Ben Doak

[Delicate Flower]

On 20/08/2023 at 07:07, accies1874 said:

If he's not good enough to come on against Bournemouth then he's not good enough to come on against England

The only reason subs never get put on in a match is cos they're not good enough. 

[Tartan Blood]

7 hours ago, 2426255 said:

The case being put forward as I understand it is that the end point is Ben Doak being included in Scotland's Euro 2024 squad because he's a talented young player showing signs of breaking through at a big club and working back from that it's preferable to include him in the senior squads between now and then.

I don't remember an example that is comparable to what is being proposed above. The progression of similarly placed players such as Aaron Hickey, Calvin Ramsay, Billy Gilmour and Nathan Patterson to the senior squad were at shorter proximity to important games (Gilmour, Patterson, Hickey) and/or helped by conditions at the time such as injuries (Gilmour, Ramsay). 

 

I get that there are differences, but this is as close to a like for like comparison as you will get. Especially since Gilmour was getting touted for callups for previous squads long before Clarke actually decided to include him. 

Injuries will obviously play a part in selection, but I'd be shocked if we get to next June and not have a few unlucky souls that won't make it through injury. (Fingers crossed everyone is available)

I don't think Doak will get called up for the next squad, and the more I think about it the less I think he should. But I'm sure between Robertson and Clarke they will make the correct decision as to when is the right time. Because his inclusion is inevitable. It's not if, but when. 

[Old Bing]

11 minutes ago, Tartan Blood said:

I get that there are differences, but this is as close to a like for like comparison as you will get. Especially since Gilmour was getting touted for callups for previous squads long before Clarke actually decided to include him. 

Injuries will obviously play a part in selection, but I'd be shocked if we get to next June and not have a few unlucky souls that won't make it through injury. (Fingers crossed everyone is available)

I don't think Doak will get called up for the next squad, and the more I think about it the less I think he should. But I'm sure between Robertson and Clarke they will make the correct decision as to when is the right time. Because his inclusion is inevitable. It's not if, but when. 

Its not comparable with Gilmour. They play different positions so have different competition for place. The decision will be based on wether ben doak can contribute to the squad and team. Which I think he can.

Wether Billy Gilmour got called up or not 3 years ago is irrelevant.

[Tartan Blood]

2 hours ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

Its not comparable with Gilmour. They play different positions so have different competition for place. The decision will be based on wether ben doak can contribute to the squad and team. Which I think he can.

Wether Billy Gilmour got called up or not 3 years ago is irrelevant.

It is very relevant. Doak is probably 6-12 months younger and plays in a different position, but pretty much everything else is identical.It also shows Clarke's proclivity towards choosing squads.

Gilmour most likely benefitted from both Jack and McLean being injured. Doak may benefit from Forrest no longer being in the equation, and Fraser needs to get his act together if he wants to be involved again.  

Central midfield has a lot more competition than right wing.

[gannonball]

Did Gilmour pretty much get in the Chelsea team as they were under a transfer embargo or was that after?

[Old Bing]

5 minutes ago, Tartan Blood said:

It is very relevant. Doak is probably 6-12 months younger and plays in a different position, but pretty much everything else is identical.It also shows Clarke's proclivity towards choosing squads.

Gilmour most likely benefitted from both Jack and McLean being injured. Doak may benefit from Forrest no longer being in the equation, and Fraser needs to get his act together if he wants to be involved again.  

Central midfield has a lot more competition than right wing.

All of that is absolutely irrelevant. What are you talking about.

The only relevant factor is, is he good enough for the squad and team. Thats it.

Compared against the players hes competing against for his position, right now.

Not a different position 3 years ago.

[craigkillie]

On 20/08/2023 at 11:29, ArabFC said:

Or... his competition at Liverpool is Mo Sarah and his completion at Scotland is Ryan Christie.

Ryan Christie started on Saturday and he didn't. Case closed.

[Tartan Blood]

4 hours ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

All of that is absolutely irrelevant. What are you talking about.

The only relevant factor is, is he good enough for the squad and team. Thats it.

Compared against the players hes competing against for his position, right now.

Not a different position 3 years ago.

If you don't agree, or see, the parallels between the 2 situations, then fair enough, I won't try to convince you. 

But, you are right, Clarke won't call up Doak if he doesn't think he'll contribute to the squad i.e the same as every other player.

[2426255]

9 hours ago, Tartan Blood said:

I don't think Doak will get called up for the next squad, and the more I think about it the less I think he should. But I'm sure between Robertson and Clarke they will make the correct decision as to when is the right time. Because his inclusion is inevitable. It's not if, but when. 

Should Ben Doak get playing time for Liverpool against Newcastle on Sunday, fans will be pushing for his inclusion in the September squad like we saw after the Chelsea game. If he gets no playing time I think the demand will drop off, so on that side it's predictable. 

All evidence from Steve Clarke's past actions or words with respect to Ben Doaks current development as a player and future proofing the squad point to him not being called up in the September squad and I'd be surprised if Steve Clarke hasn't already decided his squad prior to this weekend. 

On the other hand, there's often an element of unpredictability in Clarke's previous selections that make it difficult to say with certainty that he won't be called up. If he's selected and there isn't a glut of injuries in attacking players it would be unprecedented. 

 

[Old Bing]

7 hours ago, Tartan Blood said:

If you don't agree, or see, the parallels between the 2 situations, then fair enough, I won't try to convince you. 

But, you are right, Clarke won't call up Doak if he doesn't think he'll contribute to the squad i.e the same as every other player.

Exactly and he will if he thinks he can.

3 years ago when deciding to call up Gilmour that would be the same process.

Yeah its the only comparable recent situation I get that. I just don't see that coming into clarkes thinking.

[Old Bing]

13 hours ago, craigkillie said:

Ryan Christie started on Saturday and he didn't. Case closed.

Mind you didn't want Hickey in the squad not long ago? Also he couldn't play right back and was a worse player than Greg Taylor?

Edited August 22, 2023 by Bing.McCrosby

[craigkillie]

The above post was obviously a joke, but you've tried to put these words in my mouth about Hickey before.

My entire argument about Hickey was about loads of people saying "he's played loads of games at RB/RWB", when that simply wasn't true at the time - obviously it is now with a season under his belt there for Brentford and Scotland.

I have been consistent in my belief that Hickey is an exceptionally talented footballer, and have continued to be critical of him defensively, something which I think is still true at times, though he's obviously better at it now than he was at 18 which is when much of this discussion was happening.

Feel free to search through here and dig out the posts you think are relevant. https://forum.pieandbovril.com/search/?&q=hickey&page=2&quick=1&author=craigkillie&search_and_or=or&sortby=relevancy

[Gordopolis]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

My entire argument about Hickey was about loads of people saying "he's played loads of games at RB/RWB", 

I might be wrong, but I don't think anybody said the quoted part, or anything similar. Think he had played a handful of times at most on the right (at under age levels etc).

The crux of the argument was, IIRC, that Hickey's youth coaches (Levein etc) were matter of fact about the reality that he was both right footed and perfectly/more capable of playing on the right. At the time, Scotland were scraping around for right backs, so there looked to be a reasonable risk/reward balance in playing a Serie A level player in that role. You seemed dead against the idea - presumably just more wary of the risk than eager for the reward. Which is absolutely fair enough.

Much has transpired since then, of course, and Hickey has gravitated to and excelled in that right sided role. Happy times for all Scotland fans.

[No_Problemo]

2 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The above post was obviously a joke, but you've tried to put these words in my mouth about Hickey before.

My entire argument about Hickey was about loads of people saying "he's played loads of games at RB/RWB", when that simply wasn't true at the time - obviously it is now with a season under his belt there for Brentford and Scotland.

I have been consistent in my belief that Hickey is an exceptionally talented footballer, and have continued to be critical of him defensively, something which I think is still true at times, though he's obviously better at it now than he was at 18 which is when much of this discussion was happening.

Feel free to search through here and dig out the posts you think are relevant. https://forum.pieandbovril.com/search/?&q=hickey&page=2&quick=1&author=craigkillie&search_and_or=or&sortby=relevancy

Hickey is pretty excellent defensively, at 21 playing against the players he does tbh. 

[albagubrath]

1 hour ago, Gordopolis said:

I might be wrong, but I don't think anybody said the quoted part, or anything similar. Think he had played a handful of times at most on the right (at under age levels etc).

The crux of the argument was, IIRC, that Hickey's youth coaches (Levein etc) were matter of fact about the reality that he was both right footed and perfectly/more capable of playing on the right. At the time, Scotland were scraping around for right backs, so there looked to be a reasonable risk/reward balance in playing a Serie A level player in that role. You seemed dead against the idea - presumably just more wary of the risk than eager for the reward. Which is absolutely fair enough.

Much has transpired since then, of course, and Hickey has gravitated to and excelled in that right sided role. Happy times for all Scotland fans.

My recollection is there was a clamour to play him at rightback due to the weakness we had at the time, as you say. The reality was he had no track record at right back and had been played almost exclusively at left back, so it felt like a significant risk to throw him into an international match out of position.

As you both have said, given time he has proven his ability at right back and now everyone is quite happy for him to play there. 

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, No_Problemo said:

Hickey is pretty excellent defensively, at 21 playing against the players he does tbh. 

I think he is the defensive weak link in our team, which is still fine given that he offers a lot going forward.

[No_Problemo]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

I think he is the defensive weak link in our team, which is still fine given that he offers a lot going forward.

He isn’t going to be as good defensively as the other side of the park, given that has both Robertson and Tierney. He has  seen off several top level attackers while playing for us though - you could maybe say weaker but you absolutely can’t use the words weak link IMO. 

[Old Bing]

6 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The above post was obviously a joke, but you've tried to put these words in my mouth about Hickey before.

My entire argument about Hickey was about loads of people saying "he's played loads of games at RB/RWB", when that simply wasn't true at the time.

Na thats not gonna work.

5 hours ago, Gordopolis said:

I might be wrong, but I don't think anybody said the quoted part, or anything similar. Think he had played a handful of times at most on the right (at under age levels etc).

The crux of the argument was, IIRC, that Hickey's youth coaches (Levein etc) were matter of fact about the reality that he was both right footed and perfectly/more capable of playing on the right. At the time, Scotland were scraping around for right backs, so there looked to be a reasonable risk/reward balance in playing a Serie A level player in that role. You seemed dead against the idea.

Correct.

[MarkoRaj]

Hickey to me is better defensively than offensively at the minute. He has time to work on his game but his attacking stats don't amount to much

[accies1874]

11 minutes ago, MarkoRaj said:

Hickey to me is better defensively than offensively at the minute. He has time to work on his game but his attacking stats don't amount to much

I completely agree but the rate at which Hickey's progressed over the years means I wouldn't be surprised if he sorts that element out too - he's never gonna play like Robertson but can still contribute more. Or managers just stop being cowards and let us see him as an inverted full-back.