Steve Clarke - in/out/general discussion

[Butters Scotch]

1 hour ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

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

You can stick numbers and Chripper on that rocket too

[2426255]

17 hours ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

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

 

10 hours ago, Butters Scotch said:

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

These are similar questions: Less centre-backs in the rest defence.

It's a trade-off. Not something we worry about with Tierney as we get both, but we saw it with McTominay: You gain on one hand, but you lose on the other. McLean or McGregor is similar.

Ultimately it's trade offs for Scotland, no perfect one size fits all solution.

https://forum.pieandbovril.com/topic/283065-the-mctominay-conundrum/

Edited July 9 by 2426255

[Butters Scotch]

25 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

 

These are similar questions: Less centre-backs in the rest defence.

It's a trade-off. Not something we worry about with Tierney as we get both, but we saw it with McTominay: You gain on one hand, but you lose on the other. McLean or McGregor is similar.

Ultimately it's trade offs for Scotland, no perfect one size fits all solution.

 

https://forum.pieandbovril.com/topic/283065-the-mctominay-conundrum/

In a tournament where we created next to nothing and were exposed defensively including the Switzerland game, it would be worth this so called trade off instead of going out so meekly.

It's clear to me you haven't thought having an extra midfielder could actually help us defensively also... 

[2426255]

3 hours ago, Butters Scotch said:

In a tournament where we created next to nothing and were exposed defensively including the Switzerland game, it would be worth this so called trade off instead of going out so meekly.

It's clear to me you haven't thought having an extra midfielder could actually help us defensively also... 

I accept and understand the idea of using less centre-backs in the rest defence.

Spoiler

It's a trade-off nonetheless. When we lose the verdict is that we made a bad trade-off: Same against Ukraine as it was against Hungary. Same when we played an extra midfielder back there to when we played three centre-backs. It's an outcome based analysis. 

In terms of midfielders helping defensively then yes, stop at source and all of that - but that remains within a structure, be it the rest defence, counter press or press. That doesn't change whether you put McLean, McGregor, McTominay or McKenna in there. Players are still required in defensive positions when Scotland attack.

Quote

Transitions have become tactical: ‘Rest defence’ — where teams position defenders while attacking in preparation to counter-press a turnover — is now coached and systemised. Teams attack how they want to defend and defend how they want to attack, adjusting how, where and when they press accordingly.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/4683011/2023/07/18/he-rise-of-counter-attacking-in-the-premier-league/

Edited July 9 by 2426255

[Angry Jim McLean]

Just a point I’ve noticed. Most of our defeats since our undefeated run have come at the hands of the current Euro semi finalists. Spain, England, France & Holland. The others came from Germany, who turned out to be decent in the tournament too.

Granted Hungary and N Ireland were bad results..

I just wonder if these friendlies at the time they were played were a step too far and dented the confindence and feel good factor in the squad..

[Old Bing]

5 hours ago, 2426255 said:

 

These are similar questions: Less centre-backs in the rest defence.

It's a trade-off. Not something we worry about with Tierney as we get both, but we saw it with McTominay: You gain on one hand, but you lose on the other. McLean or McGregor is similar.

Ultimately it's trade offs for Scotland, no perfect one size fits all solution.

 

https://forum.pieandbovril.com/topic/283065-the-mctominay-conundrum/

There not similar, has anyone suggested that over the 3 game that not once did we transition and attack? If not who are you arguing with.

Your suggestion is that one 13 second clip suggests that we attacked regularly. And it's idiotic.

Edited July 9 by Bing.McCrosby

[Old Bing]

@Jives Miguelif you wish to talk to me I'm here, don't be scared you can pm me or answer on a thread.

[Butters Scotch]

4 hours ago, 2426255 said:

I accept and understand the idea of using less centre-backs in the rest defence.

  Reveal hidden contents

It's a trade-off nonetheless. When we lose the verdict is that we made a bad trade-off: Same against Ukraine as it was against Hungary. Same when we played an extra midfielder back there to when we played three centre-backs. It's an outcome based analysis. 

In terms of midfielders helping defensively then yes, stop at source and all of that - but that remains within a structure, be it the rest defence, counter press or press. That doesn't change whether you put McLean, McGregor, McTominay or McKenna in there. Players are still required in defensive positions when Scotland attack.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/4683011/2023/07/18/he-rise-of-counter-attacking-in-the-premier-league/

It's not an outcome based analysis when fans have been questioning the 5 at the back system we play for a little while now based on how we are performing as a team whether that is winning, drawing or losing. 

It does also make a huge difference swapping out a traditional CB for a midfielder when in possession and trying to progress up the pitch in particular. 

[The Algebraist]

Could be worse. We could just have given Craig Bellamy a four year deal.

[true fan]

5 hours ago, Angry Jim McLean said:

Just a point I’ve noticed. Most of our defeats since our undefeated run have come at the hands of the current Euro semi finalists. Spain, England, France & Holland. 

I just wonder if these friendlies at the time they were played were a step too far and dented the confindence and feel good factor in the squad..

At the time I said we were playing too difficult a run of games - destroy our good momentum

80% of replies were - ‘no you have to play the best’. It’s weird that now everybody agrees that we destroyed our momentum, our confidence. Odd that isn’t it?

[Old Bing]

2 hours ago, true fan said:

At the time I said we were playing too difficult a run of games - destroy our good momentum

80% of replies were - ‘no you have to play the best’. It’s weird that now everybody agrees that we destroyed our momentum, our confidence. Odd that isn’t it?

One person (numbers) still saying it was a good idea

[2426255]

17 hours ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

Your suggestion is that one 13 second clip suggests that we attacked regularly.

The purpose of the 13-second clip in combination with the source is to introduce the idea to fans that when Scotland attack there is always a rest defensive structure behind the attack.

The implication of a 'rest defence' is that there are at least three players defending when Scotland attack. If there are always at least three players defending when Scotland attack, then having Hendry, Hanley and McKenna in the team becomes less significant. Below is a clip that illustrates that idea from the game against Gibraltar. The rest defence includes McCrorie, Porteous, Hanley (not in shot), Gilmour and McLean.

Spoiler

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5326484/2024/03/11/arsenal-rest-defence-title-race/

[2426255]

16 hours ago, Butters Scotch said:

It's not an outcome based analysis when fans have been questioning the 5 at the back system we play for a little while now based on how we are performing as a team whether that is winning, drawing or losing. 

The Norway game is the best illustration of the idea that fans only care about performance when we lose. It can also be seen in the Israel, Moldova and Faroe Islands games in the second half of 2021.

Alternatively when we lose the analysis is over the top. The differences in performance levels between the Hungary or Czech game and the Austria, Norway or Israel games are minimal, but the difference in outcome and therefore fan reaction is enormous.        

16 hours ago, Butters Scotch said:

It does also make a huge difference swapping out a traditional CB for a midfielder when in possession and trying to progress up the pitch in particular. 

As I said above, we have made that trade-off previously with McTominay and we have still lost important games. Then the square pegs/round holes argument comes out and on we go.   

[Old Bing]

34 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

The purpose of the 13-second clip in combination with the source is to introduce the idea to fans that when Scotland attack there is always a rest defensive structure behind the attack.

The implication of a 'rest defence' is that there are at least three players defending when Scotland attack. If there are always at least three players defending when Scotland attack, then having Hendry, Hanley and McKenna in the team becomes less significant. Below is a clip that illustrates that idea from the game against Gibraltar. The rest defence includes McCrorie, Porteous, Hanley (not in shot), Gilmour and McLean.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5326484/2024/03/11/arsenal-rest-defence-title-race/

Ok great but saying as nobody is arguing that our players are unable to move. Why are you repeating this?

[Butters Scotch]

14 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

The Norway game is the best illustration of the idea that fans only care about performance when we lose. It can also be seen in the Israel, Moldova and Faroe Islands games in the second half of 2021.

Alternatively when we lose the analysis is over the top. The differences in performance levels between the Hungary or Czech game and the Austria, Norway or Israel games are minimal, but the difference in outcome and therefore fan reaction is enormous.        

As I said above, we have made that trade-off previously with McTominay and we have still lost important games. Then the square pegs/round holes argument comes out and on we go.   

All you're doing is generalising here, trying to suggest everyone has the same opinion. I for one (as have some others from what I remember) have been repeating on here that we weren't very good in that Norway away game and we were lucky to come away with a win. Play like that again and nine times out of ten you will end up losing that as we were struggling to create anything of note for the entire match. It was a bit of a freak game. In terms of the other games you mention, I think your most normal fans that don't have a screw loose were not exactly thrilled at those performances either and had their concerns with the team. 

As I've said earlier McTominay was playing more of a CB role than CM or CDM so the formation was slightly different then, it doesn't evidence anything. 

Edited July 10 by Butters Scotch

[2426255]

20 minutes ago, Butters Scotch said:

I for one (as have some others from what I remember) have been repeating on here that we weren't very good in that Norway away game and we were lucky to come away with a win.

You've only been a member of these boards since April. At the time everyone was buzzing we got over the line and no one cared about the performance until we started losing games at which point the conversation becomes: 'well, actually...'

Edited July 10 by 2426255

[2426255]

38 minutes ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

Ok great but saying as nobody is arguing that our players are unable to move. Why are you repeating this?

Repetition is a great method of introducing an idea. Repetition with different examples and sources is a superb way of introducing fans on these boards to the idea that all teams, including Scotland, have a minimum of three players taking up defensive positions when we attack.

Why am I repeating that message? That concept alone removes the idea that the playing a 'back-3', 'three clunky centre-backs' or replacing Kieran Tierney with Scott McKenna was the reason that we didn't win against Hungary. Scott McKenna was a rest defensive player against Hungary.

[Butters Scotch]

54 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

You've only been a member of these boards since April. At the time everyone was buzzing we got over the line and no one cared about the performance until we started losing games at which point the conversation becomes: 'well, actually...'

Yes but I have read this board before the Norway game took place and conversations around that game have been mentioned in recent times where the performance has been discussed. 

Buzzing to get an away win over your closest rival in terms of qualification doesn't correlate into everyone liking the performance. We are Scotland after all and have fucked up this type of occasion plenty of times so rightly fans werent caring too much how we got the win at the time but once the dust settles you think about the performance. 

Edited July 10 by Butters Scotch

[ArabFC]

1 hour ago, 2426255 said:

The purpose of the 13-second clip in combination with the source is to introduce the idea to fans that when Scotland attack there is always a rest defensive structure behind the attack.

The implication of a 'rest defence' is that there are at least three players defending when Scotland attack. If there are always at least three players defending when Scotland attack...

Cracking up slightly at the premise that you're educating folk that not every player on a team joins an attack.

[A Diamond For Me]

As I recall the reaction to the Norway game - and certainly my own thought at the time - was delight at the excellent result, acknowledgement of how little we'd created until the very end, and satisfaction that we'd kept their main threat, arguably the best striker in the world, pretty quiet.  I mind my dad saying at the time that if you didn't already know Haaland's reputation you'd not be able to infer it from that game, and surely some of the credit for that has to go to the Scottish defence.