RicoS321

Also, I could have framed the issue as playing Adams up front being the problem, as it's equally an issue that Adams can't provide an out-ball for Hanley as it is that Hanley takes an extra touch and thus can't feed Adams quickly. The reason I'm assigning blame to the choice to play Hanley rather than Adams is because we were the home team against a side who aren't any better than us (with their players missing). The onus should have been on us to take the ball forward from defence and play on the front foot. Even more so given that it was a must-win game. We got lucky though. You do feel that Clarke doesn't really learn lessons for next time around, or he's unwilling to learn lessons.

I should have added that I thought, individually, Hanley did exactly what was asked and played well (early switch off aside). He played a key part in the first two goals. Of course there are other examples and different ways to play, but we didn't play in a different way. Hanley there versus Denmark was perfect. He could go quickly to Dykes on his right, and he didn't once take the ball forward. That out-ball to Dykes meant we could afford the extra touch, which Hanley did every single time he got the ball last night. Not once did he take it forward, or onto his left side. Robertson didn't get near the left touchline all game as a result - he had to be there for the short pass. It brought them right on top of us, and we struggled to get out. You can see the average position of Hanley and Robertson from the BBC review, you'll get the idea. Even when Gilmour came on, to solve the problem in midfield, we only marginally improved. When Dykes came on, it was immediately better (most folk are suggesting we were shite for 64 minutes, but we were actually shite right up until the second went in). It wasn't all down to Hanley playing, it was Hanley playing in that system. Just play the fucking left footer, who naturally takes the ball out on his left. Clarke got it completely wrong, and we just shouldn't be playing that way at Hampden - we played like the away team. You could argue that he played to nullify them until the last part of the game, but I don't buy that at all. It just looked like a poor tactical error (through blind loyalty) to me.

Ian and Campbell we're his middle names I believe

His brother Mason is still going strong I believe

Clarke has only a few games remaining, and if he qualifies then he can do whatever he likes to be honest. The bravery should have been there in the Denmark away and Belarus games (during them, not necessarily from the start), as they would have given us the platform to win the group, which looks unlikely at present. If he gets us to the world cup with his approach then he'll have proven us wrong. Having one player out of position isn't the end of the world, and often the imbalance of having a winger and a non-winger playing wide works quite well. The problem with Clarke is that he inverted the wingers, which nullified Doak completely. Like Morris, his best attribute is getting to the line. It should be used to death. McGinn plays wide regularly for club and country, and the difference between him playing right and left isn't nearly as pronounced as Doak, so it seems bloody obvious to play Doak correctly and let the experienced guy play slightly out of position. I can't think of a Scottish winger that would be worth dropping and out of position McGinn for. I'd almost certainly play Christie there ahead of any other SPFL winger too. Agreed, Robertson is fine. He seems to love playing for Scotland too, and gives everything. As you say, the issue was the central pairing. No issue with Souttar, personally, Hanley was where the problem lay. Against Denmark, we avoided giving the ball to him short, and that allowed Robertson to play a bit higher, and played to Hanley's undoubted penalty box strengths. We should never be doing that at home to any team (unless injury forces it), and we saw exactly why every time Hanley got the ball last night. Robertson basically formed a back three when we had the ball, isolating Doak, and taking everything away from Robertson too. None of the commentators mentioned it, and the manager clearly doesn't see it, it's fucking mental. Put any left sided defender in that position, and the game completely changes. McKenna, for example, strides out with the ball on his left foot and has options to use Robertson right on the touchline, go short to a midfielder, or play Adams in the channel. Hanley had: pass to Robertson five yards away, or take another touch and give it to Souttar. It affected the entire performance. It was the reason Doak struggled, the reason Adams was isolated, and the reason that our midfield kept passing backwards (because it took so fucking long to get the ball to them). When Dykes came on, it allowed the punt up the middle, which is another reason we were successful(ish) against Denmark. If Hanley plays, Dykes must too, basically.

I don't think we're actually looking for a left midfielder though, we generally play a wing back, or an attacking forward in a 4-2-3-1. If we do go 4-4-2, it's fairly straightforward to play McGinn there, who was played in that role numerous times for club and country. Christie also.

Not to be pendatic, but I believe it's Ryan Judas Fraser.

I wouldn't play Gilmour and Miller together (unless Miller plays further forward). Gilmour/Miller and Christie deep would be fine, or Gilmour/Miller and McLean. Straight 4-4-2 for me though. Dykes and Adams, with Doak in the only position he can actually play football in. McGinn left.

That was class! Whatever you think of Clarke, we have to keep him now. He must be the luckiest man in football history. He got nearly everything wrong tonight. Hanley on his wrong foot was fucking awful (don't get me wrong, he defended well). It meant Robertson had to spend the evening a maximum of fifteen yards for him so he had an easy pass, that resulted in Doak being isolated on his wrong side. With the extra touch required for Hanley, Adams was never going to be in space, so was a complete waste of a jersey. Whilst it was the first time we have seen Ferguson and Christie together, it should have been clear that they are too similar in that role and always like to turn back, rather than Gilmour with his progressive passing. The press was all wrong the entire game (until Dykes pressed the goalie!), and we were just generally disjointed. He took fucking ages to make changes, only making them when the injury occurred, and it was clear that they were always scoring. We just got lucky with the offsideish goal, which wasn't a result of being lifted by their goal, or a change in momentum. It was just insane. But fucking hell it was good! Well done Clarke, you're difficult not to love.

Scotland: Gunn, Hickey, Hanley, Souttar, Robertson, Gannon-Doak, Ferguson, Christie, McGinn, McTominay, Adams BBC suggesting 4-2-3-1, with Christie deep, but I've a feeling that it'll be McTominay deep, behind McGinn central, with Christie left. Which would be the wrong decision for me, I'd go with the BBC suggestion.

There was a rumour surrounding Robertson's fitness, so I wonder if we might see them play a half each. I don't think that the back three, with those two left, has the same potency it did a few years back

I guess it comes down to the word "gifted". I didn't think Hignett was gifted for example, but he was very good. Calvin Ramsay was exceptionally gifted, but will likely have a shitter career than Connor Barron. Similarly, Clarkson is a gifted footballer, with his ability to see a pass and convert that vision into a released pass within a millisecond, which Maddison had in abundance. Karlsson's giftedness sits alongside McGinn for me. He looks like he's got the ability to simply drop a shoulder and send a player into a different universe. Gilhaus could do that too. Whether he converts that gift into a functioning footballer remains to be seen.

I'd argue that Niall McGinn, James Maddison, Leighton Clarkson, Calvin Ramsay are all ahead of him in the gifted stakes in an AFC shirt so far. However, there are definitely the signs that he might blow them all out the water if he continues to settle into it. He's working very hard for the team, as well as beginning to turn on the style. Edit: of course, the similarities with Gilhaus are due to the point in their careers at which we signed them, which makes him stand out.

Apart from the last two games..... Hanley and Souttar v Denmark, with McKenna coming in for Belarus.

I guess the difference is that the Tims are also needing last minute winners and look ropey as hell, and the Huns are a poor side who nobody in the league is frightened to play.

Not sure I'd go a back three. Tierney can barely play 60 minutes at the moment, and needs to be quietly sidelined. A great player on his day, but I think it'd be down to luck if we happen to get that day. Wouldn't mind seeing both Dykes and Adams start, as it's a good combination. Keep McTominay high up the park and we'll be fine.

You might get to fifty percent of the roasters though, or the folk that sit next to them, who might tell them to shut it. I think the "three year project" line has helped Thelin until now, and if we can say that we're implementing a strategy to give X number of minutes to young players, then the fans will at least know the justification for playing a youth team player that might not otherwise be afforded game time.

Great news, he looks the business. I thought Jensen was fine at the weekend, but he's in one of the roles that requires a lot of effort in our system, so Lobban could easily have played the final twenty minutes in place of him. Hopefully the new DOF will open up avenues for young players to make the first team more often, via a publicised strategy to ease pressure on the manager and player(s)

Dropping last season's player of the tournament is disgusting. I won't be attending.

Some people are just inexplicably despicable cunts.

I'd hate to see McInnes take the Huns job. I like McInnes.

Is that done with crayons?

It was more of a 3-4-3, but we can call it a 3-4-2-1 . It suited us.

Aye, as everyone has said, it was a very good performance. Dundee were gash, and we took full advantage by pressing them hard all over the pitch. The front three did a lot of good work and pressing (Nisbet worked hard despite not getting on the end of anything). The two young lads, Shinnie and Armstrong's movement in midfield was immense, Shinnie winning everything and Armstrong dragging them around all over. Karlsson looked like a real footballer. The defence rock solid, and carried the ball well. Gyamfi had his best game, despite a slow start, and a great run and finish for the goal (brilliant from Armstrong). The subs ruined the flow quite a bit, and the midfield two didn't reach the standard of those they replaced, but Lazetic was decent again. Milanovic disappointed a little, but the game was over and we were just cruising. These games are perfect for blooding young players, it's a shame we don't have any.

I'd only have him back if Yengi, Nisbet or Lazetic are leaving. Anderson never really had the pace to make it for us, and I don't see that as having changed. He's probably just a little too similar to what we already have, and is also at his best in a front two. I think it'd have to be him or Nisbet for me, which is a choice we could probably have made in the summer, so I see no sense on dwelling on that now. I'd look elsewhere for someone that offers us something we don't already have, either pace or battering rammery.