Line up to play Hungary

[2426255]

1 hour ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

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.

When we have the ball we use at least three players to defend the counter even when attacking.

That can be two centre-backs and a full-back or just three centre-backs. It's just a numbers game and balancing numbers around the pitch. You don't need two strikers on the pitch, it's enough to just have three or four players in the box when a ball is getting played in. It's just the same idea really.

Edited June 22 by 2426255

[Bing.McCrosby]

9 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

When we have the ball we use at least three players to defend the counter even when attacking.

That can be two centre-backs and a full-back or just three centre-backs. It's just a numbers game and balancing numbers around the pitch. You don't need two strikers on the pitch, it's enough to just have three or four players in the box when a ball is getting played in. It's just the same idea really.

So just to clarify, you think putting Mckenna in for Tierney will make no difference and we will be able to get up the pitch just the same?

Edited June 22 by Bing.McCrosby

[Butters Scotch]

21 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

When we have the ball we use at least three players to defend the counter even when attacking.

That can be two centre-backs and a full-back or just three centre-backs. It's just a numbers game and balancing numbers around the pitch. You don't need two strikers on the pitch, it's enough to just have three or four players in the box when a ball is getting played in. It's just the same idea really.

Why does it matter having another CB in there than opposed to Christie in midfield let's say as long as we have the right numbers in attack and defence? 

Having the three traditional CB's in without Tierney now creates an imbalance in the team moving forward, KT was a very big part up our left hand side where a lot of our goals come from. We also lose a bit of pace at the back on top of that.

IMO we need to find ways of flooding the midfield now to take control of the ball more, keep the ball out of reach of our defence as much as possible and build up attacks through the midfield and using Robertson as a overlapping LB to get crosses in. 

[Bing.McCrosby]

What I will do numbers is explain clearly as I can. I understand what you are saying. But I think your a bit mixed up.

I don't think the revelation that players move around the pitch and perform different roles depending on the phase is quite the new phenomenon that you imagine.

What has changed is modern technology, medical science and equipment. So the players are able to run faster for longer. So that's changed the tactical side of the game.

Yes players will move but they don't teleport, so 532 doesn't become 433 in an instant. The players run into the positions. When they are moving position it will depend on their starting point. As to how quickly they can achieve this.

So

So let's say Robertson wins the ball deep on the left, we're now in the transitional phase. At that moment in a back 5 he will likely have 3 players standing behind him. The 3 centre backs. 

In a back 4 he will likely have 2  players standing behind him. So one more option forward.

That's as simple as I can explain, if you don't understand (I think you do but you've backed yourself into a corner now) that's OK. But I would say you have a very poor understanding of football.

Can we play effectively against hungry and put them under pressure using a back 5? Yes we can, but were less likely to be able to do that without Tierney. And less likely than using a back 4.

 

[2426255]

1 hour ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

So just to clarify, you think putting Mckenna in for Tierney will make no difference and we will be able to get up the pitch just the same?

It will make a difference in that we don't have Tierney, he's a great player for us. Going to a back-4 or a back-3 is what I'm saying makes no difference. Formations are a shorthand, we'll play in various shapes throughout the game as it develops.

39 minutes ago, Butters Scotch said:

Why does it matter having another CB in there than opposed to Christie in midfield let's say as long as we have the right numbers in attack and defence? 

Well if you look at it as we'll always have at least three players taking up defensive positions when we attack then it doesn't matter whether it's a back-3 or a back-4. What matters is we have at least 3 players defending the counter-attack. That can be McKenna, Hanley and Hendry. It can be Ralston, Hanley and Hendry or it could be McGregor, Christie and Ralston if it's a set play. It's not going to make a significant difference.

Edited June 22 by 2426255

[nate]

We shouldn’t underestimate the usefulness of Hanley and McKenna as attacking threats, given that the strikers are lightweights. Hanley has come closer to scoring than any other Scotland player out there bar McT, and McKenna is joint top in goal assists. Despite their obvious defensive deficiences, Clarke might fancy pitching the pair in for their value at corners/free kicks even if it means a tactical rethink. 

[Butters Scotch]

9 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

It will make a difference in that we don't have Tierney, he's a great player for us. Going to a back-4 or a back-3 is what I'm saying makes no difference. Formations are a shorthand, we'll play in various shapes throughout the game as it develops.

Well if you look at it as we'll always have at least three players taking up defensive positions when we attack then it doesn't matter whether it's a back-3 or a back-4. What matters is we have at least 3 players defending the counter-attack. That can be McKenna, Hanley and Hendry or it can be Ralston, Hanley and Hendry. It's not going to make a significant difference.

Yeah but you were making out as if McKenna was replicating what KT does in the Switzerland game when he came on? He'll do 'a job' in that role but no way would I want him to be starting him over other genuinely creative options we have in midfield that we can play instead. If you want to him to start cause he also is good in the air then i wouldn't mind that if we put Hendry in at RB in place of ralston

[2426255]

Just now, Butters Scotch said:

Yeah but you were making out as if McKenna was replicating what KT does in the Switzerland game when he came on? He'll do 'a job' in that role but no way would I want him to be starting him over other genuinely creative options we have in midfield that we can play instead. If you want to him to start cause he also is good in the air then i wouldn't mind that if we put Hendry in at RB in place of ralston

My point has been it's not boxing yourself into viewing the team in terms of rigid formations. It depends on what opposition analysis turns up. Then create a strategy for the game. The pick a team of players that best fit that strategy. I don't think rigid formations come into it much.

I think McKenna is a decent player and if he is one of the eleven players who best fits into the plan for the Hungary game then that's fine with me. No-one in the squad can replace Tierney, we all know that.

[JS_FFC]

McKenna and Hendry played well together as a pair in the home wins over Ukraine and Republic of Ireland two years ago. Hanley was our best player on Wednesday night so definitely doesn’t deserve to be dropped, but I’m not sure I’d want him in a back four. It probably points to a back three again even though I maintain that it’s never really worked well without KT in there and certainly not in games where we’ll be hoping to have a lot of the ball.

 

I think it’ll be McKenna in for KT and then the same team as Wednesday otherwise, but I’d be very tempted to bring Christie in for Hanley as well and go 4-2-3-1.

[aberdeen1970]

It's unlikely he'll abandon the back 3 for this game but I think he should seriously consider it. 

A back 4 of Hendry, Hanley, McKenna and Robertson would allow us to have an extra player in midfield so we can compete better in that area and have a chance of greater possession as well as allowing our attacking midfielders to get closer to our front man. 

Robertson can still get forward leaving a back 3 to cover and Hendry has the mobility to do a serviceable job at right back as well as being a better defender than Ralston. 

[Butters Scotch]

2 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

My point has been it's not boxing yourself into viewing the team in terms of rigid formations. It depends on what opposition analysis turns up. Then create a strategy for the game. The pick a team of players that best fit that strategy. I don't think rigid formations come into it much.

I think McKenna is a decent player and if he is one of the eleven players who best fits into the plan for the Hungary game then that's fine with me. No-one in the squad can replace Tierney, we all know that.

I think when it comes to defence, we generally play pretty similarly most games we play from my experience, sometimes we play a flat back 5 against top nations but then the LB area in particular is expected to be almost a winger on the counter attack. Sometimes we press high as a team like we did in the Switzerland game to disrupt any rhythm and force the opposition into giving possession away. 

It's the midfield that tend to have more tactical tweaks to it than anything from experience but I do agree I that formations you see on flashscores or bbc to be taken with a pinch of salt and it's not as rigid as it appears 

[2426255]

32 minutes ago, Butters Scotch said:

I think when it comes to defence, we generally play pretty similarly most games we play from my experience, sometimes we play a flat back 5 against top nations but then the LB area in particular is expected to be almost a winger on the counter attack. Sometimes we press high as a team like we did in the Switzerland game to disrupt any rhythm and force the opposition into giving possession away. 

It's the midfield that tend to have more tactical tweaks to it than anything from experience but I do agree I that formations you see on flashscores or bbc to be taken with a pinch of salt and it's not as rigid as it appears 

When we have the ball we're not playing a flat back-5. That's what I'm trying to say, it just depends on the situation - totally dependent on that.

Rigid formations mean next to nothing when actually watching a game. It's literally just a number. Don't football teams use game models now to describe their system of play? I think fans and football teams are getting further apart. We see that with fans being 'baffled' and 'confused' as they don't understand why managers are doing what they're doing. The England midfield situation is a great example.

Fans are hanging onto concepts from the 90's and earlier while managers are probably seeing a totally different and tech/AI/data aided game. There's a knowledge gap that's fir true. It's amazing to see unfold.

Edited June 22 by 2426255

[The Other Foot]

I still don’t understand why the ten players don’t form a daisy chain, pass the ball amongst themselves while crab-walking up the pitch and right into the opponent’s goal. Get this formation pish in the bin. 

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, The Other Foot said:

I still don’t understand why the ten players don’t form a daisy chain, pass the ball amongst themselves while crab-walking up the pitch and right into the opponent’s goal. Get this formation pish in the bin. 

Is that not a bit like how very early football apparently looked?

Scottish imports to English clubs in the North and Midlands were meant to have encouraged the move to more of a passing game, I think.

It's perfectly possible I'm havering nonsense though.

[nate]

Did we ever get an answer to why McT is taking corners rather than being on the end of them?

[Chripper]

18 minutes ago, nate said:

Did we ever get an answer to why McT is taking corners rather than being on the end of them?

Nope.

It's probably because he's such a clean striker of the ball.

Personally, I'd have Robertson taking the corners on the right and someone who isn't McTominay taking them on the right. (I like inswingers)

McTominay is usually a magnet in both boxes, so I'd always have him in the box.

[Binos]

31 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Is that not a bit like how very early football apparently looked?

Scottish imports to English clubs in the North and Midlands were meant to have encouraged the move to more of a passing game, I think.

It's perfectly possible I'm havering nonsense though.

Correct 

We invented the real recognisable version of football 

[Bing.McCrosby]

5 hours ago, nate said:

Did we ever get an answer to why McT is taking corners rather than being on the end of them?

I think he should scoop it as high as he can and try and get on the end of his own corners.

[bleedingums]

6 hours ago, nate said:

Did we ever get an answer to why McT is taking corners rather than being on the end of them?

It looked to me like for the first one they were trying for a low flick on from gilmour, which very nearly happened. For the second, they set up the same and used gilmour as a decoy to drag the defender. McT instead played a higher cross that Hanley nearly got on the end of. After that, I don’t know and I could of course be talking utter bollocks, though!

[paddymcp]

I'd have Ryan Jack at RB. That was originally his position and he's technically a good enough footballer to be able to do a competent enough job IMO. Ralston will know everybody's waiting for him to make another mistake and will be playing more nervous and conservative than usual. Take him out for his own good.