Steve Clarke - in/out/general discussion

[2426255]

21 hours ago, aberdeen1970 said:

Whilst obviously formations are fluid over the duration of game the fundamental issue is that if you select too many players whose strengths are defensive rather than attacking then you're ultimately going to compromise your team's attacking abilities. 

That's the basic logic to fans. More attacking players makes a more attacking team. Put on an extra attacker, take off a defender. Simple.

We know it doesn't play out in practice like that. Look at the England team. 

 

[Butters Scotch]

23 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

That's the basic logic to fans. More attacking players makes a more attacking team. Put on an extra attacker, take off a defender. Simple.

We know it doesn't play out in practice like that. Look at the England team. 

 

Nonsense. You are trying to be too clever again for your own good. 

You are comparing us to the England team, really? A team full of quality players winning league championships, UCL, etc. 

Football is a simple game made hard and under Clarke, we really do make it hard for ourselves in creating opportunities. 

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

1 hour ago, Chripper said:

I do.

Scotland fans, at least the ones who want a new manager, suffer from short term memory.

Do they not remember the two decades of not qualifying? Do they want to go back to those days?

I think they do, so they have something to moan about.

Steve Clarke has qualified for two out of three tournaments. What more do people want? Being able to compete whilst we get there?

We hit the post via Switzerland and had a stonewall penalty against Hungary.

It could easy have went the other way with Scotland ending the group stage with 6 points.

As a bare minimum, yes.

Do I want him sacked, not really as he's made us a better team in the main,  but he's now failed to get anywhere near our best out of us in a series of massive matches over two tournaments and a WC play off.

[Old Bing]

It doesn't matter what the sfa say, as soon as the fans decide it's over then it over. See the end of Strachans time.

That's not to say it is, but if the reaction is negative in the Poland/Portugal games then it's game over for clarke. 

[Father Ted]

On 01/07/2024 at 14:36, immcinto said:

Not a fan of the Mail but this sums it up quite well

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/uefa-euro/article-13583041/Why-Steve-Clarke-allowed-disappear-air-Euro-exit-resigned-ASKS-GARY-KEOWN.html

Nailed it.

It's disrespectful from Clarke towards the fans, firstly to serve up such dross on the park and then to act like he did in press conferences, just excerabates it.

His time is up and he should show a bit of grace and go. 

He's not even had the decency to do that.

It's the beginning of the end for him, unless there is radical change in the Nations League and I seriously doubt there will be.

[2426255]

1 hour ago, Butters Scotch said:

You are comparing us to the England team, really? A team full of quality players winning league championships, UCL, etc. 

I was saying the England team are full of quality attacking players jam packed into their team plus 4 defenders and they arent very productive.

That alone tells you there's more to football than just playing more attackers.

24 minutes ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

It doesn't matter what the sfa say, as soon as the fans decide it's over then it over. See the end of Strachans time.

That's not to say it is, but if the reaction is negative in the Poland/Portugal games then it's game over for clarke. 

Have the SFA backed Clarke? I haven't seen that.

Edited July 2 by 2426255

[Butters Scotch]

5 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

I was saying the England team are full of quality attacking players jam packed into their team plus 4 defenders and they arent very productive.

That alone tells you there's more to football than just playing more attackers.

Have the SFA backed Clarke? I haven't seen that.

Who's said its as simple as putting an extra attacker on though? However, I'm pretty sure we would of created more chances than we explicitly did... 

[2426255]

20 minutes ago, Butters Scotch said:

However, I'm pretty sure we would of created more chances than we explicitly did... 

What's your basis for thinking that? Show me your working mate.

[Crawford Bridge]

Be specific!

[Billy Jean King]

35 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

I was saying the England team are full of quality attacking players jam packed into their team plus 4 defenders and they arent very productive.

That alone tells you there's more to football than just playing more attackers.

Have the SFA backed Clarke? I haven't seen that.

Have you ever watched Southgate's England or listen to the English media?

 

I assume not given your interpretation of their formation "full of quality attacking players jam packed into their team plus 4 defenders". You seem to have completely missed their dogged determination to play two holding midfielders

[allyo]

I don't think Clarke is too defensive. But I do think that at the Euros he was too cautious and inflexible.

The team he put together had attacking threat down the wings through Tierney, Robertson and Hickey, and a big physical striker in Dykes who allowed space for attacking midfielders to profit.

Call it 3-4-2-1, or 5-3-1 whatever. It wasn't a defensive line-up. But when he lost Hickey, Tierney and Dykes and replaced all three of them with less directly attacking players, he'd lost any threat that the team had. It was like he was plugging holes but had lost sight of the big picture.

He's had long term success in building something positive. He had a massive short term failure at the Euros, in failing to react positively to an unfortunate situation. 

I'm also not too enamoured with his reaction after the tournament, and particularly his embarrassing comments about the referee. He must have been gutted, it's a really tough job, but it was pretty poor. I hope he reflects on that.

I'd stick with him, but I hope he learns from it. And I'd be looking for positives in the Nations League. 

[Butters Scotch]

2 hours ago, 2426255 said:

What's your basis for thinking that? Show me your working mate.

I'll let you do that, you like doing your analysis

[Binos]

2 hours ago, allyo said:

I don't think Clarke is too defensive. But I do think that at the Euros he was too cautious and inflexible.

The team he put together had attacking threat down the wings through Tierney, Robertson and Hickey, and a big physical striker in Dykes who allowed space for attacking midfielders to profit.

Call it 3-4-2-1, or 5-3-1 whatever. It wasn't a defensive line-up. But when he lost Hickey, Tierney and Dykes and replaced all three of them with less directly attacking players, he'd lost any threat that the team had. It was like he was plugging holes but had lost sight of the big picture.

He's had long term success in building something positive. He had a massive short term failure at the Euros, in failing to react positively to an unfortunate situation. 

I'm also not too enamoured with his reaction after the tournament, and particularly his embarrassing comments about the referee. He must have been gutted, it's a really tough job, but it was pretty poor. I hope he reflects on that.

I'd stick with him, but I hope he learns from it. And I'd be looking for positives in the Nations League. 

It looked like we were playing a 5 3 1 most of the time 

[allyo]

Oops! But yeah, it did.

[qos_75]

Let’s not get carried away here. Hungary were shite and stank out the tournament just as much as we did. A breakawy goal deep into 10 minutes of injury time won’t change that fact.

Two honking teams that were more concerned about not getting beat than trying win.

[S7C]

9 hours ago, Chripper said:

Steve Clarke has qualified for two out of three tournaments. What more do people want? Being able to compete whilst we get there?

God forbid.

[2426255]

14 hours ago, Billy Jean King said:

I assume not given your interpretation of their formation "full of quality attacking players jam packed into their team plus 4 defenders". You seem to have completely missed their dogged determination to play two holding midfielders

I thought England were trying to find alternative solutions to playing two holding midfielders because they don't have the players to fill that role without Kalvin Phillips and that's been giving them gyp. The reason given by Southgate after one of their games (the Denmark game?) was that they couldn't get their press right and they were missing Kalvin Phillips.

That's not a bad illustration of my point that football isn't as simple as swapping an defender for an attacker, although I appreciate that's not what you're intending. What do England fans want though? More attacking players. What do Scotland fans want? More attacking players. 

12 hours ago, Butters Scotch said:

I'll let you do that, you like doing your analysis

I'll just be direct: If you had any working you'd show it. 

[Butters Scotch]

3 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

I thought England were trying to find alternative solutions to playing two holding midfielders because they don't have the players to fill that role without Kalvin Phillips and that's been giving them gyp. The reason given by Southgate after one of their games (the Denmark game?) was that they couldn't get their press right and they were missing Kalvin Phillips.

That's not a bad illustration of my point that football isn't as simple as swapping an defender for an attacker, although I appreciate that's not what you're intending. What do England fans want though? More attacking players. What do Scotland fans want? More attacking players. 

I'll just be direct: If you had any working you'd show it. 

Aye cause you need to do "working" to prove having another attacking player on the pitch would lead to more opportunities.  

Dearie me. 

[SouthLanarkshireWhite]

15 hours ago, Father Ted said:

Nailed it.

It's disrespectful from Clarke towards the fans, firstly to serve up such dross on the park and then to act like he did in press conferences, just excerabates it.

His time is up and he should show a bit of grace and go. 

He's not even had the decency to do that.

It's the beginning of the end for him, unless there is radical change in the Nations League and I seriously doubt there will be.

If you look beyond Clarke for a minute, and consider the position of the SFA, then that for me is where the real issue lies.

In my opinion they are a not a professional, well run & results focused organisation. Their very structure means that once in the door, no one wants to give up their position at the table. They can stay in a pretty good job which most of us would love to have and attend any game this wish all over the world with an expense account. There is no body holding them to account - only fans holding back their money & as soon as we get a wee bit of success we all rock up buying tickets and new kits etc.

If they hire Clarke, support Clarke and frankly don't know the answer post-Clarke then there will be  no hurry for a post-mortem, no rush to stand in front of good investigative football journalists ( if we have any) and explain their shortcomings. 

[PB1994]

14 minutes ago, SouthLanarkshireWhite said:

If you look beyond Clarke for a minute, and consider the position of the SFA, then that for me is where the real issue lies.

In my opinion they are a not a professional, well run & results focused organisation. Their very structure means that once in the door, no one wants to give up their position at the table. They can stay in a pretty good job which most of us would love to have and attend any game this wish all over the world with an expense account. There is no body holding them to account - only fans holding back their money & as soon as we get a wee bit of success we all rock up buying tickets and new kits etc.

If they hire Clarke, support Clarke and frankly don't know the answer post-Clarke then there will be  no hurry for a post-mortem, no rush to stand in front of good investigative football journalists ( if we have any) and explain their shortcomings. 

While I do agree with you on the SFA I would say they are focusing on the results. However I think the fans expectation for this tournament has just been different to theirs. When Clarke came in the aim was to start qualifying for major tournaments, as that is where the money is, and he has now qualified for 2 out of the last 3. The performances at both tournaments have been terrible but as long as we keep qualifying and bringing in more money then I think the SFA will be happy with that for quite a while. If they are focused on spending that money on facilities and coaching to try and get more quality young players through then that is not going to be a quick process and they could be thinking more longer term. That or I am giving the SFA far too much credit.