Steve Clarke - in/out/general discussion

[2426255]

On 10/08/2024 at 00:15, kingbob1875 said:

We are in the top 16 of the Nations League after all. Uefa expanded the Euro Championships tournament and nations like Scotland are perfectly placed to finally get out of a group, while our similar sized (and smaller) rivals have jumped at the opportunity and excelled. We keep shitting the bed and just lowering our expectations to match the lowered requirements. 

Your basis is: the players available, The Euros has been expanded to 24 teams, We are in the top-16 of the Nations League along with a comparison to our peers.

What is the maximum this Scotland team can achieve? then compare that to your expectation. If they are the same then your expectation is simply too high.

[Old Bing]

21 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

Your basis is: the players available, The Euros has been expanded to 24 teams, We are in the top-16 of the Nations League along with a comparison to our peers.

What is the maximum this Scotland team can achieve? then compare that to your expectation. If they are the same then your expectation is simply too high.

Saying as its just you and your other accounts pushing this, I'd say your expectations are to low.

Edited August 12 by Ranana Ban

[kingbob1875]

On 12/08/2024 at 08:47, 2426255 said:

Your basis is: the players available, The Euros has been expanded to 24 teams, We are in the top-16 of the Nations League along with a comparison to our peers.

What is the maximum this Scotland team can achieve? then compare that to your expectation. If they are the same then your expectation is simply too high.

My comment was in response to your comparison of Scotland's failure to get out of our group to Celtic's failure to get out of Champions League groups. Scotland have shown themselves capable of being a top 16 team in European football at times in a way Celtic have not. Therefore, my expectations that we should have competed better than Celtic usually do in the CL are perfectly reasonable and not too high.

[2426255]

11 hours ago, kingbob1875 said:

Scotland have shown themselves capable of being a top 16 team in European football at times in a way Celtic have not. Therefore, my expectations that we should have competed better than Celtic usually do in the CL are perfectly reasonable and not too high.

Capable of being a top-16 team at times? Expecting that Scotland competed better than Celtic do in the Champions League? I don't have any issue with that. Equating what you wrote above to what you wrote below is where the issue is for me.

On 10/08/2024 at 00:15, kingbob1875 said:

To get out of the group only puts you in the top 16 of 50 odd countries its hardly an unreasonable expectation.  If the euros was still a 16 team tournament the expectation would be that, with this team, we should qualify. We are in the top 16 of the Nations League after all.

At a maximum Scotland have shown a capacity of reaching the top-16 teams in Europe. Scotland aspire to establish themselves as a top-16 team in Europe. Am I being too lenient by saying that? Are we a top-16 team punching below our level?

If not, I don't understand why anyone would set Scotland's maximum capability as their minimum expectation for the tournament. 

Edited August 14 by 2426255

[Jaggy McJagface]

1 hour ago, 2426255 said:

Capable of being a top-16 team at times? Expecting that Scotland competed better than Celtic do in the Champions League? I don't have any issue with that. Equating what you wrote above to what you wrote below is where the issue is for me.

At a maximum Scotland have shown a capacity of reaching the top-16 teams in Europe. Scotland aspire to establish themselves as a top-16 team in Europe. Am I being too lenient by saying that? Are we a top-16 team punching below our level?

If not, I don't understand why anyone would set Scotland's maximum capability as their minimum expectation for the tournament. 

Are Georgia, Slovakia and Slovenia top 16 teams in Europe? They all got out of their group and posed a threat to whoever they came up against.

Hungary were rubbish and we barely mustered a shot on target against them. Defending that abject showing by saying “Ach what can we do?” is a pathetic mentality that none of the aforementioned teams would entertain.

We under achieved in an embarrassing manner. End of.

[Butters Scotch]

1 hour ago, 2426255 said:

Capable of being a top-16 team at times? Expecting that Scotland competed better than Celtic do in the Champions League? I don't have any issue with that. Equating what you wrote above to what you wrote below is where the issue is for me.

At a maximum Scotland have shown a capacity of reaching the top-16 teams in Europe. Scotland aspire to establish themselves as a top-16 team in Europe. Am I being too lenient by saying that? Are we a top-16 team punching below our level?

If not, I don't understand why anyone would set Scotland's maximum capability as their minimum expectation for the tournament. 

I would argue there are probably around 12 teams ahead of us in the pecking order that would beat us more often than we would beat them. After those 12 teams, there is a group of around 15 including Scotland that are much of a muchness, some teams slightly better than others but games that this Scotland team may be odds on to win at home at least so you could argue we are at a minimum on the cusp of the top 16 teams.

It makes a lot of sense actually if the minimum expectation was to reach the knockouts then that would also be the maximum capability considering you would most likely end up playing a top nation in a Portgual, France, England, Spain, Germany etc in the knockouts. 

 

[Old Bing]

1 hour ago, Jaggy McJagface said:

Are Georgia, Slovakia and Slovenia top 16 teams in Europe? They all got out of their group and posed a threat to whoever they came up against.

Hungary were rubbish and we barely mustered a shot on target against them. Defending that abject showing by saying “Ach what can we do?” is a pathetic mentality that none of the aforementioned teams would entertain.

We under achieved in an embarrassing manner. End of.

Numbers would love people to forget. But the euro stank was so strong we will be getting lingering wiffs of it for years to come.

Edited August 14 by Old Bing

[2426255]

21 hours ago, Butters Scotch said:

I would argue there are probably around 12 teams ahead of us in the pecking order that would beat us more often than we would beat them. After those 12 teams, there is a group of around 15 including Scotland that are much of a muchness, some teams slightly better than others but games that this Scotland team may be odds on to win at home at least so you could argue we are at a minimum on the cusp of the top 16 teams.

It makes a lot of sense actually if the minimum expectation was to reach the knockouts then that would also be the maximum capability considering you would most likely end up playing a top nation in a Portgual, France, England, Spain, Germany etc in the knockouts. 

 

I agree with the idea that there are 11 or 12 teams ahead of Scotland and a group of around 15 teams of a similar level below that which we are a part of.

Our views diverge after that. What's your basis for expecting Scotland to be the best of a group of ~15 similar teams? 

23 hours ago, Jaggy McJagface said:

Are Georgia, Slovakia and Slovenia top 16 teams in Europe? They all got out of their group and posed a threat to whoever they came up against.

Hungary were rubbish and we barely mustered a shot on target against them. Defending that abject showing by saying “Ach what can we do?” is a pathetic mentality that none of the aforementioned teams would entertain.

We under achieved in an embarrassing manner. End of.

We under-achieved because we didn't over-achieve.

Fans always set the maximum, best-case scenario as the minimum. It seems like madness to me absolutely destined for perpetual disappointment.

[Skyline Drifter]

On 09/08/2024 at 15:15, Butters Scotch said:

To be clear, the main issues I have with Clarke are:

• Failure to integrate Ferguson into the first 11 despite his stellar performances in Italy
• Persisted with McGregor no matter what even though we had Gilmour who effectively did the same role as him
• A shortage of strikers so why wasn't Conway given minutes in the dead rubber/friendly games
• Christie playing great in the CM role in the EPL yet Clarke has decided against using him there, just kept with the tried and tested no matter how badly we were performing
• Stuck with a formation that had not worked for a very long time 
• Repeated call ups of players like Greg Taylor who have done hee-haw, why wasn't doig introduced before now considering the level he is playing at. 
• Not calling up Ryan Fraser despite us have absolutely no pace in the team or wingers
• Calling up Forrest at the Euros at the age of 33 then not playing him, just why?
• Failure to adapt to in-game quickly enough (Hungary game as prime example), also the Switzerland game where Ralston was getting torn apart so why not replace him

 

Most of these are not reasonable criticism though, you're all over the place.

You're not complaining about McGinn, McTominay or Gilmour (just McGregor) so presumably you're not advocating any of those dropping out or playing another position (centre back for McTominay?) but he should have integrated Ferguson into the starting eleven AND used Christie in central midfield. How many players are you wanting in there? You're not happy with the formation so you want MORE midfielders in there? If he'd started five or six midfielders he'd have (rightly) been crucified. That's madness.

It's a bit early to be suggesting Conway's the Messiah. He's had a few minutes in friendlies and, prior to the Gibraltar / Finland games we didn't particularly have a shortage of strikers for the formation we are playing.

Neither Taylor nor Doig are currently going to start games ahead of Robertson so whilst there's an argument the former should be eased out for the latter, it's a pretty straw man point.

Fraser gets a better press the more he doesn't play. He got less playing time at Southampton than Stuart Armstrong last season and he's currently back sitting in Newcastle's reserves.

Forrest was called up because we were allowed 26 players and he chose not to leave a slot empty just in case of further injury. He's clearly not particularly in the plans and I don't expect to see him again. I don't think calling the guy up for a last hurrah just in case of worst case scenario is something the manager should be criticised for. Inclusion in the tournament squad doesn't bring with it some sort of guarantee of an appearance on the pitch. He wasn't the only player in the squad not to get one.

Ultimately the 'failure to react' point is up to the individual's judgement. Personally I wasn't convinced that we didn't gamble to shuffle the pack a bit early v Hungary. I'd agree Ralston had a horrible first half against Switzerland but he ultimately had a decent enough second half and I'm not remotely convinced McCrorie or anyone else would have improved that. As the saying goes, you can only play the hand you've been dealt.

Edited August 15 by Skyline Drifter

[Jaggy McJagface]

1 hour ago, 2426255 said:

I agree with the idea that there are 11 or 12 teams ahead of Scotland and a group of around 15 teams of a similar level below that which we are a part of.

Our views diverge after that. What's your basis for expecting Scotland to be the best of a group of ~15 similar teams? 

We under-achieved because we didn't over-achieve.

Fans always set the maximum, best-case scenario as the minimum. It seems like madness to me absolutely destined for perpetual disappointment.

No, we under achieved because we finished rock bottom of the overall table with the lowest xG and fewest shots on target. All this in a relatively un intimidating group with a Hungary team who were also rank rotten.

We were utter pish whereas the likes of Georgia and Slovakia went into the tournament with a better attitude and gave some teams a fright. It boggles my mind to see anyone try and defend that display.

[2426255]

15 minutes ago, Jaggy McJagface said:

No, we under achieved because we finished rock bottom of the overall table with the lowest xG and fewest shots on target. All this in a relatively un intimidating group with a Hungary team who were also rank rotten.

We were utter pish whereas the likes of Georgia and Slovakia went into the tournament with a better attitude and gave some teams a fright. It boggles my mind to see anyone try and defend that display.

What would you identify as the middle ground between under-achieving and over-achieving if over-achieving is qualifying for the best-16 and under-achieving is what unfolded? What would have been okay?

Edited August 15 by 2426255

[jimbaxters]

1 hour ago, 2426255 said:

What would you identify as the middle ground between under-achieving and over-achieving if over-achieving is qualifying for the best-16 and under-achieving is what unfolded? What would have been okay?

23rd of 24 would have been a start.

[No_Problemo]

2 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Most of these are not reasonable criticism though, you're all over the place.

You're not complaining about McGinn, McTominay or Gilmour (just McGregor) so presumably you're not advocating any of those dropping out or playing another position (centre back for McTominay?) but he should have integrated Ferguson into the starting eleven AND used Christie in central midfield. How many players are you wanting in there? You're not happy with the formation so you want MORE midfielders in there? If he'd started five or six midfielders he'd have (rightly) been crucified. That's madness.

It's a bit early to be suggesting Conway's the Messiah. He's had a few minutes in friendlies and, prior to the Gibraltar / Finland games we didn't particularly have a shortage of strikers for the formation we are playing.

Neither Taylor nor Doig are currently going to start games ahead of Robertson so whilst there's an argument the former should be eased out for the latter, it's a pretty straw man point.

Fraser gets a better press the more he doesn't play. He got less playing time at Southampton than Stuart Armstrong last season and he's currently back sitting in Newcastle's reserves.

Forrest was called up because we were allowed 26 players and he chose not to leave a slot empty just in case of further injury. He's clearly not particularly in the plans and I don't expect to see him again. I don't think calling the guy up for a last hurrah just in case of worst case scenario is something the manager should be criticised for. Inclusion in the tournament squad doesn't bring with it some sort of guarantee of an appearance on the pitch. He wasn't the only player in the squad not to get one.

Ultimately the 'failure to react' point is up to the individual's judgement. Personally I wasn't convinced that we didn't gamble to shuffle the pack a bit early v Hungary. I'd agree Ralston had a horrible first half against Switzerland but he ultimately had a decent enough second half and I'm not remotely convinced McCrorie or anyone else would have improved that. As the saying goes, you can only play the hand you've been dealt.

The Fraser point is absolutely fair, in a side with absolutely no pace (once Doak dropped out) then he should have been in there. You need different profiles at a tournament. 

 

The game management against Hungary was appalling. 
 

 

[Old Bing]

1 hour ago, 2426255 said:

What would you identify as the middle ground between under-achieving and over-achieving if over-achieving is qualifying for the best-16 and under-achieving is what unfolded? What would have been okay?

You've been trying to re-frame this now for about 40 pages. Take a hint it's not working.

[Jaggy McJagface]

4 hours ago, 2426255 said:

What would you identify as the middle ground between under-achieving and over-achieving if over-achieving is qualifying for the best-16 and under-achieving is what unfolded? What would have been okay?

Not finishing rock bottom out of all 24 teams with only 3 shots on target in a fairly accommodating group. The fact you think aiming for better than that is unreasonable or unrealistic is an incredibly defeatist mentality.

 

Watching you attempt to rationalize the performance as anything but a huge disappointment is tiresome.

Some of us spent a lot of money to watch Scotland play and we got served up a cowardly performance across all 3 games with absolutely nothing except a deflected McTominay goal to cheer for.

[Butters Scotch]

5 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Most of these are not reasonable criticism though, you're all over the place.

You're not complaining about McGinn, McTominay or Gilmour (just McGregor) so presumably you're not advocating any of those dropping out or playing another position (centre back for McTominay?) but he should have integrated Ferguson into the starting eleven AND used Christie in central midfield. How many players are you wanting in there? You're not happy with the formation so you want MORE midfielders in there? If he'd started five or six midfielders he'd have (rightly) been crucified. That's madness.

It's a bit early to be suggesting Conway's the Messiah. He's had a few minutes in friendlies and, prior to the Gibraltar / Finland games we didn't particularly have a shortage of strikers for the formation we are playing.

Neither Taylor nor Doig are currently going to start games ahead of Robertson so whilst there's an argument the former should be eased out for the latter, it's a pretty straw man point.

Fraser gets a better press the more he doesn't play. He got less playing time at Southampton than Stuart Armstrong last season and he's currently back sitting in Newcastle's reserves.

Forrest was called up because we were allowed 26 players and he chose not to leave a slot empty just in case of further injury. He's clearly not particularly in the plans and I don't expect to see him again. I don't think calling the guy up for a last hurrah just in case of worst case scenario is something the manager should be criticised for. Inclusion in the tournament squad doesn't bring with it some sort of guarantee of an appearance on the pitch. He wasn't the only player in the squad not to get one.

Ultimately the 'failure to react' point is up to the individual's judgement. Personally I wasn't convinced that we didn't gamble to shuffle the pack a bit early v Hungary. I'd agree Ralston had a horrible first half against Switzerland but he ultimately had a decent enough second half and I'm not remotely convinced McCrorie or anyone else would have improved that. As the saying goes, you can only play the hand you've been dealt.

How is it unreasonable or my viewpoint is allover the place as you say? 

I'm not complaining about McTominay, Gilmour or McGinn mainly because as you said we are dealt with the hand we are given and these guys are probably the best we have in their positions. I wasn't averse to McGinn being dropped either based on his recent form tbf but can understand why Clarke picks him as he has scored important goals for us so didn't put that down on my list of reasons. 

I didn't say playing Ferguson and Christie in CM at the same time, it was the failure to play either in these positions for a run of games especially considering since there was a drop off in performances and how well they were doing at their clubs. 

Once it was clear that the above was not going to happen then I would of settled for a change of system to overcome our lack of form but this never really happened either did it. 

Think you're mental that you're saying we don't have a shortage of strikers, it's pretty clear we do.

Conway is playing at the same level as a Dykes and Adams but is not getting the same chances as them to prove himself in a problem position. Watching some of his games I certainly think he gives us a different type of option upfront which we could of benefitted from (not saying this would be guaranteed) but Clarke chose not to give him the opportunity to showcase that. 

The Doig v Taylor debate is strawman in your head but not to a lot of posters on here saying the same thing before the euros squad was announced. Doig by far has the higher ceiling than Taylor so are why we persisting with this guy if he's never gonna play as you mention, surely it's better to bed In someone for the future?

Fraser is one of the best wingers we have in our player pool, a lot better than a Forrest for example. He gives us a completely different option and brings different qualities to someone like Armstrong who is a totally different player. 

 

[Monkey Tennis]

10 hours ago, 2426255 said:

I agree with the idea that there are 11 or 12 teams ahead of Scotland and a group of around 15 teams of a similar level below that which we are a part of.

Our views diverge after that. What's your basis for expecting Scotland to be the best of a group of ~15 similar teams? 

We under-achieved because we didn't over-achieve.

Fans always set the maximum, best-case scenario as the minimum. It seems like madness to me absolutely destined for perpetual disappointment.

Saying something over and over doesn't automatically render it so, I'm afraid.

Our conceivable best-case scenario was vastly better than what we got.  With a tail wind, getting through the group and even another round, should have been possible.  Instead, we mustered almost nothing.

The gap between the two is huge. 

The minimum expectation would probably have involved unlucky elimination after spirited displays. We fell way below that.

This line you're peddling about us setting our absolute ceiling as a floor is just silly.  It doesn't apply in either direction.

[Cameron1875]

I think it's inevitable now that he stays and gets the Nations League campaign due to a number of reasons.

SFA will want to try save face, injuries, no realistic replacements on his salary.

However, standing there in that second half in Stuttgart, I'm sorry but I can't defend that and he needs to go. First half I get it, keep it tight and don't do anything daft. Second half was a complete disgrace and being honest I felt a bit of a tube taking so much annual leave and spending the dough to go over for the groups. No one put a gun to my head but you spend the months before it hoping and dreaming... for that?! Bringing on Lewis Morgan... really?

We've all supported our clubs when you see a manager at the end of his time lose all sense of decision making and any sort of control. Clarke in the last 15 minutes v Hungary was the club manager who'd have been binned at 5.30pm on Sportsound.

Lucky for him, he's got a long break between matches and bosses who just hope the storm blows over. 

Bring on Poland eh.

 

 

Edited August 15 by Cameron1875

[Theroadlesstravelled]

I did wonder how is this racist dinosaur still employed but then again Malky MacKay and Gordon Strachan are revered in Scottish Fitba.

[Old Bing]

3 hours ago, Butters Scotch said:

How is it unreasonable or my viewpoint is allover the place as you say? 

I'm not complaining about McTominay, Gilmour or McGinn mainly because as you said we are dealt with the hand we are given and these guys are probably the best we have in their positions. I wasn't averse to McGinn being dropped either based on his recent form tbf but can understand why Clarke picks him as he has scored important goals for us so didn't put that down on my list of reasons. 

I didn't say playing Ferguson and Christie in CM at the same time, it was the failure to play either in these positions for a run of games especially considering since there was a drop off in performances and how well they were doing at their clubs. 

Once it was clear that the above was not going to happen then I would of settled for a change of system to overcome our lack of form but this never really happened either did it. 

Think you're mental that you're saying we don't have a shortage of strikers, it's pretty clear we do.

Conway is playing at the same level as a Dykes and Adams but is not getting the same chances as them to prove himself in a problem position. Watching some of his games I certainly think he gives us a different type of option upfront which we could of benefitted from (not saying this would be guaranteed) but Clarke chose not to give him the opportunity to showcase that. 

The Doig v Taylor debate is strawman in your head but not to a lot of posters on here saying the same thing before the euros squad was announced. Doig by far has the higher ceiling than Taylor so are why we persisting with this guy if he's never gonna play as you mention, surely it's better to bed In someone for the future?

Fraser is one of the best wingers we have in our player pool, a lot better than a Forrest for example. He gives us a completely different option and brings different qualities to someone like Armstrong who is a totally different player. 

 

Id agree with all that man bar fraser, I don't think he's anything like the player he was. 

The part you missed on his @Skyline Drifter's post was the strange dismissing of your forrest point. A paragraph which basically said absolutely nothing.

We were crying out for a winger to bring on to give us an option later in games. He was bang in form, and has continued starting this season. But wasn't used. It was very strange.