RicoS321

Aye, obviously not including football forums of course.

I can understand it. If I had known who the lad was, I'm sure I'd make jokes and have a dark sense of humour about it. There is certainly a large element of schadenfreude about a Christian who claimed that the right to have a gun was a God given one, was then indirectly a victim of that attitude. It made me smirk when I read about it. Although I guess that that is a long way away from cheering. I saw a couple of clips of his "debates", where he came across as an insincere nasty (troll) shite, lacking in empathy and love, so I can see why some might have cheered (of course, those would have been curated for sharing to show him in a bad light). Putting it down to "disagreeing with him politically", seems a bit simple. I might disagree with Nicola Sturgeon or Ruth Davidson politically, but wouldn't cheer their deaths. A sneering populist prick like Farage, I might, not because of political disagreement, but because of his insincerity and deliberate rabble rousing. I don't doubt that there was another side to this character that I'm not witness to, of course, so I'm only speaking hypothetically as far as this lad is concerned. The method of his death, too, is of little concern to most because of the disconnect of not being personally involved or intimate with the situation. I think empathy is quite difficult to maintain across internets and oceans, or states. I think there is a definite tit-for-tat element when it comes to empathy these days - you didn't show empathy for thousands of dead Palestinians, why should we show empathy for this guy - but there's probably also a ceiling to how much empathy people can hold onto too. I have little zero empathy or otherwise for the lad, his death just doesn't register - much like any other non-entity celebrity. An equivalent would be princess Diana - obviously a tragic death, but I don't feel that I need to muster feelings about it. I think it's healthy to be immune to such incidents. It has made me feel good about not being on social media though, and glad not to have ever heard of the lad. I'm obviously doing something right.

Yep, and Ferguson wasn't a box to box midfielder at that point either. It was really only in his final season and then his move to Bologna that he started covering the whole pitch. Him and Ramadani were the top two in terms of yards covered in the Italian league a wee while back, so it's not an easy role to replace!

We've got a long history of it. From James Wilson, to Nicky Maynard, I'm finding it harder to think of one who wasn't an instant success and fans' favourite.

I don't think we'll see a 19 year old going box to box, which is what we need. I'd like to see him though, but I suspect he'll get <10 games this season.

Agreed, but Palaversa hasn't remotely shown himself to be a heavy lifter at all. I'd love to see stats on coverage for the two, as I suspect Clarkson puts in a lot more yards. Bar a couple of games, Palaversa has generally just been a player that should be a box to box midfielder, rather than actually being one. He's a frustrating lad. He certainly hasn't earned his place.

Should get decent odds on Yengi or Shinnie to score.

The problem with that is Cooper Masson is nowhere near ready for our first team, hence why he's at Kelty. He's among the best in that age group (involved with Scotland setup). If the English teams are coming in at 16-17, then we've got little hope. Boyd looked like a fantastic prospect, but this season is the first where he's looked physically strong enough to get in our first team, and it was obviously known to the club that he wasn't willing to stay by that point. You're really looking at 19 before most players will be strong enough these days, with only a handful of exceptions. Wilson at hearts is an example. Lauded everywhere, but in reality was nowhere near good enough to be playing every week and physically weak. He's now warming the bench. Bowie at Hibs has bulked up and is now showing the talent matched with the athleticism. I don't think that can be rushed through. I'd like to see more young players, but I think that the club will have to publicly set a quota so that both manager and player get a bit of breathing space to implement. I've said it before, but these young lads don't owe the club anything. We are fairly quick to ditch players we don't want, so we have no right to expect loyalty on the other side. If we can announce that we will be taking a minimum of two academy players into the squad to be playing twenty games (including subs), then players might begin to take note. We've currently got Duncan (not good enough), and Lobban (needs game time now) filling a quota for European football in what appears to be detrimental to their development.

Not picking Gunn enough?

Decent performance and a comfortable win. Thought Adams was very good, also McGinn, Gilmour and Doak. Subs again were a bit poor. Clarke is playing this campaign ultra safe, and I can see why, but we could have pushed it tonight again. Adams was very good as I said, but that absolute sitter he missed was because he had been running himself into the ground. Bowie deserved 15-20 minutes to show what he could do, and I suspect he'd have buried that. Wouldn't have minded seeing Doak switching wings for a spell too, and obviously Miller on instead of McLean. Clarke made little attempt in the last campaign to transition to the future, and he's doing it again. If Dykes isn't playing much before the next game then we might want to give Bowie a chance, so why not give him a taster? I don't think Dykes as a sub is going to grab a goal against tiring defenders. Again, taking the chances when they arise is vital, and goal difference is also vital. Clarke is really putting his faith on taking everything at Hampden. It's high risk.

Good side. Should have enough to batter them.

Aye, that seems reasonable. Could probably even find room for Lennon Miller alongside Ferguson, but think it might be Gilmour. McKenna has to start ahead of Hanley, as we need to carry from defence (Hanley was excellent otherwise, but it's not his type of game tonight). I'm wondering if McTominay might be rested for tonight, as that looked a sore one late in the game on Friday. I'd consider the 4-4-2 with Bowie alongside Dykes if so.

I did mine on Friday, it was no bother. Although it was just uptake of season ticket seat so might be different.

Last time I watched Wales, they fluked a draw against North Macedonia, with some dirty Hun cunt scoring for the latter. I don't think we see ourselves as inferior to any of the teams you mention, more on a par with them. Which means that when you're the away side, setting up to contain and break isn't ridiculous. The only issue I have with the performance, and Scotland performances more generally, is that we don't react and change during games. I think it was an opportunity missed, as they were flat and so was the crowd. Another way of looking at it, though, is that Clarke saw the draw as enough, because he believes that we're good enough to beat both Denmark and Greece at Hampden. There can be little other way to interpret it. I think we are good enough to beat them both at Hampden, but I'm also aware that a bird in the hand is worth two in the tree, and that we might have injuries or suspensions and we end up dropping points come the home legs.

Sounds like Marshall doing well for Arbroath who won again today. Was their player of the month last month. Played 60 minutes today.

I'm not sure it will tell us more than we could see last night. It could just have been that they don't like playing against our approach, or that they were having an off day, but it was clear that we could have gone at them a bit more last night. I've seen Scotland against better teams under Clarke and seen us play better. I think we got a lot out of the guys on the park, especially Hanley, Hickey and Dykes, but think we could have attempted to win the game with more progressive changes, without going overboard (even simply making the subs before the 83rd minute - especially as Dykes was fucked around the 65th minute mark!).

I disagree with the home versus away factor. Scotland are simply very good at Hampden in comparison to not Hampden. It could be psychological, but I suspect that all the things mentioned by @OrlandoDon above do play a significant role. Of course, the weight of expectation can also play a part in the opposing direction, which is why away teams often frustrated the home team to get the crowd impatient. Psychology is a huge factor, and you can't just ignore it because it isn't definable or measurable. It happens, so you play on it or with it. I don't think we parked the bus at all, we were disciplined and created several good chances (arguably the better chances). There was a spell near the end where we didn't really get out, but that wasn't the overall picture of the game. You're completely right about needing to be braver though. I heard a lot about being against the top seed in the group, but last night they were an ordinary team who we could have beaten. Once you're on the pitch, you're no longer playing a seed, you're playing a team and you need to adjust accordingly. We need to take those chances as an when they arrive, as they don't happen often for a team like us. We did that against Spain at Hampden, adjusting in match to pump them when it was clear they were a bit of a mess. The worst thing about Levein's 4-6-0*, wasn't the stupid formation, it was that after fifteen minutes it was clear that the Czech team were not on form at all and we could beat them - the worst thing was that he didn't immediately change it. What happened later was a rejuvenated Czech team turned up at Hampden and beat us. The Danes could be an entirely different prospect at Hampden, and I wouldn't be surprised if we drew or lost that game. That's when the three points would come into play. Or, at the very least, it could have provided a buffer for the other games, just as the Spain result did. I can cautiously go round a golf course playing iron shots (I can't, I'm shite) and be 18 over par, but I wouldn't win a medal. Conversely, I could belt my driver from every tee and maybe finish 25 over, but every so often the risk taking will result in a 12 over and I stand to win something. I couldn't possibly get to 12 over playing simple iron shots, because at some point I'd have to take a risk to hit a green a shot ahead of where I would otherwise. Walter Smith with Scotland was the expert at playing iron shots, and he gloriously failed as a result (a game against an off-form Ukraine sticks in the memory). No risk football doesn't get Scotland through I don't think. Last night was an opportunity to take a risk that was missed. It'll have to come against Greece or a different Danes at Hampden instead. Not the end of the world, just that the opportunity to take the risk might not present itself in the same manner again. *Apologies, I tried not to bring it up

I don't think he would in fairness, that was a solid away display. The only criticism was that I think he should have made the attacking changes earlier. They are a decent team, but weren't really on it tonight, and I think you have to take opportunities like that when they arise. We should have gone for it in the last twenty, and I think we might live to regret not doing so later in qualifying. Especially with the way the Greeks seem to be playing. Still, a good point.

Gunn is there because his da played for the Dons, and he's neither Zander Clark or Liam Kelly. Also, that lineup builder website didn't have "Lamppost" as an option. I'd bring Bowie on for the last half hour probably. Adams is very hardworking and will run their backline around for a while, which is a good option away from home. Ferguson ahead of Christie I wasn't sure about either. I always associate Ferguson with playing further forward, and I'd be intrigued to see Christie play in the role he does for his club, even though I'd have reservations about the weakness of him and Gilmour together. I'm fairly certain that Clarke will continue to play him on the wing, despite him being ineffective there for quite some time, and we'll see McGinn landing us in shite from a deep lying position instead.

Should be interesting tonight. Might get a good idea of how the qualifying will go. Odds on Clarke shoehorning Hanley (on his wrong side) and McLean into the starting lineup? Thankfully Ralston is out, or he'd have been in too, and with Tierney missing that should see the end of the back three. I'd go with the following. I don't like McTominay and McGinn together, but maybe with Doak providing width, that'll create enough space for them not to step on each other's toes. Christie and Gilmour is quite a light midfield, but we don't really have a hard midfielder who does the yards (McGinn solid, but gets caught in possession far too often to be deep).

That does sound risky. And sore.

The question would be whether Motherwell have a route to the first team or if Lennon Miller was just really fucking good? I think it's the latter. I really think it needs to be part of a publicised strategy. We're taking through 1-2 players per season with the aim of giving them twenty first team games (or equivalent). Get the manager on board and ask the fans for patience. We should be able to carry a young player in a lot of games. It's strange that we apply double standards to carrying a young player, versus carrying Yengi, Ambrose and the myriad of other pish signings over the years. Boyd could easily have played a dozen games from the bench last season.

I'd have Doig over Tierney going forward. Tierney is a great player on his day, but that happens once a season.

Will we get a cut of the transfer?

Massive shock, as Tierney pulls out of the squad through injury. The other lad too. Ridiculously, no call up for Armstrong, despite his massive summer move.