RicoS321

Where were you towing it to?

It could mean either. Some of their players might call off. They had a few bookings tonight and have a couple suspended I believe too. It could go either way in terms of how they turn up, but if they lose a goal they might disintegrate. Hopefully! I'd say that our final two games, being roughly the same format as the playoffs, will likely be easier than any draw we get in the playoffs. A draw against Greece away is all that's required to get us a one-off match against Denmark to qualify, which is probably marginally easier than requiring to win a semi in the playoffs.

Hun

3-0 to the Danes now

Oh well. Danes 1-0 up, so looks like we might see glorious failure in the playoffs. We were absolutely terrible in these fixtures. Other than perhaps the Denmark game, we've been terrible in the entire qualifying. Grinding out results won't get us to a world cup I don't think. Needs a huge performance in Greece to try and get us something. A large part of me would like to see Greece come back for the draw tonight so that we have a proper test of our strength of character. The draw would leave us a chance of finishing third and going out, and I've a feeling that we'd take it!

@Panda, can you get in touch with the BBC lads and explain the above? We need to be winning by several. It's not "just about the three points" as the commentary team are suggesting.

Aye, I think we could have sacrificed a holding midfielder for Miller in the 4-1-4-1 like @OrlandoDon suggested. It wouldn't exactly have been wild. The key will be in how we react if we go a couple of goals up. We're at home, and goal difference could be massive.

We need to win big tonight. We've got 5 goals advantage over Greece currently. If they draw tonight, then we can extend that significantly. That would allow us to lose in Greece by the odd goal, whilst still going into the final game only needing a win to finish top. Crucially, even if we lost that last game, Greece would have to put 6 or 7 past Belarus to finish above us. I expect Clarke to go for it by getting a goal in the sixtieth minute, then managing it for the remaining thirty minutes.

That young no 23 is a surprise inclusion. Very unlike Clarke....

[HunCuntCaveat]Not seen much of him, but I guess it's a potentially good young player that is progressing through the national system. Much as I don't think he should be anywhere near the pitch, I've no issue with guys like Barron (not Barron himself, because he's a dirty cunt) being included in squads even when they're not on top form. I'd say that Bowie has been in poorer form than Shankland, for instance, but Bowie should be given priority as a young player in those fringe places. We should probably even have a minimum number assigned for that purpose. Doak, Johnston, Bowie, Hickey, Barron, now Mulligan is not a bad group. I'd probably have Doig in there, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Milne step up from u21s when Hanley retires. Having said all that, I have my doubts whether Barron will ever be good enough for international level. I'd have him destined for around the level of someone like John Fleck. A player around the fringes of the squad over a number of years, but not someone you'd want to play unless forced into it. He probably deserves the opportunity to see if he can make it though. [/HunCuntCaveat]

Yep, that works. I'd probably have Ralston over Johnston, as I thought his overall contribution was decent the other night (even though I don't really like him!). I think that setup probably suits us better than anything we can line up with that would allow both Dykes and Adams to play. Although, switching Dykes for Miller and going 4-4-2 would be decent.

I'd agree that Robertson isn't as good as he was, but in the game you didn't watch the other night, he was forced to play deep because of Hanley's position (I even provided a graphic!). Robertson is still more than capable of getting up and down the line (Shinnie can even manage at 34!), although it would be good to see him get more minutes for sharpness, as thon good laddie that came on will rip him to shreds in Greece.

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