Skyline Drifter

Yeah tend to agree. I'm assuming now that this game is out of the way those who had issues with the app or their new ticket account will have got them solved eventually and over the next few games it should be easier to get hold of someone again. Chances are someone who doesn't use smartphone technology isn't going to go to the trouble of buying a ticket in first place now given it requires an online account rather than being able to physically buy a ticket. To be fair, I'm a bit 'old school'. Up to this week I simply printed it and folded as instructed and used the tickets on paper. Never had any issue. I'm fine with using a phone in principle but I don't trust my phone's ability to get any sort of signal in the Hampden area as I barely can even walking up an hour before and I'm always concerned I need to download something. However, the app worked fine and I didn't even have to do anything.

Yeah I get that. My friend did this on Tuesday as he had his own ticket and his son's on the same phone (son does have a phone but he was worried about him draining his battery before they got there so kept it on his own phone). He simply passed the phone back to scan the other ticket once the first one was through. However, that only works if you are actually going with someone else or if you meet outside / travel together rather than meet inside. If my dad wants to buy himself a ticket for a Scotland game I'm not going to how does he do it? I take it the short answer is "he can't"?

Thats a fair point. In this modern world there's an assumption everyone has a smartphone but thats not true. My dad doesnt and isnt interested in having one. He doesnt go to Scotland games either but if he did whats he to do? Is there actually a solution for such people? If they are going with someone else they can have their ticket on someone else's phone. Otherwise?

I was surprised he didn't play a different keeper last night. I'm not sure what seeing Gunn for another 90 minutes added, although I accept he missed the last three games so maybe Clark feels he saw enough of Kelly and Clark in those. To me he was avoiding the issue of sending signals about whether Gordon was likely in or not. Personally, if he's seriously entertaining taking Gordon to Germany then I think he should have played Northern Ireland as Cooper did. Not that he'd have seen a lot action anyway but just getting him involved competitively again and adding to his caps total. I'm concerned that not playing him suggests he decided he wasn't ready.

Ticket scanning was no bother at all. No different to scanning the paper one we had previously but obviously the pest is being reliant on battery life on your phone to an extent. Tightness of the fecking turnstiles on the other hand.......... I need to go on a diet!

I don't think he's "fine". He went off injured and the Liverpool press are suggesting he needs a scan and faces another spell on the sidelines. However, I'm assuming as it appears to be ankle ligaments and he played on for 10 mins or so, that it's probably not all that bad. He may miss 2 or 3 weeks but it's surely not the kind of injury that makes him a doubt for the summer.

You said Souttar was an absolute certainty for the squad and should be a first choice. He's neither. I was slightly exaggerating with "best centre half available" granted but you said he should be starting. You're entitled to think that about Dykes. The paragraph above is fair enough opinion. Suggesting he could still be playing now and not have had a shot and comparing to Shankland having three (which didn't seriously threaten to go in) in 15 minutes when the latter was playing in a front two against an encamped defence, isn't.

Yeah again, you're just making things up and not helping the cause of your own argument one bit. A bit like your steadfast refusal to accept that John Souttar just might not be the best centre back we have available. Indeed your view is somewhat contradictory on that where you would have us ignore the evidence of his last Scotland game because he's better than he showed but not apply the same logic to Dykes. And even if Shankland should be ahead of him (debatable), the suggestion that Adams did anything more significant than him last night, or any Scotland match in the last 18 months is spurious. We get it, you think Shankland's better than Dykes. You may be right. Wild takes in incomparable circumstances are not evidence however.

You're comparing apples and pears though. Dykes played 60 odd minutes as the sole striker in a match that Northern Ireland at least bothered to occasionally attack in at that stage. Shankland came on to make it two up front in a contest by then being played in the final third of the pitch pretty much exclusively as Northern Ireland had ceased any ambition to add a second. And he didn't come close to scoring with his three efforts. I'm not knocking Shankland. I think he did reasonably well in the Netherlands. His run of form in the last 6 months has taken him from a situation where he was competing for the 3rd striker role to one where he's comfortably clinched that and is now in a debate for whether he's 1st or 2nd. Which he might be. Last night's game added not one thing to that debate though in either direction.

Really? I've heard nothing other than he's going for a scan to see if there's ligament damage but the fact he played on 5 - 10 mins after doing it implied it wasn't seriously damaged surely? Although Reece Mimnaugh played on 10 minutes having done his cruciate earlier this season I suppose! It was a long way away from me in the ground and I haven't seen any replays. Almost two seasons. Not sure the relevance of the comment though? One of three (or four) ex QoS players in the current set up depending on whether you count Robby McCrorie. Five if Max Johnston makes any late reappearance.

You weren't but some went on to discuss as if it should be

What does this actually mean though? It's typical HR buzzword territory but what are the consequences for not achieving it and the rewards for doing so. What about mitigation? If this isn't all set out in advance it doesn't mean anything and it's just ambition stuff that still needs judged on its merits as the contract approaches potential renewal date. At the start of this campaign, I'm not sure qualification should have been the minimum expectation, though it was certainly a realistic aim. Are we saying if he doesn't achieve it then the contract can be cancelled or something? Does he trigger an extension or bonus by achieving it? What if we need a point in the last game to qualify after a reasonably successful campaign (say we don't get the 2nd goal in Norway) and then McGinn gets himself red carded five mins into the last game v Norway and suddenly we're up against it outwith the control of the manager. We put in a decent 85 mins with 10 men but lose a heartbreaking deflection in the last minute. Thanks very much Stevie but you've failed in our metric time to try someone else? It's fine for the SFA committee / Ian Maxwell to set realistic targets and talk to Clarke about what they expect. I don't see that kind of thing as a contractual issue though.

We'll have to agree to differ here I think. The ball was camped in their half the whole game and we did the square root of hee haw with it. That's not something that can be blamed on one player, it was a collective thing. I don't think Harry Kane would have shown up much better for us last night if he'd played instead of Dykes.

Can we just bin this thing already? It's clearly an unlucky kit. Wheel the last one back in or the 150th one. We can re-christen it the 151st Anniversary Kit and wear it in the summer!

I'm unclear on why you think the first two sentences are incompatible with one another. If we'd had the centre backs pass the ball to one another across their own penalty box for the rest of the game after the goal we'd have had 98% possession but it wouldn't be the strikers fault he hadn't been involved. Dykes got about 3 or 4 opportunities in the time he was on the pitch to get involved. I'm not sure what you think he's meant to do about that? Come back into the midfield himself and leave no target up there for them to play into? You're entitled to think we can do better than Dykes if you wish but last night wasn't about the strikers (any of them). It was about the complete inability of the midfield and wingbacks to create anything at all of note in the final third. He absolutely WAS feeding off scraps.

We come from the South and always park in the Mennock Road area or slightly further out. Back in the days of 20,000 crowds we could park there no bother about an hour before kick off and it's about half a mile to the ground. Certainly harder to get parked there now and even arriving about 6:10pm last night we had to park further away. Not much further but it fills up pretty quickly and getting away can be a pain if you're not back sharp.

And in fairness to you / me you see a very different match in person to on tv. I haven't seen the game or even the highlights on tv from last night yet. I do recall Adams dropping a little deeper once Shankland was on and helping to move the ball across the front of their back four at times but it wasn't going anywhere. In that respect he added nothing that Christie wasn't already doing. Armstrong (and occasionally Tierney I suppose) was the only one to have any impact in actually beating a man and getting supply into the box.

I think it's interesting that Clarke gave us nothing in terms of clues about the keepers across this break. In playing his established current No 1 for 180 mins he kicked the can further down the road. I said last week that if he fielded Gordon against N Ireland it was a strong indication he favoured getting him in the squad and getting him match fit. If he played Clark (or Kelly) at all it was a strong indication Gordon was outside the squad altogether. He did neither and there's no ammunition for any of us but personally I don't see the fact he didn't get any game time as helpful to Craig Gordon's case. So given we all think most of the squad is set in stone what did we learn in this two game window and who helped or hurt their cause? Well not that much really. Goalkeepers - As above, no clues given. However, the fact Clarke didn't give Gordon any game time doesn't suggest he thinks he's back where he was (neither does the fact Naismith still has him behind Clark). Defence - Hanley and McKenna being injured didn't help, particularly the former which leaves a lot of doubt about his availability for the summer. McKenna's place presumably is ok. Souttar had a horror show in Amsterdam and didn't help his cause. Cooper did nothing wrong last night but wasn't remotely up against the same level of player. Still I feel Cooper's probably ahead of Souttar and Souttar's cause hasn't been helped in this window. Patterson's also had a horror show last night and left us all hoping Hickey's fit but I doubt his place is under any serious threat from Ralston who didn't particularly help his own cause when he came on against the Dutch. Porteous wasn't great in Amsterdam but his place isn't under threat. Hendry was steady enough over two games and looks an established starter. Midfield - Nothing really learned. We miss McGregor more than some would have you believe. Ferguson got some significant game time without starting either game. I don't think he did anything to suggest he should be starting but all of our midfield played well in Netherlands and massively underperformed last night. Strikers - Shankland's done ok across two games without excelling. He's not hurt his case for being third striker at all. There are those who would say he's helped his case for being 1st choice. Maybe he has. Neither Dykes (in one start) nor Adams (in two sub appearances) did anything of note. Don't think either has his place under any threat though. So overall not learned much. For me 23 will be: Gunn, Clark, and either Gordon or Kelly Robertson, Tierney, Hickey, Patterson, Hendry, Porteous, Hanley, McKenna McGregor, Gilmour, McLean, McGinn, McTominay, Ferguson, Christie, Armstrong Dykes, Adams, Shankland And one other from Cooper, Souttar, Jack, Taylor, Ralston If Hanley doesn't make it Cooper probably in, possibly Souttar. If Hickey doesn't make it Ralston in.

I didn't notice it then. He certainly didn't touch the ball for about 10 minutes when he first came on as I was watching him fairly closely in that spell. It was harder to tell the extent to which Dykes may have done that for me as I was at the complete other end of the stadium whereas we were attacking the goal right in front of me when Adams appeared.

Am I the only one who thought Ferguson added virtually nothing to the game when he came on? Genuinely can't recall him changing the game one bit. He hid this "energy and forward runs" pretty well considering he was playing right in front of me for much of it. Clarke said all along he intended to give all the strikers an hour or so across the two games. In the event Shankland got more minutes than the other two having been added to Adams last night. I don't see that as an issue. I don't even think Dykes played particularly badly to judge whether he was in or out of form. We didn't get him any supply to work with. I'm not sure how it "wasn't suited to him"? Genuinely. Packed defence not venturing far up the pitch. Physical game largely. Adams barely had a kick in the time he was on and the first thing he did of any note was win an unexpected corner in the 95th minute!

An interesting debate and probably not that far wrong. Certainly an argument that Tierney and Robertson are among our best ever left backs. Potentially a case to be made for Hickey on the other side but I'd have at least Allan Hutton in front of him right now. Peak Craig Gordon's up there with our best keepers though Goram was probably better. None of the current centre backs or forwards would be in the mix obviously. I think this may be the best collective crop of midfielders we've had in a very long time. Individually the likes of Ferguson and Lambert, maybe Hartley, Souness, etc were up there and possibly better but as a group of 4 or 5 it may be our best ever. Around about 92 we had McAllister, McCall, McStay, Collins I think. I guess that's maybe comparable.

Spot on IMO

Oh aye, I forgot to factor in the double Olympic Champion point too, although there's a debate as to how seriously some of his rivals take that to be fair.

Good post though I think certain aspects of it are a bit too much. Last night was completely flat from the word go. Even before Patterson's aberration we were looking toothless and devoid of ideas and movement. It looked like a heavy legged end of season game and, in hindsight, maybe we needed to make a few more changes from the start. I don't see any particular reason to conclude it's a bridge too far for anyone. I'm not even sure who that's aimed at. I think the oldest player on the pitch was Cooper who didn't particularly do anything wrong. I appreciate the Irish aren't very good but actually we were pretty unbothered by them defensively apart from Patterson selling them a deflected goal. Dykes isn't having a particularly good season, that's fair, players go in and out of form and he's not in great form but he got zero service last night and I'm not sure centre forward is the first problem I'd be looking at last night. Adams did no better when he came on (we actually watched to see how long it took him to get his first touch and it was about 10 minutes!). Shankland looked marginally more involved but by the time he came on we had two up and the whole game was being played in the final third, it's inevitable there will be more opportunities to show at that point. Patterson had a holocaust of a game and I felt for him. Having defended his performance in Netherlands on Friday, there's no real defending it last night. He sold the goal (he's not the first or last to do that, Robertson sold one against England but he picked himself up and played well the rest of the game). Even before that though his positioning and use of the ball had been poor and he just seemed to collapse after that. I'll credit him for not hiding and continuing to make runs and look for the ball but cross after cross was straight out of play. It was crying out for a change and if Clarke was trying to support him by leaving him on, he maybe did the opposite. The problem last night was the lack of movement in midfield particularly. The Christie, Gilmoour, McGinn, McTominay combination just didn't work like it normally does and personally I didn't think Ferguson improved it one bit to be honest. I know it's easy to give players too much credit when they aren't there but I thought we seriously missed McGregor's drive from midfield. You sometimes don't realise how good something is till it's not there. That said, we had plenty of energy and drive from midfield in Amsterdam on Friday and McGregor wasn't there either. Fundamentally it was a bad night at the office but a worrying trend.

You can throw Colin Montgomerie and Stephen Hendry in the mix too I suppose though some won't consider Snooker a sport as there's no physical aspect to it. He and Hoy are in niche sports though and, as fantastic as Hoy's achievements were, he benefited enormously from the money that UK Sport throws at cycling compared to other countries in terms of training facilities, coaching and most importantly technological development of the equipment. Montgomerie's legacy will always be clouded by his failure to ever win a major. Those Scots who did win one (like Lyle and Laurie) never dominated golf overall) We're on a football forum, people will tend to favour footballers but I don't think either Dalglish or Law were ever the best in the world, though they may have been for periods in the best in the UK. Murray was one of four who absolutely dominated his sport for a decade or so and whilst he was probably 4th of four (and damned unlucky to share an era with them), he was for periods the best player in the world in what is a world profile sport and not one where technology is massively different from player to player. As much as the LTA throw a lot of money at youth coaching, etc, Murray didn't come through their pathway. On balance I'd agree with @JS_FFC, and Liam McLeod if he said it, that Murray is Scotland's greatest ever sportsman. Not what I expected to be posting about on this thread though !