Jump to content

Steve Clarke - in/out/general discussion


2426255

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

I have absolutely no idea what your trying to prove

In a nutshell,

Fans (generalisation) are angry at the outcome of Euro-2024, but don't fully understand the reasons we went out of the tournament. Playing a 'back-3' isn't a defensive move. Replacing Tierney with McKenna isn't a defensive move. 

  • Formations are fluid. The players adapt to the situation in game: 3atb becomes 4atb and vice versa.
  • Scotland don't attack with more than 7 players. It therefore makes no difference if McKenna plays in 'a three' or 'a four' because they form the rest defensive structure when we attack. That then allows other players (McGregor, Gilmour or Ralston) to join attacks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

In a nutshell,

Fans don't fully understand the reasons we went out of the tournament. Playing a 'back-3' isn't a defensive move. Replacing Tierney with McKenna isn't a defensive move

  • Formations are fluid. The players adapt to the situation in game: 3atb becomes 4atb and vice versa.
  • Scotland don't attack with more than 7 players. It therefore makes no difference if McKenna plays in 'a three' or 'a four' because they form the rest defensive structure when we attack. That then allows other players (McGregor, Gilmour or Ralston) to join attacks.

You don't half haver some shite numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

In a nutshell,

Fans (generalisation) are angry at the outcome of Euro-2024, but don't fully understand the reasons we went out of the tournament. Playing a 'back-3' isn't a defensive move. Replacing Tierney with McKenna isn't a defensive move. 

  • Formations are fluid. The players adapt to the situation in game: 3atb becomes 4atb and vice versa.
  • Scotland don't attack with more than 7 players. It therefore makes no difference if McKenna plays in 'a three' or 'a four' because they form the rest defensive structure when we attack. That then allows other players (McGregor, Gilmour or Ralston) to join attacks.

Agreed playing a back three is not a defensive move ( and it depends on the players of course)

Subsequently having to replace Tierney , with McKenna , is not necessarily an offensive move

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

In a nutshell,

Fans (generalisation) are angry at the outcome of Euro-2024, but don't fully understand the reasons we went out of the tournament. Playing a 'back-3' isn't a defensive move. Replacing Tierney with McKenna isn't a defensive move. 

  • Formations are fluid. The players adapt to the situation in game: 3atb becomes 4atb and vice versa.
  • Scotland don't attack with more than 7 players. It therefore makes no difference if McKenna plays in 'a three' or 'a four' because they form the rest defensive structure when we attack. That then allows other players (McGregor, Gilmour or Ralston) to join attacks.

The situation we had towards the end of the Hungary game all the players should have been considering attacking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2426255 said:

In a nutshell,

Fans (generalisation) are angry at the outcome of Euro-2024, but don't fully understand the reasons we went out of the tournament. Playing a 'back-3' isn't a defensive move. Replacing Tierney with McKenna isn't a defensive move. 

  • Formations are fluid. The players adapt to the situation in game: 3atb becomes 4atb and vice versa.
  • Scotland don't attack with more than 7 players. It therefore makes no difference if McKenna plays in 'a three' or 'a four' because they form the rest defensive structure when we attack. That then allows other players (McGregor, Gilmour or Ralston) to join attacks.

And you think a 13 second clip from 3 full games proves this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

And you think a 13 second clip from 3 full games proves this?

No, it's an example alongside the source. It's about proof of concept and Introducing the idea here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Chripper said:

 

All I'm saying is that it's a process: Steve Clarke made us more solidified, he got us playing like a team. He then successfully got us qualified for two tournaments.

 

Most of us were on board with this thinking after Euro 2020, WC playoffs and Ireland NL hammering etc - and we were right to. 
He has been there for six years - the process has run out of steam. If he had any new ideas or developemnts they would have appeared at some point in the last year. Six years is no a bad run in Football management. Let it be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 2426255 said:

In a nutshell,

Fans (generalisation) are angry at the outcome of Euro-2024, but don't fully understand the reasons we went out of the tournament. Playing a 'back-3' isn't a defensive move. Replacing Tierney with McKenna isn't a defensive move. 

  • Formations are fluid. The players adapt to the situation in game: 3atb becomes 4atb and vice versa.
  • Scotland don't attack with more than 7 players. It therefore makes no difference if McKenna plays in 'a three' or 'a four' because they form the rest defensive structure when we attack. That then allows other players (McGregor, Gilmour or Ralston) to join attacks.

Our formations aren't fluid, they're leaden. The rest of your "I understand more than you cos I'm special" guff is just that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2426255 said:

No, it's an example alongside the source. It's about proof of concept and Introducing the idea here.

Has anyone suggested we were unable to transition into the attacking formation for the entirety of every game? Can you quote that?

Or are you having a discussion with yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, immcinto said:

Most of us were on board with this thinking after Euro 2020, WC playoffs and Ireland NL hammering etc - and we were right to. 
He has been there for six years - the process has run out of steam. If he had any new ideas or developemnts they would have appeared at some point in the last year. Six years is no a bad run in Football management. Let it be.

 

speaking words of wisdom 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

Good lord no.   An absolute fraud

This.

Took the greatest Belgium team that will ever exist to pretty much nothing.

And looks to be replicating that with Portugal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, 2426255 said:

Fans only zoom in on the attacking side of the game. They don't have the same level of interest in the defensive side of the game, unless a goal is conceded. The manager obviously has to be aware of both.  I noticed that you never got around to addressing my point about our rest defence. The fact that we will never attack with more than 7 players and the subsequent conclusion that it makes no difference if Scotland play McKenna, Hendry and Hanley as a three because they form the rest defensive structure when we attack. 

The goal against Switzerland was a great example of that because Tierney was part of the rest defence and it allowed McGregor to get forward in place of KT and make the assist for the goal. If Tierney had gone forward, McGregor would have covered. With Scott McKenna, he can stay in the rest defence and that then allows McGregor to join attacks or Gilmour or Ralston or a combination of all. 

RD-1.png.d863d5bc35c3619e6991f9fb38917ddf.png

We took a small risk in going man for man at the back in this counter-attack. If we decided to commit another player into the attack we would potentially leave ourselves with a 3v4 at the back and that would be risky. I don't think fans really look at that kind of thing by and large. It's also a good example of why looking at the game through the lens of formations and so on is too rigid.

https://www.coachesvoice.com/cv/rest-defence-explained/

If we attack with seven players then what is the point in having three CB's on the pitch where we are very limited in. Why don't we just keep McGregor back when in attack or even have a more defensively minded midfielder like McClean in the team over a traditional CB, someone that can actually offer passes forward and comfy on the ball than having to bring the likes of Gilmour back to take the ball of the backline which then effectively creates a fourth man behind the ball which reduces the number of outlets to play into further forward. 

You have your opinion on things so I don't get why you care that much about differing opinions considering we are just simpletons that like to generalise things according to you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Is there a rocket leaving earth we could get this thread on?

Only if we can insist they save a seat for the utterly predictable tedium that is the domestic Scottish top flight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kennie makevin said:

Only if we can insist they save a seat for the utterly predictable tedium that is the domestic Scottish top flight. 

I wouldn't  want to be in the middle of that row.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...