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

[2426255]

10 minutes ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

So moving from a back 5 to a 4 isn't just a simple switch that will always work. We can see evidence of that quite clearly the other night. 

The thread is about Clarke being overly defensive (setting up with a back-3): Reason for horrible exit: lack of quality or overly-defensive tactics?  

I have tried to demonstrate that's a simplistic take. We build in a four, we build in a three just depending on the situation in the game. It wasn't a shape issue. That's basically the point I've been trying to convey.

That's why the discussion moved on to 3 clunky 'centre-back's which again is a simplistic take to think swapping a defender for an attacker is the silver bullet. So where does that leave us? exactly where it should: we don't know why things went wrong. why? because we're fans.

Edited June 25 by 2426255

[Old Bing]

4 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

The thread is about Clarke being overly defensive (setting up with a back-3): Reason for horrible exit: lack of quality or overly-defensive tactics?  

I have tried to demonstrate that's a simplistic take. We build in a four, we build in a three just depending on the situation in the game. It wasn't a shape issue. That's basically the point I've been trying to convey.

That's why the discussion moved on to 3 clunky 'centre-back's which again is a simplistic take to think swapping a defender for an attacker is the silver bullet. So where does that leave us? exactly where it should: we don't know. why? because we're fans.

I'm not sure what any of that is in relation to what I said.

But we are getting somewhere. 

We agree we didn't play well, we agree now that players don't teleport. We agree it's a matter of yardage. So you can surely now see we were incapable of doing the transition (hence the lack of chances/shots)

So yes having one more player in midfield and not in defence would have made a massive difference. They would not have to make that forward yardage, or teleport as they would already be there.

Again it's not simple, the team would need to have a game plan for this.

 

[2426255]

23 minutes ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

I'm not sure what any of that is in relation to what I said.

I was referencing your comment that moving from a back-5 to a back-4 isn't just a simple switch that will always work. It agrees that the shape isn't the underlying issue because we struggled with a back-4 and a back-3. If it was tactical then it wasn't shape related as we changed shape at different points in the game depending on the situation way before we were chasing it. 

That leaves the argument to move to personnel which it duly did. Three 'clunky' centre-backs. It's a child like logic to think that taking off a defender and putting on an attacker is a silver bullet, that's the sum total of the argument being presented: We want to create more chances so play more attacking players.

I don't know why we were poor, no-one on here does - but we were and there's no doubt about that especially in creating meaningful attacks, but for anyone on this forum thinking that they know what was going wrong is kidding themselves on or trying to kid others on. That's where this discussion will always come to rest. 

Edited June 25 by 2426255

[Old Bing]

11 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

I was referencing your comment that moving from a back-5 to a back-4 isn't just a simple switch that will always work. It agrees that the shape isn't the underlying issue because we struggled with a back-4 and a back-3. That's the basic point: if it was tactical then it wasn't shape related because we changed shape at different points in the game depending on the situation way before we were chasing the game. 

That leaves the argument to move to personnel which it duly did. Three 'clunky' centre-backs. It's a child like logic to think that taking off a defender and putting on an attacker is a silver bullet. I don't know why we were poor, no-one on here does - but we were and there's no doubt about that especially in creating meaningful attacks, but for anyone on this forum thinking that they know what was going wrong is kidding themselves on or trying to kid others on.

That's where this discussion will always come to rest. 

No they do, just about everyone does. It's because we had to many defenders with very few options in forward positions. And when finding them with the ball they had even less options as everyone was still back. Forcing them to pass the ball backwards (if they even could under pressure) or try and run themselves and score worldy.

Not everything is so complicated.

But what we all know is we played badly, so bad that we embarrassed ourselves. So we know we got things wrong. Statistically and definitely the worst team at the euros. 

I think where your also confused is that it's OK to question a football manager. They are not infallible. Sometimes we/I will be correct and steve will be wrong.

It's not like being a surgeon or something. Football is a game people play, people go and watch. If people did that with surgery they would have an improved understanding of surgery.

 

[Gordon EF]

If the "formations and player selection don't matter" crowd really beleive what they're saying, maybe we could try playing 10 centre halfs in the old Levein 4-6-0 system?

Edited June 25 by Gordon EF

[allyo]

3 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

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. 

I agree with this. 

I don't like blaming the team for this issue. It is something they are trying to overcome, and to shift, and they're probably doing more about it than the rest of us.

Said on another thread, I think there is a flawed national mentally that explains the consistency of outcomes in tournaments through different generations,  much better than any argument about capabilities or tactics.

Eta, this doesn't mean that capability and tactics don't matter. Of course they do. Before anyone tries to radicalise my view.

Edited June 25 by allyo

[Old Bing]

42 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

If the "formations and player selection don't matter" crowd really beleive what they're saying, maybe we could try playing 10 centre halfs in the old Levein 4-6-0 system?

10 centre half becomes 10 strikers in an instant when they all teleport up the pitch.

I'm not sure it's a case of believing what they are saying and more of a case of not having a clue what their talking about.

[Old Bing]

34 minutes ago, allyo said:

I agree with this. 

I don't like blaming the team for this issue. It is something they are trying to overcome, and to shift, and they're probably doing more about it than the rest of us.

Said on another thread, I think there is a flawed national mentally that explains the consistency of outcomes in tournaments through different generations,  much better than any argument about capabilities or tactics.

Eta, this doesn't mean that capability and tactics don't matter. Of course they do. Before anyone tries to radicalise my view.

There is literally nothing you can say on here without your opinion being twisted and simplified. It's a worn out diversion tactic. Like Steve's tactics tho it has lost its potency.

[kennie makevin]

3 hours ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

Well they can, but they cant win without the correct framework to win.

Your suggesting that guys who have won the European cup or played at the business end of the champions league cant control a football.

One, two at a push,three ?? I'm saying, and the evidence from the last three games is there for all to see, that we have fewer players that can control a football than all other countries we for some reason keep thinking we should be beating.

[2426255]

I agree with David Moyes that it ultimately just comes down to the quality of player we have available. Certainly If we had Aaron Hickey and Kieran Tierney then our chances improve and for me that's what it boils down to - the players available.

Swapping Scott McKenna out for Ryan Christie or Jack Hendry out for James Forrest isn't enough. Because of that we had to get everything right over the course of the three games and we didn't. It came down to a coin flip game against Hungary. We could play Hungary ten times and we will win, lose and draw 3 or 4 times. We lost.

It's not realistic to set the teams maximum as the minimum expectation.

[allyo]

I dont fully agree. I agree there is no shame, and i agree that we did well to qualify.

But i think the players themselves will be disappointed though, not because they discovered they are not good enough, but because they will feel that they are better than they showed.

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

The whole 'we don't have the players' thing has limited weight.  We're very similar - almost no matter how you do your comparison - with countries like Slovenia, Hungary, Albania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Czechia, Ukraine, and Georgia.  We're really just squad depth off matching Turkey, Switzerland, Austria, and Denmark.

In a qualifying group, all things being equal, we'd be very similar to the first 9 and probably just edged by the others.

We imploded at the Euros, whilst none of them did.  That's not simply down to not having good enough personnel - that's down to a tactical plan that is too easy to counter, and a failure to recognise that we've been found out.

To use a comparison: Scotland in 2022-2023 were like Sheffield United of a few seasons ago when Lundstram was a revelation and scored bucketloads.  A few other promoted teams have done similar things in their first promoted season, before collapsing once everyone had worked out their gameplan.  We were a promoted team using our resources well, but failed to realise (or chose to ignore) that teams have worked us out.

Either adapt or die - we have largely the right players, albeit we choose to ignore the one aspect of all sport that balances between quality sides and that is pace.  Unless we evolve to find pace and creativity in attacking areas, then there's little chance of us qualifying for a WC, or indeed Euro 2026.

Edited June 25 by HuttonDressedAsLahm

[Old Bing]

36 minutes ago, kennie makevin said:

One, two at a push,three ?? I'm saying, and the evidence from the last three games is there for all to see, that we have fewer players that can control a football than all other countries we for some reason keep thinking we should be beating.

How many Hungary players have achieved this, 1? 2? 0?

[Old Bing]

38 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

I agree with David Moyes that it ultimately just comes down to the quality of player we have available. Certainly If we had Aaron Hickey and Kieran Tierney then our chances improve and for me that's what it boils down to - the players available.

Swapping Scott McKenna out for Ryan Christie or Jack Hendry out for James Forrest isn't enough. Because of that we had to get everything right over the course of the three games and we didn't. It came down to a coin flip game against Hungary. We could play Hungary ten times and we will win, lose and draw 3 or 4 times. We lost.

It's not realistic to set the teams maximum as the minimum expectation.

It's not a coin flip, it's a football match, the tactics and game plan and the instructions of the manager have a fair greater bearing than luck.

[Ken Deans]

Stevie just like 3 years ago. Players didn't have to be so shite though

[2426255]

With respect to the quality of the squad I think it's just a numbers game. The more we qualify for tournaments the more chance we will qualify from the group. Either by winning a coin flip game or another team imploding or playing above our level. It would be preferable if we can reach a level where we can compete consistently with pot-1 teams and I am looking forward to see if we can make that happen, but we aren't there presently.

Therefore, I don't think you can be too harsh with this tournament or the last one. That's how I look at it: qualify for 2 out every 3 Euro's, 1 out of every 3 World Cups and make it to the round of 16 every few tournaments. That kind of thing, just play the longer game rather than get down in the dumps overanalyzing everything or grinding axes.

We have been consistently moving up the International football food chain at some point it gets that bit tougher, maybe this is that point for the players where you have to accept that okay we'll only make every 3rd World Cup or we'll not make it through the group every time. That's why I did the expectations thread in advance of the campaign to get a feel for what fans on here expected of the tournament.

Edited June 25 by 2426255

[Old Bing]

23 minutes ago, Ken Deans said:

Stevie just like 3 years ago. Players didn't have to be so shite though

Apparently we learned from the last one, not sure it was a positive lesson.

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

The tactics in the first and last game were an absolute shambles, regardless of the lack of quality in certain positions.  All we did by trying to cover for the weaknesses was weaken ourselves in the stronger areas of the pitch. No good enough at CH/RB?  Stick another defender in.  No good enough creatively?  Stick McGinn further forward and make him chase about like a daftie.

Putting a back 5 out without Tierney even being available is nonsense unless you're playing for a draw.    

 

Edited June 25 by Insert Amusing Pseudonym

[DA Baracus]

Easier to say in hindsight but really we should have rested the first team for the last two friendlies.

Those games should have been used for giving players who would be coming on in games at the tournament a chance and some game time. Loads of the squad were probably knackered from a long season and could have used the rest, both physical and mental.

[Chripper]

The reason Clarke plays with a 3/5 with Scotland isn't because it's a way to shoehorn Robertson and Tierney into the first XI.

I don't know why people think that.

Let's say Tierney misses the next Nations League matches, which Is highly possible. We'll still play with our current system. Guaranteed.