Scotland squad face March 2021

[craigkillie]

10 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

Need to think the central defensive options will be McTominay, Gallagher, Tierney, Cooper, Hanley, McKenna. 

Yes, it's hard to imagine anyone else breaking into this barring a couple of injuries. Gallagher is the one to keep an eye on if he continues to sit things out at Motherwell until the end of the seaosn.

[Marshmallo]

9 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Yes, it's hard to imagine anyone else breaking into this barring a couple of injuries. Gallagher is the one to keep an eye on if he continues to sit things out at Motherwell until the end of the seaosn.

Given positional flexibility of a couple of players on that list we could maybe take a 7th option too. McIntyre or Considine probably the two options worth considering.

[cameron2000]

Thanks to the very bald Teemu Pukki it looks like Hanley will be in the Barclays again next season.

In all honesty Hanley has performed at a higher level than Pukki this season[emoji23] Although Buendia is the key

[Fratelli]

I see that's now 16 games without a goal for Dykes. A quick look on Twitter and the general consensus among QPR fans seems to be that he isn't even close to being good enough for that level. I've been hoping he'll come good down there, and in In my mind i'd still have him starting for us after how well it seemed to work in October/November, but i do think in ordinary circumstances fans wouldn't be too chuffed with a player struggling to kick his own arse for a bottom half Championship side getting called up. I suppose it comes down to the whole argument of whether you pick players in form or go for a settled squad which remains constant regardless of club form.

Edited February 25, 2021 by Fratelli

[Barry Ferguson's Hat]

We don't need goals.

[Gordopolis]

I see that's now 16 games without a goal for Dykes. A quick look on Twitter and the general consensus among QPR fans seems to be that he isn't even close to being good enough for that level. I've been hoping he'll come good down there, and in In my mind i'd still have him starting for us after how well it seemed to work in October/November, but i do think in ordinary circumstances fans wouldn't be too chuffed with a player struggling to kick his own arse for a bottom half Championship side getting called up. I suppose it comes down to the whole argument of whether you pick players in form or go for a settled squad which remains constant regardless of club form.

While goals isn't the be all and end all for Dykes, it is a bit concerning that he doesn't have a few more goals from open play (I think all but one are from pens).
However, he is starting just about every week, suggesting that he must be doing okay in the link up/target man aspects of his game.
Either way, he starts for Scotland as far as I'm concerned.

[The Moonster]

He's never really been the prolific type. His career total according to Wiki is 41 goals in 194 appearances. If QPR fans were expecting him to score goals every week then they're fucking idiots. I know some folk have previously balked at the suggestion on here that not all strikers need to score goals every week but Dykes is the perfect example of that. He drags defences around, causes problems with his size and links up play pretty well any time I've seen him. I think he's a perfect fit for the 3-5-2 we play and as long as he's playing every week he should be included. I don't know what QPR's options are but given Dykes plays every week it sounds like Warburton likes him and is trying to improve him. I think it's fair to remember Dykes took a wee bit to get going at QoS and is now playing at different level with a different style of football. 

Decent article here - https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/lyndon-dykes-at-qpr-what-do-the-stats-say-about-the-player-what-can-he-improve/

He's still the joint top scorer for QPR who have a far more prolific striker in Charlie Austin also playing every week. I'm not sure Dykes is totally to blame for their lack of goals. 

[Rodhull]

14 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

He's never really been the prolific type. His career total according to Wiki is 41 goals in 194 appearances. If QPR fans were expecting him to score goals every week then they're fucking idiots. I know some folk have previously balked at the suggestion on here that not all strikers need to score goals every week but Dykes is the perfect example of that. He drags defences around, causes problems with his size and links up play pretty well any time I've seen him. I think he's a perfect fit for the 3-5-2 we play and as long as he's playing every week he should be included. I don't know what QPR's options are but given Dykes plays every week it sounds like Warburton likes him and is trying to improve him. I think it's fair to remember Dykes took a wee bit to get going at QoS and is now playing at different level with a different style of football. 

Decent article here - https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/lyndon-dykes-at-qpr-what-do-the-stats-say-about-the-player-what-can-he-improve/

He's still the joint top scorer for QPR who have a far more prolific striker in Charlie Austin also playing every week. I'm not sure Dykes is totally to blame for their lack of goals. 

Didnt Austin only sign for them in January?

[The Moonster]

12 minutes ago, Rodhull said:

Didnt Austin only sign for them in January?

Aye, fair enough, didn't realise that. It appears he's scored 3 in 6 since joining and they've only lost 1 league game in 8. Perhaps they've found a partner for Dykes then?

[cameron2000]

I’ve seen a numerous QPR games. Dykes has been more than brutal - he’s league 1 level in England at best. All this talk of not being a goal scorer is correct but his link up play is very sloppy to and he’s so slow.

Let’s not forget McBurnie has score goals at a really good rate at this level.

Don’t get me wrong if we want to be a top team he’s not the answer but I’d start McBurnie over Dykes any day. He has actually been very unlucky in his last few games for Scotland.

[craigkillie]

1 minute ago, cameron2000 said:

I’ve seen a numerous QPR games. Dykes has been more than brutal - he’s league 1 level in England at best. All this talk of not being a goal scorer is correct but his link up play is very sloppy to and he’s so slow.

Let’s not forget McBurnie has score goals at a really good rate at this level.

Don’t get me wrong if we want to be a top team he’s not the answer but I’d start McBurnie over Dykes any day. He has actually been very unlucky in his last few games for Scotland.

 

Thanks for letting us know that we can file your opinions directly into the bin in the future. Lyndon Dykes has been head and shoulders above McBurnie in the only thing that matters - his performances for Scotland. I couldn't care less if he's scoring 1 in 50 for Forest Green Rovers if he keeps playing the way he did in Belgrade.

[G51]

8 hours ago, Fratelli said:

I see that's now 16 games without a goal for Dykes. A quick look on Twitter and the general consensus among QPR fans seems to be that he isn't even close to being good enough for that level. I've been hoping he'll come good down there, and in In my mind i'd still have him starting for us after how well it seemed to work in October/November, but i do think in ordinary circumstances fans wouldn't be too chuffed with a player struggling to kick his own arse for a bottom half Championship side getting called up. I suppose it comes down to the whole argument of whether you pick players in form or go for a settled squad which remains constant regardless of club form.

We don't need him to score goals. It's a bonus if he does, but that's not what he's there for.

Also, he was never going to be a success at QPR was he. His strengths are as a big target man who can bring others into play when you go direct to him. That's not how Warburton plays football.

Extremely surprising that Mark Warburton bought a player who doesn't fit the way he plays. Extremely surprising. Looking at Dykes' agent will tell you all you need to know on this one.

[G51]

I see Perthshire Bell is back, isn't that nice.

[cameron2000]

 
Thanks for letting us know that we can file your opinions directly into the bin in the future. Lyndon Dykes has been head and shoulders above McBurnie in the only thing that matters - his performances for Scotland. I couldn't care less if he's scoring 1 in 50 for Forest Green Rovers if he keeps playing the way he did in Belgrade.

This is the most ridiculous post. McBurnie is clearly the better player but because Dykes had a couple of decent games for Scotland he should be guaranteed to start ahead of him.?

People all over Scotland clearly have an anti-McBurnie agenda - when he goes on the pitch people are hoping he fails. I’m not even great fan of him but he’s clearly our best option in our weakest position (along with right back).

[Bing.McCrosby]

41 minutes ago, G51 said:

We don't need him to score goals. It's a bonus if he does, but that's not what he's there for.

Also, he was never going to be a success at QPR was he. His strengths are as a big target man who can bring others into play when you go direct to him. That's not how Warburton plays football.

Extremely surprising that Mark Warburton bought a player who doesn't fit the way he plays. Extremely surprising. Looking at Dykes' agent will tell you all you need to know on this one.

Call me old fashioned. But I quite like a striker who scores goals.

Same as I like keepers who can save shots. And defenders who can tackle, midfielders who can pass. That kind of thing.

[Fratelli]

Always wanted him to do well but McBurnie has been woeful in a Scotland shirt. As others have said Dykes offered us more in his first 10 minutes than McBurnie has during any of his appearances. Been unlucky the odd time hitting the bar etc but in terms of his general play there have been numerous occasions where we may as well have been playing without a striker - extra time in Belgrade was probably the best example of that. 

[Marshmallo]

9 minutes ago, BingMcCrosby said:

Call me old fashioned. But I quite like a striker who scores goals.

Same as I like keepers who can save shots. And defenders who can tackle, midfielders who can pass. That kind of thing.

"Dinosaur" would probably be more apt

[G51]

6 minutes ago, BingMcCrosby said:

Call me old fashioned. But I quite like a striker who scores goals.

Same as I like keepers who can save shots. And defenders who can tackle, midfielders who can pass. That kind of thing.

Call me whatever you like, but I think we should judge players based on what their role is in the game, not on what their nominal position is on a sheet of paper.

The Dykes/McBurnie role is primarily about taking the ball in, gaining territory and contributing in build-up.

If Scotland have ten shots in a match, I don't want Dykes or McBurnie to be taking all of them just because they're strikers. Neither of them are good finishers. I want players like McGinn, Christie etc taking them, because those guys are clean strikers of the ball that can finish.

Let your best finishers finish, your best hold-up players hold the ball, your best passers pass and let Oliver Burke enjoy two weeks at home with the family.

[Gordopolis]

and let Oliver Burke enjoy two weeks at home with the family.

Burke's got to be in the squad - he's our best player at running the ball out of play really fast.

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, G51 said:

Call me whatever you like, but I think we should judge players based on what their role is in the game, not on what their nominal position is on a sheet of paper.

The Dykes/McBurnie role is primarily about taking the ball in, gaining territory and contributing in build-up.

If Scotland have ten shots in a match, I don't want Dykes or McBurnie to be taking all of them just because they're strikers. Neither of them are good finishers. I want players like McGinn, Christie etc taking them, because those guys are clean strikers of the ball that can finish.

Let your best finishers finish, your best hold-up players hold the ball, your best passers pass and let Oliver Burke enjoy two weeks at home with the family.

Your a cheesecake.