Time to go Steve Clarke

[BFTD]

2 minutes ago, Ken Deans said:

You're funny

There's a first time for everything.

Like Steve Clarke starting with the right tactics, amirite?

[Ken Deans]

15 minutes ago, BFTD said:

There's a first time for everything.

Like Steve Clarke starting with the right tactics, amirite?

He's done it right before like Wembley and the change in Israel but generally yeah your right. We all saw how Wales approached their game. Steve did well at Killie as he's a good coach but he's against national managers who have at least a clue how to set their teams up and the nous to change obvious flaws in they're strategy

[BFTD]

4 minutes ago, Ken Deans said:

He's done it right before like Wembley and the change in Israel but generally yeah your right. We all saw how Wales approached their game. Steve did well at Killie as he's a good coach but he's against national managers who have at least a clue how to set their teams up and the nous to change obvious flaws in they're strategy

We should nominate someone to tell him. Give it ten minutes or so, then nip down to the dugout and have a quick word.

Are we sure he knows he's allowed to make changes before half-time?

[Ken Deans]

2 minutes ago, BFTD said:

We should nominate someone to tell him. Give it ten minutes or so, then nip down to the dugout and have a quick word.

Are we sure he knows he's allowed to make changes before half-time?

After 3 minutes wouldn't have been too soon

[Bing.McCrosby]

34 minutes ago, BFTD said:

There's a first time for everything.

Like Steve Clarke starting with the right tactics, amirite?

Well in that game for sure. People will think im taking the piss with this, im honestly not.

Its obviously never a realistic suggestion this, but in my ideal scenario we would appoint a new manager and keep Clarke on as an assistant or coach.

I think the guys a good manager, but I think he's probably a better coach. He's a good manager to a level, but I've never seen him be able to play as the dominant team in games. Obviously we have at points against teams at times. But overall not in the games that are debateable we should have performed better. But at club level he's never managed a top team. Im not saying scotland are a top team either.

But would it be fair to say or not that the current standard of player in the scotland squads probably the best players he's ever worked with? Better than anything he's ever had at club level? I wouldn't think that's unrealistic personally

[magic sign]

I get that people think he should resign. I'm not one of them, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What I don't get is calling for him to resign in the week we have two Nations League games. How would it have benefited the team if he had gone the day after the Ukraine game as suggested in this thread? I just don't understand that thinking one bit.

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, magic sign said:

I get that people think he should resign. I'm not one of them, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What I don't get is calling for him to resign in the week we have two Nations League games. How would it have benefited the team if he had gone the day after the Ukraine game as suggested in this thread? I just don't understand that thinking one bit.

Also this is probably a fair point, I wouldn't fancy caretaker Gemmill or MacKay stepping in for any games.

[2426255]

Steve Clarke is doing fine. His contract will end if we don't qualify for Euro 2024. What more is there to be said. So long as he has the support of the players, the majority of fans and still wants to do the job himself then let him crack on and leave him alone to get on with the job. I would bet money @BingMcCrosbyand @Ken Deanswant Scotland to lose tomorrow so they can continue their shite.

Edited June 7, 2022 by 2426255

[betting competition]

 

[2426255]

Quote

I am not sure what the clamor for change is, maybe because some people like the sound of their own voice and like to sound clever. Playing with a back three has worked out quite well for us with or without Kieran. Even in matches without Kieran it has worked OK. Maybe the reason I went to a back to a three was to make us more solid initially as much as it was about getting Kieran and Andy Robertson in the same team. The back three has worked all right for us.

It was about finding a way that could give us a platform in games and allow us to express our talent. I think if you look through the qualifying campaign, it was a good qualifying campaign. Seven wins, two draws and one defeat. It wasn’t a bad qualifying campaign. We have to remember that. We cannot just say let’s change it. Why? We don’t we change it now.

Steve Clarke

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/steve-clarke-fires-back-craig-27172542

Stephen Kenny got asked the exact same questions after being beaten by Armenia. The old "why didn't you put an extra man in midfield line"  As if something like that is going to catch out a professional football manager.   Like "oh they've got an extra man in the midfield, we weren't expecting that." 

Edited June 8, 2022 by 2426255

[SpoonTon]

We've genuinely had a problem with performances at Hampden over the last year or so. There have been defensive voices in the Scotland camp pointing to games like Austria or England away as examples of when the 3-5-2 has worked, but those games were dominated by a very deep press where the front two are doing a defensive job (often in midfield areas) and the aim is to get a draw or sneak a goal. One penalty in those two games and two clean sheets sums up the success of that aim. Away in the Faroes was pretty awful but we ground out a winner, away in Moldova was much better (we all know about mistakes made away to a good Denmark side). 

What we can say has been Clarke's real success is that he has found a way to help us grind out results - the play-off away in Serbia, the 3-2 at home to Israel, the performance at Wembley, and the win in Austria being great examples of this. But in terms of actual great performances, the win in a dead rubber at home to Denmark, the home match against the Faroes, and the match away in Moldova have been the only great 'on the front foot' type performances. 

There remains a very clear Hampden problem. Over the least year and a bit, this is what we've had:

2-2 Austria - we were a bit fortunate to get away with a draw after a brilliant late McGinn goal, but great spirit in grinding that out.

4-0 Faroes - perhaps the best home performance, comfortable win with Tierney especially standing out. 

0-2 Czech - disappointing performance, we had chances but didn't look solid.

1-3 Croatia - outclassed a bit but, again, not solid at all. 

1-0 Moldova - unconvincing but ground it out. 

3-2 Israel - wonderful feeling with the late winner, great spirit shown. Sums up how close the sides were and Israel will feel hard done by to lose.  

2-0 Denmark - best performance alongside the Faroes game, tempered a bit by Denmark being weakened. 

1-3 Ukraine - worst performance in quite some time. 

All in all, there are positive signs - that we can put in really good performances and that we have been good at grinding out results. I don't think there is a convincing case for Clarke to go, but I do honestly think he has to change something, or work on a plan B, to start bringing us up a level and to be more solid at Hampden. In the five most important games there against sides we should be competing against, it's 1 win, 1 draw, 3 defeats, 7 goals scored and 12 against. That last one is really worrying. We have not been solid enough at Hampden - our defensive record away from home has been far superior. What can we really hope to achieve if we can't start to significantly reduce that number?

I can understand the defence that the players simply didn't turn up last week. Individually it was poor. But, while I think that is a significant part of the story, it also feeds into similar weaknesses over a longer period of time. Opposition teams aren't afraid of Dykes and Adams as a front two, so unless they are being deployed for defensive reasons in a team with a really quite deep press, I don't think it helps us at all (and whether we meant to or not, we didn't play that way last week). And as soon as our wing backs get occupied, we end up with an exposed by three because the midfield gets outnumbered. The back three is a big issue here, because they're just not sure enough when to step up and press and when to sit back. And this has been a pattern in important matches at Hampden. The positive things that Clarke has done are clear to see, I just wish that he'd find a way to put that together with being more solid at Hampden because it hasn't been good enough. 

[BFTD]

Switching tactics will likely be the thing that does for Clarke in the end; starting badly, then taking too long to change when it's obviously not working. TBF, we do tend to improve when he finally switches things around - the Ukraine game is the only one I can remember where we actually got worse after the first change - but it's a bit worrying that the opposition manager tends to come out on top at the very start.

I guess we'll see how things go over the next two years. If he can sort that out, we could be back to being a solid Pot 2 side and maybe get out of a finals group for once. Living the dream.

[Loominous]

47 minutes ago, SpoonTon said:

as examples of when the 3-5-2 has worked

The back three is a big issue here

Honestly mate what I took from your post is that we need to change from a back three to back four. People really hate the back three and more hate it still when Scott McTominay is in there - I'm not a tactics guru but I don't have a problem with it.

• If we play a back three and lose people always say 'should've played a back four'.
• If we play a back four and lose then it's 'should've stuck with a back three'
• if we play two up top then 'we should have played an extra midfielder'  
• if we play and extra midfielder 'we should have played two strikers' 

It's just results based.

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, Loominous said:

Honestly mate what I took from your post is that we need to change from a back three to back four. People really hate the back three and more hate it still when Scott McTominay is in there - I'm not a tactics guru but I don't have a problem with it.

• If we play a back three and lose people always say 'should've played a back four'.
• If we play a back four and lose then it's 'should've stuck with a back three'
• if we play two up top then 'we should have played an extra midfielder'  
• if we play and extra midfielder 'we should have played two strikers' 

It's just results based.

Its results based yes, and the formation and tactics that we play effect the results.

People will always criticise and discuss tactics and formations regardless of results. Thats the nature of football. But in this instance absolutely everyone is saying the same thing, even clarkes biggest supporters on here aren't denying that we set up wrong.

The only one who seems immune to this is Clarke himself coming out with "what criticism" " They're entitled to their opinion. I don't know what is was because I didn't read it, I didn't hear it, I didn't listen to it"

Which doesn't fill me with confidence hes going to mix things up and try something new.

The position of Scotland manager seems to always bring out the worst stubborn arrogant side of people unfortunately.

[2426255]

1 hour ago, Loominous said:

People really hate the back three and more hate it still when Scott McTominay is in there 

McSauce is in the defence almost as a deep playmaker with some strong defensive attributes in a similar but not identical way to Tierney. It's about giving us another route to  link defence to midfield in addition to McGregor and Gilmour. His performance was mixed on the night but a lot of play went through him, he had the most touches of any of our players. It was a fairly good outlet for us at times against Ukraine even if it didn't function perfectly, maybe more necessary because we didn't have Tierney.

If we use a back four we would lose that variety. It obviously comes with cons - but it's more a risk/reward thing. The back three allows us to have the platform to attack using various different avenues.

Edited June 8, 2022 by 2426255

[Loominous]

1 hour ago, BingMcCrosby said:

Its results based yes, and the formation and tactics that we play effect the results.

People will always criticise and discuss tactics and formations regardless of results. Thats the nature of football. But in this instance absolutely everyone is saying the same thing, even clarkes biggest supporters on here aren't denying that we set up wrong.

The only one who seems immune to this is Clarke himself coming out with "what criticism" " They're entitled to their opinion. I don't know what is was because I didn't read it, I didn't hear it, I didn't listen to it"

Which doesn't fill me with confidence hes going to mix things up and try something new.

The position of Scotland manager seems to always bring out the worst stubborn arrogant side of people unfortunately.

That's fair enough mate. I did think Steve Clarke was getting a bit defensive. I guess I just don't agree with you when it comes down to it though - The players held their hands up and said they didn't perform to the required levels so I'm okay taking that at face value in combination with the manager saying Ukraine performed better than us. I just don't see any reason to start pointing fingers,  You can have the last word mate because I don't think we will agree.. 

1 hour ago, 2426255 said:

McSauce is in the defence almost as a deep playmaker with some strong defensive attributes in a similar but not identical way to Tierney. It's about giving us another route to  link defence to midfield in addition to McGregor and Gilmour. His performance was mixed on the night but a lot of play went through him, he had the most touches of any of our players. It was a fairly good outlet for us at times against Ukraine even if it didn't function perfectly, maybe more necessary because we didn't have Tierney.

If we use a back four we would lose that variety. It obviously comes with cons - but it's more a risk/reward thing. The back three allows us to have the platform to attack using various different avenues.

I thought he was alright to be fair

[SpoonTon]

2 hours ago, Loominous said:

Honestly mate what I took from your post is that we need to change from a back three to back four. People really hate the back three and more hate it still when Scott McTominay is in there - I'm not a tactics guru but I don't have a problem with it.

• If we play a back three and lose people always say 'should've played a back four'.
• If we play a back four and lose then it's 'should've stuck with a back three'
• if we play two up top then 'we should have played an extra midfielder'  
• if we play and extra midfielder 'we should have played two strikers' 

It's just results based.

No, I think there are times when a back three will work. I don't hate a back 3 and have admired some of the things that Clarke has tried to achieve with it (even if it hasn't always worked out). And it has worked in different variations in attacking and defensive performances (3-5-2 against Faroes/England/Austria or 3-4-2-1 against Denmark/Moldova/Serbia). But there has been a particular issue with how this has worked against teams at home who are at a similar level to us. Whether this issue can be solved or improved by tinkering with personnel, instructions, or positions within this structure or if it's something which requires a move to a system with a back four is for Clarke to figure out. 

 

[Ewan8472]

20 hours ago, BingMcCrosby said:

Also this is probably a fair point, I wouldn't fancy caretaker Gemmill or MacKay stepping in for any games.

Which MacKay ?

[Ewan8472]

22 hours ago, BFTD said:

We should nominate someone to tell him. Give it ten minutes or so, then nip down to the dugout and have a quick word.

Are we sure he knows he's allowed to make changes before half-time?

First " Off the Ball " , now Steve Clarke.

P&B world domination by the year ....

 

[Ewan8472]

7 hours ago, SpoonTon said:

We've genuinely had a problem with performances at Hampden over the last year or so. There have been defensive voices in the Scotland camp pointing to games like Austria or England away as examples of when the 3-5-2 has worked, but those games were dominated by a very deep press where the front two are doing a defensive job (often in midfield areas) and the aim is to get a draw or sneak a goal. One penalty in those two games and two clean sheets sums up the success of that aim. Away in the Faroes was pretty awful but we ground out a winner, away in Moldova was much better (we all know about mistakes made away to a good Denmark side). 

What we can say has been Clarke's real success is that he has found a way to help us grind out results - the play-off away in Serbia, the 3-2 at home to Israel, the performance at Wembley, and the win in Austria being great examples of this. But in terms of actual great performances, the win in a dead rubber at home to Denmark, the home match against the Faroes, and the match away in Moldova have been the only great 'on the front foot' type performances. 

There remains a very clear Hampden problem. Over the least year and a bit, this is what we've had:

2-2 Austria - we were a bit fortunate to get away with a draw after a brilliant late McGinn goal, but great spirit in grinding that out.

4-0 Faroes - perhaps the best home performance, comfortable win with Tierney especially standing out. 

0-2 Czech - disappointing performance, we had chances but didn't look solid.

1-3 Croatia - outclassed a bit but, again, not solid at all. 

1-0 Moldova - unconvincing but ground it out. 

3-2 Israel - wonderful feeling with the late winner, great spirit shown. Sums up how close the sides were and Israel will feel hard done by to lose.  

2-0 Denmark - best performance alongside the Faroes game, tempered a bit by Denmark being weakened. 

1-3 Ukraine - worst performance in quite some time. 

All in all, there are positive signs - that we can put in really good performances and that we have been good at grinding out results. I don't think there is a convincing case for Clarke to go, but I do honestly think he has to change something, or work on a plan B, to start bringing us up a level and to be more solid at Hampden. In the five most important games there against sides we should be competing against, it's 1 win, 1 draw, 3 defeats, 7 goals scored and 12 against. That last one is really worrying. We have not been solid enough at Hampden - our defensive record away from home has been far superior. What can we really hope to achieve if we can't start to significantly reduce that number?

I can understand the defence that the players simply didn't turn up last week. Individually it was poor. But, while I think that is a significant part of the story, it also feeds into similar weaknesses over a longer period of time. Opposition teams aren't afraid of Dykes and Adams as a front two, so unless they are being deployed for defensive reasons in a team with a really quite deep press, I don't think it helps us at all (and whether we meant to or not, we didn't play that way last week). And as soon as our wing backs get occupied, we end up with an exposed by three because the midfield gets outnumbered. The back three is a big issue here, because they're just not sure enough when to step up and press and when to sit back. And this has been a pattern in important matches at Hampden. The positive things that Clarke has done are clear to see, I just wish that he'd find a way to put that together with being more solid at Hampden because it hasn't been good enough. 

This , with the " McTominay conundrum " as inspired by