Scotland 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 vs Switzerland 🇨🇭

[FalkirkBairn2021]

Thought that was Jack Hendry's best game for us too. He was excellent along with Gilmour.

John McGinn is again a huge disappointment when it matters. Totally invisible. 

[Richey Edwards]

Great result last night. Gunn, Ralston, Gilmour, Tierney, Robertson and McTominay all played well.

[Dons_1988]

6 minutes ago, throbber said:

I think Scotland are a stronger team than Switzerland and was incredibly frustrating to see us settle for 1-1 after they equalised. 
 

Will no doubt go into the Hungary game thinking we are better than them and get trounced 7-0 now. 

I don’t think we are. They have real quality in the forward areas that I think we lack. We were always liable to be picked off. 

I don’t think we settled for a draw either, I just don’t think we went balls out to win and I’m ‘ok’ with that. 

Having said all that, the media are going a bit over the top with their back slapping over a draw. It was the minimum requirement from last night, a win would’ve been so valuable. 

[19QOS19]

1 hour ago, Savage Henry said:

That’s pretty much the wildest take of this entire thread.  

And I'm sure many will agree with you. I always find it amusing that Adams is thought of fondly by a large portion of our support and yet Dykes is usually slated when he plays, even though the latter puts himself about far more. 

[rollstar]

8 hours ago, BFTD said:

I was too young to remember, but maybe the auld yins can tell us if this opening round format caused so much confusion when it was first introduced at the World Cup in 1982.

It was  just the 1986 and 1990 World Cups which had this format. There were certainly just as many ifs and buts for Scotland in 1990. In 1986 we played last in the group stage so knew exactly what we had to do. I think there must have been a fair bit of speculation before that game but at that time there was far less punditry, and no social media.

in the 24 team 1982 World Cup there was a different format, a bizarre 2nd round of 3 team groups. I think they realised that in time there would be far too many tied groups with that format so they dropped it for the one we're using here.

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

I’m finding some of the takes both on here and social media absolutely brutal. Scotland fans are either blinded by club loyalty or just appear clueless about the game in general. I don’t think I’ve ever really paid much attention to it until now but it’s starting to rival the Old Firm drivel you are forced into reading on playforms like X/Twitter.

- we done well last night against a good Switzerland team. Anyone who thinks our squad is superior to them is kidding themselves on. On our day we can grind out results against anyone but be realistic here.

- we didn’t settle for a draw

- last night is the perfect example of why Che Adams starts over Shankland. This debate is tiresome.

- why is everyone so relentlessly negative and moaning regardless of the result/performance. We done what we had to and have set Sunday up nicely. 

We’re the famous Tartan Army and we’re going to talk absolute negative pish relentlessly.

[19QOS19]

Just now, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

- we didn’t settle for a draw

I can't agree with this part. When the manager is telling his player to slow it down getting the ball back in play with minutes to go it doesn't scream "going for the win". I think we absolutely did settle for a draw in the end up. Not that it's a bad result of course. 

[Owsley 2]

7 hours ago, Jives Miguel said:

I thought Ralston was alright tbh, goal aside. Do agree with Moyes though that Hanley's initial hospital ball didn't help. But Ralston was under a huge amount of pressure in that the game, he was very clearly getting strongly targeted the whole game. Thought he stood up to that pressure and bounced back well from the mistake.

Completely agree. Can't believe anyone thought he was "poor for the majority". He barely put a foot wrong after that, one prominent stumble in the box aside, and was good in attack. It was his ball in that gave McTominay the volley chance. I was going to comment here after the game but the Clarke hatred was mental. Not that I'm confident for Sunday, I'm sure we'll manage to cock it up somehow but at least we know a win takes us through for definite, Hungary can't say that.

[The Moonster]

2 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

I can't agree with this part. When the manager is telling his player to slow it down getting the ball back in play with minutes to go it doesn't scream "going for the win". I think we absolutely did settle for a draw in the end up. Not that it's a bad result of course. 

Was this at the throw in? I'm no lip reader but I thought Clarke was telling Robbo to calm down rather than slow down, in the sense of don't just throw the ball on quickly and lose it, we need to keep the ball. I don't think we played for a draw but we were happy with one, I think there's a difference there.

[Dons_1988]

5 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

I can't agree with this part. When the manager is telling his player to slow it down getting the ball back in play with minutes to go it doesn't scream "going for the win". I think we absolutely did settle for a draw in the end up. Not that it's a bad result of course. 

We tried to win the game without putting ourselves at excessive risk. It is recognition that a draw is ok and a loss is a disaster so it’s a measured approach. 

It’s not the same as settling for a draw. 

[printer]

10 minutes ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

I’m finding some of the takes both on here and social media absolutely brutal. Scotland fans are either blinded by club loyalty or just appear clueless about the game in general. I don’t think I’ve ever really paid much attention to it until now but it’s starting to rival the Old Firm drivel you are forced into reading on playforms like X/Twitter.

- we done well last night against a good Switzerland team. Anyone who thinks our squad is superior to them is kidding themselves on. On our day we can grind out results against anyone but be realistic here.

- we didn’t settle for a draw

- last night is the perfect example of why Che Adams starts over Shankland. This debate is tiresome.

- why is everyone so relentlessly negative and moaning regardless of the result/performance. We done what we had to and have set Sunday up nicely. 

We’re the famous Tartan Army and we’re going to talk absolute negative pish relentlessly.

Surely not.

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

7 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

I can't agree with this part. When the manager is telling his player to slow it down getting the ball back in play with minutes to go it doesn't scream "going for the win". I think we absolutely did settle for a draw in the end up. Not that it's a bad result of course. 

At the very arse end of the game with minutes to go? I’m seeing folk claim we settled for a draw after they scored, which is quite frankly, a load of pish. 

[kennie makevin]

1 hour ago, Albertlegend said:

So negative overall, why leave it so late with the subs? An improvement on germany but still pretty poor. Ralston just looks miles out his depth, would rather see James Forrest at RWB but Clarke will never be that attack minded.

i though McGinn and McGregor were anonymous. Gunn and mctominay played well! 
 

I think Iv been burned too many times by Scotland at major tournaments but Hungary on Sunday in giving me Morocco at France 98 vibes! 

Uruguay at Mexico 86 ? Yugoslavia 74 ? Don't know why. Nothing performance wise so far points to it. But I think Sunday will be different. I have a dream !

[oneteaminglasgow]

33 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

And I'm sure many will agree with you. I always find it amusing that Adams is thought of fondly by a large portion of our support and yet Dykes is usually slated when he plays, even though the latter puts himself about far more. 

Both players have their limitations but have been good players for Scotland. The idea of either of them being “pish” is utterly ridiculous. 

[Crùbag]

10 hours ago, JS_FFC said:

Ralston made a huge error of course but Robertson correctly identified that he was magnificent apart from that. I’d be tempted to play a back four on Sunday though given KT’s injury.

He was hopeless. The Swiss targeted his side and glided past him on numerous occasions. Quite a few woeful passes as well as that one.

Sure, Hendry and Tierney weren't very good either and Robertson was hot and cold, to be kind to him.

It was a better display and good result but christ, if our manager wasn't so stubborn, we could be winning that. Bin Ralston for a start. Be positive and get Adams and Shankland on. That Swiss defence wasn't that good.

Edited June 20 by Crùbag

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, Crùbag said:

He was hopeless. The Swiss targeted his side and glided past him on numerous occasions. Quite a few woeful passes apart from that one.

Sure, Hendry and Tierney weren't very good either and Robertson was hot and cold, to be kind to him.

It was a better display and good result but christ, if our manager wasn't so stubborn, we could be winning that. Bin Ralston for a start. Be positive and get Adams and Shankland on. That Swiss defence wasn't that good.

Do people not see the contradiction when they say the defence is clearly vulnerable but we should also get two strikers on and just be positive? 

[Crùbag]

40 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

And I'm sure many will agree with you. I always find it amusing that Adams is thought of fondly by a large portion of our support and yet Dykes is usually slated when he plays, even though the latter puts himself about far more. 

Adams works hard but doesn't score. Dykes, I've always thought of as lazy but does score.

Put Shankland on with one of them.

[Crùbag]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

Do people not see the contradiction when they say the defence is clearly vulnerable but we should also get two strikers on and just be positive? 

No-one is saying that we should play no defence ffs. Playing 2 strikers is hardly gung-ho, especially against a Swiss defence that looked very vulnerable. For much of the 2nd half, we had the Swiss pinned back. Doing that and not shipping any hospital passes to their forwards when they break out on occasion should not be rocket science for players who are representing their country at the highest level.

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, Crùbag said:

No-one is saying that we should play no defence ffs. 

Good thing I never said that then! 

 

2 minutes ago, Crùbag said:

No-one is saying that we should play no defence ffs. Playing 2 strikers is hardly gung-ho

Mcginn basically played as a 2nd striker anyway. 

 

3 minutes ago, Crùbag said:

Doing that and not shipping any hospital passes to their forwards when they break out on occasion should not be rocket science for players who are representing their country at the highest level.

This is all well and good saying this as a fan, but the back 5 did do this several times throughout the game, with ralston, hendry, Hanley, Robertson all guilty and tierney shanked one out for a corner in the first half. 

We had them under pressure for long spells but also looked very vulnerable to counter attacks, them targeting ralston and quick balls through our lines. 

I can absolutely understand why clarke didn’t want to risk too much chasing the win, even though it can be frustrating to watch. 

[The Moonster]

1 minute ago, Crùbag said:

No-one is saying that we should play no defence ffs. Playing 2 strikers is hardly gung-ho, especially against a Swiss defence that looked very vulnerable. For much of the 2nd half, we had the Swiss pinned back. Doing that and not shipping any hospital passes to their forwards when they break out on occasion should not be rocket science for players who are representing their country at the highest level.

We were matched up formation wise with Switzerland and it helped us nullify their attack. From their opening game they cut right through the middle of Hungary and our formation basically stops teams doing that by crowding out central areas. It forces teams wide which can leave guys like Ralston one on one with a winger but crucially we still have bodies in the box to deal with any cross. Moving a body out of defence or midfield to the attack would've left central gaps for them to attack and there's nothing to suggest we'd have kept them pinned back or created more chances by putting two strikers on the field.

If Ralston doesn't play that pass last night we win the game and nobody is complaining about our set up, tactics or strikers. It was a good night. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.