Steve Clarke - in/out/general discussion

[Butters Scotch]

43 minutes ago, Chripper said:

In the mythical nine competitive matches without a win. Six of the matches have been loses to teams above us in the FIFA rankings (Spain, Germany, Portugal, Croatia, Hungary and Poland). Four of the six are in the top fifteen (Spain, Portugal, Croatia and Germany.

Apart from the loses to Germany (5-1) and Spain (2-0) the other four loses have been by a one goal margin. So it's not like we're getting hammered and embarrassed.

In a way, Steve Clarke is a victim of his own success. We are punching above our weight. We're mingling with the likes of Croatia and Portugal in the Nations League.

Would people rather we played the likes of Gibraltar and Armenia and beat them without breaking into a sweat?

Players are going to improve playing against better teams and players. They'll learn more in defeats against the major nations than victories against minnows.

That will be proven when we start the World Cup qualification and compete for 1st position.

I'm not saying that Steve Clarke is immune from criticism.

Unless we can invent a time machine and go back to when Scotland were last capable of playing with a back four (1992) and Bring back peak Dave McPherson and Richard Gough (As well as Stuart McCall) it's time to scrap four at the bavck and go back to the trio at the back.

Scotland fans claimed that Clarke only played with a trio at the back in order to shoehorn Tierney and Robertson into the first XI.

I disagreed.

It would appear that I was wrong. It would also appear that I gave Steve Clarke way too much credit.

Turns out that he stumbled upon a winning formula and qualified for two European Championships as a result.

Now, inexplicably, he's ditched it.

Good luck with that one, Mr Clarke.

If Scotland starts with a back four against Portugal, he has worn out my patience and my goodwill, and he can leave with my good wishes and gratitude.

[Old Bing]

2 hours ago, Chripper said:

In the mythical nine competitive matches without a win. Six of the matches have been loses to teams above us in the FIFA rankings (Spain, Germany, Portugal, Croatia, Hungary and Poland). Four of the six are in the top fifteen (Spain, Portugal, Croatia and Germany.

Apart from the loses to Germany (5-1) and Spain (2-0) the other four loses have been by a one goal margin. So it's not like we're getting hammered and embarrassed.

In a way, Steve Clarke is a victim of his own success. We are punching above our weight. We're mingling with the likes of Croatia and Portugal in the Nations League.

Would people rather we played the likes of Gibraltar and Armenia and beat them without breaking into a sweat?

Players are going to improve playing against better teams and players. They'll learn more in defeats against the major nations than victories against minnows.

That will be proven when we start the World Cup qualification and compete for 1st position.

I'm not saying that Steve Clarke is immune from criticism.

Unless we can invent a time machine and go back to when Scotland were last capable of playing with a back four (1992) and Bring back peak Dave McPherson and Richard Gough (As well as Stuart McCall) it's time to scrap four at the bavck and go back to the trio at the back.

Scotland fans claimed that Clarke only played with a trio at the back in order to shoehorn Tierney and Robertson into the first XI.

I disagreed.

It would appear that I was wrong. It would also appear that I gave Steve Clarke way too much credit.

Turns out that he stumbled upon a winning formula and qualified for two European Championships as a result.

Now, inexplicably, he's ditched it.

Good luck with that one, Mr Clarke.

If Scotland starts with a back four against Portugal, he has worn out my patience and my goodwill, and he can leave with my good wishes and gratitude.

Honestly put yourself in the bin.

[Butters Scotch]

3 minutes ago, Old Bing said:

Honestly put yourself in the bin.

Imagine spending the time to write that slavering gibberish and actually living your life believing the pish that was written.

[Monkey Tennis]

14 hours ago, Chripper said:

In the mythical nine competitive matches without a win...

Mythical?

How so?

[troopio]

CLARKE OUT end of story.

Wales were Group A, Top seeds for a few years and they managed to get good results whilst being rubbish.

This is ALL on Clarke for his continual selection of rubbish like Ralston, Hanley, Dykes and McLean.

His loyalty to these players is costing us results as is his fear of making subs before the 70th Minute.

Sick of the Tartan Army Happy Clappers thinking everything is Ok when it is not.

Results Business, stuff playing well. Winning is all that matters, not performance.

[Alan Twelve]

40 minutes ago, troopio said:

This is ALL on Clarke for his continual selection of rubbish like Ralston, Hanley, Dykes and McLean.

Who would you have started instead of those four against Croatia?

You're coming across like the England fantasists who always believe that the problem is the manager, even when there is no problem. It's not; we don't have the players to be better than we are at present. I'd have been quite happy to see Clarke walk, or be pushed, after the Euros, but at this moment he's doing a decent job with a depleted player pool and I can't see that there's a ready replacement who'd do any better.

[Lex]

9 minutes ago, Alan Twelve said:

I'd have been quite happy to see Clarke walk, or be pushed, after the Euros, but at this moment he's doing a decent job with a depleted player pool and I can't see that there's a ready replacement who'd do any better.

We’ve lost every single game since the Euros?

This may come across as uber optimistic, but I genuinely believe there is a manager out there would could have avoided defeat at home to Poland with this group of players. 

[Streets of Raith]

But did we deserve to lose every single game (3 nr.) since the Euros? 

[Alan Twelve]

39 minutes ago, Lex said:

We’ve lost every single game since the Euros?

This may come across as uber optimistic, but I genuinely believe there is a manager out there would could have avoided defeat at home to Poland with this group of players. 

The Poland defeat was entirely down to individual errors, not down to tactical blundering. And yes, he picked the players, but I'm not sure that there were any obviously better players he should have picked. We absolutely should have won, I agree, but it's down to the players that we didn't.

The other two games were narrow away defeats to better teams. I'm not seeing any silver bullet that would have changed those to wins.

[Lex]

23 minutes ago, Streets of Raith said:

But did we deserve to lose every single game (3 nr.) since the Euros? 

We certainly deserved to lose the two away games. Looking at the stats the only strange thing is we somehow only managed to lose by one goal each time, mainly due to some wasteful finishing by our opponents. We could have easily been pumped in both games, Portugal had 26 shots on goal FFS 

As you'd expect, the easiest game we'll have in this group (Poland at home) was much more even, a draw would have been a fairer outcome. But then Hanley got himself involved and we somehow managed to lose that one too. Even still, a draw wouldn't have been good enough in the context of the group, so it's not really the glorious hard luck story Clarke needs.

Is this the kind of post Euros improvement we were looking for? Are these results and performance giving people confidence that Clark can lead us to USA/MEX/CAN in 2026? If not, why is he still here?

[troopio]

1 hour ago, Alan Twelve said:

Who would you have started instead of those four against Croatia?

You're coming across like the England fantasists who always believe that the problem is the manager, even when there is no problem. It's not; we don't have the players to be better than we are at present. I'd have been quite happy to see Clarke walk, or be pushed, after the Euros, but at this moment he's doing a decent job with a depleted player pool and I can't see that there's a ready replacement who'd do any better.

Devlin for Ralston. Devlin is not a better player but he is PLAYING every week for a winning team, Ralston is a bench warmer. Clarke way back in 2018 or 19 said that he will pick players who are in Form and for their Clubs yet now it is the opposite, why is that?

Porteous for Hanley. He is not much better but how many points has Fat Boy cost us now? too many.

Gauld for Mclean. No Brainer. McLean is a has been playing for a farmers team. He has no place in the 11, the squad yes but at 32 he should not be anywhere near the 11.

Nisbet should have started if Adams was ill. Again he is playing regularly and scoring. Dykes is playing in a Pub League and barely playing let alone scoring.

I would have more respect if Clarke just said I am picking these boys because of loyalty because then he would be telling the truth. 

All 4 will start tomorrow as well.

[Streets of Raith]

11 minutes ago, troopio said:

Devlin for Ralston. Devlin is not a better player but he is PLAYING every week for a winning team, Ralston is a bench warmer. Clarke way back in 2018 or 19 said that he will pick players who are in Form and for their Clubs yet now it is the opposite, why is that?

Porteous for Hanley. He is not much better but how many points has Fat Boy cost us now? too many.

Gauld for Mclean. No Brainer. McLean is a has been playing for a farmers team. He has no place in the 11, the squad yes but at 32 he should not be anywhere near the 11.

Nisbet should have started if Adams was ill. Again he is playing regularly and scoring. Dykes is playing in a Pub League and barely playing let alone scoring.

I would have more respect if Clarke just said I am picking these boys because of loyalty because then he would be telling the truth. 

All 4 will start tomorrow as well.

Ok, so:

You concede Ralston is the better player.

How many points has Hanley directly cost us? Can you remind us what Porto's last action playing for Scotland was?

McLean and Gauld are different players, in different positions. Are you moving Christie back to accommodate Gauld? I could go with that.

England League 1 is a higher level than Scottish Prem.

[troopio]

16 minutes ago, Streets of Raith said:

Ok, so:

You concede Ralston is the better player.

How many points has Hanley directly cost us? Can you remind us what Porto's last action playing for Scotland was?

McLean and Gauld are different players, in different positions. Are you moving Christie back to accommodate Gauld? I could go with that.

England League 1 is a higher level than Scottish Prem.

Ralston has a higher ceiling but he is not playing for his Club and cost us in the Euros and in Poland game, he should be dropped.

Hanley cost us a point against Poland, he was useless in Portugal and slower than a week in jail on Saturday and again posted missing. Porteous was abysmal against Germany and cost us but knowing how Clarke thinks he wont start Lindsay hes just a body.

English League 1 is a terrible league, take the money away its a league of cavemen, Dykes cannot even score in a good team in a division like that, he has had his time.

[Jives Miguel]

4 minutes ago, troopio said:

Hanley cost us a point against Poland, he was useless in Portugal and slower than a week in jail on Saturday and again posted missing.

Again, how would you know, given that you didn't watch the game on Saturday? You complete fantasist.

[eez-eh]

I’m sure things would magically turn around for us if we started playing Nicky Devlin and Kevin Nisbet.

[Miguel Sanchez]

On 13/10/2024 at 13:56, Allroy for Prez said:

Liam Gordon 

I was going to mock this but I forgot he doesn't play for St. Johnstone anymore, so you may be on to something.

[Old Bing]

1 hour ago, Jives Miguel said:

Again, how would you know, given that you didn't watch the game on Saturday? You complete fantasist.

For someone who is apparently 50/50 you seem awfully upset when someone is against clarke. And tremendously supportive if anyone is pro clarke

[troopio]

2 hours ago, Jives Miguel said:

Again, how would you know, given that you didn't watch the game on Saturday? You complete fantasist.

Rather be that than a fanboy for s***e like Hanley. Weirdo

[Alan Twelve]

2 hours ago, troopio said:

Devlin for Ralston. Devlin is not a better player but he is PLAYING every week for a winning team, Ralston is a bench warmer. Clarke way back in 2018 or 19 said that he will pick players who are in Form and for their Clubs yet now it is the opposite, why is that?

Porteous for Hanley. He is not much better but how many points has Fat Boy cost us now? too many.

Gauld for Mclean. No Brainer. McLean is a has been playing for a farmers team. He has no place in the 11, the squad yes but at 32 he should not be anywhere near the 11.

Nisbet should have started if Adams was ill. Again he is playing regularly and scoring. Dykes is playing in a Pub League and barely playing let alone scoring.

I would have more respect if Clarke just said I am picking these boys because of loyalty because then he would be telling the truth. 

All 4 will start tomorrow as well.

Essentially what Streets of Raith said - I don't think that Devlin, Porto and Nisbet offer any improvement over Ralston, Hanley and Dykes. I don't think Hanley or Dykes were anything like the disasters some are portraying them as on Saturday, and Ralston had a pretty good game, quite frankly. As good as we can expect from someone of his ability at any rate, and since you concede that Devlin is the lesser player...

I would also like to see Gauld start, but (presuming you'd be moving Christie back) I worry that it would make our midfield more powder puff than it is already. We need an enforcer to protect Gilmour and I'm not convinced that's Christie. I'd like to see it tried, mind you. Also, McLean was good on Saturday - justified his selection.

[Fletchers Saucy Manbun]

The Euros debacle is hard to accept, admitting that the plan was to get to the Hungary game with a point. Unserious management to hand wave away five, six points from a possible nine total.

Then again he has woeful quality to pick from up front. He'd already be binned if it wasn't for McTominay.