Gordon Strachan

[troopio]

I got rinsed for saying it on the other thread but ill also say on here, how come Mulgrew and Maloney got binned for lack of Club game time yet here is Hutton yet again called up and we all know he will be first choice yet he has been yet again put to the bottom of the pecking order by Villa?

I really want to support Strachan but how can I when he constantly contradicts himself all the time regarding his reasons for his selection policies??

[forameus]

19 minutes ago, troopio said:

I got rinsed for saying it on the other thread but ill also say on here, how come Mulgrew and Maloney got binned for lack of Club game time yet here is Hutton yet again called up and we all know he will be first choice yet he has been yet again put to the bottom of the pecking order by Villa?

I really want to support Strachan but how can I when he constantly contradicts himself all the time regarding his reasons for his selection policies??

Presumably because he felt he had other better options than Mulgrew and Maloney (which he does), and didn't for Hutton (which he doesn't).

[craigkillie]

4 hours ago, Scary Bear said:

 

Out of interest, how many of the squad are 30 or over?

Hanley, Griffiths, Bannan and Forrest are all 25/26. I wouldn't call that particularly young in football terms. If they are any good they should be mainstays of the team by now. The only one who is is Hanley and he is a mainstay through necessity as we have so few central defenders. Then again, this is Scotland, so peak years maybe 28 onwards. Who knows?

As for the rest - the actual young ones - will any start against Malta? Looking at the rest of them I'm not sure who I would start anyway. It would be interesting to see if Burke is yet more hype or if he's a talent and I'd like to see Robertson get game time.

 

 

 

Gordon, Marshall, Berra, Greer, Hutton, Martin, Fletcher and Morrison are the only ones 30 or over.  Neither Gordon nor Marshall are particularly old for keepers.  Three of those are central defenders, which is definitely our problem position.

Hanley is only 24 and has 23 caps.  Bannan has 21 caps and Forrest has 13 - both of them have been involved a great deal with the senior squad over the last few years.

[sergie's no1 fan]

Ross McCormack (who most of us were wanting in the squad) just turned 30. Does that not make us hypocrites? Why don't we want Watt in the squad before McCormack then, if we should be focusing on youth.

[kenny131]

28 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

 

Gordon, Marshall, Berra, Greer, Hutton, Martin, Fletcher and Morrison are the only ones 30 or over.  Neither Gordon nor Marshall are particularly old for keepers.  Three of those are central defenders, which is definitely our problem position.

Hanley is only 24 and has 23 caps.  Bannan has 21 caps and Forrest has 13 - both of them have been involved a great deal with the senior squad over the last few years.

Jesus  our whole starting defence are ready for the retirement home. I see a good midfield and attacking options in the future for euro 2020. But defense is going to be a huge issue.  Need some fucker to kidnapp caulker next campaign

[Scary Bear]

 

Gordon, Marshall, Berra, Greer, Hutton, Martin, Fletcher and Morrison are the only ones 30 or over.  Neither Gordon nor Marshall are particularly old for keepers.  Three of those are central defenders, which is definitely our problem position.

Hanley is only 24 and has 23 caps.  Bannan has 21 caps and Forrest has 13 - both of them have been involved a great deal with the senior squad over the last few years.

I looked at a few player profiles and noticed that. Steven Naismith is 30 in September and Steven Fletcher is 30 in March. Still, the only real issues - as ever - are with the defence.

How many starts have Bannan and Forrest had? I've not kept a keen interest in Scotland games for a while. Were most of those sub appearances?

Is there a good website for finding this stuff out?

[craigkillie]

5 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

 

I looked at a few player profiles and noticed that. Steven Naismith is 30 in September and Steven Fletcher is 30 in March. Still, the only real issues - as ever - are with the defence.

How many starts have Bannan and Forrest had? I've not kept a keen interest in Scotland games for a while. Were most of those sub appearances?

Is there a good website for finding this stuff out?

 

 

I usually use the Fitbastats website.  Bannan has 11 starts and 10 sub appearances, Forrest has 8 starts and 5 sub appearances.

[54_and_counting]

3 hours ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

 

It doesn't but you know less talented teams usually don't do as well as more talented teams yes? f**k sake.

I'll say it again wtf is the point of throwing our promising young guys into a starting line up over better older players?

Like I said if you done this maybe 3 or 4 years ago you would have guys like Armstrong/GMS/Wilson/Jack/Rhys McCabe/Ross Perry/Lewis Toshney/Gregg Wylde etc (all part of our under 21s in 2012) getting caps and games for the first team, more than likely losing those games, only to get a few year down the line to realise that none of them are good enough...

What would be the point????

you make it sound like we are talking about replacing a whole team of consistent tournament qualifying players with guys fresh out of their nappies

we arent, we are talking about replacing some of the consistent failures (yes they are failures) who are approaching their chucking it time, with guys who might actually be able to play a part in the next euros qualification, if the likes of mcginn, gauld, burke, paterson etc are who we think the next era of scottish players are then get them used the now and ditch the idea of simply taking them to sit in the stands while the same guys time and again struggle and ultimately fail

And if the players named arent deemed to be the next era, then you have to question what the fucking point is in taking them on international duty, the fact that one of our most likely starting central midfielders has less caps than his age tells you the story, our guys dont have enough international experience when they reach their peak performing years,

the current 26-30 year olds will play regularly for the next 4 years, most likely achieve nothing, chuck it or be dropped finally and then our current 21-25 year olds will be thrown in at the deep end with less caps than fingers and the cycle of failure continues once again

[oneteaminglasgow]

9 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

you make it sound like we are talking about replacing a whole team of consistent tournament qualifying players with guys fresh out of their nappies

we arent, we are talking about replacing some of the consistent failures (yes they are failures) who are approaching their chucking it time, with guys who might actually be able to play a part in the next euros qualification, if the likes of mcginn, gauld, burke, paterson etc are who we think the next era of scottish players are then get them used the now and ditch the idea of simply taking them to sit in the stands while the same guys time and again struggle and ultimately fail

And if the players named arent deemed to be the next era, then you have to question what the fucking point is in taking them on international duty, the fact that one of our most likely starting central midfielders has less caps than his age tells you the story, our guys dont have enough international experience when they reach their peak performing years,

the current 26-30 year olds will play regularly for the next 4 years, most likely achieve nothing, chuck it or be dropped finally and then our current 21-25 year olds will be thrown in at the deep end with less caps than fingers and the cycle of failure continues once again

What on earth is this supposed to mean?

[Dunning1874]

44 minutes ago, kenny131 said:

Jesus  our whole starting defence are ready for the retirement home. I see a good midfield and attacking options in the future for euro 2020. But defense is going to be a huge issue.  Need some fucker to kidnapp caulker next campaign

Other than first choice 24 year old centre back Grant Hanley and first choice 22 year old left back Andy Robertson, that's true. So half the starting defence then.

7 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

you make it sound like we are talking about replacing a whole team of consistent tournament qualifying players with guys fresh out of their nappies

we arent, we are talking about replacing some of the consistent failures (yes they are failures) who are approaching their chucking it time, with guys who might actually be able to play a part in the next euros qualification, if the likes of mcginn, gauld, burke, paterson etc are who we think the next era of scottish players are then get them used the now and ditch the idea of simply taking them to sit in the stands while the same guys time and again struggle and ultimately fail

And if the players named arent deemed to be the next era, then you have to question what the fucking point is in taking them on international duty, the fact that one of our most likely starting central midfielders has less caps than his age tells you the story, our guys dont have enough international experience when they reach their peak performing years,

the current 26-30 year olds will play regularly for the next 4 years, most likely achieve nothing, chuck it or be dropped finally and then our current 21-25 year olds will be thrown in at the deep end with less caps than fingers and the cycle of failure continues once again

Is Robert Snodgrass currently a better player than Ryan Gauld? Are we more likely to be successful with Robert Snodgrass or Ryan Gauld in the team? If Snodgrass is better, does it really benefit Gauld to be thrown into the national team ahead of him before he's ready? Gauld getting experience would be nice of course, but surely it's far more beneficial for everyone if he begins to get starts when he becomes better than his competition for a place. If not, then all we're doing is making our current results and ranking poorer, meaning that when these promising youngsters do hit their prime we're going to have harder qualifying groups than if we'd introduced them gradually and are less likely to benefit from their experience. Would it not benefit Gauld to play alongside some players with more experience who can help him through a game rather than another two inexperienced players?

Also, if you're going to stick with that philosophy of ensuring youngsters all have plenty of competitive experience, then by the time the current group of 19-23 year olds reach their prime at 27-29 and have a lot of experience to take into a campaign, you're going to be calling for them to be dropped for the latest batch of 19-23 year olds. Why drop Robert Snodgrass now when he does have that experience and is the best he's ever been as a player?

There are a lot of reasons to criticise Gordon Strachan. Not giving youngsters a chance really isn't one of them. You can criticise his reluctance to trust Andy Robertson and stick with him in the last campaign when he's clearly our best left-back and should have the position held down for the next decade, but otherwise he's been perfectly willing to bring young players through, using friendlies to good effect to give the likes of Paterson, Burke and McGinn their debuts, gradually introducing them to the setup. They won't play in competitive games until they're good enough though, and that's entirely sensible: pick your strongest team possible in all competitive games.

If he's ignoring the best player in a position because they're young then by all means have a go at him then, but there's no way we should pick players only because of their age. There's an argument that Oliver Burke is currently one of our best players in his position, so he should be in serious contention for a start regardless of how old he is. There is absolutely no chance Barrie McKay or John McGinn are among our best players in their positions, therefore they should be nowhere near a start regardless of how old they are. Age shouldn't come into it in competitive games.

[54_and_counting]

16 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

What on earth is this supposed to mean?

it me saying he's barely bloody played, im talking about james mccarthur, who at the peak of his career has averaged under 4 caps a year since breaking into the scotland team

imo that isnt good enough for a player his age, he wont have the required experience needed for the big international games and the must win ones, look at the other james that came from hamilton, mccarthy has 16 more caps in the same time period

[oneteaminglasgow]

11 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

it me saying he's barely bloody played, im talking about james mccarthur, who at the peak of his career has averaged under 4 caps a year since breaking into the scotland team

imo that isnt good enough for a player his age, he wont have the required experience needed for the big international games and the must win ones, look at the other james that came from hamilton, mccarthy has 16 more caps in the same time period

What arbitrary number of caps would be the right amount for him to have earned by this period in his career?

[54_and_counting]

3 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

Other than first choice 24 year old centre back Grant Hanley and first choice 22 year old left back Andy Robertson, that's true. So half the starting defence then.

Is Robert Snodgrass currently a better player than Ryan Gauld? Are we more likely to be successful with Robert Snodgrass or Ryan Gauld in the team? If Snodgrass is better, does it really benefit Gauld to be thrown into the national team ahead of him before he's ready? Gauld getting experience would be nice of course, but surely it's far more beneficial for everyone if he begins to get starts when he becomes better than his competition for a place. If not, then all we're doing is making our current results and ranking poorer, meaning that when these promising youngsters do hit their prime we're going to have harder qualifying groups than if we'd introduced them gradually and are less likely to benefit from their experience. Would it not benefit Gauld to play alongside some players with more experience who can help him through a game rather than another two inexperienced players?

Also, if you're going to stick with that philosophy of ensuring youngsters all have plenty of competitive experience, then by the time the current group of 19-23 year olds reach their prime at 27-29 and have a lot of experience to take into a campaign, you're going to be calling for them to be dropped for the latest batch of 19-23 year olds. Why drop Robert Snodgrass now when he does have that experience and is the best he's ever been as a player?

There are a lot of reasons to criticise Gordon Strachan. Not giving youngsters a chance really isn't one of them. You can criticise his reluctance to trust Andy Robertson and stick with him in the last campaign when he's clearly our best left-back and should have the position held down for the next decade, but otherwise he's been perfectly willing to bring young players through, using friendlies to good effect to give the likes of Paterson, Burke and McGinn their debuts, gradually introducing them to the setup. They won't play in competitive games until they're good enough though, and that's entirely sensible: pick your strongest team possible in all competitive games.

If he's ignoring the best player in a position because they're young then by all means have a go at him then, but there's no way we should pick players only because of their age. There's an argument that Oliver Burke is currently one of our best players in his position, so he should be in serious contention for a start regardless of how old he is. There is absolutely no chance Barrie McKay or John McGinn are among our best players in their positions, therefore they should be nowhere near a start regardless of how old they are. Age shouldn't come into it in competitive games.

again you are thinking im saying drop the lot for younger guys, im not, and even if i was, these current guys have failed time and time again, had brown not retired last week he'd be heading into his 7th qualifying campaign since making his debut, and hasnt been in a major finals once, darren fletcher is now heading into his 8th qualifying campaign, steven fletcher his 5th, hutton his 5th or 6th

with regards to the likes of snodgrass over gauld, snodgrass has started the season well for hull, scoring goals etc, he is in form so deserves his place, but other certain starters dont and other squad players probably dont deserve to be there either but are simply because we dont like change, you mention the likes of paterson, burke and mcginn getting their debuts in friendlies and they wont play in competitve games until they are good enough, when is good enough? because the current players havent covered themselves in glory,

do we wait until the current guys retire, so the likes of burke etc have little competitve experience for scotland, they dont know what its like to have to win games away to georgia, or to try and dominate the lesser teams at home etc, we'll simply be throwing them in at the deep in and telling them "fucking swim or else" basically

 

[Scary Bear]

 

I usually use the Fitbastats website.  Bannan has 11 starts and 10 sub appearances, Forrest has 8 starts and 5 sub appearances.

Cheers.

[1320Lichtie]

Great post from Dunning

53 and counting is unbearable here. Moaning that McArthur has got less caps than his age being unacceptable.

Not taking into account... His personal development as a player, how good he has been as a player over his career, other players that have been available and selected in front of him in his position, injuries, form... Nothing.

Just, he's 28 and now one of our better players it's a joke that he's got less caps than his age.

Absolutely no point even trying to discuss anything with him.

[Lex]

I don't think he's the answer but I wonder how many managers we'll have to go through before we find one who can manage the squad to qualification. The Euros are a lot easier to qualify for now, so hopefully it won't be long.

Everyone knows the players are poor. That line up of under 26's posted earlier is case in point, those players look like they are going to be even worse than the failed generation of Brown/Fletchers/Naismith etc that is just coming to an end.

What we need is a manager who can make these poor and average players into a team which is more than the sum of their parts. Organise them and motivate them in such a way that they achieve more than expected.

Wales, Northern Ireland, Iceland, ROI have all done this recently. All of them over achieved in qualifying and in the summer due to good management. They all had glorious trips to France due to their respective managers making their teams worth more than the sum of their parts. We sat at home and watched cause our manager couldn't.

What is clear is Strachan isn't the manager to do this with Scotland, if he was he would have by now. We need to keep looking till we find our Coleman/O'Neill/Lagerback. He's out there somewhere, he might not be the next appointment, or even the one after, but I'm sure we will get him one day. The sooner we get rid of Strachan the closer we are to finding him.

[forameus]

3 minutes ago, Lex said:

Everyone knows the players are poor. That line up of under 26's posted earlier is case in point, those players look like they are going to be even worse than the failed generation of Brown/Fletchers/Naismith etc that is just coming to an end.

What we need is a manager who can make these poor and average players into a team which is more than the sum of their parts. Organise them and motivate them in such a way that they achieve more than expected.

Wales, Northern Ireland, Iceland, ROI have all done this recently. All of them over achieved in qualifying and in the summer due to good management. They all had glorious trips to France due to their respective managers making their teams worth more than the sum of their parts. We sat at home and watched cause our manager couldn't.

What is clear is Strachan isn't the manager to do this with Scotland, if he was he would have by now. We need to keep looking till we find our Coleman/O'Neill/Lagerback. He's out there somewhere, he might not be the next appointment, or even the one after, but I'm sure we will get him one day. The sooner we get rid of Strachan the closer we are to finding him.

A measured, sensible post against Strachan for a change.  Kudos.

I think you're right in points.  Strachan has tried to at least bring the younger players into the squad.  Reading between the lines I don't think he believes they're ready to feature in the really important games.  He probably knows better than any of us on that front, for better or worse.  But then we don't have that extra boost that other countries do appear to get where the players are better than the sum of their parts.  We threaten to do it on occasions, but threatening to do it isn't enough.

The problem is the latter part.  We do need to try and find that manager, but I don't have any faith in the SFA in doing that.  You mention Lagerback - we twice had the chance to hire him and they turned him down for Craig Levein (or was it Burley?) and then for Strachan.  If they're doing that, then how likely are we to get the manager we really need?

I would then disagree with the final point - I don't think just getting rid of him so we can look for a better option is the right way to go.  We find the better option, then we move.  Doing the former is just going to keep us going around the usual cycle we're on.

[TheScarf]

8 minutes ago, Lex said:

Everyone knows the players are poor. That line up of under 26's posted earlier is case in point, those players look like they are going to be even worse than the failed generation of Brown/Fletchers/Naismith etc that is just coming to an end.

What we need is a manager who can make these poor and average players into a team which is more than the sum of their parts. Organise them and motivate them in such a way that they achieve more than expected.

Wales, Northern Ireland, Iceland, ROI have all done this recently. All of them over achieved in qualifying and in the summer due to good management. They all had glorious trips to France due to their respective managers making their teams worth more than the sum of their parts. We sat at home and watched cause our manager couldn't.

What is clear is Strachan isn't the manager to do this with Scotland, if he was he would have by now. We need to keep looking till we find our Coleman/O'Neill/Lagerback. He's out there somewhere, he might not be the next appointment, or even the one after, but I'm sure we will get him one day. The sooner we get rid of Strachan the closer we are to finding him.

Gr8 post.

I await the the 'well who could do a better job then?' replies from the usual nobodies.

[1320Lichtie]

Well who could do a better job?

[troopio]

Great Post Lex