Callum McGregor

[Butters Scotch]

8 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

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. 

A team full of ball playing centre half's, proper wingers, technical forwards with some of the best dribblers in the world, YOU ARE CLUTCHING. 

[Butters Scotch]

2 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

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. 

You clearly just don't get it do you 

[2426255]

Just now, Butters Scotch said:

You clearly just don't get it do you 

You're taking a simplistic view. Trying to link the outcome with the number of centre backs. You think the game would have played out differently if we'd played 4231. I still think we'd have had the same problems. I think a lot of fans think 4atb is the way forward, more attacking and so on, but all teams play like we did last night regardless of the 'shape'. 

[Old Bing]

Numbers we don't need to reference other teams games, we all watched our own. Bottom of the group twice running, worst team in the competition. Most negative team in the competition.

Breaking records all over the place for shitness. 

Now whatever happened in a Belgium match or an old firm match or whatever match. It's absolutely whitaboutary.

We're judging Scotland on the Scotland matches and results.

Edited June 24 by Bing.McCrosby

[Butters Scotch]

34 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

You're taking a simplistic view. Trying to link the outcome with the number of centre backs. You think the game would have played out differently if we'd played 4231. I still think we'd have had the same problems. I think a lot of fans think 4atb is the way forward, more attacking and so on, but all teams play like we did last night regardless of the 'shape'. 

Aye cool mate whatever you believe. 

[2426255]

19 minutes ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

Numbers we don't need to reference other teams games, we all watched our own. Bottom of the group twice running, worst team in the competition. Most negative team in the competition.

Breaking records all over the place for shitness. 

Now whatever happened in a Belgium match or an old firm match or whatever match. It's absolutely whitaboutary.

We're judging Scotland on the Scotland matches and results.

That's bollocks and you know it. I've lost track of the amount of times people have compared Scotland's performance at a Euro's to Wales or Albania. Cited it as an example of what can be achieved. Football's a simple game, but not that simple that taking one defender out and putting in an attacker is going to make the difference and that's the claim being made.

[gerrymcc1978]

19 hours ago, AndyX said:

It's maybe irrational but it's McGregor's endless pointing that drives me mad. Why not move yourself into space so that *you* are free to take the ball. Gilmour never points to someone else he thinks should get the ball instead of him. That's maybe unfair because Gilmour is just way better at that part of the game. I agree that maybe McGinn would do better in that role but then who is going to do his hold-up stuff further forward.

We just don't have enough really good players - it all falls apart when we're without a few of them.

Have you seen that c**t jack hendry can’t pass the ball without pointing all over the place first 

[Butters Scotch]

3 hours ago, 2426255 said:

That's bollocks and you know it. I've lost track of the amount of times people have compared Scotland's performance at a Euro's to Wales or Albania. Cited it as an example of what can be achieved. Football's a simple game, but not that simple that taking one defender out and putting in an attacker is going to make the difference and that's the claim being made.

If anyone is talking bollocks it is you.

No one said its as simple as replacing a CB with an attacker and expecting a winning outcome but it certainly would of provided more options to build up attacks and crate chances rather than the feeble pish we had to endure in that game. 

Carry on up that hill for you to die on  though, you're doing a fantastic job.

[2426255]

24 minutes ago, Butters Scotch said:

If anyone is talking bollocks it is you.

No one said its as simple as replacing a CB with an attacker and expecting a winning outcome but it certainly would of provided more options to build up attacks and crate chances rather than the feeble pish we had to endure in that game. 

Carry on up that hill for you to die on  though, you're doing a fantastic job.

That's the premise isn't it? Sacrifice a centre-back for a more attacking player. In your mind it is that simple and that one change on it's own would have done the job or significantly improved our odds of beating Hungary.

Edited June 24 by 2426255

[CM.]

Announced his retirement from international football

[JS_FFC]

Surprised by this. I thought it was time to start phasing down his role but he’d absolutely still be involved.

 

We are sorely lacking depth in central midfield and I could see an SOS call being made to him if McTominay/Gilmour get injured. 

[Scary Bear]

Probably the right choice for him given his age and the number of games he has to play with Celtic.

For Scotland, it’s a chance to get some younger blood into the squad.

I didn’t realise it was his birthday when Germany pumped us.

 

[Butters Scotch]

[Grangemouth Bairn]

47 minutes ago, JS_FFC said:

Surprised by this. I thought it was time to start phasing down his role but he’d absolutely still be involved.

 

We are sorely lacking depth in central midfield and I could see an SOS call being made to him if McTominay/Gilmour get injured. 

He’s only 31 and he’s decided he can’t be arsed playing for his country any more.

Its not as if he’s represented us for years given his debut was only 2017.

f**k him and get in players that want to play for us.

[Boo Khaki]

It's never a good thing to have fewer options and fewer players available, but this does solve the glaring issue of Gilmour doing much the same thing and more than McGregor does, but McGregor being given more opportunity.

Will be a bonus if this expedites the progression of a couple of younger players. I had no idea Tommy Conway is 22. They way the media was talking about him prior to the Euros I assumed he was 18 or something. Other countries have 22 year olds on 30-40 caps without necessarily being some sort of wunderkind, yet with Scots they're treated like bairns and novices at that age.

[MarkoRaj]

29 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

It's never a good thing to have fewer options and fewer players available, but this does solve the glaring issue of Gilmour doing much the same thing and more than McGregor does, but McGregor being given more opportunity.

Will be a bonus if this expedites the progression of a couple of younger players. I had no idea Tommy Conway is 22. They way the media was talking about him prior to the Euros I assumed he was 18 or something. Other countries have 22 year olds on 30-40 caps without necessarily being some sort of wunderkind, yet with Scots they're treated like bairns and novices at that age.

Conway is playing for Bristol City and has done nothing do note.

Do you honestly think he should have 30-40 caps?

[MarkoRaj]

I don't think McGregor (a midfielder) retiring will have any effect on the progress or otherwise of Conway (a striker)

[Boo Khaki]

1 minute ago, MarkoRaj said:

Conway is playing for Bristol City and has done nothing do note.

Do you honestly think he should have 30-40 caps?

No, not if he's not up to the standard. It was more a point about the fact that in Scotland we don't seem to blood younger players as early as most nations do rather than a point about Tommy Conway in particular, and I think that's one wee reason why our pros tend to be a bit more stunted at their "peak".

If McGregor calling it quits at 31 means a couple of young players get more opportunities as opposed to him still trotting out at 33 or 34, then I think that's a positive aspect to his decision. 

Quote

I don't think McGregor (a midfielder) retiring will have any effect on the progress or otherwise of Conway (a striker)

As above. I wasn't implying the two are somehow interlinked.

[JS_FFC]

18 minutes ago, MarkoRaj said:

I don't think McGregor (a midfielder) retiring will have any effect on the progress or otherwise of Conway (a striker)

Generously you could suggest that McGinn and sometimes McTominay are being played further forward to fit a glut of central midfielders into the team and the McGregor retirement reduces the need for this which opens up more room for the likes of Conway and Doak.

[Butters Scotch]

McGregor is a decent enough player and has been a consistently good servant for Scotland.

I would of liked him to stay around longer as a squad option but given that Clarke is so set on playing him in pretty much every first 11 where possible regardless of the team's form (which would of continued for the next couple of years IMO), I'm feeling content at this news.

You would expect one of McTominay, Ferguson, Christie (not that Clarke will try him here) and McGinn to take his place at CM so we are stacked for options at centre midfield. That will leave us with a spot at either Attacking mid/winger depending on formation which may end up resulting in Doak coming into the first 11 earlier than expected.