New formation

[Dindeleux]

But yes, you're absolutely correct

Glad you agree.

[SlayerX]

6 minutes ago, Dindeleux said:

 

Glad you agree.

 

I was going to end the post with "</Sarcasm>", but I assumed that you'd get it.

[SlayerX]

It almost worked....

"Oh, that fellow at Radio Shack said I was mad. Well, who's mad now? Ah-hahahahahahaha!*

*Treehouse of horror II

[forameus]

When really it went exactly how a few of us said it would.  The wing-backs were full-backs more often than not, leading to it pretty much being a 5-4-1 and fairly negative.  If you'd said we should play it to keep solid at the back and frustrate England, you'd be 100% spot on.  You said we should do it because it would be inherently more attacking.  Which it wasn't. 

[SlayerX]

4 hours ago, forameus said:

When really it went exactly how a few of us said it would.  The wing-backs were full-backs more often than not, leading to it pretty much being a 5-4-1 and fairly negative.  If you'd said we should play it to keep solid at the back and frustrate England, you'd be 100% spot on.  You said we should do it because it would be inherently more attacking.  Which it wasn't. 

Technically, the first sentence I wrote with regards to three at the back was, "Our center backs simply aren't good enough to play in a flat back four, at least not at international level against top players, so it's time to bring back three center back and two wing-backs. If nothing else, the extra center back will naturally fill in a gap."

[forameus]

And you stated that 4-2-3-1 was rigidly defensive (which it isn't, or at least doesn't have to be) and heavily intimated that your alternative wouldn't be.  Where in reality, the way they set up the 3-5-2 meant that it ended up being a 5-4-1 at best, and was more defensive by a considerable distance than the 4-2-3-1 we usually play.  

In fact, Crawford Bridge put up pretty simply in the very first reply.

On 5/25/2017 at 07:04, Crawford Bridge said:

Wing backs only work for the better sides.

It would just become a back 5 with no wide players further up the park if Scotland went with it. That would lead to the big boot down the middle as the main "tactic". 

Which is exactly what happened.  To the letter.

[SlayerX]

2 hours ago, forameus said:

And you stated that 4-2-3-1 was rigidly defensive (which it isn't, or at least doesn't have to be) and heavily intimated that your alternative wouldn't be.  Where in reality, the way they set up the 3-5-2 meant that it ended up being a 5-4-1 at best, and was more defensive by a considerable distance than the 4-2-3-1 we usually play.  

In fact, Crawford Bridge put up pretty simply in the very first reply.

Which is exactly what happened.  To the letter.

Not really, I said to play 3-5-2. A 3-5-2 wouldn't have morphed into a 5-4-1, maybe a 5-3-2, but not a 5-4-1. I suppose the 3-5-2 could've morphed into a 5-4-1 if one 1 of the 2 worked himself back to help the 4. Besides, you literally saw the panic in Smalling and Cahill's eyes when Martin came on (THAT'S how bad Smalling and Cahill are). If we played with two strikers, from the start, would've worked

Also, England played with 4-2-3-1... and they didn't really rip us to shreds.

And to reiterate, "Our center backs simply aren't good enough to play in a flat back four, at least not at international level against top players, so it's time to bring back three center back and two wing-backs. If nothing else, the extra center back will naturally fill in a gap."

We were within one and half minutes of the strategy working.

So, what do you suggest? Going back to the tried and failed 4-2-3-1. Because it really worked when we drew with Lithuania at home, and... well... if I'm going to play this game then this reply would look like a novella. Let's just say, we tried the 4-2-3-1, it failed, move on to something different.

[forameus]

1 minute ago, SlayerX said:

Not really, I said to play 3-5-2. A 3-5-2 wouldn't have morphed into a 5-4-1, maybe a 5-3-2, but not a 5-4-1. I suppose the 3-5-2 could've morphed into a 5-4-1 if one 1 of the 2 worked himself back to help the 4. Besides, you literally saw the panic in Smalling and Cahill's eyes when Martin came on (THAT'S how bad Smalling and Cahill are). If we played with two strikers, from the start, would've worked

So you're now saying how right you were about them playing a formation that they didn't end up playing? Because what we saw was absolutely not a 3-5-2, not at any point of the game.

[SlayerX]

I said that three at the back was the best foundation for which to go forward, anything ahead of the three are variables.

If we play it for the rest of the campaign, going into the next one, we will qualify. I'm certain of that.

[forameus]

1 minute ago, SlayerX said:

I said that three at the back was the best foundation for which to go forward, anything ahead of the three are variables.

If we play it for the rest of the campaign, going into the next one, we will qualify. I'm certain of that.

Except we didn't play 3 at the back.  It was set out that way, but as many people said when you originally suggested it, the wing-backs would turn into full-backs because we'd get penned back so badly.  Which is exactly what happened.  It was 5-4-1 for the most part, with a lot of booting it long while players struggled to get up to support Griffiths.

And if you're going to make wild proclamations that we'd qualify for a tournament purely because of an extra man in defence, probably best we have success with it outside of how you imagined we set up, and certainly in a game where we score from open play after offering almost nothing going forward.  If we were playing a side that could pick through defences, or even an England with their front players playing like they are capable of, we would've got torn to shreds.

[SlayerX]

1 minute ago, forameus said:

Except we didn't play 3 at the back.  It was set out that way, but as many people said when you originally suggested it, the wing-backs would turn into full-backs because we'd get penned back so badly.  Which is exactly what happened.  It was 5-4-1 for the most part, with a lot of booting it long while players struggled to get up to support Griffiths.

And if you're going to make wild proclamations that we'd qualify for a tournament purely because of an extra man in defence, probably best we have success with it outside of how you imagined we set up, and certainly in a game where we score from open play after offering almost nothing going forward.  If we were playing a side that could pick through defences, or even an England with their front players playing like they are capable of, we would've got torn to shreds.

So, you're saying, unequivocally, that for no part of the game were we playing with 3 at the back? Not even when we were attacking? I suggest you watch the game again. Were they pushed back when England were attacking? Of course they were, as it's in the very nature of playing 3 at the back. The issue isn't whether it turns into 5 at the back, the issue is that we have 3 in the middle at all times. I think you may be losing the point here. Be it a 3 or a 5, it's still added protection for our center backs.

And you say "booting it long", you mean what the two anchromen normally do? Point of fact, I saw less booting it long than usual. And with more time and games played with this system, the players shall become more accustomed to it and it'll be more fluid. It's unfair to play the way that most people want, and fail, then change, for one match, and expect everything to click into place.

Why are people obsessed with how "good" the England front players are? Besides Kane, the rest are slightly above average. People fall into the trap by thinking that just because the EPL is good, their national team is good. Don't be that guy. Nearly all of the creative players in their league are foreigners.

[forameus]

So, you're saying, unequivocally, that for no part of the game were we playing with 3 at the back? Not even when we were attacking? I suggest you watch the game again. Were they pushed back when England were attacking? Of course they were, as it's in the very nature of playing 3 at the back. The issue isn't whether it turns into 5 at the back, the issue is that we have 3 in the middle at all times. I think you may be losing the point here. Be it a 3 or a 5, it's still added protection for our center backs.

And you say "booting it long", you mean what the two anchromen normally do? Point of fact, I saw less booting it long than usual. And with more time and games played with this system, the players shall become more accustomed to it and it'll be more fluid. It's unfair to play the way that most people want, and fail, then change, for one match, and expect everything to click into place.

Why are people obsessed with how "good" the England front players are? Besides Kane, the rest are slightly above average. People fall into the trap by thinking that just because the EPL is good, their national team is good. Don't be that guy. Nearly all of the creative players in their league are foreigners.

Taking your rambling points one by one.

- pretty much. It was more like a 4 when attacking as both full backs were rarely forward at the same time. Anya was often the option while the other four tucked in. Had he not been dog shit, We might have had more success with that. Protection for the centre backs was also helped by having 8 or 9 men behind the ball, something we presumably won't be doing against weaker teams.

- If you want to show me a stat of "hoofs per game" that demonstrates how much better this was then I'll happily say it's liquid football. I saw plenty of cases of huge gaps between most of our team and Griffiths, and one worrying time where our midfield seemed unable to bust a gut to support him in possession. That's bad in a system like we were playing.

- this is really not hard to grasp. England's players are better than ours. That's just a fact. Nothing to do with their league which you seemed desperate to bring up. They're just of a better quality. Does that mean they're world beaters? Absolutely not, as is pretty obvious. Still comfortably better than ours though, and if they had been at the top of their game, they would have likely beaten us.

[SlayerX]

Just now, forameus said:

 

Taking your rambling points one by one.

- pretty much. It was more like a 4 when attacking as both full backs were rarely forward at the same time. Anya was often the option while the other four tucked in. Had he not been dog shit, We might have had more success with that. Protection for the centre backs was also helped by having 8 or 9 men behind the ball, something we presumably won't be doing against weaker teams.

- If you want to show me a stat of "hoofs per game" that demonstrates how much better this was then I'll happily say it's liquid football. I saw plenty of cases of huge gaps between most of our team and Griffiths, and one worrying time where our midfield seemed unable to bust a gut to support him in possession. That's bad in a system like we were playing.

- this is really not hard to grasp. England's players are better than ours. That's just a fact. Nothing to do with their league which you seemed desperate to bring up. They're just of a better quality. Does that mean they're world beaters? Absolutely not, as is pretty obvious. Still comfortably better than ours though, and if they had been at the top of their game, they would have likely beaten us.

 

Ramblings points? You slay me with your wit!

You just cannot seem to handle the fact that my bold suggestion that we play 3 at the back, almost, worked like a charm. When I suggested it, people here said that there was zero chance that we would deploy such a system, that it was a stupid idea, ya know, stupid to changed failed formula. The manager changed it, and by gum, we ALMOST got a win against the much fancied, and not-as-talented-as-everyone-thinks-they-are, English.

*sigh* OK.

- My point is that, when all is said and done, there are three central defenders. We've played with two in the middle of our defence for about 20 years now, and apart from a few bright lights, we've failed. Isn't it about time we reverted back to a time when we were actually qualifying for things? Do I have to write this in crayon? Our defenders are pathetic, so they need all the best they can get.

- What part of not expecting miracles in one match didn't you understand? Once the players and team gets used to the system, it'll become a more flexible and a lot more sturdy system. Plus, it didn't aid the fact that only Brown really showed up in midfield. Not taking away from Snodgrass, Morrison and Armstrong, because they worked their socks off (And it looks like Morrison will be out for a few months), but they didn't play as well as they can. Plus Anya didn't give us anything. With so many players off form, it usually results in a defeat.

- Their players are better than ours? I'd only take Kane, and probably Ali.

[SlayerX]

On 25/05/2017 at 06:54, SlayerX said:

We've been using a flat back four for how long? Since Craig Brown left? And we've qualified for nothing ever since. I'm not saying that the formation is the only reason why we've not qualified for anything major, but it certainly hasn't helped.

Our center backs simply aren't good enough to play in a flat back four, at least not at international level against top players, so it's time to bring back three center back and two wing-backs. If nothing else, the extra center back will naturally fill in a gap. Craig Brown saw this, so why hasn't the previous managers not seen it?

Plus, Andrew Robertson and Kieran Tierney are both marauding players, so why play them as defensive players?

It seems to me that the majority of Scotland fans have been brainwashed into thinking that we SHOULD play with four at the back.

The 4-2-3-1 formation is a defensive one. It's essentially 6 rigid defensive minded players and 4 attacking players. That's fine if the four attacking players are world class, but ours are not. Our striker(s) need as much help as they can get, and they'd get much more ammunition for Robertson and Tierney whipping balls in and pushing forward than they would with those two sitting back. The fact that Strachan plays that formation at home is shameful.

It's OK for Strachan to come out and say that the Scotland players play with fear, but what does he expect when he plays a formation that's built to defend.

I want to see a 3-5-2 or 3-4-2-1... just something different.

England will expect us to play a 4-2-3-1.

I posted this seventeen months ago (and been saying it for nineteen years) and it appears that a Scotlamd manager has finally caught up to my speed.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/alex-mcleish-reveals-defensive-switch-13375990.amp

A 3-5-2 IS the way forward. Football isn't a complicated game: Scotland are weak through the middle, so play eight players through the spine and make it as difficult as possible for opponents to break us down.

[DublinMagyar]

Book sales must have flatlined

[SlayerX]

40 minutes ago, DublinMagyar said:

Book sales must have flatlined

Awww, someone remembers me! Bet you aren't the only one. 

Things are going very well (better than expected actually), thanks for your interest.

This visit will differ from the previous; I continuously engaged and was involved in heated dialogue in my previous visit, but this visit i'll be treating it as more as an observer with sporadic comments. So no one should expect many replies from me.

Hope everyone is well and happy, by the way. 

Edited October 9, 2018 by SlayerX

[forameus]

Fans of self-important fantasist guff will be gutted to hear that.  Shame Pep's not still around.

[SlayerX]

15 minutes ago, forameus said:

Fans of self-important fantasist guff will be gutted to hear that.  Shame Pep's not still around.

I'll reply this once, consider it an early Christmas gift.

I'm a self-important fantasist? I find it sad that you think being an author is an unobtainable pipe-dream for a Scottish person. Probably why 55% gutless people voted "No". 

You do realise that not all book deals are akin to JK Rowling's deals, don't you? There are literally hundreds of books published on a weekly basis, ranging from major publishing houses to tiny ones.

And yes, I am extremely important.

Merry Christmas. 

PS: No idea who "Pep" is.

Edited October 9, 2018 by SlayerX

[forameus]

It's nothing to do with whatever book deal you may or may not have - in fact, I didn't remember that until it was pointed out - it was your incredibly cringey "look-at-me-aren't-I-pure-great" posting style that grated.  But seeing how desperate for attention you clearly are, it comes off more as entertaining now, so you've at least got that going for you.

Happy for you to go off and do your "observing" now.

[Pocketman]

I agree with Slayer. I couldn't understand why manager after manager since Paw Broon  stuck with 4 at the back- it was as if formations were fashionable or trends and 3 at the back  was soooo last season.