Steve Clarke - in/out/general discussion

[2426255]

2 hours ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

Haaaaahaaa yeah that's the one man, that 2 second clip

You could take a 2 second clip from any match and it could prove just about any formation

The limit on videos is 8mb which is why I can't show more. I could put it up via a third party and link it. It also gives you the time stamp: 4 minutes. Is this one better? You think I'm just making it up, but it's in the footage. Go back and see for yourself. We vary how we build up in the first phase of play.

Another different part of the game showing the same thing. Build up with a back-4 even though the formation is listed as a back-3. 

Edited June 30 by 2426255

[2426255]

56 minutes ago, Butters Scotch said:

You're still not getting it... 

It's too late to get into a discussion on that for me. Tomorrow maybe if you like. I was just addressing easy replies to @Ewanandmoreagain and @Bing.McCrosby.

Edited June 30 by 2426255

[Boo Khaki]

17 hours ago, No_Problemo said:

Right, so he played in the Championship until he was about 22/23 and then moved up - and has now largely stayed there bar one season. 

His goal scoring is irrelevant, he is a lower end Premiership striker. He certainly isn’t a goal scoring one, but that is what he is. He is a good footballer, who we didn’t even attempt to play to the strengths of. 

I do not watch English football, so I can not comment on Adams in the context of how he plays for his club sides, but just to indulge me, would you mind elaborating a bit on what, precisely, you perceive Che Adams strengths to be?

I have watched most of his minutes in a Scotland shirt, and while I thought it was immediately apparent that he is not just unsuited to the role of being a solitary forward, he is entirely incapable of playing that role, I'm also still at a loss to understand what Che Adams actually is. He shows no sort of instinct in and around the penalty box that you expect of a natural goalscorer, his movement when the team is in possession is non-existent in the respect that he never appears to make any sort of threatening run, he frequently takes up utterly nonsensical positions that take him out of the play entirely due to the fact even the best passers in the world would be unable to find him, he isn't particularly strong with the ball at his feet but also shows no ability to pull wide and take it in space, for example the way Leigh Griffiths used to, as a means to hold it up and bring team mates into play, he offers no threat in the air, he's a liability when asked to come back and help defend, and I can't recall him ever doing anything with the ball that created an opportunity for a team mate.

So what type of player is he? What sort of role is he suited to? Because as far as I can see, he's a completely empty jersey that offers absolutely nothing to the team beyond being willing to run around a bit.

Edited July 1 by Boo Khaki

[Theroadlesstravelled]

Some interesting comments in here.

[Old Bing]

7 hours ago, 2426255 said:

It's too late to get into a discussion on that for me. Tomorrow maybe if you like. I was just addressing easy replies to @Ewanandmoreagain and @Bing.McCrosby.

Think everyone saw the game, nobody saw anything being build with 4 at the back. But good luck with your campaign

[2426255]

39 minutes ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

Think everyone saw the game, nobody saw anything being build with 4 at the back. 

Fans think they know football, but miss basic concepts like this when the game plays out in front of them. Football isn't rigid formation against rigid formation, 433 v 532. There's no magic or teleportation involved, it's just yardage as Sean Dyche said.

It's why I don't put a lot of stock in most fans opinions. Watching the game, yes - understanding it? no, definitely not.

Quote

We're talking about yardages. You drop a player in here and that becomes a #10, but it's literally 5 yards. So you drop a player in here and then adjust that player there and that becomes a big difference and yet literally, you're virtually on this anyway: it's a matter of yardage.

Sean Dyche

 

[Old Bing]

4 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

Fans think they know football, but miss basic concepts like this when the game plays out in front of them. Football isn't rigid formation against rigid formation, 433 v 532. There's no magic or teleportation involved, it's just yardage as Sean Dyche said.

It's why I don't put a lot of stock in most fans opinions. Watching the game, yes - understanding it? no, definitely not.

 

As you say yourself you don't understand transition you dont understand the offside rules. Last time I explained it you ran off. 

[2426255]

7 minutes ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

As you say yourself you don't understand transition you dont understand the offside rules. Last time I explained it you ran off. 

Fans talk and talk, but they only understand the outcome. They may think they know what went wrong, what the manager should have done differently. I don't try to tell the manager what was wrong, what he should have done differently. Why? I'm not a coach, a manager or involved in the game professionally in any capacity. 

Quote

In our country it's become quite common for fans to judge players, which I don't like to do because I'm just watching it as a fan. I would never sit in front of the TV and say that I would have done so-and-so as the manager or question what a player is doing, because you don't know what's really going on there. It's a terrible example, but there are teams that are really bad at throw-ins in their own half so a team might have a tactic to kick the ball against an opposing player to force them to have lots of throw-ins in their own half or put the ball out of play themselves. The fans just see a lot of balls going out of play and wonder why that is.

When you don't know what the managers plan is and what they might have intended, it's extremely hard to judge. That's not to say that you're not disappointed as a fan when Germany don't play well in tournaments. But I'm not a manager who sits in front of the TV, judges another manager, is constantly making notes or claims that he would have reacted a certain way or made certain substitutions because I wasn't there.

Julian Nagelsmann

 

[Old Bing]

5 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

Fans talk and talk, but they only understand the outcome. They may think they know what went wrong, what the manager should have done differently. I don't try to tell the manager what was wrong, what he should have done differently. Why? I'm not a coach, a manager or involved in the game professionally in any capacity. 

 

Yes i know you dont understand. But your judging others on your own lack of knowledge mate.

[George Parr]

It's incomprehensible that the SFA appear content to plough on with a known xenophobe in their employ as manager of the national football team.

Surely Clarke's comments have to be acknowledged and addressed at some point? This shouldn't be permitted to just drift away. 

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Im assuming Mccrosby and 24256552 are the same person?

[Sergeant Wilson]

3 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkey said:

Im assuming Mccrosby and 24256552 are the same person?

Make him the manager, he has the commitment we need...and the time to spare.

[Sergeant Wilson]

6 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

I do not watch English football, so I can not comment on Adams in the context of how he plays for his club sides, but just to indulge me, would you mind elaborating a bit on what, precisely, you perceive Che Adams strengths to be?

I have watched most of his minutes in a Scotland shirt, and while I thought it was immediately apparent that he is not just unsuited to the role of being a solitary forward, he is entirely incapable of playing that role, I'm also still at a loss to understand what Che Adams actually is. He shows no sort of instinct in and around the penalty box that you expect of a natural goalscorer, his movement when the team is in possession is non-existent in the respect that he never appears to make any sort of threatening run, he frequently takes up utterly nonsensical positions that take him out of the play entirely due to the fact even the best passers in the world would be unable to find him, he isn't particularly strong with the ball at his feet but also shows no ability to pull wide and take it in space, for example the way Leigh Griffiths used to, as a means to hold it up and bring team mates into play, he offers no threat in the air, he's a liability when asked to come back and help defend, and I can't recall him ever doing anything with the ball that created an opportunity for a team mate.

So what type of player is he? What sort of role is he suited to? Because as far as I can see, he's a completely empty jersey that offers absolutely nothing to the team beyond being willing to run around a bit.

Aye, but apart from that...

[velo army]

31 minutes ago, George Parr said:

It's incomprehensible that the SFA appear content to plough on with a known xenophobe in their employ as manager of the national football team.

Surely Clarke's comments have to be acknowledged and addressed at some point? This shouldn't be permitted to just drift away. 

A known xenophobe.

Deary me.

The man makes one ill advised comment in the heat of the moment.

[nate]

6 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

I do not watch English football, so I can not comment on Adams in the context of how he plays for his club sides, but just to indulge me, would you mind elaborating a bit on what, precisely, you perceive Che Adams strengths to be?

I have watched most of his minutes in a Scotland shirt, and while I thought it was immediately apparent that he is not just unsuited to the role of being a solitary forward, he is entirely incapable of playing that role, I'm also still at a loss to understand what Che Adams actually is. He shows no sort of instinct in and around the penalty box that you expect of a natural goalscorer, his movement when the team is in possession is non-existent in the respect that he never appears to make any sort of threatening run, he frequently takes up utterly nonsensical positions that take him out of the play entirely due to the fact even the best passers in the world would be unable to find him, he isn't particularly strong with the ball at his feet but also shows no ability to pull wide and take it in space, for example the way Leigh Griffiths used to, as a means to hold it up and bring team mates into play, he offers no threat in the air, he's a liability when asked to come back and help defend, and I can't recall him ever doing anything with the ball that created an opportunity for a team mate.

So what type of player is he? What sort of role is he suited to? Because as far as I can see, he's a completely empty jersey that offers absolutely nothing to the team beyond being willing to run around a bit.

Running around a bit is his principal attribute. Adams apologists are always telling us he “puts in a shift” or “works his sox off”, as if those were extraordinary talents. Joe Bloke from the local park team runs around a bit too. It’s the minimal requirement on a football pitch. Adams is lucky. His Scotland rivals play for QPR, Bristol City and Hearts. It’s hardly a goldmine of possibilities, is it?

[SouthLanarkshireWhite]

37 minutes ago, George Parr said:

It's incomprehensible that the SFA appear content to plough on with a known xenophobe in their employ as manager of the national football team.

Surely Clarke's comments have to be acknowledged and addressed at some point? This shouldn't be permitted to just drift away. 

I would rather the SFA spent time focusing on improving Scottish Football than worrying about upsetting the Argentinians. 

[2426255]

1 hour ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

Yes i know you dont understand. But your judging others on your own lack of knowledge mate.

Football fans don't know the game well enough to say the manager should be doing x or y. Some think they do, which is worse. What kind of a person tells someone else how they should be doing their job? It begins with A and ends in hole.

[George Parr]

32 minutes ago, SouthLanarkshireWhite said:

I would rather the SFA spent time focusing on improving Scottish Football than worrying about upsetting the Argentinians. 

It's possible to be quite good at football and not xenophobic.

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

Adams is a good player when we play him in a system that makes the most of his movement and get midfield runners linking up with him,  particularly  Armstrong.

He cannot do the Dykes role as he can't hold the ball up and doesn't press well.  Not his fault Clarke decided to use him in the least productive way possible 

[Old Bing]

12 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

Football fans don't know the game well enough to say the manager should be doing x or y. Some think they do, which is worse. What kind of a person tells someone else how they should be doing their job? It begins with A and ends in hole.

Proofs in the pudding, there's plenty on here who were right