Steve Clarke

[craigkillie]

Arithmetic is a branch of mathematics, I have no idea why people make that weird distinction all the time.

[Gordopolis]

17 hours ago, craigkillie said:

Arithmetic is a branch of mathematics, I have no idea why people make that weird distinction all the time.

Because the distinction is there to be made, really. 

It's like calling your shopping list epic poetry (which yours might well be, tbf)

Edited June 19, 2023 by Gordopolis

[Bing.McCrosby]

2 minutes ago, Gordopolis said:

Because it's factual and there to be made, really. 

It's like calling your shopping list epic poetry (which yours might well be, tbf)

More likely its just the opposite of what everyone else buys, to be objective

[Monkey Tennis]

53 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Arithmetic is a branch of mathematics

Football's just a branch of Science.

[MyNameIsClarence]

The Gilmour for Christie change was interesting last night. I know people still have their problems with Adams and Dykes as our striking options, and in an ideal world we'd maybe have better, but that second AM position alongside McGinn has been the most obvious area of improvement for me. We're not struggling to make chances and score at the moment but if there was one player I'd bring in from recent past teams it would be McFadden to offer that combination of technique, creativity and goal threat that I think we're lacking. Armstrong is decent enough, and I like Christie, but while he hasn't looked out of his depth exactly he struggles to regularly impact games in the EPL and with Scotland. 

Replacing Christie with Gilmour looked like a negative move, but I think it offered us a lot more control in the midfield and the two players offered a bit more freedom by his inclusion scored the goals. It's good to see, as with moving to a 4 at the back at times, SSC's ability to be flexible, even in the context of a preferred system that's already flexible (there was a decent 442 video about the swinging defence and 3421 into 4231 fluidity on youtube recently). 

I think that position, if we do put someone further up alongside McGinn, is still a bit of a concern, but if Anderson can be persuaded to stick with Scotland and Doak (unlikely in the next year or two) gets a chance to play a lot of games and keeps impressing, there might be better options there while the rest of the squad is at its peak. A bit out of left field/unrealistic as well, but is Harvey Barnes not still technically eligible to switch to Scotland? Know he had a good year and is getting a move but he's not got much hope of playing more for England than in an injury crisis. 

[2426255]

1 hour ago, MyNameIsClarence said:

It's good to see, as with moving to a 4 at the back at times, SSC's ability to be flexible, even in the context of a preferred system that's already flexible (there was a decent 442 video about the swinging defence and 3421 into 4231 fluidity on youtube recently). 

Steve Clarke's system has been flexible for years to the point where I've found it difficult and to some extent pointless to try and categorize over a 90 minute game in terms of formations or positions. Mostly the team shape appears driven by the situation while the game is in progress and the players seem to be capable of making small positional decisions on the pitch without needing direct intervention from the manager. 

Sure you can say in general we played a 3421, 433 or whatever, but I've found it difficult to draw any worthwhile conclusions from that as doesn't factor in the detail.

 

[ArabFC]

2 hours ago, MyNameIsClarence said:

I think that position, if we do put someone further up alongside McGinn, is still a bit of a concern...

Kinda agree. McTominay obviously did well last night, but there are games when we need a different option - like a Fraser/Forrest type used to offer - which we don't really seem to have anymore.

Armstrong and Christie are decent players, but not quite the same.

[MyNameIsClarence]

37 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

Steve Clarke's system has been flexible for years to the point where I've found it difficult and to some extent pointless to try and categorize over a 90 minute game in terms of formations or positions. Mostly the team shape appears driven by the situation while the game is in progress and the players seem to be capable of making small positional decisions on the pitch without needing direct intervention from the manager. 

Sure you can say in general we played a 3421, 433 or whatever, but I've found it difficult to draw any worthwhile conclusions from that as doesn't factor in the detail.

 

I do think it's still useful, bit would agree that especially with the ball it's much more about roles generally and situational in specific moments. Given the level of organisation in defence I think there's an admirable amount of decision making delegated to the players in terms of shape when we attack. 

I don't think you can discount formation or positions completely though as it's a useful framework for understanding the whole picture

Edited June 21, 2023 by MyNameIsClarence

[MyNameIsClarence]

32 minutes ago, ArabFC said:

Kinda agree. McTominay obviously did well last night, but there are games when we need a different option - like a Fraser/Forrest type used to offer - which we don't really seem to have anymore.

Armstrong and Christie are decent players, but not quite the same.

Yeah, someone who can do something explosive for want of a better word - carrying at pace, beating defenders with skill, or having a bit more quality shooting from range or playing crosses/through balls - in case one of those roles supporting the CF and we're a level above where we are now imo. 

I sound miserable reading this back - I'm delighted with where we are, but I think we're literally one role in that team away from doing what Wales did in '16. What's doubly frustrating is it's not even a Bale we need, literally just a couple of options a little better than what we have. 

[Gordon EF]

11 minutes ago, MyNameIsClarence said:

Yeah, someone who can do something explosive for want of a better word - carrying at pace, beating defenders with skill, or having a bit more quality shooting from range or playing crosses/through balls - in case one of those roles supporting the CF and we're a level above where we are now imo. 

I sound miserable reading this back - I'm delighted with where we are, but I think we're literally one role in that team away from doing what Wales did in '16. What's doubly frustrating is it's not even a Bale we need, literally just a couple of options a little better than what we have. 

Personally, I think we're more than capable of matching up to Wales of '16. That's not to say we'll absolutely get to a Euros semi. Wales really weren't one of the best four sides in Europe back then. They were just good enough to take that opportunity when it fell to them.

Realistically, they beat one quality side on the road to the SF - Belgium. They were a side who you'd fancy against middling-to-good sides and were capabale of going toe to toe with a good side and pulling off a result. I think that's where we are tbh.

They got to a semi by beating Slovakia, Russia, Northern Ireland, and Belgium. I absolutely don't think that kind of performance is beyond the current side as it is.

Euro 2016 could have been replayed 10 times and Wales wouldn't have gotten to the SFs once. They were a good side, but they weren't an incredible one.

[MyNameIsClarence]

26 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Personally, I think we're more than capable of matching up to Wales of '16. That's not to say we'll absolutely get to a Euros semi. Wales really weren't one of the best four sides in Europe back then. They were just good enough to take that opportunity when it fell to them.

Realistically, they beat one quality side on the road to the SF - Belgium. They were a side who you'd fancy against middling-to-good sides and were capabale of going toe to toe with a good side and pulling off a result. I think that's where we are tbh.

They got to a semi by beating Slovakia, Russia, Northern Ireland, and Belgium. I absolutely don't think that kind of performance is beyond the current side as it is.

Euro 2016 could have been replayed 10 times and Wales wouldn't have gotten to the SFs once. They were a good side, but they weren't an incredible one.

I think that's all really fair tbh, and actually Wales isn't really a good example as I think that brief prevailing logic that smaller nations should hope for a generational forward and build their team around them is already outdated.

Not that I'm saying you're dismissing the overall idea or critique, but would still say a better supporting forward is the one area we're lacking just now. But again, it's to Clark and the players' credit that we've scored 2 goals against Spain Norway and Georgia without having that type of player in there, just as it is for centre halves of their perceived quality giving up a single penalty goal against the same 

Edited June 21, 2023 by MyNameIsClarence

[Thumper]

28 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Personally, I think we're more than capable of matching up to Wales of '16.

I was about to say "we need to get out of the group first" but that's pish, and an emblem of the small-time thinking that's gone before. Scotland shouldn't be thinking about second-best now. They need to fancy themselves to come out on top regardless of the opposition. The cautious approach leads to another Euro '21, which under any other manager could have resulted in morale and performances disintegrating.

On 28/05/2023 at 08:31, accies1874 said:

He's clearly a completely different person behind the scenes compared to what we see on camera which is why it's always tedious when folk/Rangers fans try and judge him on the latter. 

The only thing the latter judges him on is what school he went to, which is why they can be excluded from any conversations regarding Scotland from the off.

[Donathan]

There’s no danger of us taking our foot off the gas if qualification is wrapped up early. The performance against Denmark back in November 2021 demonstrates that Clarke is well aware of the value of winning games to improve our seeding.

 

In that case we knew we’d have a playoff but had to win to guarantee a home SF. In this case we can wrap up qualification early but need to keep our foot on the gas to try and win the group and secure pot 1/2 status 

[Iain]

50 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Personally, I think we're more than capable of matching up to Wales of '16.

Agreed, though to be fair many of them are pushing 40 now.

[PrestersKTID]

One of the big things Clarke's done is get a consistent squad together who seem to be buzzing to come away with Scotland now.

Got multiple players on medium to high caps now. Robertson 64, Mcginn 56, Mcgregor 53, Hanley 48,  Armstrong 42, Mctominay 40, Tierney 39, Christie 39, Mclean 31, Dykes 30. decent number of goals between them too.

Getting younger guys like Hickey, Patterson, Gilmour integrated early, all have 10 or more caps now aswell.

[Scary Bear]

On 18/06/2023 at 21:59, craigkillie said:

Arithmetic is a branch of mathematics, I have no idea why people make that weird distinction all the time.

Possibly because you used to have a separate Arithmetic O Grade. The powers that be in Scottish education decided that and had a separate O Grade (or were they O Levels, I forget?) for Mathematics. Maths was Algebra, Geometry, Calculus, etc.

[Gordon EF]

49 minutes ago, MyNameIsClarence said:

I think that's all really fair tbh, and actually Wales isn't really a good example as I think that brief prevailing logic that smaller nations should hope for a generational forward and build their team around them is already outdated.

Not that I'm saying you're dismissing the overall idea or critique, but would still say a better supporting forward is the one area we're lacking just now. But again, it's to Clark and the players' credit that we've scored 2 goals against Spain Norway and Georgia without having that type of player in there, just as it is for centre halves of their perceived quality giving up a single penalty goal against the same 

Absolutely. You add a genuinely world class or even just top European level forward to us right now and I think we'd be a serious threat once we get to the Euros. This Scotland team plus a peak Bale would be well beyond that Welsh team and could arguably be one of if not the best nation outside of the traditional big elite nations right now.

[Brother Blades]

Is Clarke particularly suited to managing the national team?

Yeah, he was great at Killie otherwise he wouldn’t have gotten the Scotland job, but does he have something a little bit “special” that’s made the difference? He is certainly blessed with talent in the current squad, but I just feel he’s instilled a belief that we’ve not had for a couple of decades, I’d love to hear others opinions. 

[Scary Bear]

This thread definitely has a way to go before it’s as popular as the one for binning him.

All hail Stevie Clarke, Scotland’s saviour.

[Elgin Macca]

41 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Absolutely. You add a genuinely world class or even just top European level forward to us right now and I think we'd be a serious threat once we get to the Euros. This Scotland team plus a peak Bale would be well beyond that Welsh team and could arguably be one of if not the best nation outside of the traditional big elite nations right now.

I'm going to be a bit greedy/harsh here and say I would take a top centre back aswell. We have decent options in there but I would say 'only' decent and are all much and such.  (Although collectively we have defended very well in recent times)