Who’s on the plane?

[Skyline Drifter]

2 minutes ago, AndyDD said:

Righto. 

Good thing we've plenty options at centre-back. No reason to assume either will get injured, I know. 

If we do really go into this with just the one starter out, that's a decent return given the sheer weight of games, and the number of players contesting for serious prizes deep into their seasons.

Yeah, on the face of it we're likely going in only one starting level player short (Hickey). Which is good. Look deeper though and problems aren't hard to find.

The one position we've lost a starter in we've also lost the usual deputy (Patterson). So we're down to a 3rd choice right back.

We've also lost one of our better midfield options off the bench (Ferguson) and may yet lose another in Armstrong.

And we've lost our 4th choice striker in Brown, though granted that's a minor point.

On top of that there are fitness concerns about at least 4 others who are currently IN the squad (Hanley, Cooper, Jack, Doak). Between them they've started NO games since the start of March. And less than half a dozen in 2024.

It could be worse but it also could have been a lot better.

[Salvo Montalbano]

2 hours ago, The Algebraist said:

I think we're at the "not fucking about" stage. This camp is about pinning down who will play and the battle tactics for the three games.

 

1 hour ago, Virtual Insanity said:

This, England can afford to f**k about in the friendlies and probably ease themselves in to the competition a bit. We need to hit the ground running. If we were going to experiment the last round of friendlies was the time. 

Sure, but with both first choice right back/right wing back options out, that's an area where fitness, form, ability to follow instruction etc might be vital. Now Johnston has been in a previous squad so maybe Clarke feels there's no need to look at him again which is fair enough. But for that position as well as the striker option (and I appreciate that if we had brought in Conway or Hardie or someone else it's unlikely they'd be needed), I'd say it's more having a look just in case rather than "fucking about".

[Doc Holiday]

When will the squad numbers be announced or have they been already ?

[craigkillie]

Just now, Doc Holiday said:

When will the squad numbers be announced or have they been already ?

The squad hasn't been announced so the numbers certainly can't have been.

[AndyDD]

19 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Yeah, on the face of it we're likely going in only one starting level player short (Hickey). Which is good. Look deeper though and problems aren't hard to find.

The one position we've lost a starter in we've also lost the usual deputy (Patterson). So we're down to a 3rd choice right back.

We've also lost one of our better midfield options off the bench (Ferguson) and may yet lose another in Armstrong.

And we've lost our 4th choice striker in Brown, though granted that's a minor point.

On top of that there are fitness concerns about at least 4 others who are currently IN the squad (Hanley, Cooper, Jack, Doak). Between them they've started NO games since the start of March. And less than half a dozen in 2024.

It could be worse but it also could have been a lot better.

Aye, this is unfortunate. 

Losing Ferguson is a shame, a player who has had a brilliant season, but he's only had limited involvement in competitive games up to now and I'd honestly not have expected him to be used from the start in any game, nor do I think he'd be a sub we'd turn to in any attempt to change a game, based purely on how Clarke has used him thus far.

Definitely would like to have him and he'd make a contribution, but evidence thus far indicates it wouldn't necessarily have been huge.

I'm hoping that the players called up are only being included because they are expected to be fit, so whilst in an ideal world they'd have all been playing regularly the last few months, I'm not that concerned by it. As for Jacob Brown, yes, calling it a minor point is probably being polite. 

Realistically speaking, the squad health is decent. More good news than bad. 

 

[Doc Holiday]

9 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The squad hasn't been announced so the numbers certainly can't have been.

Thanks , kids are after shirts with player name and number after i remortgage the house to pay for it

Edited May 22 by Doc Holiday

[Virtual Insanity]

37 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

 

Sure, but with both first choice right back/right wing back options out, that's an area where fitness, form, ability to follow instruction etc might be vital. Now Johnston has been in a previous squad so maybe Clarke feels there's no need to look at him again which is fair enough. But for that position as well as the striker option (and I appreciate that if we had brought in Conway or Hardie or someone else it's unlikely they'd be needed), I'd say it's more having a look just in case rather than "fucking about".

Take the point but I'd say at this stage we need those games just to get Ralston some more exposure to the system. I think Clarke almost has to make his call now and use those games to get him bedded in, I'd expect Ralston to get 135 minutes and McCrorie 45 over the 2 games. Trying to have a look at Johnston too would reduce game time for everyone. Also assume Clarke thinks that any gain from increased options would be outweighed by the reduced minutes played. 

 

[DiegoDiego]

Why has so much of the squad discussion been about who we'd want to bring on if chasing a game? What about who to bring on when we need to see a game out?

[PSJ.84]

11 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said:

Why has so much of the squad discussion been about who we'd want to bring on if chasing a game? What about who to bring on when we need to see a game out?

i.e Jack. 

[accies1874]

Fraser's probably the main one who I think should've been included. McCrorie's pretty bang average, imo, but the fact he may end up starting means that I understand going with a more risk-averse option. 

Bin one of the CBs and Kelly, providing everyone's fit. If we had a promising goalkeeper then I'd have preferred him instead of Kelly as the fourth choice, but that guy really doesn't exist. Callan McKenna? Jon McCracken? Nah, Kelly's fair enough, even if he's utter pants.

[Savage Henry]

41 minutes ago, Doc Holiday said:

When will the squad numbers be announced or have they been already ?

You can probably guess 80% of them.  

[Doc Holiday]

1 minute ago, Savage Henry said:

You can probably guess 80% of them.  

Aye,  ones after a McGinn top, number 7 generally or 8 , the other Gilmour

[Venti]

Just now, Doc Holiday said:

Aye,  ones after a McGinn top, number 7 generally or 8 , the other Gilmour

Gilmour will probably be #14

[Chripper]

1 hour ago, Doc Holiday said:

When will the squad numbers be announced or have they been already ?

They'll probably be superstitious and keep to the qualifying numbers:

1. Gunn

15. Porteous

5. Hanley

6. Tierney

4. McTominay

8. McGregor

3. Robertson

7. McGinn

9. Dykes

11. Christie

14. Gilmour

23. McLean

13. Hendry

10. Adams

5. Souttar

16. McKenna

[accies1874]

Yeah the fact the players have pretty much had designated squad numbers since the last Euros makes that guesswork a bit less fun. 

[Skyline Drifter]

1 hour ago, SlayerX said:

They'll probably be superstitious and keep to the qualifying numbers:

5. Hanley

5. Souttar

A novel approach to confuse the Germans but I think it likely those scoundrels at UEFA will forbid it! 

[Chripper]

14 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

A novel approach to confuse the Germans but I think it likely those scoundrels at UEFA will forbid it! 

The question was 'what will the squad numbers be?"

Those will be the designated squad numbers for the aforementioned players.

[Bing.McCrosby]

1 minute ago, SlayerX said:

The question was 'what will the squad numbers be?"

Those will be the designated squad numbers for the aforementioned players.

Both number 5? Im willing to wager your incorrect

[Skyline Drifter]

4 minutes ago, SlayerX said:

The question was 'what will the squad numbers be?"

Those will be the designated squad numbers for the aforementioned players.

£100 says they won't both be No 5!

[Lurkst]

7 hours ago, Claudia Gentile said:

These large squads (26 for tournaments) are just like the nonsense amount of subs available on the bench in the Scottish game.

Solely helps the big teams who have two starting elevens already.

I can understand why they were increased but that should have just been a temporary measure and we should be back to 22/23 men squads maximum.

Bear in mind that it's (unlikely but) possible to use 10 substitutes during a knockout round game. So you would need a minimum of 21 outfielders in the squad.

When you factor in the potential for injury and suspension you're going to need a pool of circa 26 to be able to fill the bench.