Steve Clarke - in/out/general discussion

[Dunning1874]

18 hours ago, velo army said:

I keep hearing that Clarke is conservative in his management and tactics, but for a while we had two attacking underlapping centre backs in KT and McTam. We're also innovative in our use of set pieces as well as playing a pretty risky offside trap.

I think folk are being too led by his demeanour in describing him as conservative as there is ample evidence to the contrary.

Another thing people try to call Clarke conservative for is reliance on the same group of players and reluctance to give others a chance, but this is also nonsense.

He gave Gilmour his debut at 19, taking him to a major tournament and threw him in to start when he'd only made 22 first team club appearances in his career, only 14 of them starts.  He took Nathan Patterson to the same tournament, also at 19, having only made 16 first team appearances, just 9 of them starts, then also brought him off the bench at the tournament. He'd have had 18 year old Ben Doak at this one if it wasn't for injury, a player with 12 career appearances and just 3 starts.

A manager willing to take teenagers with such little experience to tournaments and play them is evidently extremely bold with his team selection, far more so than any other Scotland manager in history with the possible exception of Vogts, whose problem was that unlike Clarke he was frequently calling up total crap when he made those bold choices.

[Bing.McCrosby]

32 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

Another thing people try to call Clarke conservative for is reliance on the same group of players and reluctance to give others a chance, but this is also nonsense.

He gave Gilmour his debut at 19, taking him to a major tournament and threw him in to start when he'd only made 22 first team club appearances in his career, only 14 of them starts.  He took Nathan Patterson to the same tournament, also at 19, having only made 16 first team appearances, just 9 of them starts, then also brought him off the bench at the tournament. He'd have had 18 year old Ben Doak at this one if it wasn't for injury, a player with 12 career appearances and just 3 starts.

A manager willing to take teenagers with such little experience to tournaments and play them is evidently extremely bold with his team selection, far more so than any other Scotland manager in history with the possible exception of Vogts, whose problem was that unlike Clarke he was frequently calling up total crap when he made those bold choices.

Bar doak who was a bit of a surprise they were all obvious choices. In the case of gilmour his call up came a bit late.

[Diamonds are Forever]

1 hour ago, Dunning1874 said:

Another thing people try to call Clarke conservative for is reliance on the same group of players and reluctance to give others a chance, but this is also nonsense.

 

 

He gave Gilmour his debut at 19, taking him to a major tournament and threw him in to start when he'd only made 22 first team club appearances in his career, only 14 of them starts.  He took Nathan Patterson to the same tournament, also at 19, having only made 16 first team appearances, just 9 of them starts, then also brought him off the bench at the tournament. He'd have had 18 year old Ben Doak at this one if it wasn't for injury, a player with 12 career appearances and just 3 starts.

A manager willing to take teenagers with such little experience to tournaments and play them is evidently extremely bold with his team selection, far more so than any other Scotland manager in history with the possible exception of Vogts, whose problem was that unlike Clarke he was frequently calling up total crap when he made those bold choices.

 

 

All 3 of them were only called up due to the extension of the squad to 26 players though. And because he sticks so rigidly to the same players normally when he does get to pick a few extra players in tournaments his only options are to call up guys like Gauld or Morgan who will barely/never play and never be good enough, or bring in a couple of youngsters to give them some experience and see what they are like. In Gilmour's case I'd bet he called him up for the above reason, saw him in training and then realised he had no choice but to play him. And he played Stephen O'Donnell ahead of Patterson, I'm not sure you could get less bold than that.

None of that is a criticism of Clarke, I think the way he's done it is correct. But I'd say the characterisation of him as 'extremely bold' because he's called up a couple of talented youngsters in a 26 man squad, and ended up playing the one who played with Chelsea, is overplaying it.

Edited Sunday at 10:40 by Diamonds are Forever

[2426255]

8 minutes ago, PeterRulesOK said:

So why didn't he use our best goal threat?   Or take Gordon ahead of kelly, Or play Clark ahead of english angus? Or pick Souttar ahead of everyone else in defence?

He's pragmatic Peter. The tools taken are correct for the job in hand. He's taken them with him to Germany and has been getting to work and is expected to complete the task today around 10pm. Subsequent to that we can take it from there.  Happy?

Edited Sunday at 12:23 by 2426255

[Kevin Finnerty]

16 minutes ago, PeterRulesOK said:

So why didn't he use our best goal threat?   Or take Gordon ahead of kelly, Or play Clark ahead of english angus? Or pick Souttar ahead of everyone else in defence?

 

Our "best goal threat" is named Scott Mctominay and according to the folk who run the tournament he scored the last time he played.

[Butters Scotch]

46 minutes ago, PeterRulesOK said:

So why didn't he use our best goal threat?   Or take Gordon ahead of kelly, Or play Clark ahead of english angus? Or pick Souttar ahead of everyone else in defence?

Clark instead of Gunn? Eh have you seen Clark? Gunn is by far our best option. Also, Gordon is past it, time to look to the future now as he's 41 for christ sake.

Souttar is no better than the other options at CB.

Seriously where do these fruit loops come from? 

[Monkey Tennis]

15 hours ago, 2426255 said:

Steve Clarke held himself with a great poise, dignity and grace at todays press conference. Incredible man.

Squealer from Animal Farm just got in touch to suggest you tone it down a bit.

 

[JS_FFC]

“English angus” is thinly veiled racism btw

[BFTD]

18 minutes ago, JS_FFC said:

“English angus” is thinly veiled racism btw

I was wondering what they were planning on being punted for on this account.

[2426255]

Couldn't agree more. Superb.

[Piehutt]

Everyone has their view on international football. 

We got mauled 5-1 in the 1st game and people are complaining Shankland didn't start. Ok - Gilmour may have been a legitimate criticism, but zero chance it changes the result. 

Even now people are posting teams with a 4-4-2 formation or 4-5-1 formation. It's massively unlikely we change the system at this stage. 

The only thing that will shut people up is results. I remember listening to Radio Scotland the day of a midweek qualifier under Walter Smith. The Radio Scotland panel basically said 'if Smith thinks that's the best team to get a result, then that will be correct'. It's the 1st time I've heard professional pundits say anything similar to that before or since. And shows the level that a manager would need to be at to have that kind of trust and avoid criticism. And even then, Walter Smith only won 43% of his games with Scotland. Believe it or not very similar to the record Clarke currently has, but over a much longer period. 

It's also the case that in international football there is also a number of choices for several positions. I think, in the main, the most successful teams are the ones who retain continuity and don't chop & change too much based on club form as you can end up with completely different partnerships every game. 

[2426255]

39 minutes ago, Piehutt said:

Everyone has their view on international football. 

We got mauled 5-1 in the 1st game and people are complaining Shankland didn't start. Ok - Gilmour may have been a legitimate criticism, but zero chance it changes the result. 

Even now people are posting teams with a 4-4-2 formation or 4-5-1 formation. It's massively unlikely we change the system at this stage. 

The only thing that will shut people up is results. I remember listening to Radio Scotland the day of a midweek qualifier under Walter Smith. The Radio Scotland panel basically said 'if Smith thinks that's the best team to get a result, then that will be correct'. It's the 1st time I've heard professional pundits say anything similar to that before or since. And shows the level that a manager would need to be at to have that kind of trust and avoid criticism. And even then, Walter Smith only won 43% of his games with Scotland. Believe it or not very similar to the record Clarke currently has, but over a much longer period. 

It's also the case that in international football there is also a number of choices for several positions. I think, in the main, the most successful teams are the ones who retain continuity and don't chop & change too much based on club form as you can end up with completely different partnerships every game. 

100%

I laugh in the face of fans that think they know better than the manager.

If it's a lower level, say Dougie Imrie then fine - but thinking you know better than Clarke is laughable and delusional. I've had many a laugh on here, thats for sure.

Edited Sunday at 15:48 by 2426255

[Bing.McCrosby]

Think it's alot to do with personal perception. I imagine the people who view steve as bold sitting in a grey onesie scared to go outside, maybe muster up the courage for the occasional glance out the window.

Whereas the more vibrant, confident, sexy folk like myself see him as conservative and drab.

Either way if he shit fests us a win tonight, or we come out all guns blazing and win it's all good  

[Butters Scotch]

47 minutes ago, Piehutt said:

Everyone has their view on international football. 

We got mauled 5-1 in the 1st game and people are complaining Shankland didn't start. Ok - Gilmour may have been a legitimate criticism, but zero chance it changes the result. 

Even now people are posting teams with a 4-4-2 formation or 4-5-1 formation. It's massively unlikely we change the system at this stage. 

The only thing that will shut people up is results. I remember listening to Radio Scotland the day of a midweek qualifier under Walter Smith. The Radio Scotland panel basically said 'if Smith thinks that's the best team to get a result, then that will be correct'. It's the 1st time I've heard professional pundits say anything similar to that before or since. And shows the level that a manager would need to be at to have that kind of trust and avoid criticism. And even then, Walter Smith only won 43% of his games with Scotland. Believe it or not very similar to the record Clarke currently has, but over a much longer period. 

It's also the case that in international football there is also a number of choices for several positions. I think, in the main, the most successful teams are the ones who retain continuity and don't chop & change too much based on club form as you can end up with completely different partnerships every game. 

I agree with you for the most part and I can't see 442 happening anytime soon unless we genuinely have two world class strikers in our squads but 451 is what legitimately can happen as we've played this formation countless times under Clarke. Tierney being out a big reason as to why that is a big possibility. 

[Bing.McCrosby]

17 hours ago, 2426255 said:

Steve Clarke held himself with a great poise, dignity and grace at todays press conference. Incredible man.

 

3 hours ago, PeterRulesOK said:

Are you his Mother?

He shat it against Switzerland.  We should have won that game but he planned for a draw and settled for it.  

The easiest qualification form a group in our history and he's going to ruin it.

I'd bet a fair amount this is another of numbers puppet accounts and he's talking to himself.

[Butters Scotch]

20 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

100%

I laugh in the face of fans that think they know better than the manager.

If it's a lower level, say Dougie Imrie then fine - but thinking you know better than Clarke is laughable and delusional. I've had many a laugh on here, thats for sure.

Hope this wasn't aimed partly at me as you've accused me before of knowing better than Stevie. Anyway, you'll be surprised at the information football fans have at their disposal and just because someone disagrees with one of his decisions doesn't mean they are incorrect unless it's a really wild ludicrous opinion that is. 

There's a million ways of winning football games so we should be able to have a discussion on how best to get there IMO. 

Edited Sunday at 16:04 by Butters Scotch

[nate]

3 hours ago, Butters Scotch said:

Clark instead of Gunn? Eh have you seen Clark? Gunn is by far our best option. Also, Gordon is past it, time to look to the future now as he's 41 for christ sake.

Souttar is no better than the other options at CB.

Seriously where do these fruit loops come from? 

We get ours from ASDA, but I hear Iceland do the same size box for slightly cheaper

[Piehutt]

59 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

100%

I laugh in the face of fans that think they know better than the manager.

If it's a lower level, say Dougie Imrie then fine - but thinking you know better than Clarke is laughable and delusional. I've had many a laugh on here, thats for sure.

Posts GIF of guy going 'That's Bait' 

[2426255]

42 minutes ago, Butters Scotch said:

Hope this wasn't aimed partly at me as you've accused me before of knowing better than Stevie. 

Not aimed at anyone specifically mate. Just general fan culture from Scotland to Arsenal to Man United. 

No matter how much information fans have there will still we a knowledge and information gap. Fans don't look in depth at the opponents either.

[Stylish Kid]

Every manager makes mistakes, Steve Clarke generally gets his calls right though. 

I find it interesting that the media calls him ruthless as he drops players who have done a job but aren't needed for the next level (e.g. Brophy, SoD etc), but he is very loyal in-game (or indeed in-tournament). He has some very potential difficult calls to make so I can understand the logic for whatever decision he ends up making...