March and June friendlies

[velo army]

5 minutes ago, Autistisches Nilpferd said:

Dyslexia's a b*****d 

Tell me about it

[Sarcastic Bairn]

1 hour ago, Autistisches Nilpferd said:

Dyslexia's a b*****d 

I think they are taking the piss calling it dyslexia, could have made it far easier to spell.

[ClydeTon]

I agree with Clarke wanting to just play a host of 'top' teams. All of our competitive games in 2024 will be tough tests. The Euros and then Nations League Group A. There aren't any San Marinos or Georgia's at this level.

The four games (counting Spain at Hampden) have been a huge lesson:

The win over Spain was a mixture of Spain's rotation and a tactical success from Clarke. It was the clearest example of how we play a False 9 set-up of sorts, and, of course, that overlap, in particular with KT and AR.

England - we didn't turn up. Simple as that. And that's the lesson - we need to make sure we turn up every time if we want to succeed at the top. It was a slip-up.

Spain (A) - we did turn up. It was a good performance - and our collapse was a mix of sustained Spanish pressure, VAR and the subsequent shift in mentality sunk us. Clarke knows what was good and wasn't. We (Supporters) were too busy looking at VAR to really dissect it.

France - Going forward / on the ball, we were quite good. Our movement from our box to the edge of theirs was, surprisingly, quite comfortable. We just didn't know what to do after that. Defensively, it was poor. But that happens when you completely rotate your squad. It was Scotland's B-team taking on the World Cup finalists.

 

One thing I don't buy is this thing about "our strikers not scoring enough" - we don't need them to.

Our system doesn't play with a goal-scoring No. 9. We don't have one. There's nothing we can do about that in the near future - we have to adapt - and we have done - to a system that works for us. A system that plays to our strengths. Our midfield.

Our forward(s) hold the ball up for the midfield to run onto - if they're even involved, sometimes it's just a cutback from the wing to the midfielder, completely bypassing the forward. There is no need, with this system, to pick games primarily to "test" Adams and/or Dykes for their goal-scoring abilities.

It's reminds me, almost, of how Spain played in 2010-12, Real Madrid with Bellingham right now. The forward/wingers gets the ball up, the midfielders run on and score. Our version uses wingbacks in the place of wingers, but they serve much the same purpose. I'm not saying, not remotely, that we are the next Spain 2010/12, Euros and World Cup winners and serial world-beaters. But our system is more like that than a traditional "get ball to striker: striker scores" that many seem to still default to.

This system is how McTominay has six goals this year. It's how McGinn is (one of?) the top-scorer within this current squad. It's why only one goal this year has come from a forward (Dykes - Norway). Dykes/Adams aren't goal-scorers, neither for club nor country, and our system is built so we don't need that.

Anyway, my point: There is no point whatsoever to arrange friendlies to "test the attack" - we already know our strengths are in that department. There isn't much in "testing the defense" either - that's not what a game against France, Germany, England, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, or whoever, does.

Games against these big teams test everyone, but more important: Test us as a team. Sure, arrange a friendly against a wee team at Hampden as a send off game. Beyond that, get hard games. I'd rather we got pumped and improved, than played in a safety net that is the 'wee teams'.

That's my view.

[Ewanandmoreagain]

11 hours ago, ClydeTon said:

I agree with Clarke wanting to just play a host of 'top' teams. All of our competitive games in 2024 will be tough tests. The Euros and then Nations League Group A. There aren't any San Marinos or Georgia's at this level.

The four games (counting Spain at Hampden) have been a huge lesson:

The win over Spain was a mixture of Spain's rotation and a tactical success from Clarke. It was the clearest example of how we play a False 9 set-up of sorts, and, of course, that overlap, in particular with KT and AR.

England - we didn't turn up. Simple as that. And that's the lesson - we need to make sure we turn up every time if we want to succeed at the top. It was a slip-up.

Spain (A) - we did turn up. It was a good performance - and our collapse was a mix of sustained Spanish pressure, VAR and the subsequent shift in mentality sunk us. Clarke knows what was good and wasn't. We (Supporters) were too busy looking at VAR to really dissect it.

France - Going forward / on the ball, we were quite good. Our movement from our box to the edge of theirs was, surprisingly, quite comfortable. We just didn't know what to do after that. Defensively, it was poor. But that happens when you completely rotate your squad. It was Scotland's B-team taking on the World Cup finalists.

 

One thing I don't buy is this thing about "our strikers not scoring enough" - we don't need them to.

Our system doesn't play with a goal-scoring No. 9. We don't have one. There's nothing we can do about that in the near future - we have to adapt - and we have done - to a system that works for us. A system that plays to our strengths. Our midfield.

Our forward(s) hold the ball up for the midfield to run onto - if they're even involved, sometimes it's just a cutback from the wing to the midfielder, completely bypassing the forward. There is no need, with this system, to pick games primarily to "test" Adams and/or Dykes for their goal-scoring abilities.

It's reminds me, almost, of how Spain played in 2010-12, Real Madrid with Bellingham right now. The forward/wingers gets the ball up, the midfielders run on and score. Our version uses wingbacks in the place of wingers, but they serve much the same purpose. I'm not saying, not remotely, that we are the next Spain 2010/12, Euros and World Cup winners and serial world-beaters. But our system is more like that than a traditional "get ball to striker: striker scores" that many seem to still default to.

This system is how McTominay has six goals this year. It's how McGinn is (one of?) the top-scorer within this current squad. It's why only one goal this year has come from a forward (Dykes - Norway). Dykes/Adams aren't goal-scorers, neither for club nor country, and our system is built so we don't need that.

Anyway, my point: There is no point whatsoever to arrange friendlies to "test the attack" - we already know our strengths are in that department. There isn't much in "testing the defense" either - that's not what a game against France, Germany, England, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, or whoever, does.

Games against these big teams test everyone, but more important: Test us as a team. Sure, arrange a friendly against a wee team at Hampden as a send off game. Beyond that, get hard games. I'd rather we got pumped and improved, than played in a safety net that is the 'wee teams'.

That's my view.

But considering the three recent games against big teams our defense needs to improve !

Poor goals lost in all three ; first against England , first against Spain and .... against France

It needs to be tested

Edited October 21, 2023 by Ewanandmoreagain

[Highlandmagar]

A Highland tour should set us up for Germany.

[ClydeTon]

26 minutes ago, Ewanandmoreagain said:

But considering the three recent games against big teams our defense needs to improve !

Poor goals lost in all three ; first against England , first against Spain and .... against France

It needs to be tested

As I said, the team, as a unit, didn't turn up against England. That wasn't just a defence thing.

Spain - yes, it was a poor goal to give away but it was coming, with the pressure they were throwing on. Hickey's slip for the second was worse but nothing that anyone could do.

France - It was a rotated defence - and there was also a lack of McGregor in that holding midfield role to disrupt the French coming forward - so it's not really comparable.

Our defense - like our attack - works with the midfield. McGregor (and, if he's playing deeper, Gilmour) can break up opposition play before it gets to the defence - removing a bit of the pressure from them. The France game can't be compared because McGregor wasn't on, and Gilmour was in a more attacking role.

More importantly - there is no testing just the defense. It's a squad thing. The midfield is what holds our team together - if it succeeds, chances are the entire team will do well.

Games against the big teams test the defence, yes - but they test the whole squad as a unit, which is the most important thing.

[2426255]

1 hour ago, ClydeTon said:

The midfield is what holds our team together - if it succeeds, chances are the entire team will do well.

 

12 hours ago, ClydeTon said:

A system that plays to our strengths. Our midfield. Our forward(s) hold the ball up for the midfield to run onto - if they're even involved, sometimes it's just a cutback from the wing to the midfielder, completely bypassing the forward. 

I agree with the points made about the system and midfielders, I don't think there's any argument about that. We played midfielders as defenders, as midfielders and as forwards. The system has been designed to get our abundance of quality midfielders into the team at the same time as answering the Robertson/Tierney question.

I don't have the exact quote to hand, but just as a striking recent example, I recall someone pointing out that pushing John McGinn up alongside Lyndon Dykes against Norway gave us a better chance of scoring than bringing on Kevin Nisbet or Lawrence Shankland which basically tells the same story.  

Edited October 21, 2023 by 2426255

[ClydeTon]

7 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

 

I agree with the points made about the system and midfielders, I don't think there's any argument about that. We played midfielders as defenders, as midfielders and as forwards. The system has been designed to get our abundance of quality midfielders into the team at the same time as answering the Robertson/Tierney question.

I don't have the exact quote to hand, but just as a striking recent example, I recall someone pointing out that pushing John McGinn up alongside Lyndon Dykes against Norway gave us a better chance of scoring than bringing on Kevin Nisbet or Lawrence Shankland which basically tells the same story.  

Goal #2 was a very literal application of that; ball across to McGinn, passes to dykes, lay-off for Mclean. It was the most clear example of that until now.

Nisbet is a decent player, and I don't think Shankland is playing well enough - but neither are the solution to our problems. I wouldn't mind just taking Adams, Dykes and Brown to Germany - throw Nisbet in if anyone is injured by the start.

[Donathan]

34 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

 

I agree with the points made about the system and midfielders, I don't think there's any argument about that. We played midfielders as defenders, as midfielders and as forwards. The system has been designed to get our abundance of quality midfielders into the team at the same time as answering the Robertson/Tierney question.

I don't have the exact quote to hand, but just as a striking recent example, I recall someone pointing out that pushing John McGinn up alongside Lyndon Dykes against Norway gave us a better chance of scoring than bringing on Kevin Nisbet or Lawrence Shankland which basically tells the same story.  

At 2-0 down against Spain (when getting it back to 2-1 would have been significant in the context of the group), Clarke did a straight swap of McGregor for McLean and sacrificed Porteous for Billy Gilmour and went 4-2-3-1 instead of throwing Brown on.

 

It’s pretty clear that Clarke thinks there’s a huge gulf in quality between our top two forwards and the next bunch (Maybe Ross Stewart aside, but he’s always injured) 

[2426255]

In the build up to our most recent goal against France, Billy Gilmour doesn't try to pass to Che Adams when he receives the ball from Kenny McLean. He is looking to cut it back to the penalty spot (area) or directly to Lewis Ferguson (player), not sure which. Ultimately it goes to Tchouaméni, he self destructs and we score.

It's been built in for a while if you remember back to the home game against the Faroe Islands or John McGinn's amazing goal in the friendly away in Austria and both Scott McTominay's goals against Spain follow the same pattern - it's written all over the team, you can see that just by looking at the chances that play out all the way to hitting the back of the net.

If you look at our strikers as a decoy then it maybe changes your perception and expectations of them and the role they perform. Potentially interesting to do a comparison of the number of chances created for our strikers against our midfield players over the qualification campaign in open play or something like that. I'll maybe look into that after the November window.

[tree house tam]

Sweden looked very very decent in that abandoned game against Belgium. Think that would be more of a test than folk think.

[PSJ.84]

29 minutes ago, tree house tam said:

Sweden looked very very decent in that abandoned game against Belgium. Think that would be more of a test than folk think.

Belgium on the other hand…

[2426255]

I believe we are on the verge of witnessing another evolution in this Scotland team. Clarke has spoken about it repeatedly in the press since we qualified for Nations League A - closing the gap on the pot-1 nations, next step being the hardest etc. That is no doubt why we need to learn and why we need to play friendlies against the best opponents we can find.

Quote

That’s beyond next month: We won’t know until other teams are in the play-off situation or not in the play-off situation regarding who we can play in March and June will be similar. Teams that are non-qualified for the tournament are the teams we will be looking at. I won’t pick super easy games because I still think you have to push yourself to win even friendlies. It might be an idea to stay at home and maybe get a feel for the mood of the nation, which hopefully will still be very positive at the time and then decide from there and work the friendlies round that. The March games, we will have to wait and see - but we will try and get good ones.

It is a losing run, but we have to recognise the quality of the opposition. If I want to protect my stats and my win percentage then I can pick easier friendlies, but I think if I pick easier friendlies then we won’t learn anything. The point is to learn.

Steve Clarke

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/steve-clarke-wont-protects-stats-as-he-discusses-potential-opponents-ahead-of-euro-2024-i-wont-pick-super-easy-games-4377284

Edited November 6, 2023 by 2426255

[Pie Of The Month]

Quote

It might be an idea to stay at home

Good lad Steve, save my bank balance.

[Pie Of The Month]

At least it definitely won't be England again in March. They've announced they are playing Brazil and Belgium. 

We can also rule out Brazil as they are playing Spain too.

[the snudge]

Like the idea of playing Jamaica or Nigeria in London or somewhere? 

[2426255]

Quote

Teams that are non-qualified for the tournament are the teams we will be looking at. I won’t pick super easy games because I still think you have to push yourself to win even friendlies.

Steve Clarke

Maybe reading too much into it, but I'd say from that the friendlies will be selected based on those that didn't qualify for the Euros and aren't involved in a play-off so I think we will play someone pretty middle of the road in Europe. Sweden maybe or Romania/Albania if either don't manage to qualify. Something along those lines and then the second friendly maybe will depend on who gets knocked out of the play-offs.

Maybe a team outside of Europe, but we haven't really done that under Clarke yet, so I am not expecting anything like that.

Edited November 6, 2023 by 2426255

[Pie Of The Month]

3 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

Maybe reading too much into it, but I'd say from that the friendlies will be selected based on those that didn't qualify for the Euros and aren't involved in a play-off so I think we will play someone pretty middle of the road in Europe. Sweden maybe or Romania/Albania if either don't manage to qualify. Something along those lines and then the second friendly maybe will depend on who gets knocked out of the play-offs.

Maybe a team outside of Europe, but we haven't really done that under Clarke yet, so I am not expecting anything like that.

The playoff semi final losers from each path play each other in the 2nd game in March so our opponents won't be a case of waiting on who gets knocked out. All the South American teams are set to be based in Europe in March for friendlies so that's a possibility.

Sweden would be ideal, underperforming potentially overranked team who will have a new manager wanting to try things out. Same maybe with Poland if they lose out albeit we've played them fairly recently.

[newcastle broon]

1 hour ago, the snudge said:

Like the idea of playing Jamaica or Nigeria in London or somewhere? 

Brazil at the Emirates and Nigeria at Craven Cottage were great, easy to get to trips so I will go along wi this. 

[PSJ.84]

7 hours ago, Pie Of The Month said:

Sweden would be ideal, underperforming potentially overranked team who will have a new manager wanting to try things out. Same maybe with Poland if they lose out albeit we've played them fairly recently.

Whilst Stockholm is absolutely beautiful and I’d love to go back, I’d really hope it were at home if it’s Sweden, for the reason you stated earlier in the thread. Poland could be done fairly cheap though…