Czech Republic v Scotland

[G51]

3 minutes ago, Rscot said:

Mctominey is a natural box to box midfielder, he could play the role but isn’t physically strong enough, developed enough yet, in my opinion. Jack is a midfielder who picks thr ball up deep from the defence and distributes it, he’s not a tackler, ball winner. He’s not got the mindset of a defensive midfielder 

I disagree that McTominay isn't physically strong enough to tackle other players to be honest. And Jack has excelled as a six for years now.

But in any case, why would you want to play a midfielder whos sole job is to tackle and win the ball? That kind of player is only useful for a team who constantly looks to play in transition (hence why McCrorie excelled in Caixinha's Rangers, but couldn't get a look in with Gerrard). When we have good midfielders like we have, we should look to control the ball and the game. Playing in transition can lead to better teams smothering us.

[munro7]

The lack of movement throughout the side is the biggest worry for me. The poor sod on the ball never has any options.

[Guest Rscot]

1 minute ago, G51 said:

I disagree that McTominay isn't physically strong enough to tackle other players to be honest. And Jack has excelled as a six for years now.

But in any case, why would you want to play a midfielder whos sole job is to tackle and win the ball? That kind of player is only useful for a team who constantly looks to play in transition (hence why McCrorie excelled in Caixinha's Rangers, but couldn't get a look in with Gerrard). When we have good midfielders like we have, we should look to control the ball and the game. Playing in transition can lead to better teams smothering us.

Mctominey will be strong enough in a year or two. We lack athleticism, physicality, aggression, grit, determination in the middle of the park, in that respect our midfield is lightweight. We may have some good technical players, but we will still struggle against teams who may not be technically as good as us in the middle of the park but whose physicality, athleticism is superior. Football isn’t chess, there is a physical dimension to the sport, and if our midfield is filled with good technical players who struggle to match up physically, athletically with the opposition, even if the opposition is technically inferior to us, we will struggle to get results. 

[Guest Rscot]

For those that are doubting what I say, answer me this. Why are Iceland so successful?

[dirty dingus]

5 minutes ago, Rscot said:

For those that are doubting what I say, answer me this. Why are Iceland so successful?

Because their frozen produce is of a better standard than farmfoods.

[wastecoatwilly]

13 minutes ago, G51 said:

I disagree that McTominay isn't physically strong enough to tackle other players to be honest. And Jack has excelled as a six for years now.

But in any case, why would you want to play a midfielder whos sole job is to tackle and win the ball? That kind of player is only useful for a team who constantly looks to play in transition (hence why McCrorie excelled in Caixinha's Rangers, but couldn't get a look in with Gerrard). When we have good midfielders like we have, we should look to control the ball and the game. Playing in transition can lead to better teams smothering us.

I think it's a bit of both,teams are finding it far too easy to get to our back line the balance isn't right when we lose the ball the midfield are posted missing.
It's not hard to get our ass back in behind the ball to protect the back 3 or 4, it's much the same debate why sevco need 2 sitting when they played Livingstone.

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, Rscot said:

For those that are doubting what I say, answer me this. Why are Iceland so successful?

Iceland are so successful because Scott mctominays balls haven't dropped.

[DiegoDiego]

There is an entirely different context in relation to Central Europe/Visegrád states, particularly in the crafting of national identities post-89. Those who argue semantics tend to be Western Europeans who have little issue with lumping all CEE states together for spurious reasons. 

I can see why organisations might want to brand it Central European but why would your average person get upset about it? Brechin City being Highland or Lowland has more real world ramifications than whether I refer to Czechia as Central or East.

[G51]

12 minutes ago, Rscot said:

For those that are doubting what I say, answer me this. Why are Iceland so successful?

Lars Lagerback and Erik Hamren.

[forameus]

Just now, DiegoDiego said:

33 minutes ago, Menzel said:

There is an entirely different context in relation to Central Europe/Visegrád states, particularly in the crafting of national identities post-89. Those who argue semantics tend to be Western Europeans who have little issue with lumping all CEE states together for spurious reasons. 

I can see why organisations might want to brand it Central European but why would your average person get upset about it? Brechin City being Highland or Lowland has more real world ramifications than whether I refer to Czechia as Central or East.

Wouldn't "Eastern" Europe carry a bit of a stigma of being absolute shitholes?  Completely undeserved of course.

[forameus]

Just now, G51 said:

Lars Lagerback and Erik Hamren.

You know what, maybe the SFA should have a shot at hiring him...

 

Oh...

[G51]

5 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

I think it's a bit of both,teams are finding it far too easy to get to our back line the balance isn't right when we lose the ball the midfield are posted missing.
It's not hard to get our ass back in behind the ball to protect the back 3 or 4, it's much the same debate why sevco need 2 sitting when they played Livingstone.

This isn't for this thread, but Rangers play two sitting midfielders because it works brilliantly.

[Guest Rscot]

1 minute ago, G51 said:

Lars Lagerback and Erik Hamren.

So nothing to do with their physicality and athleticism 

[G51]

Just now, forameus said:

You know what, maybe the SFA should have a shot at hiring him...

 

Oh...

Now he's managing the Norway team and he'd laugh at us.

[G51]

Just now, Rscot said:

So nothing to do with their physicality and athleticism 

They have managers who get the best out of the players they have.

If we had the same, it would solve all of our problems.

[forameus]

1 minute ago, G51 said:

Now he's managing the Norway team and he'd laugh at us.

Sad thing is, he definitely wanted the job on one occasion, possibly even two.  Didn't we pass him up for Burley and then Strachan?  Could have the last one wrong (or both, who knows)

[Guest Rscot]

3 minutes ago, G51 said:

They have managers who get the best out of the players they have.

If we had the same, it would solve all of our problems.

You need the material to work with in the first place. We lack athleticism and physicality, aggression etc in the middle of the park, unfortunately we just can’t conjure that up

Edited September 8, 2020 by Rscot

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, Rscot said:

So nothing to do with their physicality and athleticism 

Our starting midfield yesterday all play in the English Premier league. Im sure they could handle the extreme physicality of the Czech Republic league.

[rainbowrising]

I didnt see an opponent that was physically stronger. More like sharper passing, good movement, looked to get the ball wide with midfield supporting.  We were utterly pedestrian in comparison and a shambles by the end. 

[G51]

1 minute ago, Rscot said:

You need to material to work with in the first place. We lack athleticism and physicality, aggression etc in the middle of the park, unfortunately we just can’t conjure that up

You can repeat this as often as you like, but it doesn't make it true.

We do not lack athleticism or physicality.