact is that countries like those mentioned are now as good as (or perhaps better) from a technical perspective than we are.  Are we playing that much worse than we have historically?  Probably not. But the issue is that other sides have caught up.  We're by no means alone in that boat, of course, 

Personally I think there's no more than three tiers now.  There's the top tier - containing those sides that will always face little struggle in qualifying, France, Germany, England (although they may buck that trend this year) - the bottom tier - containing the definite diddies, and then the middle one containing everyone else.  

[Ira Gaines]

pandarilla, you're essentially accepting Scotland punching below their weight in order to service yourself being a total shitebag when it comes to accepting that we really could be doing better. You have basically gone for whataboutery instead of actually looking at the reality which is that 1) we have failed to qualify from a group we should have qualified from. 2) We have a team good enough to beat Lithuania at home. 3) We have a team good enough to not get utterly horsed by Slovakia. 4) We have a manager who has berated the quality of his players publically. 5) We have a manager who makes wrong decisions constantly and probably knowingly as well and most importantly, 6) Our performances even in games we have won have been very worrying.

Do we have a great team? Of course not. Do we have a shite team? No, we don't have that either. Going on about reactions to other managers and such changes absolutely nothing about that. This is about the man in the title of this topic, and he is now going to be a multiple time failure from achievable groups. That's simply unacceptable.

[The Grass Is Greener.]

On 8 October 2016 at 21:59, Yoshi-91 said:

Strachan isn't the problem.  We are just pish, no matter who is standing in the dug out.

This used to be a line I used for a while, it's complete and utter shite tbh. Just making up excuses for ourselfs before we've been pumped out, absolute losers attitude. I know we're never going to be brilliant but we need to start punching our weight.

[The Grass Is Greener.]

15 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

 

This.

And as I said in another thread, the acheivements of lesser nations in the euros should have all Scots fans waking up to this fact.

 

The the only thing I will say about expectation levels are much different, I'm not long 25 so I can't remember us ever being at a major tournament, so it's hope for me. It's a dream of mines to see us on the main stage. Older guys it was the normal so it just be hard to adjust and expect better, maybe we need to meet in the middle somewhere. I'm sure it'll happen(sorry for bringing this up again) but if I can see Hibs win the Sottish Cup I'll sure see The Scottish  at a major tournament.