RicoS321

There's likely a massive trade off between playing friendlies and the increased covid risk just now. A really difficult balancing act unfortunately.

We were supposed to be playing cove but it was cancelled as they all caught covaids. Think we're playing Reading and some other folks

As long as you don't leave the line, it's completely fine.

Not sure I'd say justice, it was a dodgy red that allowed them to bus the remaining game. They were fairly average before that. I reckon Ukraine could give them a good run. Fantastic game just now, Italy look great and the winner of this should win the tournament.

Aye, that's the mind control element seeping in. On August 29th, you'll become part of the machine.

Aye, I'm not sure the best option on trying to sell a player, we've done fairly well of late with that either way. I'd happily keep Ferguson another year, you could see he was beginning to get his finger out and I think he could have a fantastic year if he stayed. I wouldn't take less than £4M for him now, and gamble on getting more in January.

I think jenks might be a no 10, LA. Can't see Ferguson moving quickly in the window, one of those where the buyer will try and string us along with derisory offers to unsettle the player and lots of paper talk.

I'm just in the benefit of the doubt stage, no reason to think otherwise. Other than Ramirez and Gurr, these are very much McInnes style signings. I literally see no difference, and no reason to get excited (or the opposite). Had McInnes signed Ramirez, we'd be excited because of the "out of the box" thinking - as we were (apart from me, because I'm a miserable dick) with Hernandez - however Hernandez soured that and made us question the Atlanta/US link which is unfair on Ramirez. I think that when you sack a successful manager, the expectation is raised that something systemic will change too and I think that the evidence for that hasn't materialised yet. Nor is the stated tactical goal represented by the signings, which is so often the case. I'd like to see us add a left back, a wide player and a fast striker if that helps!

Was that not brown? I reckon Cormack and Glass will think so. Nae for me like. Ramirez would have been an exciting signing if the Hernandez thing hadn't happened previously. I'm slightly struggling to see how a front two of Ramirez and Jet fits the fast flowing fitba promised.

I'm not one for telling tales, but it appears someone has broken forum rules and basic etiquette here by not searching for an existing Andy Murray thread and utilising, rather than starting a fresh one. I mean, I'm not a moderator or anything - I couldn't be trusted with the power - but it's safe to say that if I were, it's this type of offence that I'd be cracking down on. I don't know what the forum moderator equivalent of a water cannon is, but I'd be taking a leaf out of Johnson's book and buying up a few before this sort of thing gets out of hand.

Didn't realise that Langfield was in goals for Spain these days?

Probably isn't one. I think that we maybe just have to accept that it's an area where we struggle, which is often the case at international level. In my mind, Clarke is as good as anyone at working out players' limitations and getting the best out of them based on simple instructions, and I think that if he saw a better option than Dykes (he did in Adams) then he'd have no issue playing them. We're just unfortunate that at this point in time we don't have a striker, but to be honest I'm struggling to remember the last international class striker we had in the Dykes mould (Ferguson and Durie probably). Guys as good as McFadden would really have struggled at tournament level up front on their own, so it's not a small undertaking to find a striker good enough (so I can see why Clarke would play two).

What does vamos mean, and why couldn't we use the English equivalent?

Judging by the England game, and our WC qualification games, that's not a tactic though. We don't play long balls as instructed, we end up doing it out of necessity because the opposition pressures us into doing it. That's all I'm saying. We would have done exactly the same had the only change been Nisbet (I don't think he's nearly at the level required yet) for Dykes. I get the impression that Fraser wasn't fully fit, Clarke seems to like him and I think he'd have featured more. Overall, I just think that we needed a better version of Dykes to be honest. I understood why Clarke picked him though as he was the best of a bad bunch.

The article says: "subject to securing a visa". Maybe it's easier to get a visa as a footballer with a fixed contract? No idea. They're obviously either fairly confident it'll be fine, or they're using it as a bit of good news to sell season tickets. Either way, should be an interesting one, welcome aboard CR9.

You seemed to have missed the nod to the Hernandez deal in Slim's post.

Ramsay? Aye, he's a suspicious one.

Like most teams, Scotland rarely setup to play long ball, that's simply a function of being a worse team than your opponent, being pressured and then having to go long. Had we played with nisbet instead of Dykes, we'd still have seen the same volume of long balls, just we'd have seen the ball coming back at us quicker. We didn't play long ball against England because we had a more balanced midfield with Gilmour there rather than Armstrong, so even with Dykes up front we could keep the ball in to feet and utilise the long ball when under pressure. In reality it's very difficult for a manager to prevent the long ball when his team is under pressure and I can guarantee that Clarke wasn't asking his players to play long ball as a tactic. We had a midfield three that was playing in a straight line for most of the game, all doing similar things at the same time (as happened against Czech Republic), inviting pressure on to us as soon as we got possession. Clarke should have recognised this earlier than he did and should have fixed it. To be honest, he should be using the metric of the number of times that we're forced to go long as an indicator that his tactics were failing and acted much sooner to change it. Belgium went long to Lukaku on numerous occasions last night as Portugal got more and more possession, similarly the Czechs with Schik against the Dutch, it's just a function of ability versus pressure rather than a coaching decision.

Good to see he's sorted himself out with a new career.

I've a feeling that they won't be publicised to avoid folk turning up. Probably all be at Cormack park to avoid covidry.

I think they were on their backs.

That's pish, think he'll turn into a very good player.

I agree with your first point, but not your solution. The midfield and the wide areas were the issue. I don't think it's stubbornness either, it's fear, as it was with McInnes (and many, many other managers). The inability to see that the game isn't going your way and a goal for the opponent is inevitable. The subs should have been on well before their second goal (well, a few minutes at least). Despite our great chance with McGinn, that game was only going one way. We needed to be proactive and take the gamble to win the game, as you nearly always do as the underdog. O'Donnell off for Forrest or Fraser and Armstrong off for Christie or Turnbull. Double sub, try and affect the game positively and throw them off their stride. Our midfield was a straight line, just as it was against the Czech Republic, and was far too easy to play against. Clarke changed nothing tactically. You only get one chance and you need to be prepared to take risks.

I'm fairly confident he'll be shite.

McRorie likely right back next season anyway, maybe this guy will be the pressure he needs to get his finger oot. I don't think Ramsay is ready and could do with a 6 month loan at a championship club.