Rousseau

It's ironic that we have an abundance of central midfield players, yet we have few wingers, so the diamond suits us, but the wingers we do have (Murphy and Candeias) are arguably our best players. 

39 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

I understand that, but would you think McCrorie moving into midfield causes more of an attacking threat (or advantage) than our wingbacks?  Tav and John are two of our best attackers so I'd prefer they were moving forward rather than a CB.  I do however accept that in a 3-4-3, the wingbacks are generally not doing the same overlapping runs as they do in our current formation.  It just seems a big change to accommodate McCrorie, albeit he is someone worth building a team around.

 

Whatever happens, the manager will have a tough challenge in working out how best to set the team up when all players are fit.  Bates, McCrorie, Tav, John, Wallace, Docherty, Dorrans, Goss, Jack, Murphy, Candeias, Morelos are all players that we'd want on the field, and possibly one or two others.  It'll be interesting to see how it all fits.  We have the freedom to speculate without the threat of losing our jobs if it doesn't work.

 

Mark Allen also has a tough job because to a certain extent he'll want to know the system we are playing to know what players to go after in the summer.  If we change the coach, will he be able to change the system, and therefore require a change of player?

I agree. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't see us adopting the Ajax way of dropping their FBs back into the back-three, because, as you say, our Full-backs are too important and too attacking to do that -- Ajax have centre-backs playing at full-back because of their usual rotation policy, of playing players in a variety of positions. 

I thought perhaps starting as a 3-4-3, with McCrorie in defence; and with our full-backs deployed high and wide. Then with McCrorie pushing forward into midfield to create a 4-3-3, the Full-backs are perhaps a tad more defensively organised, but it'd be similar to what they do now; I don't see the role of our Wing-backs changing.  

I don't see that switch as being a problem, as we do that now, in a lot of respects. 

I think the wingers are the issue: can they play narrower, a la Liverpool? And then widen as and when required? 

I think it just creates a greater midfield superiority in terms of numbers; it's needed at times. Switching between a two- and three-man midfield has its benefits. It would also allow us to get the most out of McCrorie. 

I was just thinking about where his best role is, and thought, why does it have to be either/or? 

There's a young Ajax player, de Ligt, that plays provisionally as a CB in their 4-3-3, but then at times pushes into Midfield to create a 3-4-3; he's equally comfortable in both positions. It allows Ajax to switch formation mid-game to suit the circumstances of the moment. This young man is instrumental; he's 18. 

It's a joy to watch how this kid pushes up, usually with the ball at his feet dribbling past a player, then the Full-backs acknowledge it and drop back to create a back-three. 

McCrorie has the potential to do similar. I'm not sure what his best position is?

Although it does require more defensive Full-backs, that can move back to create a back-three when De Ligt moves forward; I'm not sure we have that. Wallace has experience of playing in a back-three, however briefly.

I suppose we could start with a back-three, with McCrorie there, in a 3-4-3, then he can push forward to create a 4-3-3, with our Full-backs creating a normal back-four?

13 hours ago, Rousseau said:

Phillips is not a striker; that's mental!

12 hours ago, boabie said:

1-0 Scotland. Phillips.

What do I know?  

All hail Big Eck!

Phillips is not a striker; that's mental!

Just now, pete said:

Do you think Goss has been doing well? I guess you never seen the Celtic and Kilmarnock games.

He has been off the boil, but generally the Goss-Docherty partnership has worked well. 

19 minutes ago, Walterbear said:

Probably in a back 3 would be ideal imo but until Jack comes back I’d sit him in front of our car crash central defence and if we dont go to a back 3 stick him in with Alves for the rest of this season. I know Alves hasn’t set the heather slight but he’s far from unknowledgabke and McCrorie could get a lot from a few games beside him. 

I doubt we'll be changing to a back three any time soon, so someone's going to miss out. 

A month ago I'd have been hard pressed to omit him from Midfield, but Docherty-Goss have been doing very well. It's now our defence that needs to be strengthened. 

I don't think he's quite there yet to be a main-stay at CB, but he won't be if he doesn't play. Playing beside Alves can only help.

35 minutes ago, pete said:

For Rangers at Ibrox,

Great news!

Where does he play? 

12 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

He was discarded by Matin O'Neill after initially doing well under David O'Leary prior to O'Neill taking over. Likewise he was discarded by Roy Hodgson when he took over after being bought by his predecessor Sanchez. 

 

My point in this is that a player can do poorly under one manager but very well under another. Many, many players who enjoy successful careers were at one time described as "flops". People forget that Gareth Bale was dropped in favour of Assou-Ekotto something that was warmly greeted by the Spurs support at the time. Describing Moult as a "flop" is as accurate as describing Davis as one. 

Surely his record at Preston suggests he is a 'flop' there?

You're correct that it doesn't work out for some players at certain clubs, and that we can't rule anyone out from one spell. 

I was ambivalent about signing him when he played for Motherwell, but I'd certainly take him if we can get him for a decent price; there is probably more chance of that now he's left Scotland.  

Not really 'new' per se, but a coming together of several rules implemented throughout Europe.

The Italian Leagues have had the 12 subs for ages. The 4th sub in Extra time has been trialled too.

1 hour ago, cooponthewing said:

Buffel looked fit and still able too play.

He still does play. 

I think he's captain of Genk?

50+1 Rule in Germany is a principled approach that has reaped dividends (no pun intended), but it requires a German Football League directive. It's a way of protecting the clubs from misrule, but limits their ability to tap into their commercial potential, outwith a few exceptions.

https://www.bundesliga.com/en/news/Bundesliga/german-soccer-rules-50-1-fifty-plus-one-explained-466583.jsp

McDiarmid Park? I gather it was only moved to Hampden to accommodate us?

McBurnie did quite well for Scotland last night. 

Nothing special, but he looks to be a good hold-up player, linking well with those around him. He never really got a sniff at goal, though.

6 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

Moult can't be judged on his time at Preston.  He has played a total of 212 minutes there.

Perhaps there is a reason he's only had 212 minutes, though?

I was intrigued by the formation, 5-4-1 (or 5-2-3), but we just played it the same as any other formation; dependent on merely getting the ball wide, with 'full-back' and winger combining to get a cross in. Do we really not know how to play any other way?

Contrast that with Costa Rica, who played the exact same, building-up through the back, interchanges, one-twos throughout the team, and getting in-behind. Their goal was very well worked.

Costa Rica have a smaller population than us and they have better tactical awareness and better technical players. I've always been a fan of Bryan Ruiz; elegant player. 

It's going to take a major cultural change to move on from this crap.

Night and day with the Germany-Spain match. Germany were stuck in the past for a while there and made a conscious decision to change; they're now bearing the fruits of that with some delightful, dynamic, moving through the lines, play; the movement is just terrific. 

1 hour ago, DMAA said:

I was paraphrasing from memory but I've just found the article and he did describe him as "old fashioned" and "old school".

 

If you're as consistently "lucky" as they've been you have a right to be desribed as something better  He's really achieved the impossible there and if it's not down to players it's down to tactics.

 

True. I think it's a tough job because you need to be able to put out very different teams with very different tactics depending on who you're playing. You could be playing a France or an England or it could be Belarus or Cyprus. I trust McLeish to make us hard to beat but he definitely has a lot to prove in terms offensive tactics against the teams we should be beating.

 

Incidentally, Iceland's mastermind Lars Lagerback recently became Norway's new manager and lost his first game 2-0 to his rival mastermind..............................Michael O'Neill.

True, they've been very consistent. I just don't see anything special offensively. They're well-organised, and clearly effective, but I think they've had good groups, although not easy by any means -- time will tell if they can replicate it. 

I think that's where we fall down. We can be well-organised and defensive, scraping a good result against decent sides, then completely fail against those we'd expect to beat; it is, as you say, the offensive side of it where we struggle, as it's just too predictable and one-dimensional. 

Give Lagerback time! Norway have a good bunch of players there; solid squad, without having any superstar -- Odegaard comes close, but he's still too young.

2 hours ago, StuGers said:

I think, strangely, in modern day football it is becoming more apparent that, for the higher tier national teams anyway, having a superstar player is far more effective than having a generally proficient team.

Look at the Dutch - a fantastic all round team but awful performances now that their superstars have waned.

Wales, a generally poor team but pushed by one or two far above average players.

 

I can’t explain NI’s success though!

I think tactics has a lot to do with it too. The Dutch are predictable; they've not moved forward, despite still having one of the top squads in world football. 

It is the right decision; he's nowhere near the first-team.

Shame, really. He's a talented footballer, but the body just can't keep up with the mind anymore.

1 hour ago, Waltersgotstyle said:

So back on topic... is our international left back better than their international left back?

That's not back on topic...  

50 minutes ago, DMAA said:

I'm not sure. Steve Clarke has been lauded by Kris Boyd for doing things the simple old fashioned way. Kilmarnock are a team who generally have inferior players to their oponents so their tactics reflect that. The same could be said of Scotland for probably more than half of their games.

 

If we've learned anything from the past few years in international football it's that we have no excuse for being so poor; Wales, Northern Ireland and Iceland have put us to shame. I haven't looked at the way those teams play but I don't think any of them are particularly modern in their style? Wales maybe more so but still.

Did Boyd actually say the "simple old fashioned way"?

It will get you so far, like NIR; it should be something we can implement.

I think Wales -- although it's a lot to do with Bale for them -- and Iceland are a tad more progressive, though; in terms of what they bring offensively.  That's why they've went that little bit further. Iceland are actually incredibly fluid, changing from 4-4-2, to 4-5-1, to 4-1-3-2, to 4-3-3 (there was even an article I recall had them in a 3-3-2-2 in the build-up phase, which changed quickly). It's always focused, targeted tactics. And, Wales employ 3-4-1-2, which suits their players; at the very least it gives opponents something to think about. NIR's performance had an element of luck, for me (they were still effective, though).

To be honest, it's the offensive side of the game we struggle with. We can set up defensively, and have done most of the time. Our offensive game is predictable and one-dimensional. There are no real alternatives in that regard. 

We should be doing much better than what we are.

1 hour ago, DMAA said:

And are you not a McLeish fan?

Clearly I'm not, but it's not his fault or problem; he's a product of his generation. 

We need someone/something new. 

I'm apathetic towards the National team, but I would never go that far. 

I'm a little more receptive with McLeish and the newer generation being given a chance, hopefully. And, Rangers players in the squad helps too. 

They even have Ramsay and Allen, who are better than anything we have too. 

John played Left Wing-back, with a back-three.

As sad as it is to say, Wales even have a more modern way of playing than us; that's one of the reasons they've done so well too. We're stuck in a rut; it's the same old same old.