Reason for horrible exit: lack of quality or overly-defensive tactics?

[Dons_1988]

8 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

It's just outcome bias. I don't think anyone can fairly describe our team as using defensive tactics. Football isn't that simple that all you need to do to win is take out a defender and put on an attacker. 

The fact that you can cherry pick some irrational takes on the situation doesn’t prove your point. 

It really isn’t just outcome bias to criticise the tactics, that’s as simplistic a take as saying you just need to chuck on another striker. 

Clarkes in-game management of Sunday night was poor, I don’t think there can be any debate about that. I’m not sure if he was honest that he would even debate that fact. 

It really doesn’t matter which team was more defensive, the game was played on Hungary’s terms. They wanted us to have the ball, they wanted to hit us on the break and that’s what was happening. They weren’t good enough to cause us huge problems throughout but only one team was troubling the others goal throughout the 90 minutes. 

The kamikaze approach of throwing attackers on and abandoning all structure with 10 minutes to go, without really trying to pose Hungary any different questions beforehand was as silly as allowing the game to be played on their terms for 85 mins. 

These aren’t sackable offences in my eyes but it is frustrating that a serious, nuanced discussion about everyone’s failings here can’t be had. 

[Lex]

5 minutes ago, Elgin Macca said:

4 days have past and I'm still seething at the penalty decision more than anything just now. I cant believe more isn't being made of it and there hasn't been clarity on why it wasn't awarded. 1 kick away from the last 16. And if we had scored I genuinely believe we hold on. I feel for Clarke and the players in this respect

Personally, I think the penalty wasn't awarded because it wasn't a penalty. It certainly was nowhere near a clear and obvious error that VAR could over rule the on field decision

Firstly, he looked offside to me initially, I don't know if that has been clarified one way or another.

Secondly, I absolutely cannot believe what Armstrong does there. He is clean through and instead of taking a touch and driving at goal or going across the defender, he jumps into the air. He is trying to initiate contact to win a penalty instead of trying to score, it's bizarre. 

The defender does of course run into him, and when he does Armstrong grabs the defenders shirt and pulls them both to the ground.

If that was given against us I'd be absolutely spewing. As a Scotland fan I'm yet again raging at Stuart Armstrong. He could have scored, he could have at least shot, instead he's throwing himself into a defender trying to win a penalty. Pathetic. 

[2426255]

Just now, Dons_1988 said:

It really doesn’t matter which team was more defensive, the game was played on Hungary’s terms. They wanted us to have the ball, they wanted to hit us on the break and that’s what was happening. They weren’t good enough to cause us huge problems throughout but only one team was troubling the others goal throughout the 90 minutes. 

I take your points, but the thread is asking exactly that question. Reason for horrible exit: lack of quality or overly-defensive tactics?

[Gordon EF]

22 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

Did Hungary go for it? I can't even remember them going on the front foot and they were in exactly the same boat as us, but perhaps they did.

I find it funny that Scotland are being criticised for being defensive (playing a back-3) while Hungary are being credited as playing a smart game sitting on the counter (also playing a back-3). Rossi outsmarted Clarke tactically, had his number etc. If Hungary had lost wouldn't they be getting it tight from their fans saying it's a must win game you have to be on the front foot? If we had played like Hungary and lost our support would be even worse than they've been, if that's possible. 

It's just outcome bias. I don't think anyone can fairly describe our team as using defensive tactics. Football isn't that simple that all you need to do to win is take out a defender and put on an attacker. 

Hungary were not impressive, either in the game against us, or in the tournament more generally. Nobody is saying they're a great team or that Rossi is a tactical genius. It was a close, and poor quality, game and in the mad scramble of the last 20 minutes, they took their chance and we didn't. That's it.

The point is that it's yet another tournament where we had an opportunity to progress and performed pathetically and didn't do enough over the 3 games to get through.

Clarke has had 6 games at major tournaments where 1 win is likely enough to take you though. We have won zero of those games. Objectively, this is not good enough.

What other teams do doesn't bother me. If we want to be better, we have to do something differently. Sitting and hoping for better results whilst doing the same things over and over is a losers mentality. 

[DA Baracus]

Option C, mentality.

They went in afraid to lose and afraid to play. They were timid, meek, passive, scared shitebags who had no faith in their abilities, both as individuals and as a team.

They were cowards quite frankly.

Although it could be argued that this is because of the manager's tactics. 

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, DA Baracus said:

Option C, mentality.

They went in afraid to lose and afraid to play. They were timid, meek, passive, scared shitebags who had no faith in their abilities, both as individuals and as a team.

They were cowards quite frankly.

Although it could be argued that this is because of the manager's tactics. 

As a footballing nation, we absolutely have a cowards mentality. It's the manager's job to try and improve that. Instead, he's embodied it.

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Option C, mentality.

They went in afraid to lose and afraid to play. They were timid, meek, passive, scared shitebags who had no faith in their abilities, both as individuals and as a team.

They were cowards quite frankly.

Although it could be argued that this is because of the manager's tactics. 

This is definitely an element of it, and I do think it’s cultural. 

We were way too grateful to have got a point against the Swiss. I heard a couple of players saying ‘we’re still in for Sunday and we can’t ask anymore than that’. 

You can actually, it isn’t a coincidence that whether it be at major tournaments or in qualifying we so often find ourselves needing a big result and/or favours from elsewhere to achieve our goals. It’s this meek attitude that we don’t really belong and we’re just grateful to be in the fight. 

If we’d beaten the Swiss then it makes Sunday a totally different game, we can play the game on our terms. Make Hungary attack us and create space that way. It changes the entire dynamic of it. 

14 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

I take your points, but the thread is asking exactly that question. Reason for horrible exit: lack of quality or overly-defensive tactics?

Yeah, and I’m saying your riposte that saying it’s tactics is merely outcome bias is wrong. 

[Claudia Gentile]

I think there were a multitude of factors some we possibly aren't aware of.

By the Hungary game we were missing first choices in right back, left centre half not too mention Dykes who would have slotted in at some point over the three games for a tired Adams.

We had plenty of possession against Hungary but had no creative nuance or even width down either flank to exploit it and when it went to the end game phase the Hungarians seemed far more prepared and had the better chances even before they scored.

Clarke went to the 5 at the back due to how best to employ Robertson and Tierney which has worked well in terms of qualification but you aren't going to win tournament matches with what becomes a 5-4-1 with none of the said width or creativity to get at opposition teams.

[Lex]

1 minute ago, Gordon EF said:

Hungary were not impressive, either in the game against us, or in the tournament more generally. Nobody is saying they're a great team or that Rossi is a tactical genius. It was a close, and poor quality, game and in the mad scramble of the last 20 minutes, they took their chance and we didn't. That's it.

 

Agree that Hungary weren't impressive, they're a hopeless side. If we are the worst team in the tournament they aren't far off being the second worst. However, this wasn't an even game nicked by one team taking a chance while the other missed theirs. Hungary hit the post, hit the bar, forced at least two good saves from Gunn and scored a good goal. Scotland on the other hand, had no chances at all. There was only one team that looked capable of winning that game, and it wasn't Scotland.

 

[2426255]

4 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

If we want to be better, we have to do something differently. Sitting and hoping for better results whilst doing the same things over and over is a losers mentality. 

The longer aim is to get closer to Pot-1 teams. That's been well publicised. We've made attempts to control games with the ball against pot-1 teams in the friendly games with mixed results (France, Netherland and England specifically). We are trying to evolve the team in order to give ourselves a better chance for all the competitions we're involved in. We are still a work in progress in that respect.

Clarke presumably didn't adopt that approach against Germany because we aren't good enough yet to do that. We tried to control the game without the ball: that matches up with what we've seen in the friendlies and probably also against Hungary. We aren't good enough in that respect, but that's where we have to get to and that's where we're trying to do things differently and evolve the team.

Just now, Dons_1988 said:

Yeah, and I’m saying your riposte that saying it’s tactics is merely outcome bias is wrong. 

I'm saying we weren't overly defensive against Hungary. I agree the way the game was 'managed' at the end was chaotic and that aspect of the game was poor.

Spoiler

10 hours ago, 2426255 said:

I haven't seen it back, but I remember it similarly to you. It was like when we were losing 2-1 to Ukraine in that World Cup playoff and Grant Hanley stayed up front before we got caught by a late counter for the third.  A directionless mess. Complete chaos and I wouldn't even want to try and begin to make some kind of sense of it.

A bit odd because we handled the Norway game in Oslo in a controlled manner under similar circumstances. Perhaps it was just desperation and trying to force the ball into the net. 

I think there is outcome bias at play here - the entire discussion wouldn't be happening if we had qualified from the group, therefore it is dependent on that outcome. 

[2426255]

17 minutes ago, Claudia Gentile said:

Clarke went to the 5 at the back due to how best to employ Robertson and Tierney which has worked well in terms of qualification but you aren't going to win tournament matches with what becomes a 5-4-1 with none of the said width or creativity to get at opposition teams.

I don't think the reason Clarke played a back-3 is because it's how to get Robertson and Tierney into the team given Tierney was injured. It was for another reason, probably multiple reasons. Other than that I agree with your general points.

Edited June 25 by 2426255

[Gaz]

5 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

I don't think the reason Clarke played a back-3 is because it's how to get Robertson and Tierney into the team given Tierney was injured. It was for another reason, probably multiple reasons. Other than that I agree with your general points.

Our entire system is set up to get Robertson and Tierney in the team together. It's how we play, how we train and how we practice. Even with Tierney injured he's not going to risk changing an entire system.

[Claudia Gentile]

8 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

I don't think the reason Clarke played a back-3 because it's how to get Robertson and Tierney into the team given Tierney was injured. It was for another reason, probably multiple reasons. 

I'm just going by what he wrote in the Herald/ Nutmeg interview. 

He told KT he would be "Scotland's greatest ever left centre-back".

Following wins away and Cyprus he changed to the 5/ 3 at the back when he found himself "with too much time on [his] hands" and decided to experiment with the formation. This was when he switched to the back three.

Edited June 25 by Claudia Gentile

[JS_FFC]

Just now, Gaz said:

Our entire system is set up to get Robertson and Tierney in the team together. It's how we play, how we train and how we practice. Even with Tierney injured he's not going to risk changing an entire system.

When he did, though (when Robertson was injured), the results were good. Why is it that when KT in injured we just plug and play Cooper/McKenna with disastrous consequences but when Robertson is injured we actually change the formation and it works well? 

[Old Bing]

How did it get to this that people are so downtrodden they accept us being so bad?

[Gordon EF]

13 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

The longer aim is to get closer to Pot-1 teams. That's been well publicised. We've made attempts to control games with the ball against pot-1 teams in the friendly games with mixed results (France, Netherland and England specifically). We are trying to evolve the team in order to give ourselves a better chance for all the competitions we're involved in. We are still a work in progress in that respect.

Clarke presumably didn't adopt that approach against Germany because we aren't good enough yet to do that. We tried to control the game without the ball: that matches up with what we've seen in the friendlies and probably also against Hungary. We aren't good enough in that respect, but that's where we have to get to and that's where we're trying to do things differently 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

We've stepped up from where we were 5 years ago. There's absolutely no denying that. I'll give credit to Steve Clarke for that, absolutely. A jump in the standard of player available to us compared to the previous generation also has a lot to do with that.

Where we are now is a team who can go to a 24 team Euros, who can finish 2nd in a group and get to WC play-offs. But the evidence suggests that we cannot move beyond that with the current management. I think we have the players to.

I'm sure Clarke will be in place until the end of the next world cup. And I'd love nothing more than to be proved wrong here. But I don't think he's the man to take us to the world cup and then finally do something at a home Euros in 2028. I'd love to see it happen, but I think someone else can get more from this team.

You don't agree. That's fine. But cherry picked stats and platitudes aren't going to change anyone's mind on this.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Yes

[2426255]

11 minutes ago, Gaz said:

Our entire system is set up to get Robertson and Tierney in the team together. It's how we play, how we train and how we practice. Even with Tierney injured he's not going to risk changing an entire system.

We routinely shift shape to a back-4 when a game is in progress. We change to a back-4 when we're chasing the game. It's just depends on the situation in the game. We are capable of transitioning between systems during the game. We've seen that all tournament. It's not about that.

Edited June 25 by 2426255

[Gordon EF]

6 minutes ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

How did it get to this that people are so downtrodden they accept us being so bad?

As a nation, we hold ourselves to a crippling low expectation.

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 hour ago, Elgin Macca said:

4 days have past and I'm still seething at the penalty decision more than anything just now. I cant believe more isn't being made of it and there hasn't been clarity on why it wasn't awarded. 1 kick away from the last 16. And if we had scored I genuinely believe we hold on. I feel for Clarke and the players in this respect

4 days? Have I dozed off again?