Time to go Steve Clarke

[Monkey Tennis]

14 minutes ago, DanMc99 said:

I think its too simplistic to say we lost two games at home and thats a reason we underperformed. the first game was the game that really deserves proper scrutiny , the czechs are not great but a decent outfit, we started too negatively and were wasteful. we were good against england and thoroughly deserved a point if not more.

 

the 3rd game we go in needing a victory against the world cup finalists with modric, kovacic and brozovic, real , chelsea and inter respectively. we were beat by a better team, i don't think croatia beating us is a great shock or somehow underperforming or underachieving. the first game though, kills momentum and heaps pressure on the two hardest games on paper.

Thanks for stating the bleedin' obvious at great length in a bid to counter what you describe as simplistic.

I feel silly now having explicitly stated that Croatia beating us was "a great shock".  Oh, wait...

[No_Problemo]

I don’t see any way in which the approach was negative in the first game. Plenty of issues, but that wasn’t one. 

[2426255]

Just have to agree to disagree. 

[DanMc99]

1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Thanks for stating the bleedin' obvious at great length in a bid to counter what you describe as simplistic.

I feel silly now having explicitly stated that Croatia beating us was "a great shock".  Oh, wait...

"to lose both Hampden games by two goals was much worse than we had a right to hope for"

[DanMc99]

2 minutes ago, No_Problemo said:

I don’t see any way in which the approach was negative in the first game. Plenty of issues, but that wasn’t one. 

should have been two up top, their centre halves had it easy with just dykes to occupy.

[No_Problemo]

2 minutes ago, DanMc99 said:

should have been two up top, their centre halves had it easy with just dykes to occupy.

We are far better with one up top and more midfielders, the Luxembourg and Croatia games showed that. 

[Monkey Tennis]

9 minutes ago, DanMc99 said:

"to lose both Hampden games by two goals was much worse than we had a right to hope for"

Gosh, you appear to think that means the same as 'losing to Croatia was a great shock'.

That's an embarrassing thing to admit.

[DC92]

1 hour ago, 2426255 said:

But we did perform, exactly to expectations - which is failure ultimately. Why can't you accept that? We entered via the playoffs, we're building the team over time and hopefully we can do better next time. How can you be let down, if you expected us to fail? 

Since the turn of the century, we've lost two competitive games at Hampden by more than one goal - both against Belgium (2-0 in 2013 and 4-0 in 2019).

Before the tournament, we'd never lost at home to the Czech Republic and we'd never lost at all to Croatia, despite them both having better teams than us for as long as I can remember.

Taking 0 points and a -4 GD from those games, when even 2 points from 6 would have taken us through, is a massive disappointment and a huge missed opportunity.

[KingRocketman II]

if Croatia and CZ were in our WC qualifying groups and we had two home games against each of them to kick things off with, we would be out on our erses already. If my Auntie had baws etc etc but our form is not good under Clarke against good, decent or even bang average sides. And our home form has completely tailed off.

What do folks think is going to happen between now and the next 5 months or so for the team to kick on and build on the "tournament experience"? Absolutely feck all in my view and we will see the same results and inconsistent in-match performances. 

[JamesM82]

1 hour ago, DC92 said:

Since the turn of the century, we've lost two competitive games at Hampden by more than one goal - both against Belgium (2-0 in 2013 and 4-0 in 2019).

Before the tournament, we'd never lost at home to the Czech Republic and we'd never lost at all to Croatia, despite them both having better teams than us for as long as I can remember.

Taking 0 points and a -4 GD from those games, when even 2 points from 6 would have taken us through, is a massive disappointment and a huge missed opportunity.

On the other hand, the 0-0 at Wembley was the first time we hadn't been pumped off a top team away from home since what, Croatia in 2014 qualifying? And that was in a dead match, as we were already out before we played either game against them. Probably going back to Paris 2007 for as good or better result in a live away match. Same is probably true of the Serbia game.

Edited June 25, 2021 by JamesM82

[DC92]

50 minutes ago, JamesM82 said:

On the other hand, the 0-0 at Wembley was the first time we hadn't been pumped off a top team away from home since what, Croatia in 2014 qualifying? And that was in a dead match, as we were already out before we played either game against them. Probably going back to Paris 2007 for as good or better result in a live away match. Same is probably true of the Serbia game.

I agree, that was a really encouraging performance and one of the reasons I'm nowhere near calling for Clarke to go just now.

Unfortunately, getting creditable draws away from home isn't quite as critical as making sure we win our home games against second or third tier European teams when it comes to qualifying for tournaments (or getting through this particular group). There's not much evidence so far that Clarke is better than his predecessors in that regard so far, and that's a bit of a concern for me.

He's got enough credit in the bank that, even if we don't make the World Cup play-offs, I'd be very surprised if he doesn't see the start of the Nations League campaign. That said, if we don't improve in certain areas then people will rightly ask whether he's able to take us forward: namely, we need to look like we have a coherent gameplan in home matches, win the remaining games against Israel and Moldova, and at least get a point against Denmark. If we still aren't capable of getting the necessary results at home after 2.5 years in charge then we aren't going to get anywhere soon.

[ewan14]

7 hours ago, No_Problemo said:

I don’t see any way in which the approach was negative in the first game. Plenty of issues, but that wasn’t one. 

The majority of the first half was  " cagey "

Second half  WE , obviously , had to be more adventurous !

 

[dysartrovers]

Since the turn of the century, we've lost two competitive games at Hampden by more than one goal - both against Belgium (2-0 in 2013 and 4-0 in 2019).
Before the tournament, we'd never lost at home to the Czech Republic and we'd never lost at all to Croatia, despite them both having better teams than us for as long as I can remember.
Taking 0 points and a -4 GD from those games, when even 2 points from 6 would have taken us through, is a massive disappointment and a huge missed opportunity.

Would 3 points have taken us through?

[DC92]

8 minutes ago, dysartrovers said:

7 hours ago, DC92 said:

Since the turn of the century, we've lost two competitive games at Hampden by more than one goal - both against Belgium (2-0 in 2013 and 4-0 in 2019).
Before the tournament, we'd never lost at home to the Czech Republic and we'd never lost at all to Croatia, despite them both having better teams than us for as long as I can remember.
Taking 0 points and a -4 GD from those games, when even 2 points from 6 would have taken us through, is a massive disappointment and a huge missed opportunity.

Would 3 points have taken us through?

As long as we finished at least third and kept our goal difference to -2 at worst, yes. If we'd drawn all the games and the other results remained the same, we'd actually have finished 2nd, not that it matters.

[Barney Rubble]

16 minutes ago, dysartrovers said:

7 hours ago, DC92 said:

Since the turn of the century, we've lost two competitive games at Hampden by more than one goal - both against Belgium (2-0 in 2013 and 4-0 in 2019).
Before the tournament, we'd never lost at home to the Czech Republic and we'd never lost at all to Croatia, despite them both having better teams than us for as long as I can remember.
Taking 0 points and a -4 GD from those games, when even 2 points from 6 would have taken us through, is a massive disappointment and a huge missed opportunity.

Would 3 points have taken us through?

Assuming all other results had remained the same, then three draws with a level goal difference would have worked. We would have finished second as Czechs and Croatia would have have finished with two points each.

Which is, of course, as clear a case of 'if yer auntie had boz' that you'll ever see.....................

Edited June 25, 2021 by Barney Rubble

[Insaintee]

On 25/06/2021 at 09:31, AJF said:

Before I begin, I'd like to make it know that I think we should persist with Clarke as I think there have been signs of improvement, however, I fail to understand the argument that people are making that he shouldn't be replaced simply because they do not believe there is anyone else suitable available.

Are there managers out there that are better than Steve Clarke? Yes.

Are there managers out there that are better than Steve Clarke that would take the Scotland job? Most likely, yes.

Just because someone on a football forum cannot convince you of an alternative candidate, doesn't mean we currently have the best person in charge. It's not our job to identify suitable candidates, that's up to the SFA, but that doesn't mean there aren't any out there.

That's fair point.  For example would the **** be happy to have Clarke as their manager? I think not. Although he was heavily touted for the post. 

I've never heard of Ange before he was in the frame, but quite clearly he has a better track record than Clarke.  

I suppose I should have said there is no obvious candidate willing to take the job. For Example, Souness is clearly a better manager than Clarke, but would he take it. Moyes again probably not. Your left looking at the likes Coyle and Lambert, or Billy Davis (who on paper are also better records than Clarke).  We saw the previous preferred candidate  for the Scotland job screw them around worse than Celtic got screwed by Howe. I think there are relatively few top candidates that would take it. 

I don't think the SFA have the wit to pull out a left field candidate like celtic have done (to be fair on a few occasions with varying success; Jansen, Venglos, Barns, O'neil, Delhia, Brady, Rodgers ) 

[craigkillie]

I'll give you Moyes (who definitely wouldn't take it right now), but in what world are Billy Davies, Owen Coyle or Paul Lambert better managers than Clarke? All three have failed to achieve a fraction of what he did in England or Scotland.

Souness was a decent enough manager 20 years ago, but there's a reason nobody has touched him with a barge pole in ages.

[Insaintee]

9 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

I'll give you Moyes (who definitely wouldn't take it right now), but in what world are Billy Davies, Owen Coyle or Paul Lambert better managers than Clarke? All three have failed to achieve a fraction of what he did in England or Scotland.

Souness was a decent enough manager 20 years ago, but there's a reason nobody has touched him with a barge pole in ages.

Exactly. So who are these better candidate? The obvious calls are not that inspiring.  As stated I don't the SFA can pull of a left field call. 

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, craigkillie said:

I'll give you Moyes (who definitely wouldn't take it right now), but in what world are Billy Davies, Owen Coyle or Paul Lambert better managers than Clarke? All three have failed to achieve a fraction of what he did in England or Scotland.

Souness was a decent enough manager 20 years ago, but there's a reason nobody has touched him with a barge pole in ages.

Agreed, except for the Souness part.

He was never a good manager.

[Bing.McCrosby]

Incase anyone hasn't noticed, there are countries outside Scotland who produce managers also.