RicoS321

It's too late, he read your post and has implemented your strategy in training all week.

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

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.