2426255 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 6 hours ago, Bing.McCrosby said: Players moving around the pitch? I can't believe it myself. They never used to do this, worlds gone mad. If a formation I'd picked they should stay where their put. Like subbuteo. That's it exactly. Fans see the game like subbuteo. Players can move around the pitch and change shape depending on the situation. So getting hung up over rigid formations isn't necessary. Just because it says on paper we're playing 541 doesn't mean every situation plays out like that. It's only a shorthand. 4 hours ago, Butters Scotch said: Gk's/Defenders for teams like Germany, Netherlands etc are so much more technically gifted on the ball and don't tend to panic as much compared to us, even when they have to launch it forward they are fairly accurate passes. That's why I think KMc would be decent in there if we are sticking with the 3 CB's and can do a good job at man marking I agree it has a place. I was making the point that fans unfortunately and inevitably jump on it with the square pegs/round hole/natural position crap when we lose. It's just a risk/reward calculation. Will you gain more than you lose. 45 minutes ago, Butters Scotch said: What's the point in playing McKenna in a back 5 in a must win game, it's just another CB that cant progress the ball forwards or bomb down the wing in attack therefore limiting our attacks. Far too defensive. He does it, won a corner against Switzerland from doing exactly that. Not as well or regularly as KT, but he's supreme in the air which is also a plus and his forward passing is underrated. Again it's just pros/cons situation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing.McCrosby Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 2 hours ago, 2426255 said: That's it exactly. Fans see the game like subbuteo. Players can move around the pitch and change shape depending on the situation. So getting hung up over rigid formations isn't necessary. Just because it says on paper we're playing 541 doesn't mean every situation plays out like that. It's only a shorthand. I agree it has a place. I was making the point that fans unfortunately and inevitably jump on it with the square pegs/round hole/natural position crap when we lose. It's just a risk/reward calculation. Will you gain more than you lose. He does it, won a corner against Switzerland from doing exactly that. Not as well or regularly as KT, but he's supreme in the air which is also a plus and his forward passing is underrated. Again it's just pros/cons situation. No numpty, your the one who see's the game like subbuteo. As if in the last 10 years is the first time players have moved around the pitch 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Binos Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Gunn McCrorie Hendry McKenna Robertson Gilmour Mcgregor Mctominay Mcginn Christie Conway 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Scotch Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 2 hours ago, 2426255 said: That's it exactly. Fans see the game like subbuteo. Players can move around the pitch and change shape depending on the situation. So getting hung up over rigid formations isn't necessary. Just because it says on paper we're playing 541 doesn't mean every situation plays out like that. It's only a shorthand. I agree it has a place. I was making the point that fans unfortunately and inevitably jump on it with the square pegs/round hole/natural position crap when we lose. It's just a risk/reward calculation. Will you gain more than you lose. He does it, won a corner against Switzerland from doing exactly that. Not as well or regularly as KT, but he's supreme in the air which is also a plus and his forward passing is underrated. Again it's just pros/cons situation. Think it's far too conservative playing with McKenna, we struggle as it is creating chances without KT and we are just as weak defensively with the extra CB. Switzerland were cutting us open at ease at times and should of really banged in a few more goals in the last game. We would gain more from having Christie back in or Armstrong IMO 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartsOfficialMoaner Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 McLean was playing centre half for Norwich last season sometimes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J_Stewart Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 7 hours ago, PeterRulesOK said: He's the only one because the dud of a manager took him and not any of the better options. Souttar or Kingsley instead of him and we're at least 3 goals better off. You’re surely not referencing John “lumbering centre half, always injured, awful for Scotland and rightfully dropped” Souttar or Stephen “left back, no caps since 2016” Kingsley to play right wing-back at an international football tournament in 2024, are you? Suuurrreeellllyyyy not? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2426255 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) 5 hours ago, Bing.McCrosby said: No numpty, your the one who see's the game like subbuteo. As if in the last 10 years is the first time players have moved around the pitch Calm down mate, no need to start tossing out insults. Formations are just a shorthand, nothing more. You can't cover the complexity of team shape and strategy in 3 or 4 numbers. I think most people recognise that. Nothing to get worked up over and certainly not a hill worth dying on. Fair enough? Edited June 21 by 2426255 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 The 5-5-0 shape we finished the last game with. Gunn Ralston - Hendry - Hanley - McKenna - Robertson Adams - Gilmour - McTominay - McGregor - McGinn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2426255 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) 1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said: The 5-5-0 shape we finished the last game with. Gunn Ralston - Hendry - Hanley - McKenna - Robertson Adams - Gilmour - McTominay - McGregor - McGinn You'd end up with a telephone directory if you charted all the different formations in a game. 4-atb can become a back-3, a back-6, a back-1 and so on at different stages of a game. Formations provide a simplified picture in your head. An approximation. Not something to get worked up about. It really isn't. Edited June 21 by 2426255 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 3 minutes ago, 2426255 said: You'd end up with a telephone directory if you charted all the different formations in a game. a back-4 can be a back-3, a back-6, a back-1 and so on at different stages of a game. It's just putting a simplified picture in your head. Not something to get worked up about. It really isn't. Bollocks. I've changed my mind anyway numberwang, much prefer the 2-7-1 shape we have at free kicks. Gunn Ralston - McTominay Gilmour - Adams - McKenna - Hanley - Robertson - Hendry - Ralston McGinn 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2426255 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) 1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said: Bollocks. I've changed my mind anyway numberwang, much prefer the 2-7-1 shape we have at free kicks. Gunn Ralston - McTominay Gilmour - Adams - McKenna - Hanley - Robertson - Hendry - Ralston McGinn I think it was Postecoglu that said the idea of formations and positions was a bit outdated and its more about balancing numbers. e.g. 4 players in the box when a cross is about to be played; 3 players on the edge of the box at a corner to counter press and so on. Yer flat back-4 and yer 541 don't really mean anything in that context. Just a shorthand. It can be negative if that shorthand is taken literally as we see on here plenty. Fans thinking that because the BBC graphic shows us playing '3421' that we'll get overrun in midfield as we have only two midfielders in there. Fans don't factor in that it's only a question of yardage for supporting players to balance the numbers out in that area. Edited June 21 by 2426255 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 5 minutes ago, 2426255 said: I think it was Postecoglu that said the idea of formations and positions was a bit outdated and its more about balancing numbers. e.g. 4 players in the box when a cross is about to be played or 3 players on the edge of the box at a corner to counter press etc. Yer flat back-4 and yer 541 don't really mean anything in that context. I think he's at it a little bit there but he's definitely not wrong. I'm not going to dive into it but his team's will absolutely have a rest shape and it'll be fluid outwith that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Gunn Hendry Hanley McKenna Robertson Gilmour McGregor McLean McTominay Adams Christie Maybe McGinn for Christie or McLean if he's looking sharp in training, because he is a top player when he's on form. But with that team maybe McLean could cover Robertson, and allow him to get forward in the same way that he does in a five. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro Sham Bo Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 7 hours ago, Bogbrush1903 said: In fact, this tournament has worrying similarities to France 98 for Scotland. Opening game participation, 1-1 draw in the middle game, so perhaps set up for a resounding Hungarian win as Clarke tries to wring out the last drops of life from his tried and trusted 13 or 14 players... Let's utilise the squad this time by introducing fresh legs in the starting line-up and use the option of substitutions that's available when they still have time to make an impact. I worry that Clarke's stubbornness and conservatism will be our final group game downfall though. For me it feels pretty similar to the last Euro finals. Bad defeat to start with, then honourable draw to give us hope going into the last game. I can see it ending the same way too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing.McCrosby Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 10 hours ago, 2426255 said: You'd end up with a telephone directory if you charted all the different formations in a game. 4-atb can become a back-3, a back-6, a back-1 and so on at different stages of a game. Formations provide a simplified picture in your head. An approximation. Not something to get worked up about. It really isn't. Yeah same as you would if you analysed any game in the history of football. The players have had legs and been able to move as far back as I remember. Still if you start with 3 centre backs and one of them being less mobile and with less ability going forward (than teirney) you will have less options when attacking than playing 4 at the back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewanandmoreagain Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 9 hours ago, Ro Sham Bo said: For me it feels pretty similar to the last Euro finals. Bad defeat to start with, then honourable draw to give us hope going into the last game. I can see it ending the same way too. Hopefully not ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Binos Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 9 hours ago, Ro Sham Bo said: For me it feels pretty similar to the last Euro finals. Bad defeat to start with, then honourable draw to give us hope going into the last game. I can see it ending the same way too. Italia 90, France 98, similar I think subconsciously after the good performance players just drop down a gear We just need to bring intensity and we can change the pattern 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Scotch Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 39 minutes ago, Bing.McCrosby said: Yeah same as you would if you analysed any game in the history of football. The players have had legs and been able to move as far back as I remember. Still if you start with 3 centre backs and one of them being less mobile and with less ability going forward (than teirney) you will have less options when attacking than playing 4 at the back. This was the point I was making regarding McKenna, he's just another lump at the back that we could do without. Get the ball carriers, passers, techinal players etc in ahead of him. Being able to keep the ball will help our defence and prevent less attacks aswell as have another body in the middle that will ultimately act as another CB when defending anyway. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Binos Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 10 hours ago, allyo said: Gunn Hendry Hanley McKenna Robertson Gilmour McGregor McLean McTominay Adams Christie Maybe McGinn for Christie or McLean if he's looking sharp in training, because he is a top player when he's on form. But with that team maybe McLean could cover Robertson, and allow him to get forward in the same way that he does in a five. Mcginn must play Hendry good shout for right back -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing.McCrosby Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 22 minutes ago, Butters Scotch said: This was the point I was making regarding McKenna, he's just another lump at the back that we could do without. Get the ball carriers, passers, techinal players etc in ahead of him. Being able to keep the ball will help our defence and prevent less attacks aswell as have another body in the middle that will ultimately act as another CB when defending anyway. Tbh I can't believe I'm actually explaining to someone that having and extra midfielder or striker will make a difference as opposed to an extra defender 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.