Steve Clarke - in/out/general discussion

[eez-eh]

32 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

Haven't a clue. He can't have regretted playing three centre-backs that much if he did it at Euro-2020 and for the World Cup play-off before repeating the trick a third time against Hungary.

He knows the back-4 inside out from his time at Kilmarnock and earlier, so he could have gone that way but chose not to. 

He was in the media pre-tournament saying he probably got things wrong at the last Euros and in the Ukraine play-off. Interested to know why you don’t think there’s any chance he thinks similarly this time?

[Butters Scotch]

46 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

Haven't a clue. He can't have regretted playing three centre-backs that much if he did it at Euro-2020 and for the World Cup play-off before repeating the trick a third time against Hungary.

He knows the back-4 inside out from his time at Kilmarnock and earlier, so he could have gone that way but chose not to. 

Okay that's a bit baffling that you don't think he regrets his decision making particularly in that Hungary game but not surprising as you dont like admitting when you are wrong about something. 

Ukraine play off and the euros 2020 had two strikers with Dykes and Adams starting together so was a different formation to the one that has been employed over the qualifying campaign, recent friendlies and euros.

At least at euros 2020, we had a number of goal attempts and some attacking impetus which shows in itself what an extra attacker brings to the team... 

 

[Dan Electro]

4 hours ago, Chripper said:

We went 20 years without qualifying for a major football tournament. We went through Vogts, Burley, Smith, McLeish, Levein, McLeish again with no success in sight.

 

We give the job to Steve Clarke. He proceeds to not only get us to play as a team, he also gets us to play the best football we've seen in years, and also manages to get a ragtag squad of waifs and strays to two major football tournaments.

 

Against all odds he's done the improbable.

 

And now, because we managed only one point from a possible nine from the group stage, so called Scotland "fans" want Steve Clarke to leave.

 

I'm not going to mention the hitting the post against Switzerland and being denied a stonewall penalty against Hungary that Christina Unkel has admitted should have been given.

 

Oops. I just did.

 

The Scotland "fans" who want Steve Clarke gone are delusional ingrates.

 

Either they are ungrateful or they are just moaning gits who yearn for the return of those fruitless two decades so that they have a justification to be miserable.

 

Look at England. The football world heralds them as a collection of world class talent. Pundits, ex managers, commentators and fans all believe that England are overflowing with football heavyweights.

 

You see these players strutting their stuff, every week, in the EPL. You seem them bossing the league. Forgetting that amongst those "superstar" England players are players like Saliba, Rodri, De Bruyne, Haaland, Bruno (Both Newcastle and Manchester United), Garnacho, Goku, etc, that make them look good.

 

The consensus amongst the England fans is that the problem lays with Gareth Southgate. The same as it was the fault of Hoddle, Sven, McLaren, Keegan, Capello, etc.

 

The world think that Southgate has a plethora of world class attacking players.

 

The inconvenient truth is in this England squad there are two world class players attackers, and they both scored against Slovakia. Surrounding these two are attacking players ranging from OK to good.

 

If an apparent "world class" squad of England struggle at this level what chance have Scotland, with four players from the EPL and the rest from the English Championship, SPL, Danish league and the Saudi league got?

 

With the standard of players Scotland have got, all Scotland fans ought to be thoroughly grateful to Steve Clarke and the job that he's currently doing. And we should be begging him to extend his contract.

 

Steve Clarke has proven that he can succeed in qualifying and with him at the helm we'll be in the mix to qualify for the 2026 World Cup.

 

Or Scotland could gamble, get rid of Clarke. Appoint someone like Gemmill or McInnes, who proceeds to rip up the Clarke's successful blueprint, and pinball from mediocre manager to mediocre manager, failing to qualify for a major tournament for another twenty years.

 

I'll reiterate:

 

The so called Scotland fans who want Steve Clarke to leave are just moaning gits who yearn for the return of those fruitless two decades so that they have a justification reason to be miserable.

 

Or, they haven't a clue about football.

 

I vote all the above. With much confidence.

 

If people want Steve Clarke to leave. Fine. Stop supporting Scotland and let the Scotland  SUPPORTERS enjoy the ride to the 2026 World Cup.

 

These moaning gits that want Clarke out probably all voted No at IndyRef and then proceeded to complain that the no vote won.

Hiya Steve, Hiya pal.

[Butters Scotch]

43 minutes ago, Ewanandmoreagain said:

 

Can we afford to lose some defensive protection ?

Depends eg. the opposition 

Can we afford not too after going out the tournament so meekly? 

[2426255]

2 hours ago, eez-eh said:

He was in the media pre-tournament saying he probably got things wrong at the last Euros and in the Ukraine play-off. Interested to know why you don’t think there’s any chance he thinks similarly this time?

Haven't a clue if Clarke regrets his general team selection and gameplan. I don't think he regrets selecting 3CB's against Hungary. Why?

1. He is well versed in a back-4 as well as a back-3, so is fully aware of the consequences of using either.

2. Clarke has taken the same action when faced with an injury to Tierney against Czech, Ukraine and Hungary.

I think the key to understanding Clarke's decision making may be related to Robertson, possibly wanting him in attacking positions. Clarke seems reluctant to play him as a left back. When Robertson is injured we've gone to 4atb with Tierney or Taylor. That's just a theory, but probably worth analysing.

Edited Wednesday at 22:26 by 2426255

[immcinto]

7 hours ago, Bad Wolf said:

I'm a Killie fan (and therefore unsurprisingly well-disposed towards him) who voted yes in 2014 and I think he should go too. Happy clappers like yourself are accepting that we're too wee, too poor and too stupid (to coin a phrase) to compete at the top level. Some of us don't.

I was (and still an am for now) also quite well disposed towards him. I think it's a good sign we haven't heard from him yet. I don't think the SFA need to sack him as he  has some self respect.  I think he will hand in his notice. He knows. Surely he knows.

[Pocketman]

12 hours ago, Chripper said:

 

Against all odds he's done the improbable.

 

The Scotland "fans" who want Steve Clarke gone are delusional ingrates.

 

Rowing back a bit from such hyperbole, we have done well under Clarke with some notable high points (2 Euro qualifications and some great results and good performances along the way). At the same time there have been some real disappointments - namely the WC qualifier and Euros x 2, and of late performances and confidence have tailed off. Clarke in my view has had the best Scotland squad in a while, with some weaknesses at key positions nothwithstanding (though I don't think we are significantly more gifted in squad talent than say McLeish mark 1 team or under Strachan with Gordon, Brown, Maloney, Fletcher etc. It was though much more difficult to qualify for the Euros at that time). Therefore "against all odds" is as nonsensical as saying Clarke is "out his depth" - a Sevco favoured trope. 

if you are looking for Clarke to stay on, fine. I don't agree but with our qualifying record you can probably make the case for giving him another campaign. In my view, on the back of the Euro disappointments (performance and results) , as well as other key factors including squad confidence, the general slump in form, the mood of many fans and perhaps Clarke's instransigence -  a fresh start and injection of new ideas and fresh confidence with a new guy at the helm seems the correct call. 

At the same time I do enjoy how the debate has entered into assessing alternate realities where all Scotland had to do was be given a penalty (and score it) or take one of the very few chances we created, whilst the other part of the game played out exactly as it did. A one in 14 million outcome ha. Everyone would then have been absolutely delighted on the back of that and no fickle fan would have the wider analytical oversight or knowledge - with the exception of a learned few on here - to be questioning the team, manager or performances..... 

 

 

[Butters Scotch]

8 hours ago, 2426255 said:

Haven't a clue if Clarke regrets his general team selection and gameplan. I don't think he regrets selecting 3CB's against Hungary. Why?

1. He is well versed in a back-4 as well as a back-3, so is fully aware of the consequences of using either.

2. Clarke has taken the same action when faced with an injury to Tierney against Czech, Ukraine and Hungary.

I think the key to understanding Clarke's decision making may be related to Robertson, possibly wanting him in attacking positions. Clarke seems reluctant to play him as a left back. When Robertson is injured we've gone to 4atb with Tierney or Taylor. That's just a theory, but probably worth analysing.

Stop lying to yourself bro, it's obvious that he will be regretting his decision making.

He will be thinking why did I wait so long to adapt to Hungary's tactics when it was clear they were sitting back and we couldn't penetrate through their defensive structure IN A MUST WIN GAME. 

[immcinto]

6 minutes ago, Butters Scotch said:

Stop lying to yourself bro, it's obvious that he will be regretting his decision making.

He will be thinking why did I wait so long to adapt to Hungary's tactics when it was clear they were sitting back and we couldn't penetrate through their defensive structure IN A MUST WIN GAME. 

That's the thing. I don't think he will. 

[immcinto]

1 hour ago, Pocketman said:

 (though I don't think we are significantly more gifted in squad talent than say McLeish mark 1 team or under Strachan with Gordon, Brown, Maloney, Fletcher etc. It was though much more difficult to qualify ..

Gordon, yes. The others? Maybe Fletcher, but Maloney was never a top half EPL player and Scott Brown never troubled scouts from any big leagues.

 

Our only player then operating at the top level was Fletcher.

[Butters Scotch]

25 minutes ago, immcinto said:

Gordon, yes. The others? Maybe Fletcher, but Maloney was never a top half EPL player and Scott Brown never troubled scouts from any big leagues.

 

Our only player then operating at the top level was Fletcher.

The Strachan team was a step below the quality of the current one, prime Gordon and Darren Fletcher would probably be the only two (exc Robo and Hanley) that would get a place in the first 11 IMO. Hutton would get in currently but that's only because Hickey is out injured.

[2426255]

1 hour ago, Butters Scotch said:

Stop lying to yourself bro, it's obvious that he will be regretting his decision making.

Where's the obvious part of it?

[Butters Scotch]

1 hour ago, 2426255 said:

Where's the obvious part of it?

Well look at the performances in the tournament, even in the draw against Switzerland we were lucky to not concede several more than we did and lose that game.

There could of been a change of plan, change of personnel, did he really need to playing with 3 CB's in the Hungary game for example, I don't understand why you are being obtuse about all of this when it's staring everyone in the face of the things that went wrong. 

[Derryboy62]

17 hours ago, Chripper said:

No top class manager in their right mind would take the Scotland job. Who is going to say "Jack Hendry, John Souttar, Che Adams, ANGUS GUNN!!?? Lyndon Dykes!?! I wants me some of that!".

 

Have you not just admitted that Stevie Clarke isn't a top class manager if he's prepared to manage a team like Scotland.....

[Pocketman]

3 hours ago, immcinto said:

Gordon, yes. The others? Maybe Fletcher, but Maloney was never a top half EPL player and Scott Brown never troubled scouts from any big leagues.

 

Our only player then operating at the top level was Fletcher.

McLeish Mark 1 and Strachan's teams were not that much different from current teams in terms of make up from English Premier players, Championship and a few from Scottish Premiership. The team that drew 2-2 with England at Hampden had Tierney, Robertson Gordon and Armstrong complemented by the likes of Snodgrass, Morrisson and Griffiths. An on form Griffiths would be first choice for the current team so not quite sure why top half EPL is the barometer for assessing squad standards. The team that beat Republic at Parkhead had Marshall, Hanley, Robertson, Fletcher x 2, Naismith and Maloney for example - all players that are or would be in the current squad in my view. And that team/those players get higher marks for having the all blue with red socks combo. 

Anyway, I digress and not to take this off topic - my point is that the current squad is probably better than what we have had, injuries permitting, but not significantly better than under Strachan or McLeish's first stint; this assessment can be considered both positively or negatively in looking ar Clarke's tenure. Whatever way you approach it, we can all agree though that Clarke has not delivered "against all odds" 

[Bing.McCrosby]

9 hours ago, immcinto said:

I was (and still an am for now) also quite well disposed towards him. I think it's a good sign we haven't heard from him yet. I don't think the SFA need to sack him as he  has some self respect.  I think he will hand in his notice. He knows. Surely he knows.

I have a suspicion you might be right. I hope so anyway, it would be the right thing at this point.

If not he's going to end up with the fans turning on him, leaves now he's going with everyone's best will.

[Lex]

2 hours ago, Derryboy62 said:

Have you not just admitted that Stevie Clarke isn't a top class manager if he's prepared to manage a team like Scotland.....

Don’t think there’s much debate about that. No English teams would touch him after he was sacked by West Brom and Reading. 
His next managerial job will be with someone like Hibs or Aberdeen.

[Bad Wolf]

10 hours ago, immcinto said:

I was (and still an am for now) also quite well disposed towards him. I think it's a good sign we haven't heard from him yet. I don't think the SFA need to sack him as he  has some self respect.  I think he will hand in his notice. He knows. Surely he knows.

I hope so, for his sake as well as ours. I'm sure he wouldn't like to be remembered as someone who merely served out the length of his contract because he could, or had to. This seems like the right time for change for both parties.

[Bad Wolf]

5 hours ago, immcinto said:

Gordon, yes. The others? Maybe Fletcher, but Maloney was never a top half EPL player and Scott Brown never troubled scouts from any big leagues.

 

Our only player then operating at the top level was Fletcher.

I thought Maloney had the potential to become top class, or close to it at least, but made bad career choices. Going back to Celtic, then heading off to the US a year or two before he was ready for the knacker's yard.

[2426255]

4 hours ago, Butters Scotch said:

did he really need to playing with 3 CB's in the Hungary game for example 

We guarded against counter-attacks using 2, 3 or 4 players - mostly 3, but not always. Normally the 3 CB's in open play, but sometimes a central midfielder or wing back. 

If we normally have a rear guard of 3 players then what's the issue with having 3 centre-backs?

When Tierney plays there is still someone covering the gap he's left when stepping out of defence (often McGregor, but again not always). 

If you want Robertson to play in an advanced position that's another reason. So that's two possible reasons to play 3CB's.