Germany v Scotland

[Bing.McCrosby]

45 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

 

Oh perfect, thanks mate. I was about to make that very point to Fratelli. We don't know what the tactical plan was beyond sitting deep, countering and not risking the ball in our own third. It obviously didn't go according to the plan, but the idea or concept isn't necessarily wrong just because the execution wasn't there. That's what Nagelsmann was trying to say.

Perhaps it just wasn't on to play a possession game against Germany and Adams is simply the best of a poor bunch of choices to fill that role. I haven't a clue, but there's no doubt in my mind if Dykes has been available he'd have started.

  Reveal hidden contents

Recent quote from Julian Nagelsmann about armchair tacticians out there. Directed towards armchair fans and media.

------------------------------------

In our country it's become quite common for fans to judge players, which I don't like to do because I'm just watching it as a fan. I would never sit in front of the TV and say that I would have done so-and-so as the manager or question what a player is doing, because you don't know what's really going on there. It's a terrible example, but there are teams that are really bad at throw-ins in their own half so a team might have a tactic to kick the ball against an opposing player to force them to have lots of throw-ins in their own half or put the ball out of play themselves. The fans just see a lot of balls going out of play and wonder why that is.

When you don't know what the managers plan is and what they might have intended, it's extremely hard to judge. That's not to say that you're not disappointed as a fan when Germany don't play well in tournaments. But I'm not a manager who sits in front of the TV, judges another manager, is constantly making notes or claims that he would have reacted a certain way or made certain substitutions because I wasn't there.

Julian Nagelsmann

------------------------------------

https://streamable.com/kipkso

So we agree, fans can be correct, managers can be wrong. It's fine to discuss football.

[2426255]

21 minutes ago, No_Problemo said:

If we are talking about Nagelsmann quotes, it’s probably quite important to consider what he thought of our actual approach on Friday night, and how he thought it was more passive than our normal approach in qualifying. 
 

"I was surprised that Scotland weren't that aggressive in the first 20 minutes. I think they were kind of surprised of our ball possession. It was really concentrated. We only made one mistake in the first 15 minutes and Scotland was kind of surprised, kind of afraid. It felt that way against offensive players who can score goals, and they defended a bit deeper. They didn't make the high pressure like they did in the qualifying games. The first 20 minutes were key for the game."

I'd say that's fair. We weren't aggressive and we defended deep. We played similarly against Spain and to be fair away in Norway. I don't think we were aggressive away to Spain or Norway, maybe less so at home to Spain - I can't really remember, but still broadly similar and the game plan was almost identical: defend deep, counter attack and don't risk the ball in our own third.  

Were we afraid? were we surprised? I really don't know. It's just speculatory. Were we afraid and surprised against Norway and Spain? We ceded possession in those game also. Clearly there was an issue with our press as it was altered on 31 minutes, so that definitely was an issue for the team and anyone looking to assign blame to Clarke for getting it wrong tactically might be best looking there.

Edited June 16 by 2426255

[No_Problemo]

Just now, 2426255 said:

I'd say that's fair. We weren't aggressive and we defended deep. We played similarly against Spain and to be fair away in Norway. I don't think we were aggressive away to Spain or Norway, maybe less so at home to Spain - I can't really remember, but still broadly similar and the game plan was almost identical: defend deep, counter attack and don't risk the ball in our own third.  

Were we afraid? were we surprised? I really don't know. It's just speculatory. Were we afraid and surprised against Norway and Spain? We ceded possession in those game also.

I think Norway was very similar, we were largely awful but that was potentially down to the heat too in terms of how passive we were. 

I agree with you that the set ups were broadly similar but still think we had a better balance in the Spain home game for example. 

For me this team is at its best when it is able to show that aggression and physicality - McGinn, Christie, McTominay, Tierney and Robertson thrive on it. By asking them to sit in and not even attempt to get into the faces of opponents in their own half I think you lose something that this team is actually good at. 

Ultimately, there are so many factors here that it’s impossible to pinpoint things. 

I just hope we have a better balance about us on Wednesday. 

[2426255]

7 minutes ago, No_Problemo said:

I think Norway was very similar, we were largely awful but that was potentially down to the heat too in terms of how passive we were. 

I agree with you that the set ups were broadly similar but still think we had a better balance in the Spain home game for example. 

For me this team is at its best when it is able to show that aggression and physicality - McGinn, Christie, McTominay, Tierney and Robertson thrive on it. By asking them to sit in and not even attempt to get into the faces of opponents in their own half I think you lose something that this team is actually good at. 

Ultimately, there are so many factors here that it’s impossible to pinpoint things. 

I just hope we have a better balance about us on Wednesday. 

Fair douze. I think we'll see an aggressive, on the front foot team against Switzerland. I think Gilmour will start and it will be up to the team to reach the required performance levels. I don't think it will be a defend deep and counter kind of game and when you see Gilmour's name in the starting XI that's the first indicator that we will be looking to control the game with the ball which will please the fanbase no doubt.

I hope we get something from the game so we don't have to do this whole handwringing and blame game crap again.

Edited June 16 by 2426255

[2426255]

The way that I look at this game and the group in general is sort of similar to one of the Old Firm trying to compete in the Champions League. If you take Celtic as an example then Germany are the equivalent of Real Madrid/Atletico, Switzerland maybe RB Leipzig and Hungary the equivalent of Shakhtar Donetsk. I don't think that's miles off the mark.

Ultimately no matter how Celtic played or set up tactically against Real Madrid and Atletico the outcome was similar. It was embarrassing to see Scotland not really able to make a game of it, but I don't think it's that surprising and just comes down to expectations. We could have had the chance to win the game, but Germany were too good on the night. That's why tactics and all of that discussion are almost irrelevant in my view because they would have needed to be off it for us to prosper.

It always comes back to they performed really well and we didn't. No matter what game plan you go with that's not going to end well.

Edited June 16 by 2426255

[well again]

3 hours ago, FK1Bairn said:

I watched the second half in my local bowling club and there was one obvious Rangers fan in there singing God Save The King and he cheered when Germany scored their fifth. The glares he got both times from everybody including the people he was in with meant he left swiftly after the game finished. 

He might have had 5-1 on his coupon but it was definitely a case of being delighted Scotland got pumped. He's probably got a Union Jack flying from his bedroom window

As opposed to the other arse cheeks waving flags of a foreign country.

[well again]

2 hours ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

Well that was absolutely worthless.

My advice to both you and Julien Nagelsmann would be. If you don't like it fans opinions, stop coming on a fans forum designed specifically for to give opinions.

Also the fan will be correct in some instances and the manager wrong. Wether you or Julian Nagelsmann accepts that or not is irrelevant. It's a a fact.

You should know by now not to engage with Celtic fans , they're a weird bunch with selective memory loss and no sense of reality.

[Butters Scotch]

1 hour ago, 2426255 said:

Fair douze. I think we'll see an aggressive, on the front foot team against Switzerland. I think Gilmour will start and it will be up to the team to reach the required performance levels. I don't think it will be a defend deep and counter kind of game and when you see Gilmour's name in the starting XI that's the first indicator that we will be looking to control the game with the ball which will please the fanbase no doubt.

I hope we get something from the game so we don't have to do this whole handwringing and blame game crap again.

I don't think Clarke has any other choice apart from setting out his team to get in Switzerland's faces and not stand off them like we did against Germany. It amazes me how after reading your posts, you can't see how Clarke fucked up tactically in the Germany game. 

[Ewanandmoreagain]

10 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

 

 

Yeah this. It's very easy to criticise the coach / tactics when you've been battered but the shape was pretty much what we used throughout qualifying. It beat Spain at home and whilst we rode our luck a bit it kept us in the game in Spain till Hickey's slip too. There are three factors in why it completely didn't work on Friday night.

1. As you say, we played poorly. Lots of players were off it, particularly the midfielders. McGinn's been out of form for weeks. Not convinced McTominay's fully fit. McGregor had maybe his worst game for Scotland, etc. Robertson's not looked fully fit since his injury issues at Liverpool across Xmas, McTominay's been touch and go for games for weeks. McGregor had a serious achilles problem in March, Tierney's been out as often as he's been fit in the last six months. Even the good players we do have aren't properly fit. We've been decimated by injury at the wrong time.
2. We were shorn of at least two vital players and visibly weakened for it. We had our third choice right back playing and he's miles behind Aaron Hickey. That's not his fault, he's the best cover we've got in the circumstances, but Hickey's a massive loss. You get away with it to an extent with Patterson but to have lost both is horrendous luck. And I still find it odd that some people on here are convinced Adams is our best option up front. Almost all of our best results have been achieved with Dykes up top, leading the line physically, pulling the team up the park, giving McGinn / McTominay something to feed off and helping out defensively into the bargain. He has his limitations but he's perfect for the setup Clarke's designed. Adams can't do any of that. He's a better actual goalscorer and maybe a better passer but he doesn't cover as much ground or play as physical a game as Dykes does. Kroos doesn't get as much time to pick out passes like Rodri didn't if Dykes is pressing him too.
3. And fundamentally, Germany were VERY, VERY good. I was guilty of thinking they weren't in magic form when the draw was made, that opening games are often tight cagey affairs, that they might be nervous in front of their home crowd. They were none of these things. Kroos and Gundogan are class acts, we knew this, but in Wurz and particularly Musiala they have generational talents breaking through and we're absolutely miles off that level. These are Champions League level players and, much as we've the best side we've had this century, only Robertson can really claim to be close to that level. McTominay, McGinn, Tierney are Europa League level players, probably so is McGregor and Gilmour. Maybe even Christie. The rest are hovering between bottom have top tier and top half second tier players.

There's a limit to the amount of that which can be pointed at the coaching and tactics or papered over. We're a good team when everyone's fit and on form but we're not a tier one nation and tier one nations playing well will beat us, they'll hammer us when they play well and we're weakened. Our goalkeepers aren't good enough, our 3rd choice right back isn't good enough. In truth probably none of our centre backs are really good enough and our forward options certainly aren't, but we can't buy new ones. This is international football and we've a limited pool to pick from. Is anyone not playing that should be? Gordon might have been better in goal, even at 41, but he didn't hardly get a club game last season. If Souttar was better than what we had playing he'd have been here. The fabled 'Newcastle Four / Five' would all likely improve us but you can't make them commit to Scotland. Indeed Gordon's made it to the England squad now. Livramento probably will eventually. I doubt Barnes or Anderson or Targett will ever play for England (though Targett is predominantly a left back which isn't a problem position anyway. In fact right back isn't a problem position either with Hickey and Patterson added to Johnston coming through shortly. It's just a horrible coincidence we're short of one for this tournament.

Some very good points there 

Two of our best midfield players are probably not fully fit after injuries

McGinn has possibly been run into the ground ( by Villa )

The disappointment against Ukraine was at the end of the season as well 

[2426255]

13 minutes ago, Butters Scotch said:

I don't think Clarke has any other choice apart from setting out his team to get in Switzerland's faces and not stand off them like we did against Germany. It amazes me how after reading your posts, you can't see how Clarke fucked up tactically in the Germany game. 

You know very well that we don't see the game similarly and so we'll probably disagree more often than not. We do agree on a few things and so I'd rather focus on that tbh. That's your view, I'm happy to accept that and I'm happy with my own personal point of view and so that's that as far as I'm concerned.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, 2426255 said:

Fair douze. 

Seriously, are you doing this on purpose?

[Butters Scotch]

17 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

You know very well that we don't see the game similarly and so we'll probably disagree more often than not. We do agree on a few things and so I'd rather focus on that tbh. That's your view, I'm happy to accept that and I'm happy with my own personal point of view and so that's that as far as I'm concerned.

Not saying it was all his undoing, players obviously didn't carry out the instructions very well either (whatever the game plan was supposed to be) but it looked very off from the beginning.

The likes of Norway and Spain are completely different to Germany in the way they build up their attacks so why didn't have a specific game plan to deal with them. It was clear our wing backs were told to play narrow and make them ping the ball out wide to their wing backs time and again (same template against Spain), you have ti question Clarke why he allowed the team to let the opposition get the ball in dangerous areas of the pitch so effortlessly? This is where all the problems were occurring from. 

[Skyline Drifter]

41 minutes ago, Ewanandmoreagain said:

McGinn has possibly been run into the ground ( by Villa )

Villa played an awful lot of games, and he played pretty much every game he was available for, but we didnt have to play him in all the recent friendlies if we felt he needed rest.

[Ewanandmoreagain]

6 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Villa played an awful lot of games, and he played pretty much every game he was available for, but we didnt have to play him in all the recent friendlies if we felt he needed rest.

He maybe wanted to play , when he should no have  ?

[Monkey Tennis]

11 minutes ago, Butters Scotch said:

Not saying it was all his undoing

Jesus.

Everyone's at it.

[Skyline Drifter]

3 minutes ago, Ewanandmoreagain said:

He maybe wanted to play , when he should no have  ?

I'm sure he wanted to play but its on the manager to decide when a rest does more good.

Not saying he is jaded by the way. Just that he's not on form. Its for others to determine why.

[Butters Scotch]

7 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Jesus.

Everyone's at it.

Not sure what you're on about here, are you trying to say it was all Clarke's fault? 

Edited June 16 by Butters Scotch

[Chripper]

Good and accurate analysis of what transpired.

Essentially, Germany played with a 3-3-3-1.

When you consider they pretty much had 6 in midfield against our 4, it was understandable that we were going to be camped in our own half.

Playing 5-4-1 is suicidal. Teams defend from the front.

Asking that 1 to stop the first wave of attack is asking a person to hold back a tsunami.

Football teams are fluid. In the Dutch match, they are alternating between 4-3-3 and 3-5-1-1.

Meanwhile, in Scotland a manager was mocked and hounded by fans and media for having a laptop on the bench.

Oh. Kroos completed 101 out of 102 passes against us.

Edited June 16 by SlayerX

[2426255]

28 minutes ago, SlayerX said:

Good and accurate analysis of what transpired.

Essentially, Germany played with a 3-3-3-1.

When you consider they pretty much had 6 in midfield against our 4, it was understandable that we were going to be camped in our own half.

Playing 5-4-1 is suicidal. Teams defend from the front.

Asking that 1 to stop the first wave of attack is asking a person to hold back a tsunami.

Oh. Kroos completed 101 out of 102 passes.

I really hate this kind of rubbish. It's lazy, on tap analysis for any fans that can't be bothered understanding it on their own. The idea that it was 6 or 7 v 4 is daft. Tierney and Porteous stepped into midfield to balance the numbers obviously.

[Chripper]

16 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

I really hate this kind of rubbish. It's lazy, on tap analysis for any fans that can't be bothered understanding it on their own. The idea that it was 6 or 7 v 4 is daft. Tierney and Porteous stepped into midfield to balance the numbers obviously.

Yes. And Tierney and Porteous stepping into midfield really made a difference. Maybe Germany would have got 75% possession instead of 73% if they didn't and maybe it would've been 7-1 if they didn't.

It was 7 v 4 all across midfield as Havertz wasn't playing as a traditional 9.

But then again, it wasn't even 7, it was 8. Their full backs spent more time in the Scotland half than their own.

Kimmich and Mittelstádt pushed Christie and McGinn back so much that they were almost axillary fullbacks, leaving McTominay and McGregor to cope with Kroos, Andrich, Musiala, Gündoğan, Wirtz and Havertz.

It was wave after wave of attack. When we did get the ball they simply flooded the midfield and applied the gegenpressing till they forced a turnover.

Scotland were camped in their own half for 90 minutes. Their only "attempt" was the header from the corner that wasn't even going in.

A team requires playing up front to occupy defenders and anchormen.

Essentially, Steve Clarke set out a system to invite pressure in the hope that we would escape with 1 point.

It was a case of Murphy's Law. Whatever could go wrong certainly did.

To be honest I have no appetite dissecting the Germany match after this post. It's still raw.

So if you reply to this, don't expect a rebuttal as it still hurts.