HuttonDressedAsLahm

No. Each team has 2 concussion subs, but also receives one if the other team uses theirs. It's Protocol B that's being used in most competitions. Protocol A has one concussion sub, with no complementary sub for the opposing team. It's boring, but the detail is here: https://www.theifab.com/trials/concussion-substitutes/#:~:text=Use of a “concussion substitute,longer for a serious injury). Edit: To my knowledge, there have been examples of teams choosing not to use their concussion sub (and instead using a normal allocated sub) in order to prevent giving the opposition a 6th sub. You can easily imagine why some teams would choose to use that.

The maximum number of potential subs in a group game is actually wildly 9, and in the knockout stages is 10. 5 standard subs 2 concussion subs (your players) 2 concussion subs (awarded if the opposition uses theirs) 1 additional sub in extra time Stoppages allowed remain at 3 during game time, but unlimited in HT/FT/HT in ET. An additional stoppage granted for a concussion sub cannot be used to replace or add to the maximum of 3 stoppages allowed for normal subs. Edit: 4th stoppage allowed in ET

Great news. Robertson named on the bench tonight, so at least looks like no lasting physical damage done by the two March friendlies. We continue to hold out for good news on Hanley, McKenna, and Hickey.

Northern Ireland are limited, but were effectively setup to stifle us. They - in effect - did exactly what we did to Spain. Allowed us to have the ball in front of them, and in the wings. They know we're fairly one-dimensional as we lack pace, and trickery - either out wide, or in the middle. It seems to always be harder to analyse a game from the stands but we seemed pretty one-paced and gave up trying to have any real passages of play through the middle, excepting a burst from Christie and McTominay in the first half, and perhaps a couple in the second. Enough has been said about Patterson, but McGinn seemed hugely off it. His touch was poor, and by not moving the ball on quickly seemed to get quickly pressured and seemed never to take a pass on the half-turn. Far too many of the passes our players received were with their back to goal and so limited progress was made with the ball. Gilmour was the only player who seemed to be playing with any sort of impetus. In a game like that we need another of his type to take the ball in the last third and keep the progression going. Instead, we cycled the ball from wing to wing, rarely taking on the full back or creating overloads. I don't recall Dykes doing anything, and Adams - for the time he was on the pitch - seemed only to take the ball in wide areas. Armstrong looked like an improvement, but again, if you have a low block and a team setup defensively we have zero pace or trickery in the side. A game like that needs a player like Fraser who forces the opposition to do something else. Anyway, I'm not as disillusioned as others. Switzerland and Hungary won't play us like that any more than us showing how to beat Spain would inform the French or English how to nullify them. We struggle against a disciplined low block in friendlies - that's neither novel nor surprising, and no semi-decent team is going to do that against us. Asides from the awful Gibraltar, we'll play a minimum of 10 games in the rest of 2024 and every single side will be at a minimum of the caliber of Georgia/Norway/Ukraine, and often better, or much better. They'll create far more chances against us, but equally they'll play in a manner we're better set to exploit (assuming unlike in Amsterdam, we're able to take our chances).

I think like this all the time, and it never happens. Since we qualified for Euro 2020, I've been convinced that we'd run up a score on someone eventually. We do create quite a number of chances against just about everyone - even Spain at home Dykes missed a 1v1, Christie ran through the middle and toed it just wide, and McGinn hit the bar. If the stars align, we could score 4/5/6 against just about anyone. It'll never happen, but it's a nice thought.

Agreed. The only changes from the side that started could be Christie for Ferguson, a Shankland for another striker (if SC not feeling generous). Otherwise, I don't see much benefit in changing things. Ferguson for Christie might not exactly be like-for-like, but Gilmour is obviously streets ahead of everyone else available in his position, and otherwise Ferguson would have to replace McTominay or McGinn. Personally, I'd give McGinn some rest from the start, but then we're probably changing things for the sake of it and I don't believe SC would do it.

Wales are making the best use of the types of players they have. Their wing backs and midfielders are substantially below what we have, and their only option at striker (Moore) is comparable to Adams/Dykes. What they have is a glut of decent Championship/lower-level Premier league wingers, plus Johnson who looks like he can perform at a good level. For some reason, we don't seem to be creating wingers or strikers right now, but I'd imagine that's cyclical. If we had their players, we'd be doing something similar. They'd love to have McGinn/McTominay/Gilmour/Ferguson/Mcgregor. They perform above the sum of their parts, and have done a good job of transitioning from Bale. I'd politely suggest that outwith the Croatia game at home, they've shown very little to suggest they can come close to achieving what the Bale-led team was capable of. A home draw against a poor Finland was helpful, and home again tomorrow against a fairly mediocre Poland side is fortunate. Tomorrow's game will be interesting, if only for us to have a gauge as to where Poland are ahead of UNL. I have nothing against the Welsh, but I'd prefer Poland to qualify so we can see their performances in more detail (and dare I hope, a swansong for Lewandowski?!)

If we’re going to shoot like this in June, we’re going to struggle.

This is it. Growing up in the 90s you could take your pick of favourite number 9s, with most major countries having multiple options. Italy, Portugal, Spain etc don’t have anyone of any serious note. Days of Raul, Torres, Villa… Vierra, Inzaghis, Montella, Del Piero… The likes of Immobile and Morata are footnotes - quality wise - in the modern history of their countries. Probably merits a Jonathan Wilson piece on the disappearance of number 9s (though I suspect he’s already done one). Football is cyclical so no doubt it’ll come back round.

This whole thread is a bit weird. Some seem to be writing McGregor's obituary, and as far as I can tell he's barely put a foot wrong for us in recent memory. Ferguson will get his chance soon enough, and it won't be at McGregor's expense. I don't think Ferguson's been given a real shot at it yet, but neither has he lit the heather alight in a blue shirt. Hickey looked a bit out of place initially, and is now probably our best right back in decades. McTominay (even after the CB experiment) took a bit of time to find his home. Ferguson might well be the same - we'll find a way that works for him and works for us, but right now we've got the best midfield we've had in living memory, and there's only 2-4 spaces available.

Agreed with the shout on Christie - think there's a chance he plays deeper in one of the games for at least a period. I'd expect the only two midfielders to start both games to be McTominay and McGinn. I'd be surprised if Gilmour and Ferguson don't start one each, with possibly McLean also getting a start. Armstrong seems to be the perennial sub, but he played well against Norway so might fancy him making the first XI against NI. Prediction would be Adams subbed by Dykes for the Netherlands (or vice-versa), and Shankland to start against NI. As others have noted, no wildcards or unexpected call ups, so it's just SC sets up differently against Netherlands/NI, and any game time/chances he wants to offer out. The only obvious ones fans will want to see are Ferguson, and Shankland given game time, and perhaps see what Christie can do deeper. The defence is much of a muchness - as ever, the hope is to keep Tierney fit and get 60+ minutes out of him in both matches if we can.

Whoever was looking for McGinn to have a rest got their wish. Today’s red card could be a few games off. Means he’s more likely get more game time for us I expect.

As unexciting as McBurnie is, he does have 16 caps and is scoring occasionally for a terrible team in the Premier League. We’ve those three ahead of him so you’d assume there’s no room later this month, but if you lose one ahead of June then better to have someone with decent experience than picking someone with zero but performing well in the Championship (e.g. Hardie). Seems like sensible planning from SC.

Acknowledging the danger in dragging it on... You're not wrong, and it's an aspect of refereeing that can be overlooked. Referees are taught to consider point of contact (POC), level of force, brutality, endangerment of safety, whether leading with studs, did the player attempt to pull out the tackle etc. Level of force matters of course, and sometimes too much attention is spent on the POC. However, some degree of foot-on-foot contact is expected given the nature of the game, and so sensibly there is a greater 'allowance' for such challenges. Serious injury and endangerment increases substantially above the foot, and players have much greater ability and responsibility to control their tackles/bodies at those heights. At least we've 'mostly' got away from the "but he won the ball first" arguments (though the G.Shinnie one in Ross County(?) last year demonstrated that it's still not widely understood/appreciated). I do agree with you - I've seen too many discussions focussing on POC, when the sheer level of force effectively makes it irrelevant.

BBC reporting The Mail (urgh) rumouring Bayern to be interested in Robertson. If their loss of Alphonso Davies is correct, they’ll need a new left back.

One of my biggest frustrations with refereeing and the LotG is that there is near-universally understood and accepted guidance/training for elements such as Serious Foul Play and Violent Conduct that isn't written down anywhere publicly available. The guidance provided is that a tackle of the same force where the 'point of contact' is above the boot/foot and onto the ankle is almost always a red card, whilst a near-identical tackle where the boot makes contact with the opponent's boot/foot is a yellow card. Now, if you hit someone hard enough any tackle can/should be a red, but the above distinction is used at all levels of refereeing (or at least it should be if grassroots officials go to their coaching classes). Don Robertson rejected an OFR for downgrading a red card for Rangers a couple of weeks ago with a foot-on-foot challenge as he deemed the force to be high enough, but typically challenges like Maguire's end up in the yellow card camp. Gilmour's on the other hand should be a red card because it's a clear example of endangering safety - the ankle is an incredibly vulnerable position and so making direct contact with studs (not mentioned in Law but part of guidance) into the ankle (again, as per above) is likely to be deemed excessive force/endangering safety. Also worth noting, a tackle that is boot-on-boot and where the player's ankle might 'bend' isn't in itself indication of a red card challenge. Point of contact and sheer level of force/brutality etc is what referees and VAR are considering when determining careless (nothing) reckless (yellow) and serious foul play (red). That may be of some help, or it may just confused things further.

It’s a red card at every level and has been for at least a couple of decades. Unfortunate, but losing the ball and trying to regain possession is how these types of fouls occur.

I’d have agreed with you 3 years ago. Less so now. That 14-0 game was the most egregious example of real-world stat padding since Australia started Viduka and Kewell against a bunch of Pacific fishermen.

Obviously SSC has a decent wager on McGinn getting to 31 goals.

That’s my take - he’s stubborn and idealistic. Pragmatism has a role to play, and I’d argue the very very best managers are able to adapt on the fly to deal with imperfect situations. I’d counter the other Guardiola point - he improves and rebuilds players into what he wants far more than he rejects them. Either way, the whole discussion is academic but my take on Arteta is that he’s overly inflexible, and partial to using scapegoats to hide both his own inadequacies, but also the inevitable losses of form and variation that happens to everyone.

No one is immune to criticism, and managers like Arteta are wedded to their philosophies like artists, professors, and those at the top of their game. The worst of them continuously double down even when it becomes plainly obvious to everyone else that their setup has weaknesses being exploited. Some perceive identifying weakness or admitting to weakness is a weakness in itself. The very very best adapt and change with the game. They manage complex, varying, and difficult squads and get the very best out of their players. They freeze out players only when they have to - irrespective of their individual value (think SAF with the few he did it too). I’m not at all convinced by Arteta. His freezing out of players is odd, and quite counter to how Guardiola works. The way he whines about referees also grates with me. Either way, I’m quite happy at the prospect of Tierney staying out of Arsenal. No doubt decisions to be made in the summer, but completing the season in Spain is surely the optimum outcome.

A few very positive comments in the match summary from the weekend

I swear I’ve seen him score that identical goal before. edit: maybe it is a re-post after all

I like the Netherlands game. 12 sides are out for playoffs, and 3 more for the Euros. You also lose England, Spain, France, Turkey, and Cyprus for recency issues. Probably the same situation for a side like Austria, or Poland/Ukraine/Israel if they were available. It also depends on who is available to come play us away, as most sides don’t want two away games (NI aside apparently). Given all those restrictions, and taking out the real minnows: 53-12 playoffs-3 Euro sides-6 recent sides, remove the worst 11 sides from the UNL then divide the remaining by 2… leaves ~10 sides to choose from. Not a huge number all things considered, unless we start looking outwith Europe. Edit: I never like playing the home nations in any match, so it’s a bit of a ‘meh’ choice. Still, if it was Kosovo/Iceland/Bulgaria/Lithuania we wouldn’t think much different either. I suspect it’s a combination of availability, cost, and pragmatism. If nothing else, we should dominate the ball and can try a couple of changes in formation/players if someone’s making a push or the Dutch game forces a response in some way.

Gilmour could get his 25th cap in March, still aged 22. It wasn’t that long ago that anyone getting their silver cap was a big deal - and we’ve now got a side where players are picking them up regularly, and a generation of players making the roll of honour together. Had the last couple of years been a bit kinder, he’d already have it. Anyone any idea who the youngest player was to get their 25th cap? And who got to 50 fastest? edit: possibly Calum McGregor, 5.5 years to 50. A few players on ~6 or so.