Norway (a) - 17/6/23

[Karpaty Lviv]

could only get some of it in there. I’ve got both goals but can’t post the file here, can send to anyone if you want it

[Spring Onion]

8 minutes ago, Karpaty Lviv said:

could only get some of it in there. I’ve got both goals but can’t post the file here, can send to anyone if you want it

Really enjoying this. 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Spring Onion

[Gordon EF]

Just finished watching the full match again on Viaplay (what a fucking investment that's been). Watching it without all the tension and fear, I've reassesed what I thought during the game. Yeah, the Norwegians had a lot of the ball for long periods but our shape, disicpline, athelticism and ability to defend from the front meant they created very, very little with it. The front players for us were constantly pressuring the Norway defence and forced them into so many passing errors. Gunn didn't have a serious save to make, taking the penalty away. Now, goals apart, we created very little as well but, given the game was in Oslo and was effectively a must win for them, I think that's pretty sensational for us.

Also, again taking all the 'Haaland fear' out of watching the game, he had so little impact. If you'd never heard of him before, you'd absolutely think he was just some big lump who plays in the Norwegian League or the Bundesliga 2 or something. We handled him superbly, especially Jack Hendry.

Tried to put together some player ratings:

Angus Gunn: 7 - Had very little to do but gave a very assured performance. Dealt with everything confidently, almost got the penalty and his kicking was generally very good. What a signing he's turning out to be.

Ryan Porteous: 7 - Another excellent Scotland performance. Defensively solid, some great shithousery again, and generally good on the ball. Only black mark was the penalty where he's just switched off for half a second with Haaland and then had to have a pull at his shirt.

Jack Hendry: 8 - Very impressed with him during the watch back. He tread a bit of a tightrope with Haaland sticking so close to him and getting physical at times but it worked. So many interceptions and headers won and excellent on the ball.

Kieran Tierney: 8 - Nothing was getting by him. Defensively excellent with quite a few superb tackles. Didn't get forward as much as usual but understandable given the circumstances.

Aaron Hickey: 6 - Pretty shaky first half. Norway were getting their best chances down our right and Hickey was a bit off it. Improved in the second half but struggled to have much of an impact offensively.

Andy Robertson: 9 - Man of the match. A rock at the back and was our biggest attacking threat through the game. Only black mark is the failure to cut out the cross from Sorloth in the lead up to the penalty.

Scott McTominay: 8 - During a tough first half, he made so many tackles and interceptions in the middle of the park and drove the team forward when he had teh chance. A quieter second half but put in a great cross for the second goal.

Callum McGregor: 6 - A quiet game by his standards. Wasn't bad, did his defensive duties well and rarely gave the ball away but didn't have the impact on the ball he usually does.

Ryan Christie: 6 - Put in a power of work, defnding from the front. Had a few moments in the second half, but generally struggled to make much of an attacking impact.

John McGinn: 9 - Classic McGinn 'nuisance' performance. He won the ball and managed to wriggle free from Norway players so often. Big invovlement in both goals and was generally able to offer an attacking threat through the game.

Lyndon Dykes: 8 - For 85 minutes, he was forced to run around, pressing Norwegian defenders, which he did extremely well but had next to no attacking impact. Then he goes and scores one and assists another in that crazy two minute spell. It's difficult to ask for much more than that really.

[Karpaty Lviv]

24 minutes ago, Karpaty Lviv said:

could only get some of it in there. I’ve got both goals but can’t post the file here, can send to anyone if you want it

f**k it. Enjoy! 
 

 

[velo army]

25 minutes ago, Karpaty Lviv said:

could only get some of it in there. I’ve got both goals but can’t post the file here, can send to anyone if you want it

I know McLeod gets pelters here, but I love him. Always enthusiastic, but not in the try hard way that Peter Martin was, and erudite unlike that absolute tube Crocker. The strangled way he says "goal" here is wonderful. He's so caught up in the excitement, it's visceral.

He's right too, there is something very special about this Scotland team. I honestly thought we should have gone after a third. Norway were done.

[Monkey Tennis]

38 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Just finished watching the full match again on Viaplay (what a fucking investment that's been). Watching it without all the tension and fear, I've reassesed what I thought during the game. Yeah, the Norwegians had a lot of the ball for long periods but our shape, disicpline, athelticism and ability to defend from the front meant they created very, very little with it. The front players for us were constantly pressuring the Norway defence and forced them into so many passing errors. Gunn didn't have a serious save to make, taking the penalty away. 

That's an OTT assessment.

They created enough to win.  Gunn's early save from the header was comfortable, but he wouldn't have had a sniff with decent finishing.  The header skewed wide from the corner in the second half was also rather a sitter.  We were also lucky not to have at least one sending off.  Conceding one penalty was also not the worst possible scenario.

We deserve some credit for dragging a result out of an incredibly unpromising situation last night, but we really did get lucky.  Lightning is unlikely to strike like that again.

We're kidding ourselves if we claim otherwise.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Monkey Tennis

[Karpaty Lviv]

Sorry this should be it!

 

 

[Ewanandmoreagain]

4 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

That's an OTT assessment.

They created enough to win.  Gunn's early save from the header was comfortable, but he wouldn't have had a sniff with decent finishing.  The second half header skewed wide from the corner in the second half was also rather a sitter.  We were also lucky not to have at least one sending off.  Conceding one penalty was also not the worst possible scenario.

We deserve some credit for dragging a result out of an incredibly unpromising situation last night, but we really did get lucky.  Lightning is unlikely to strike like that again.

We're kidding ourselves if we claim otherwise.

This !

The second half header , a commentator mentioned the Norwegian got behind McTominay so that is still a worry.

We did not look like scoring then so it did not seem that important

The referee could easily have been harsher on us.

It can be a fine line between non glorious failure and legendary status. The squads never say die attitude made it the latter , but we were lucky.

Hope Tierney et Al are fit for Tuesday

 

 

 

[Rugster]

32 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

That's an OTT assessment.

They created enough to win.  Gunn's early save from the header was comfortable, but he wouldn't have had a sniff with decent finishing.  The header skewed wide from the corner in the second half was also rather a sitter.  We were also lucky not to have at least one sending off.  Conceding one penalty was also not the worst possible scenario.

We deserve some credit for dragging a result out of an incredibly unpromising situation last night, but we really did get lucky.  Lightning is unlikely to strike like that again.

We're kidding ourselves if we claim otherwise.

It must be brutal being as utterly miserable and negative as you. 

[No_Problemo]

32 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

That's an OTT assessment.

They created enough to win.  Gunn's early save from the header was comfortable, but he wouldn't have had a sniff with decent finishing.  The header skewed wide from the corner in the second half was also rather a sitter.  We were also lucky not to have at least one sending off.  Conceding one penalty was also not the worst possible scenario.

We deserve some credit for dragging a result out of an incredibly unpromising situation last night, but we really did get lucky.  Lightning is unlikely to strike like that again.

We're kidding ourselves if we claim otherwise.

Criticising someone for an OTT reaction, while offering a ridiculous OTT viewpoint in the opposite direction. 

[Gordopolis]

35 minutes ago, Karpaty Lviv said:

Sorry this should be it!

 

 

Thommo "brrrrrilliant finish"

[Ewanandmoreagain]

22 minutes ago, Rugster said:

It must be brutal being as utterly miserable and negative as you. 

He was not being brutal

What did he say that was incorrect ?

 

If it was not for the never give up attitude 

AND 

the Norwegian defenders mistake ( ? ) it would have been a **** evening.

As it was it was a legendary evening !

 

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Ewanandmoreagain

[Rugster]

Just now, Ewanandmoreagain said:

He was not being brutal

What did he say that was incorrect ?

I didn’t say he was being brutal, nor did I say he said anything incorrect. 

[Ewanandmoreagain]

4 minutes ago, Rugster said:

I didn’t say he was being brutal, nor did I say he said anything incorrect. 

Well if it had not been for the Norwegian defenders etc.

 

The turnaround was unbelievably ecstatic etc.

a pity about beforehand

 

 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Ewanandmoreagain

[Gordon EF]

7 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

That's an OTT assessment.

They created enough to win.  Gunn's early save from the header was comfortable, but he wouldn't have had a sniff with decent finishing.  The second half header skewed wide from the corner in the second half was also rather a sitter.  We were also lucky not to have at least one sending off.  Conceding one penalty was also not the worst possible scenario.

We deserve some credit for dragging a result out of an incredibly unpromising situation last night, but we really did get lucky.  Lightning is unlikely to strike like that again.

We're kidding ourselves if we claim otherwise.

I'm not saying we absolutely bossed them or anything like that. I'm mostly comparing the live watch (where I tended to think we were taking a doing) with the replay where it actually seemed much more comfortable.

The two headers were real chances and of course Norway would have won if they'd converted every good chance they created but teams very rarely do that. The fact remains that Angus Gunn did not have one save to make that you wouldn't have expected any Scottish League Two keeper to make.

The timing of the goals obviously makes it feel like an absolute smash and grab but over the balance of play, it was a more even game than I initially felt while i was watching it.

[GAD]

All we did was defend better than them, finish our chances better and got lucky the ref who gave numerous incorrect or harsh decisions against us (whilst completely ignoring several fouls and cards for Norway) didn't shaft us even harder. We should be ashamed.

[Gordon EF]

8 minutes ago, Ewanandmoreagain said:

He was not being brutal

What did he say that was incorrect ?

 

If it was not for the never give up attitude 

AND 

the Norwegian defenders mistake ( ? ) it would have been a **** evening.

As it was it was a legendary evening !

These forums are filled with folk claiming their side could have won 5-2 after a 2-0 defeat because they created 5 chances during a game. Making the argument that Norway would have won if they've converted the two good chances they had (where one was straight at the keeper and one was off target) is an extremely pessimistic way of looking at it.

We absolutely could have lost that game but plaing the game where you say 'aye but if every moment in the game had actually gone against us, we would have lost' just seems fairly pointless. We went away to a rival who have the most in-form striker in world football and limited them to very few chances.

[Ewanandmoreagain]

5 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

I'm not saying we absolutely bossed them or anything like that. I'm mostly comparing the live watch (where I tended to think we were taking a doing) with the replay where it actually seemed much more comfortable.

The two headers were real chances and of course Norway would have won if they'd converted every good chance they created but teams very rarely do that. The fact remains that Angus Gunn did not have one save to make that you wouldn't have expected any Scottish League Two keeper to make.

The timing of the goals obviously makes it feel like an absolute smash and grab but over the balance of play, it was a more even game than I initially felt while i was watching it.

Fair enough !

I just thought for the vast , vast majority of the game there was only one team who looked like scoring and it was not us.

Obviously the heat played a big factor. In the first half they always had enough defenders back but towards the end ..

I thought our post match interviews confirmed we did not play that well

 

[Ewanandmoreagain]

5 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

These forums are filled with folk claiming their side could have won 5-2 after a 2-0 defeat because they created 5 chances during a game. Making the argument that Norway would have won if they've converted the two good chances they had (where one was straight at the keeper and one was off target) is an extremely pessimistic way of looking at it.

We absolutely could have lost that game but plaing the game where you say 'aye but if every moment in the game had actually gone against us, we would have lost' just seems fairly pointless. We went away to a rival who have the most in-form striker in world football and limited them to very few chances.

If we are to win Euros 2024 we must strive for absolute perfection

[ropy]

So, were we pish?