ScottishZizou

But why put the burden on the clubs in the first place? What difference is there for any fan between a bronze and non bronze club? It’s all utterly pointless

For the life of me I don’t understand the point of these licenses. Surely the only thing that matters is, is it safe to hold games at said ground with the attendances expected in that league? It’s 4th tier football in a country of 5 million for Christ sake these clubs are run by volunteers, why put this administrative burden on these people when they have full time jobs? It’s purely a means of gate keeping and self-preservation. Shameful stuff

It's the 4th tier of Scottish football where absolutely nobody is full time. All this talk about licenses is baffling. Who would care if a team playing in the 4th tier didn't have a license? What difference does it make? All people care about is heading along and watching legitimate competition and a meritocracy. The whole football league and lowland league self-preservation acts are getting boring, the pyramid is a farce if arbitrary measures are put in place.

Something can simultaneously be not a success and not a failure. Failure would be not making the euros, success would be getting into the last 16. Just getting to the tournament would be par for the course. In the same way that as an Aberdeen fan if we finish 3rd/4th and get to a couple semi finals it's not a successful season as we haven't performed above expectation but it wouldn't be a failure like this season has been. It's tenure defining because if he achieves it then he will have done something out of the ordinary and elevated himself beyond just doing what should be done as the Scotland manager and I would say his tenure would be looked on favourably. If we don't get out of the groups here after also failing to at Euro 2020 and bottling the playoff v Ukraine then I think his tenure will be looked back on as a missed opportunity. It might seem harsh but international football is a smaller sample size. If we fail to get through the groups there should be discussions about whether Clarke is the right person to take us over that hurdle after there being a repeated pattern of him not being able to. At that point it would be fair to conclude either way that he is close and should stay or it would be fair to say that someone else should get a crack at it. All of this is hypothetical as getting through the group is a real possibility.

I agree that would be mental but isn't what I have said anywhere. I feel like some people are wanting to engage in a separate debate with people who do think Clarke has been a failure. You can thread the needle between being neither successful or a failure by just being Ok which is what Clarke has done. He has done nothing out of the ordinary, in fact less than many other countries have achieved with close to equal resource but has kept us relevant. Reaching the last 24 of Europe is fine, if we were to get papped out in the groups again after bottling the Ukraine playoff then it's hard to say it's been a roaring success when so many other countries have achieved more than us over the last decade.

Yes but that's exactly the point. Getting out the groups now is the same as getting to the tournament historically. No-one thinks it's going to be easy to get out the group but it's as easy as it was to qualify for the euros pre 2016. We likely would have qualified more than once for euros 2000,2004,2008,2012 if they were 24 team tournaments. Since 2016 it's been possible for: Italy, Wales, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Austria, Ukraine, England, Croatia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Spain, France, Germany, Portugal, Slovakia, Poland, Northern Ireland, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland all to get through the groups at the Euros. And it's too much to expect Scotland to do something that some of those countries have done? There are others who haven't but have gone to the World cup like Serbia. Why should we not be able to get to the last 16 if Iceland, Northern Ireland, Slovakia and Ireland can with our squad?

But qualifications now aren’t the same as qualifications previously. Pre 2016 qualifying equals the same as getting through the groups at the current euros set up. That’s like saying that any time we almost got to the euros previously was a success if we apply the same metrics. The last euros was very poor, losing at home to Ukraine in a World Cup playoff was also very poor. They then got handled by Wales and off they went to the World Cup. Clarke has done well but if the extent of our ambition is to achieve something that is worse than Northern Ireland and Ireland have achieved in the past decade and way way less than Wales then that’s a pretty sorry state of affairs.

You could play that game again 1000 times and it would finish 4-0 maybe once. I wouldn’t start Shankland but to base that opinion on one shot last night would be mental. I wonder if our best bet is to play defenders who can defend crosses and can one on one defend well plus tierney. Which probably means more McKenna when fit than souttar. The nature of tournament football being less patterns of play and more rigid probably means sacrificing better ball play for less costly mistakes

Think this Euro’s performance will define the Clarke era. He has been a good Scotland manager but failure to get through the groups here and it’s tough to say his tenure has been a success. If we don’t get through it will be multiple instances of falling short of achieving anything substantial like making the last 16 of the euros or making a World Cup. Get through here and it will be a proper achievement. Wales, Ireland and Northern Ireland have all made it out the groups at a Euros in the last decade. If he were to have two attempts and not achieve the same it would be pretty poor. We have been more consistent but achieved nothing yet that is beyond our capabilities. It seems a bit arbitrary that three games can define so many years but that’s just the nature of international management

How can my preferences on what I would rather watch or play a football match on be a generalisation? A generalisation over my own opinion This is the core of the issue, I am not saying all grass pitches are 100% of the time better than all astroturf pitches. I am saying that close to 100% of the time I would rather watch a match on a grass pitch than an AstroTurf one. Why is that something that some fans take such an issue with?

My point is there is a difference, the ball does move differently and it is does look different. Whether you are playing or watching. Whether that difference is better or worse or justifiable is personal preference. I can understand why someone doesn't enjoy it as much as grass and that's a valid opinion to have. Just because they are justifiable doesn't mean someone has to enjoy them. For context, if travel and cost was no different and I had a choice between going to Dunfermline v Raith on grass or Raith v Dunfermline on astro, I'd probably opt for the one on grass pitch. Someone might choose the other way and that's fine. As I said, I think the benefits make them justifiable but to say they don't play into some people's enjoyment factor is nonsense

I think people who say that there isn't a difference between a grass pitch and artificial are being a bit daft. The way that through balls run out the pitch/through to the keeper more often, the way the ball bounces higher but more true, the way the ball is easier to control a pass fired into you as it bobbles less and then you feel more comfortable playing out from the back because of the above. There are pro's and cons and I guess it depends on how you enjoy to play or watch football. Banks of Dee always had an astroturf pitch in the North Juniors and you always felt there was a better chance of taking something off them at home. How that translates up the pyramid I don't know but it did feel a bit of a different game when they could ping it about easier on the astroturf. Broadly, I am in favour of them, there are financial reasons and if the aim of the Scottish game is to generate players for the elite level that does have carpets for pitches then having young guys playing on these with a connection to their local club is clearly a good thing. It is significantly easier to play out from the back on an astro than a poor grass pitch. Allowing youth teams to play on them and solid income streams are probably reason enough alone when business's are struggling so much financially, including football clubs. What I dislike however is the notion that is sort of baked in that to not like watching a match on astroturf, you are automatically a luddite. It can be jarring sometimes seeing the light bounce off of the plastic and there is an unnatural/sanitised feel to it. The grounds I enjoy visiting are the more old school ones and the astroturf can kill the vibe a little for some people. It creates a sort of community centre sense rather than football ground and probably removes people from the notion that they are on the terraces watching football in the same way as it has been played at that ground for decades which is one of the reasons people still go watch football. There are also people who would just prefer to watch more of a battle on a January dubby pitch where physicality and caution is what's demanded for rather than two teams aiming to play it out the back. To tell someone they shouldn't not like something when they know they don't like it is weird.

Sokler is absolutely crap I’m afraid

Miovksi, Duk and Ramadani have been good signings but is that enough to justify how crap we are and how much dross we have signed. Our recruitment has been an unmitigated disaster from the players to the positions of the players. Gueye and Sokler are both absolutely dreadful, we have spent what we assume to be the guts of a million on two guys who look like championship standard players and I’m not even convinced most teams in that league would take them. Gartenman and Jensen are presiding over a defence that is a shambles (aware there are formation problems but they are still league average players), Roos is probably earning way way more than your average Scottish top flight goalie and is chucking goals in. The recruitment on the whole has been utterly shambolic given the level of investment. We have under achieved due to some poor tactical choices but the squad that’s been put together and the lack of positional diversity is bordering on professional malpractice, as previously mentioned the bulk of a million on two crap strikers and we don’t have a winger in the squad you’d be happy having on the pitch for even ten minutes, it’s beggars belief.

I guess the frustration is that both big decisions despite being probably correct probably feel a bit unmerited, a trip that Miovski had no intention of and was a little bit removed from the actual goal (if VAR has to exist then what’s its cut off and was that clear and obvious and directly involved in the act of the goal?) and then a penalty that is by the rules a penalty but Devlin did nothing at all wrong and it’s a 80% chance of a goal, for something that nobody could do anything about. The handball rule is a mess. When you have a fanbase already frustrated then it’s going to wind some people up even further