DiegoDiego Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 6 minutes ago, 2426255 said: I accept that the last step is the hardest: Essentially Clarke's words. He knows well what the job is. Beating Hungary shouldn't be considered the last step, it should have been the next step. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2426255 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 4 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said: Beating Hungary shouldn't be considered the last step, it should have been the next step. That's not the way I look at it. It's a one-off, coin flip game. If we are depending on one-off games to get beyond the group against similar nations then losing is always a possible outcome. That's why the bigger picture is important. We want to be in a position where we can win the Switzerland game for example or draw the Germany game and make it a bit easier for ourselves. Relying on one-off games isn't the way forward. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huisdean50 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 45 minutes ago, 2426255 said: I said I had no expectations for the tournament. I still believe Steve Clarke is capable of taking us where we want to go. We are still heading in the right direction even if we've come off the track. That's how I see it. If you think we are headed in the right direction with Clarke, you are deluded. It's been obvious for months our problem is scoring goals and one up top wasn't working. Clarke should have been looking at different ways to play but didn't. Didn't see the first half last night but Clarkes comment that it looked to be a 1 - 0 game after 30 minutes says it all, he did nothing to try and change the situation. Substitutions made too late as usual. Clarke needs to go as he won't change the way he plays which isn't working. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accies1874 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 13 minutes ago, Huisdean50 said: If you think we are headed in the right direction with Clarke, you are deluded. It's been obvious for months our problem is scoring goals and one up top wasn't working. Clarke should have been looking at different ways to play but didn't. Didn't see the first half last night but Clarkes comment that it looked to be a 1 - 0 game after 30 minutes says it all, he did nothing to try and change the situation. Substitutions made too late as usual. Clarke needs to go as he won't change the way he plays which isn't working. We played "two up top" against Switzerland. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basile Boli Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 14 hours ago, ArabFC said: I quite like McGregor, but Gilmour is the future of this team and he needs someone more dynamic alongside him. Admittedly I'm not sure who that player is. Lewis Ferguson. Although the diddy in charge probably wouldn’t play him anyway. A midfield 3 of Gilmour, Ferguson and McTominay on paper is better than 70% of international sides we’ll play, if not more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2426255 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 7 minutes ago, Huisdean50 said: If you think we are headed in the right direction with Clarke, you are deluded. It's been obvious for months our problem is scoring goals and one up top wasn't working. Clarke should have been looking at different ways to play but didn't. Didn't see the first half last night but Clarkes comment that it looked to be a 1 - 0 game after 30 minutes says it all, he did nothing to try and change the situation. Substitutions made too late as usual. Clarke needs to go as he won't change the way he plays which isn't working. Our problems to be fair are all over the park. That's in attack, defence and midfield. We are trying to step up to a higher level. Teams often find that hard in the Champions League, English Premier League and so on - this is similar. We have tried to control the game with the ball against the better Nations in friendly games (England, France, The Netherlands) so that was different. Hungary? I'm sure Clarke could have done things differently and had his reasons for the decision that were made. It still comes back to it being a one-off game for me. Anything can happen, you can't rely on coin flip games to get you over the line. We need to improve our level, that's clear. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiegoDiego Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 11 minutes ago, 2426255 said: That's not the way I look at it. It's a one-off, coin flip game. If we are depending on one-off games to get beyond the group against similar nations then losing is always a possible outcome. That's why the bigger picture is important. We want to be in a position where we can win the Switzerland game for example or draw the Germany game and make it a bit easier for ourselves. Relying on one-off games isn't the way forward. The problem is that we're losing a lot of these coin flips, perhaps more than 50%, and that's why questions are being asked. Playing well but getting pumped by The Netherlands, throwing away a two-goal lead versus Finland, a horrific display against Germany... I know what you mean as Thistle's season has ended on penalties in both of Doolan's attempts, but with Clarke I think it's fair to wonder if he has the ability to overcome these new challenges. I want him out for the disgraceful comments about the referee, but if he stays on these results can't continue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2426255 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 (edited) 14 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said: The problem is that we're losing a lot of these coin flips, perhaps more than 50%, and that's why questions are being asked. Playing well but getting pumped by The Netherlands, throwing away a two-goal lead versus Finland, a horrific display against Germany... I know what you mean as Thistle's season has ended on penalties in both of Doolan's attempts, but with Clarke I think it's fair to wonder if he has the ability to overcome these new challenges. I want him out for the disgraceful comments about the referee, but if he stays on these results can't continue. We are. You'll be getting a few more in the Nations League I would think. For me the Nations League isn't the be all and end all even if we get relegated. I just want to see signs of progress performance wise in that tournament ahead of World Cup qualification from where we have been in 2024 so far. We've had some promise in terms of some of the aspects of our game, but mostly we've had lots of issues that need solved. If we don't see that and start qualification poorly then I'd be open to a change. I had before any of this started thought that 2024 might be a rough year and we might not see the fruits until 2025. That's how I look at it - not just the tournament or individual games. Probably 2026 is where I'm looking to. On 09/02/2024 at 12:28, 2426255 said: I think our team will improve significantly over this year with such a challenging fixture list, but it might not bear fruit until 2025. Exciting times. The referee comments were out of order. So we can agree on that, I didn't expect that from him given his stance on Sectarianism. Edited June 24 by 2426255 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Scotch Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 30 minutes ago, 2426255 said: Our problems to be fair are all over the park. That's in attack, defence and midfield. We are trying to step up to a higher level. Teams often find that hard in the Champions League, English Premier League and so on - this is similar. We have tried to control the game with the ball against the better Nations in friendly games (England, France, The Netherlands) so that was different. Hungary? I'm sure Clarke could have done things differently and had his reasons for the decision that were made. It still comes back to it being a one-off game for me. Anything can happen, you can't rely on coin flip games to get you over the line. We need to improve our level, that's clear. Fucking deluded happy clapper. This tournament wasn't a one off coin flip game, we had three games to get the necessary points required. Even the point against Switzerland was a lucky one, really should of lost several goals that game and it papered over the cracks getting the point. We still had a chance to go out and win that game yet Clarke decided to try keep it tight to get the point and put it all on the line in the last match. Think that was a mistake in itself. Clarke fucked up massively in the tactics department against Hungary from the outset, the game was lost in our attack when we couldn't muster any sort of shot on target for most of the game yet we persist with the same system time and again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2426255 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 5 minutes ago, Butters Scotch said: Fucking deluded happy clapper. This tournament wasn't a one off coin flip game, we had three games to get the necessary points required. Even the point against Switzerland was a lucky one, really should of lost several goals that game and it papered over the cracks getting the point. We still had a chance to go out and win that game yet Clarke decided to try keep it tight to get the point and put it all on the line in the last match. Think that was a mistake in itself. Clarke fucked up massively in the tactics department against Hungary from the outset, the game was lost in our attack when we couldn't muster any sort of shot on target for most of the game yet we persist with the same system time and again. I wasn't happy with the tournament performance, but I'm not emotional or knee jerk about it. The point I was trying to make is that when it comes down to a one-off game then it can go against you. Even in a three game group there is a lot of randomness that impacts that and so you can't depend upon 'getting everything right'. I think moving forward we are trying to establish a more dominant football team through control of the ball against the best nations. Have we succeeded? no we haven't, but that's obviously the best way of trying to mitigate against randomness and relying on 50:50 games. Regardless of how the game turned out last night it was always a coin flip. My wider point is that it's not a good strategy to bet on winning games against 50:50 opponents expecting to be successful. A better strategy is to find a way to be competitive in every game and we're still short of that. Switzerland is where we want to be: able to absorb a draw against Scotland by beating Hungary and drawing with Germany. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bing Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 16 minutes ago, 2426255 said: I wasn't happy with the tournament performance, but I'm not emotional or knee jerk about it. The point I was trying to make is that when it comes down to a one-off game then it can go against you. Even in a three game group there is a lot of randomness that impacts that and so you can't depend upon 'getting everything right'. I think moving forward we are trying to establish a more dominant football team through control of the ball against the best nations. Have we succeeded? no we haven't, but that's obviously the best way of trying to mitigate against randomness and relying on 50:50 games. Regardless of how the game turned out last night it was always a coin flip. My wider point is that it's not a good strategy to bet on winning games against 50:50 opponents expecting to be successful. A better strategy is to find a way to be competitive in every game and we're still short of that. Switzerland is where we want to be: able to absorb a draw against Scotland by beating Hungary and drawing with Germany. It's not a coin flip is it if only one team is looking to create chances and having shots on goal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2426255 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 15 minutes ago, Bing.McCrosby said: It's not a coin flip is it if only one team is looking to create chances and having shots on goal We were looking to create, but we had problems getting the ball into the final third. That's not unique to Scotland, we see that every week in football. Celtic v Kilmarnock at the start of last season springs to mind. Hungary showed how a deeper defense and counter attack can be effective if executed well. Hungary were very good at blocking the centre and stopping us from getting the ball into wide attacking positions. They reduced space available and it gave our team problems they weren't able to solve on the night. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bing Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Just now, 2426255 said: We were looking to create, but we had problems getting the ball into the final third. That's not unique to Scotland, we see that every week in football. Celtic v Kilmarnock at the start of last season springs to mind. Hungary showed how a deeper defense and counter attack can be effective if executed well. Hungary were very good at blocking the centre and stopping us from getting the ball into wide attacking positions. They reduced space available and it gave our team problems they weren't able to solve on the night. Uh huh, yeah it can be quite tricky getting the ball into the final 3rd with no options up the pitch eh. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2426255 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bing.McCrosby said: Uh huh, yeah it can be quite tricky getting the ball into the final 3rd with no options up the pitch eh. Switzerland played a back-3 against Hungary, Germany and us and it didn't stop them qualifying. Hungary played a back-3 and it didn't stop them beating us and potentially going on to qualify. England played a back-4 against Denmark and it didn't help then create chances or win the game. Croatia drew with Albania and they played a back-4. Belgium were beaten by Slovakia playing a back-4, but beat Romania playing a back-3. To just look at that is simplistic. It's correlation and causation stuff. There just isn't a link there. We had issues creating attacks at this level, we all recognise that. To link it back to being a direct consequence of starting McKenna, Hendry and Hanley is just connecting dots. Does anyone think those problems wouldn't be there if we had played a back-4? I think they'd still be there. Edited June 24 by 2426255 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bing Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Just now, 2426255 said: Switzerland played a back-3 against Hungary, Germany and us and it didn't stop them qualifying. Hungary played a back-3 and it didn't stop them beating us and potentially going on to qualify. England played a back-4 against Denmark and it didn't help then create chances or win the game. Croatia drew with Albania and they played a back-4. Belgium were beaten by Slovakia playing a back-4, but beat Romania playing a back-3. To just look at that is simplistic. It's correlation and causation stuff. There just isn't a link there. We had issues creating attacks at this level, we all recognise that. To link it back to being a direct consequence of starting McKenna, Hendry and Hanley is just connecting dots. Tbh man, I'm not even reading your posts anymore their just silly 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Scotch Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 7 minutes ago, 2426255 said: Switzerland played a back-3 against Hungary, Germany and us and it didn't stop them qualifying. Hungary played a back-3 and it didn't stop them beating us and potentially going on to qualify. England played a back-4 against Denmark and it didn't help then create chances or win the game. Croatia drew with Albania and they played a back-4. Belgium were beaten by Slovakia playing a back-4, but beat Romania playing a back-3. To just look at that is simplistic. It's correlation and causation stuff. There just isn't a link there. We had issues creating attacks at this level, we all recognise that. To link it back to being a direct consequence of starting McKenna, Hendry and Hanley is just connecting dots. Does anyone think those problems wouldn't be there if we had played a back-4? I think they'd still be there. Think you need to give your head a wobble, you're having a mare on here. Other teams formations like England, Croatia, Belgium etc have no bearing on us. They can muster up plenty of attacks and create chances unlike us. We must be the only nation in a must win game who would rather stick a clunky CB in instead of a more attacking player. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2426255 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 minute ago, Butters Scotch said: They can muster up plenty of attacks and create chances unlike us. So why did Belgium change to a back-3 from a back-4 then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Scotch Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 2 minutes ago, 2426255 said: So why did Belgium change to a back-3 from a back-4 then? A back 3 with Castagne who is a RWB and a very mobile Faes? Plus they played a 3-4-3 with actual wingers that is completely different to how we lineup.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2426255 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Butters Scotch said: A back 3 with Castagne who is a RWB and a very mobile Faes? Plus they played a 3-4-3 with actual wingers that is completely different to how we lineup.... Why did Manchester City switch between a back-3 and a back-4 last season? They beat Man United 3-nil with a 'back-4' and switched to a 'back-3' against Bournemouth winning 6-1. You're obviously missing something if you're connecting those dots. Edited June 24 by 2426255 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2426255 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 6 minutes ago, Butters Scotch said: A back 3 with Castagne who is a RWB and a very mobile Faes? Plus they played a 3-4-3 with actual wingers that is completely different to how we lineup.... why did they start with a back-4 in the game against Slovakia? That's what you're doing: linking that single variable with the outcome. You are saying we lost because we played 3atb. There is obviously a bit more to decision making than that otherwise you'd think the dominant team would always play a back-4. We don't see that, we see a lot of flexibility in positions and formations and it's exactly the same with Scotland. 0 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.