McBurnie's socks

[Bing.McCrosby]

1 hour ago, Gordopolis said:

I believe it was 7 in 6. But 6 of those were against utter dugshite national sides, so he deserves a lifetime ban.

They should actually be deducted off his stats.

-6 goals for scoring against the teams we had to play.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

17 hours ago, pandarilla said:

Aye but it's directed hoofball. It's not aimless, and often plays in behind certain defenders, or towards a forward with other players looking for knock downs. Genuine plans.

Too many teams try to play out the back when they're clearly not able to. Give me a clear, effective plan every day of the week.

Aye totally. Its basically total football without the football.

[AndyDD]

6 minutes ago, forameus said:

I think that's a wee bit unfair with the Russia game (I don't remember much of the other two, so you could well be right on those).  The Russia game came after his ill-advised comments/joke on getting called up, to the point he got some boos on being announced, but at the start of that game he looked very much like he wanted to prove a point.  Fast forward to us scaring ourselves by taking the lead, and then the second half happened.  I was front row, probably about halfway into the half we were attacking, so got a much closer view than I would have liked of him, and he looked utterly frustrated.  He was poor, absolutely, but a lot of it was stemming from EVERYONE else being poor too.  He lost the head a wee bit as well, clearly annoyed at not getting the sort of balls that he needed, and when he did, having no-one around him to profit.  

There are a long litany of forwards that would look far better for us if we played to their strengths.  That's not to say we necessarily should, of course (Rhodes would've been a great finisher, but a passenger otherwise) but we do really struggle to link the midfield with the attack.  Have done for years now.  Unless you've got this well-rounded complete forward who can take what he's given and create something out of nothing (ha...nae chance) then we need to start finding a way to either set up with a 2 up top that doesn't leave us short in midfield, or set up our midfield in such a way that someone can link well with whatever lonely fucker we have up top, again without leaving us short further back.  

Possibly unfair in isolation, aye. I gave him benefit of the doubt for his ineffectiveness against Russia largely because, bar that ten minuter spell during which we got our goal, everyone was pretty poor that day. Also the quality of the opposition. His performance in Cyrpus in particular, though, added to Kazakhstan away, then bolting on the other six appearances of anonymity at best, liability at worst, makes it hard not to reframe that initial free pass for the Russia game. 

Agree with much of what you go on to say. I don't think for a second there is any value in not having him in the squad and he seems to be hitting some form which is good. It's entirely possible he can have 9 absolutely dreadful caps then really step up on his 10th, but i'll be continuing to cross my fingers that Griffiths screws the nut. 

[forameus]

1 minute ago, AndyDD said:

Possibly unfair in isolation, aye. I gave him benefit of the doubt for his ineffectiveness against Russia largely because, bar that ten minuter spell during which we got our goal, everyone was pretty poor that day. Also the quality of the opposition. His performance in Cyrpus in particular, though, added to Kazakhstan away, then bolting on the other six appearances of anonymity at best, liability at worst, makes it hard not to reframe that initial free pass for the Russia game. 

Agree with much of what you go on to say. I don't think for a second there is any value in not having him in the squad and he seems to be hitting some form which is good. It's entirely possible he can have 9 absolutely dreadful caps then really step up on his 10th, but i'll be continuing to cross my fingers that Griffiths screws the nut. 

Griffiths had a rocky start too, often looking pretty lost.  I'd take these performances if it means McBurnie's going to have a game like that England one.

If every player is playing to his absolute best, Griffiths would be the choice.  But at the moment that's a massive ask unfortunately.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

13 minutes ago, forameus said:

I think that's a wee Ibit unfair with the Russia game (I don't remember much of the other two, so you could well be right on those).  The Russia game came after his ill-advised comments/joke on getting called up, to the point he got some boos on being announced, but at the start of that game he looked very much like he wanted to prove a point.  Fast forward to us scaring ourselves by taking the lead, and then the second half happened.  I was front row, probably about halfway into the half we were attacking, so got a much closer view than I would have liked of him, and he looked utterly frustrated.  He was poor, absolutely, but a lot of it was stemming from EVERYONE else being poor too.  He lost the head a wee bit as well, clearly annoyed at not getting the sort of balls that he needed, and when he did, having no-one around him to profit.  

There are a long litany of forwards that would look far better for us if we played to their strengths.  That's not to say we necessarily should, of course (Rhodes would've been a great finisher, but a passenger otherwise) but we do really struggle to link the midfield with the attack.  Have done for years now.  Unless you've got this well-rounded complete forward who can take what he's given and create something out of nothing (ha...nae chance) then we need to start finding a way to either set up with a 2 up top that doesn't leave us short in midfield, or set up our midfield in such a way that someone can link well with whatever lonely fucker we have up top, again without leaving us short further back.  

I think the evidence of the last 22 years is when we have a striker, which we have had multiple times, who you know can reliably put the ball in the back of the net, we should build our team round that person. We've tried it every other way and it doesn't work. We've had Boyd, McCormack, Rhodes, even Griffiths now Shankland.

All these guys you can trust you just know if they get a few decent chances they're going to convert one or two of them.

Goals are everything in football and what we have consistently lacked for over TWENTY YEARS. If we had done that a couple of times and made these guys feel valued and needed we may well have qualified for a couple of tournaments. 

Having a striker that is one in two or even a little better is MASSIVE for a team like Scotland, it makes such a big difference. Having a striker that runs about a lot just means we get beat 1-0 instead of 2-0.

[AndyDD]

Just now, forameus said:

Griffiths had a rocky start too, often looking pretty lost.  I'd take these performances if it means McBurnie's going to have a game like that England one.

If every player is playing to his absolute best, Griffiths would be the choice.  But at the moment that's a massive ask unfortunately.

He did aye, although there was more endeavour in his ultimately fruitless appearance against Slovenia at home (hit the bar and post, buzzed around, linked well with his celtic teammates, just couldn't find the net) than Mcburnie has managed thus far. This may be in part follow naturally to their very different styles, but you did feel it was coming for Griffiths. I don't think anyone watching his Scotland performances have ever thought 'aye, a goal is coming for this lad' vis a vis Mcburnie. 

 

[forameus]

Just now, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

I think the evidence of the last 22 years is when we have a striker, which we have had multiple times, who you know can reliably put the ball in the back of the net, we should build our team round that person. We've tried it every other way and it doesn't work. We've had Boyd, McCormack, Rhodes, even Griffiths now Shankland.

All these guys you can trust you just know if they get a few decent chances they're going to convert one or two of them.

Goals are everything in football and what we have consistently lacked for over TWENTY YEARS. If we had done that a couple of times and made these guys feel valued and needed we may well have qualified for a couple of tournaments. 

Having a striker that is one in two or even a little better is MASSIVE for a team like Scotland, it makes such a big difference. Having a striker that runs about a lot just means we get beat 1-0 instead of 2-0.

It's all very well putting out phrases like "build the team around them", but how does that work in practice?  It might work if you're building a team around a Messi, a Lewandowski, Ronaldo, de Bruyne, but we're not.  Not even close.  None of the players you mentioned are really "out of nothing" types, except maybe Griffiths at set pieces.  What about when this player misses chances (because at international level, I doubt any would reach the 1 in 2 you're asking for) or, more likely, when the players you've got behind them are being utter shithouses and not providing the chances?  What about when the ball's going in the other direction?

When we get a player gifted enough that can do what you've said, or perhaps that and a few players behind him that can give him what he needs, I'll be the first to agree.  I'm not convinced we have that though.

 

2 minutes ago, AndyDD said:

He did aye, although there was more endeavour in his ultimately fruitless appearance against Slovenia at home (hit the bar and post, buzzed around, linked well with his celtic teammates, just couldn't find the net) than Mcburnie has managed thus far. This may be in part follow naturally to their very different styles, but you did feel it was coming for Griffiths. I don't think anyone watching his Scotland performances have ever thought 'aye, a goal is coming for this lad' vis a vis Mcburnie. 

Very true.  Sometimes only takes one though.  Particularly that Russia game, as he looked so desperate to impress that it boiled over into him having a much poorer game.  Both definitely different styles though, and if there was a way we could  play to his strengths without sacrificing elsewhere, he could be great for us ("great" being very relative for us)

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

5 minutes ago, forameus said:

It's all very well putting out phrases like "build the team around them", but how does that work in practice?  It might work if you're building a team around a Messi, a Lewandowski, Ronaldo, de Bruyne, but we're not.  Not even close.  None of the players you mentioned are really "out of nothing" types, except maybe Griffiths at set pieces.  What about when this player misses chances (because at international level, I doubt any would reach the 1 in 2 you're asking for) or, more likely, when the players you've got behind them are being utter shithouses and not providing the chances?  What about when the ball's going in the other direction?

When we get a player gifted enough that can do what you've said, or perhaps that and a few players behind him that can give him what he needs, I'll be the first to agree.  I'm not convinced we have that though.

 

Very true.  Sometimes only takes one though.  Particularly that Russia game, as he looked so desperate to impress that it boiled over into him having a much poorer game.  Both definitely different styles though, and if there was a way we could  play to his strengths without sacrificing elsewhere, he could be great for us ("great" being very relative for us)

But its all relative, compared to the players around them Boyd was a Lewandowski, he scored about 400 career goals. We have nobody else remotely close, he was getting forty-five a season. Its not like he was hitting twenty.  Northern Ireland got David Healy to be a goal a game guy for a long period of time by playing to his strengths, he wasn't an out of nothing guy either. 

First of all give them a fucking chance is how you do it, we didn't even do that with any of them. Not once with one of them did our manager say right you're my first choice when fit and available you're going to start every game and give them a run of twenty or thirty caps in a row as near as possible. They were getting a substitute appearance here and there then wallopers on here were going well that's it then he's had four caps totalling 103 minutes and didn't score bin him and get a headless chicken who couldn't score in a bucket of fannies to run about like f**k its the only way.

Fill these players with confidence, build them up, and give them a chance. Its not rocket science, Boyd you get a midfielder to get up alongside when he can run beyond him and get the ball in and around the box and get crosses in. You create a few chances for him he is going to score a goal.  We can do that with the same formation and same set-up, Miller never made any difference to our defensive capabilities by chasing pointless dead ends for defenders to pass it around him, it just looks like he did to the uneducated eye.

[craigkillie]

 

1 hour ago, forameus said:

I think that's a wee bit unfair with the Russia game (I don't remember much of the other two, so you could well be right on those).  The Russia game came after his ill-advised comments/joke on getting called up, to the point he got some boos on being announced, but at the start of that game he looked very much like he wanted to prove a point.  Fast forward to us scaring ourselves by taking the lead, and then the second half happened.  I was front row, probably about halfway into the half we were attacking, so got a much closer view than I would have liked of him, and he looked utterly frustrated.  He was poor, absolutely, but a lot of it was stemming from EVERYONE else being poor too.  He lost the head a wee bit as well, clearly annoyed at not getting the sort of balls that he needed, and when he did, having no-one around him to profit. 

I thought he was absolutely atrocious in that Russia game, one of the most lethargic and peahearted showings I've ever seen from a Scotland number 9. He started off linking things up ok and then as soon as he got clattered once by their big doped up monster of a centre-half he shat himself and kept trying to flick it round the corner rather than being brave enough to hold it up and take a few hits.

He definitely wasn't helped by the approach of the rest of the team - the midfield didn't get as close to him as they should at times, but he should have done much better than he did. The fact he's clearly an arsehole off the park doesn't help his case, but Scotland have had plenty of arseholes playing for us in the past where that is forgotten about as soon as they start performing. I have been hugely impressed by him as an all-round striker at Sheffield United, but we haven't seen even a hint of that player in the dark blue yet. There's still time, and I'd definitely be looking to use the September Nations League games to see how he gets on with McGinn pushed high up the park close to him.

 

[Gordopolis]

But its all relative, compared to the players around them Boyd was a Lewandowski, he scored about 400 career goals. We have nobody else remotely close, he was getting forty-five a season. Its not like he was hitting twenty.  Northern Ireland got David Healy to be a goal a game guy for a long period of time by playing to his strengths, he wasn't an out of nothing guy either. 
First of all give them a fucking chance is how you do it, we didn't even do that with any of them. Not once with one of them did our manager say right you're my first choice when fit and available you're going to start every game and give them a run of twenty or thirty caps in a row as near as possible. They were getting a substitute appearance here and there then wallopers on here were going well that's it then he's had four caps totalling 103 minutes and didn't score bin him and get a headless chicken who couldn't score in a bucket of fannies to run about like f**k its the only way.
Fill these players with confidence, build them up, and give them a chance. Its not rocket science, Boyd you get a midfielder to get up alongside when he can run beyond him and get the ball in and around the box and get crosses in. You create a few chances for him he is going to score a goal.  We can do that with the same formation and same set-up, Miller never made any difference to our defensive capabilities by chasing pointless dead ends for defenders to pass it around him, it just looks like he did to the uneducated eye.

Boyd? He only got 300 (293 for club, 7 for country) over his career, not 400.
Also, he never came close to 45 in any one season. Best he did was 37 with Rangers and Killie in the year he moved between them. There was one 31 goal season after that but otherwise it was all sub-30 seasons.

That said, I liked Boyd and thought we could have utilised him more than we did.

[Blootoon87]

I think that's a wee bit unfair with the Russia game (I don't remember much of the other two, so you could well be right on those).  The Russia game came after his ill-advised comments/joke on getting called up, to the point he got some boos on being announced, but at the start of that game he looked very much like he wanted to prove a point.  Fast forward to us scaring ourselves by taking the lead, and then the second half happened.  I was front row, probably about halfway into the half we were attacking, so got a much closer view than I would have liked of him, and he looked utterly frustrated.  He was poor, absolutely, but a lot of it was stemming from EVERYONE else being poor too.  He lost the head a wee bit as well, clearly annoyed at not getting the sort of balls that he needed, and when he did, having no-one around him to profit.  
There are a long litany of forwards that would look far better for us if we played to their strengths.  That's not to say we necessarily should, of course (Rhodes would've been a great finisher, but a passenger otherwise) but we do really struggle to link the midfield with the attack.  Have done for years now.  Unless you've got this well-rounded complete forward who can take what he's given and create something out of nothing (ha...nae chance) then we need to start finding a way to either set up with a 2 up top that doesn't leave us short in midfield, or set up our midfield in such a way that someone can link well with whatever lonely fucker we have up top, again without leaving us short further back.  

I think I remember during the Russia game he spent most of his time trying to deal with balls getting launched at his head with no Scotland player within 30 yards of him.

[cameron2000]

The opinion that McBurnie can’t operate as a long striker is a very short sighted one. He scored 22 goals for Swansea last season as a lone striker in a 4231.

Where the issue lies is the gap between him and the midfield when playing for Scotland. At times this due to playing superior opposition and tactically defending deep - in this instance any striker is going to really struggle. However, at times bizzare tactical decisions have made life more difficult for him - ideally in this system McBurnie needs pacy players on the wings (Fraser, Forrest etc) so they can get up to support him and use pace + flair to create space and chances for McBurnie and to get in behind so he’s got options to find with his decent link up play and flick one with his aerial threat. This becomes very difficult when Callum McGregor is playing on the left wing for some reason.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

27 minutes ago, Gordopolis said:

Boyd? He only got 300 (293 for club, 7 for country) over his career, not 400.
Also, he never came close to 45 in any one season. Best he did was 37 with Rangers and Killie in the year he moved between them. There was one 31 goal season after that but otherwise it was all sub-30 seasons.

That said, I liked Boyd and thought we could have utilised him more than we did.

Well that's about 400 isn't it?  3 is about 4 is it not?  

[Gordopolis]

Well that's about 400 isn't it?  3 is about 4 is it not?  

Aye, why not [emoji4]

[AndyDD]

14 hours ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Well that's about 400 isn't it?  3 is about 4 is it not?  

100 goals is quite a significant amount. 

Whilst i'm generally sympathetic to the argument that Mcburnie hasn't been helped by the players around him at times for Scotland, again I would point out that his level of endeavour, even his basic ball control, has been pretty abysmal throughout his 9 caps. Away to Cyprus he had plenty support from the midfield when he came on, but the players soon stopped giving him the ball after repeated failures to trap it, control it or even make any sort of run. His cheap surrender of possession was actually quite remarkable in what was surely his worst performance yet. No wonder he didn't get a sniff at home to Kazakhstan after that dreadful display.

At one point, he had a one on one with the goalie if he could have just bothered his arse to actually run 20 yards. Couldn't be arsed, just stood and watched the keeper nonchalantly come and collect it. 

Clarke quite rightly kept him on the bench at Hampden after that and it is up to Mcburnie to roll his, ahem, sleeves up (eschewing the obvious play on the topic title) and prove to the manager that such a performance is behind him. 

 

[skippy2015]

Mcburnie has started only 2 competitive international games for scotland he’s had 2 sub appearances in competitive matches and the other 5 caps were friendlies. It would be silly to judge a player on 2 competitive starts and overall a lot of his appearances have been as a sub. Just turned 24 as well can see him being a big part of Steve Clarke’s plans over the next few years as he suits Scotland’s style of play.

[Bing.McCrosby]

On 15/07/2020 at 10:05, skippy2015 said:

Mcburnie has started only 2 competitive international games for scotland he’s had 2 sub appearances in competitive matches and the other 5 caps were friendlies. It would be silly to judge a player on 2 competitive starts and overall a lot of his appearances have been as a sub. Just turned 24 as well can see him being a big part of Steve Clarke’s plans over the next few years as he suits Scotland’s style of play.

International friendlies arent the same as club pre season friendlies. Where players are looking to gain match sharpness.

There far more competitive. Players are literally playing for their places.

So judging his performances in international friendlies is absolutely fair.

And he was crap.

[AndyDD]

On 15/07/2020 at 10:05, skippy2015 said:

Mcburnie has started only 2 competitive international games for scotland he’s had 2 sub appearances in competitive matches and the other 5 caps were friendlies. It would be silly to judge a player on 2 competitive starts and overall a lot of his appearances have been as a sub. Just turned 24 as well can see him being a big part of Steve Clarke’s plans over the next few years as he suits Scotland’s style of play.

It would be silly to write off a player on 9 caps, even if it was 9 starts, but I don't think it is unreasonable to have formed a judgement on how he has performed in the minutes he has had in a Scotland shirt thus far, whilst accepting it is entirely possible he will get better. 

I'm not sure on what basis you think he suits Scotland's style of play, though. What is our style of play, as you understand it? And how does it complement McBurnie, or vice versa? 

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

3 hours ago, AndyDD said:

It would be silly to write off a player on 9 caps, even if it was 9 starts, but I don't think it is unreasonable to have formed a judgement on how he has performed in the minutes he has had in a Scotland shirt thus far, whilst accepting it is entirely possible he will get better. 

I'm not sure on what basis you think he suits Scotland's style of play, though. What is our style of play, as you understand it? And how does it complement McBurnie, or vice versa? 

Aye judge him on 9 if you want, even though that's daft.  You can also judge him, much more accurately, on the 35 games he's played this season.  That's where you can judge him.

[JagsCG]

35 minutes ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said:

Aye judge him on 9 if you want, even though that's daft.  You can also judge him, much more accurately, on the 35 games he's played this season.  That's where you can judge him.

Or you could judge him on both.