Line up face Germany

[Chripper]

3 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

That doesn't tell us much though unfortunately for the individuals. It could be any of the players for various different reasons: tactical (Christie/Gilmour, fitness (McTominay and Adams) or training (Ralston/McCrorie) etc. Taken as a whole it's probably good that 3 days out Clarke has a strong idea of what the plan is and is just finalising one or two things in his head.

 

Nah. Unfortunately it doesn't.

It's good that he has 9 players written in stone, though. Imagine if he was still deliberating over all 11.

I'm interested to see who selects at fightback.

If I were to hazard a guess on the question marks, I'd say it's rwb and the striker

Edited June 11 by SlayerX

[2426255]

13 minutes ago, SlayerX said:

Maybe the first one.

Gilmour is a certainty to play, though. You don't leave out your best players.

Gilmour was left out quite a lot in qualifying for various reasons. Often in favour of Christie and particularly in difficult competitive fixtures. That's where the debate comes from. It may surprise you to see his game time compared to the other boys.

Spoiler

Time has moved on from then and he has had periods of difficulty at club level, but to say he is a certainty is a step too far for me. The most used midfield during qualifying didn't include Gilmour believe it or not. That's only until we qualified and doesn't include the two other matches because they weren't particularly significant. (Georgia, Norway)*

The only games with something serious on the table that he started were Cyprus (A) and Georgia (H).

Edited June 11 by 2426255

[TeeMan]

5 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

Gilmour was left out quite a lot in qualifying for various reasons. Often in favour of Christie and particularly in difficult competitive fixtures. That's where the debate comes from. It may surprise you to see his game time compared to the other boys.

  Hide contents

Time has moved on from then and he has had periods of difficulty at club level, but to say he is a certainty is a step too far for me. The most used midfield during qualifying didn't include Gilmour believe it or not. That's only until we qualified and doesn't include the two other matches because they weren't particularly significant. (Georgia, Norway)*

Totally agree about the Gilmour/Christie dilemma.  I do think Gilmour has shown himself better off the ball recently though - see Amsterdam. 

[2426255]

30 minutes ago, TeeMan said:

Totally agree about the Gilmour/Christie dilemma.  I do think Gilmour has shown himself better off the ball recently though - see Amsterdam. 

He was outstanding against The Netherlands. He's an excellent player and If we approach the game like that then he's a big asset and probably will start. If we approach the Germany game like we did the Spain game in Seville where the ball is getting fired going over the midfield then you're better off with legs in the midfield and so perhaps Christie. So the question for me is how do we approach it as that will dictate who plays.

Contrast that with Christie who has started every game in 2024 as well as the games against Spain (home and away) and Norway (away) and it maybe puts the debate in a different light. Christie and Gilmour haven't started a competitive game together in 2023, so you're probably going back to 2022 or maybe earlier for that. That's where the one or the other debate originates from, in competitive games it's been one or the other.

No-one has the answer to that, but as soon a the team lines are public then it'll be pretty clear what the approach will be because that's where that decision will probably be made. I'm sure Clarke knows how he'll approach it already, so maybe he knows already that Gilmour won't start and he's deciding between the right wing-backs and the centre-backs.

Edited June 11 by 2426255

[Butters Scotch]

I couldn't care either way between the two but Christie would be a huge asset in this game, we will likely be under pressure majority of the game and rely on quick breakaways. He provides a creative spark to the team and not scared to take a man on which we sort of lack in this team. On the other hand how do you leave a player like wee Billy Gilmour out. 

[2426255]

12 minutes ago, Butters Scotch said:

I couldn't care either way between the two but Christie would be a huge asset in this game, we will likely be under pressure majority of the game and rely on quick breakaways. He provides a creative spark to the team and not scared to take a man on which we sort of lack in this team. On the other hand how do you leave a player like wee Billy Gilmour out. 

I think it's a really good thing because it means we can take alternative approaches and we have options. It will it difficult for the Germany team to predict what we'll do ahead of kick-off which is obviously an advantage and allow us to change if our approach isn't working or the game-state changes, that's what we want.

It might be balanced by putting in Hanley instead of Hendry with Gilmour or Hendry instead of Hanley plus Christie. Honestly, Clarke saying he's deciding over two positions tells us zip. That's why he's said it, he's not going to give anything definite away.

Edited June 11 by 2426255

[Alan Twelve]

Gunn

Porteous - Hanley* - Tierney

Ralston - McTominay* - McGregor - Robertson

McGinn - Christie

Adams

*If fit. Hendry in for Hanley, Gilmour for McT if not.

Porteous, I think, gives better protection to the RWB than Hendry and his direct passing could be useful in bypassing the German press. I love Gilmour, but I think a mobile high-pressing team like I expect Germany to be will be able to stop the ball getting to him in good areas and he's pretty ineffective when he's forced back to the edge of the area to collect the ball. It's good to have some serious quality on the bench though, so he could still be a game-changer.

[bobby brewster]

1 hour ago, 2426255 said:

It's not that. What's your logic behind going to a back-4 and dropping Tierney or Robertson in favour of say Forrest? Do you have a coaching background that supports your view in differing to a successful Scottish coach and Scotland manager who has been to the top of the game.

Is this Steve Clarke? My opinion (regardless of what level of playing, coaching, or armchairing), is that although we have done well with shoehorning Tierney and Robertson into a back 5- and achieved great results, I think we could do even better with an additional 'football player' on the pitch at the expense of a Championship level big lump centre half. If this means sacrificing one of the big names to achieve better balance within a 4 at the back setup then so be it. Open to Tierney being the left sided CH. Not sure how suited he is to this though. And think he's better defensively than Robertson as a left back.

 

[2426255]

15 minutes ago, bobby brewster said:

Is this Steve Clarke? My opinion (regardless of what level of playing, coaching, or armchairing), is that although we have done well with shoehorning Tierney and Robertson into a back 5- and achieved great results, I think we could do even better with an additional 'football player' on the pitch at the expense of a Championship level big lump centre half. If this means sacrificing one of the big names to achieve better balance within a 4 at the back setup then so be it. Open to Tierney being the left sided CH. Not sure how suited he is to this though. And think he's better defensively than Robertson as a left back.

 

I'm not Steve Clarke, nor do I have to be to know he won't be doing that. In fairness, before the game anything's possible and every opinion is as valid as the next and I can't say with any certainty he won't do what you're suggesting - so just have to wait and see. 

If you see the back-3/5 on Friday my advice is to remember the guy making these decisions has earned the right to decide based around his professional career and is invested in giving us the best possible chance and not seeking to actively self sabotage. We've used the back-4 a fair amount recently, (Gibraltar, Norway, Georgia) none of which were particularly brilliant games, but I accept they weren't competitive.

If we do that and we lose people will say why did change to a back-4? If we lose while playing a back-5 people will say should have done this. So we know we have that to look forward to at the very least.

Edited June 11 by 2426255

[Butters Scotch]

14 minutes ago, bobby brewster said:

Is this Steve Clarke? My opinion (regardless of what level of playing, coaching, or armchairing), is that although we have done well with shoehorning Tierney and Robertson into a back 5- and achieved great results, I think we could do even better with an additional 'football player' on the pitch at the expense of a Championship level big lump centre half. If this means sacrificing one of the big names to achieve better balance within a 4 at the back setup then so be it. Open to Tierney being the left sided CH. Not sure how suited he is to this though. And think he's better defensively than Robertson as a left back.

 

Numberwang is Stevie Clarke's spokesman on here if you didn't already know that.

Tierney is too good attacking wise to not utilise this strength of his, he pretty much is a second LCB/LWB/LB in game along with Robertson who is more LB/LWB. Going four at the back just eliminates this threat and you would need to change the complete dynamic of the team, nae chance Clarke will be starting other than 5 at the back barring injuries in each game. 

[ahemps]

So if McTominay is to start it is Christie or Gilmour who drops out? 

Is the consensus on here that McGregor starts before Gilmour if we go with 1 deeper midfielder?

 

 

[2426255]

Just now, ahemps said:

So if McTominay is to start it is Christie or Gilmour who drops out? 

Is the consensus on here that McGregor starts before Gilmour if we go with 1 deeper midfielder?

 

 

I don't think there is a consensus on anything to be honest.

[Butters Scotch]

Just now, ahemps said:

So if McTominay is to start it is Christie or Gilmour who drops out? 

Is the consensus on here that McGregor starts before Gilmour if we go with 1 deeper midfielder?

 

 

McGregor is one of Clarke's first picks, he covers the ground better and just as effective on the ball. No chance he's getting dropped. 

[ahemps]

8 minutes ago, Butters Scotch said:

McGregor is one of Clarke's first picks, he covers the ground better and just as effective on the ball. No chance he's getting dropped. 

I watched Gilmour closely on Friday night and I don't agree with you. He was always looking to be available and he seemed to get the ball more. I also think he has a wider range of passing. 

I do agree with you that Clarke would probably pick McGregor if he was going with 1 of them.

[Butters Scotch]

16 minutes ago, ahemps said:

I watched Gilmour closely on Friday night and I don't agree with you. He was always looking to be available and he seemed to get the ball more. I also think he has a wider range of passing. 

I do agree with you that Clarke would probably pick McGregor if he was going with 1 of them.

They both play as a double pivot and play very similar roles. Certainly McGregor is better at turning over the ball, intercepting it etc. In terms of passing, McGregor tends to keep it shorter than Gilmour so you could say Gilmour is better there if you want to look at it that way but they're both very accurate passers of the ball. 

[Binos]

Gunn

Ralston Hendry Porteous Tierney Robertson

Gilmour Mcgregor Mctominay Mcginn

Adams 

[Gordopolis]

3 hours ago, 2426255 said:

I don't think there is a consensus on anything to be honest.

I'd agree with that. Let's call it a consensus

[craigkillie]

4 hours ago, bobby brewster said:

Is this Steve Clarke? My opinion (regardless of what level of playing, coaching, or armchairing), is that although we have done well with shoehorning Tierney and Robertson into a back 5- and achieved great results, I think we could do even better with an additional 'football player' on the pitch at the expense of a Championship level big lump centre half. If this means sacrificing one of the big names to achieve better balance within a 4 at the back setup then so be it. Open to Tierney being the left sided CH. Not sure how suited he is to this though. And think he's better defensively than Robertson as a left back.

You haven't actually lost a "big lump" centre-half in the starting line-up you suggested though. You dropped Robertson for a winger and still had two such centre-halves.

[PauloPerth]

 

McGinn playing between midfield supporting Shankland but it didn’t give the option for 5-3-1-1.

Christie and Adams as impact subs.

[Distant Doonhamer]

Of the players available to Scotland Gunn, Porteous, Tierney, Robertson, McTominay, McGinn, McGregor and Christie all started the 2  pivotal qualifiers at home to Spain and away to Norway.  So did Dykes who Adams will surely replace and Hickey who Ralston will most likely replace. That would leave a choice between Hanley and Hendry for the 3rd central defender spot. I don’t see Clarke straying much from that. As others have suggested Gilmour or Christie the other big call. 

I'd go 

Gunn

Ralston  Porteous Hendry Tierney Robertson

McTominay Gilmour McGregor

McGinn

Adams 

Edited June 11 by Distant Doonhamer