Scotland Vs Faroe Islands Weds 31st March

[welldaft]

Not a great start granted and I am not pleased with the cautious approach v Israel especially. But if I see another person saying we should be beating the Israelis A team we have played 6 times and only beaten once with 2 previous losses away in Israel. I mean FFS. 

Then I had the misfortune to listen to Sportsound podcast and in response to someone saying we could be second come tomorrow evening on 5 points. Some eejit responded to say a yes but Austria and Denmark will also have to play Faroes. No one actually pointed out that Austria Already had and that Denmark played the lowest seeds and whipping boys  

Ideally want a Denmark win tomorrow but a draw would not be too bad.

Long way to go yet as long as we get 3 points tomorrow and preferably with a decent performance into the bargain. 

[Ira Gaines]

Israel are a team that Scotland should be treating as beatable. If they went on the park, did that, and still drew, I could at least accept that we treated the game as it should be treated. We didn't though. We didn't even treat them like they were our equals. We treated them like they're better, when they're not.

We should be treating beatable teams like exactly that. Not standing off as if they command all sorts of respect that they simply haven't earned. That sort of thing leads to constantly drawing with them.

[BFTD]

3 hours ago, welldaft said:

Not a great start granted and I am not pleased with the cautious approach v Israel especially. But if I see another person saying we should be beating the Israelis A team we have played 6 times and only beaten once with 2 previous losses away in Israel. I mean FFS. 

You missed the important part of that: we should be beating the Israelis if we want to qualify for this tournament.

Israel will not be at the World Cup because they aren't good enough. If we can't beat them, we're not either. If you look back up the thread, you'll see that the overwhelming reason we don't qualify for tournaments is that we don't beat the lower seeds in our groups.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

I said after Sunday's game that I think we should go to a 4-3-3, not just for the next game, but into the Euros. Not because I think 4-3-3 is an intrinsically 'attacking' set-up, or because 3-5-2 is an intrinsically 'defensive' set-up; but because I think 4-3-3 suits the players we have and is more likely to give us a flexible way of playing in different circumstances.

4-3-3 can be very compact and 'negative' when you're playing against good sides; the wide players sit deep and you still have three in the middle. 3-5-2 can be a very 'attacking' way to set up (depending on who plays at wing-back), but too often, in teams that have a cautious mind-set, it turns into a very passive 5-3-2.

Clarke was right to go to 3-5-2 at first in order to make us harder to beat, but it's become pretty clear that we need to do something different if we're going to win games against moderate to strong opposition. Israel know us inside out and just gradually imposed themselves on our 3-5-2 as the first half wore on. The change of shape at half-time made us much more likely to score... and Clarke really should have pushed on from there looking for the win.

Somebody was arguing that Manchester City play three at the back; they don't. They play possibly the most flexible and progressive 4-3-3 I've ever seen, with full-backs offering attacking threat and sometimes an extra body in midfield. Not saying we can look anything at all like that, but the suggestion that it's somehow 'old-fashioned' to line up with a number of players in forward positions is just daft. It's actually where modern football is at.

And if you're ever going to have a look at how our players might respond to that kind of flexible 4-3-3, and make sure you impose yourself on the game from the off in the process, I'd suggest that home to the Faroes might just be the time.

 

Edited March 31, 2021 by The Ghost of B A R P

[Est. 1893]

For what it's worth on the whole 3 at the back debate... Belgium, ranked number 1 in the world, beat Belarus 8-0 playing 3 at the back (as they often do). They didn't even bother playing De Bruyne or Lukaku either. 

I'd go with something like this (potentially Mcgregor/Armstrong instead of Fleck/Christie) 

[Antiochas III]

On 29/03/2021 at 11:49, No_Problemo said:

Condescending response not required when you are going to spout nonsense.
 

And a defender can’t step into midfield in a four, while having more attacking players in front of him? 

Would rather have Tierney on the ball than any single one of our midfielders.  

[Antiochas III]

5 hours ago, Est. 1893 said:

For what it's worth on the whole 3 at the back debate... Belgium, ranked number 1 in the world, beat Belarus 8-0 playing 3 at the back (as they often do). They didn't even bother playing De Bruyne or Lukaku either. 

I'd go with something like this (potentially Mcgregor/Armstrong instead of Fleck/Christie) 

Agree with the jist, but Belgium actually have a very good midfield.  We have something, but it isn't a good midfield 

[Stellaboz]

What do we want from Denmark v Austria, home win? Let the Danes run away with it and hope Austria trip up enough for us to have a shot?

[No_Problemo]

1 hour ago, Antiochas III said:

Would rather have Tierney on the ball than any single one of our midfielders.  

Agreed, however he can do that regardless of where he plays. 

[No_Problemo]

9 minutes ago, Stellaboz said:

What do we want from Denmark v Austria, home win? Let the Danes run away with it and hope Austria trip up enough for us to have a shot?

I was thinking about this the other day - with the start I think we now want a Denmark win... especially as we have Denmark at home last when fans should be allowed in.

Edited March 31, 2021 by No_Problemo

[BFTD]

We still don't know if Denmark are going to dominate the group, and this game's in Austria, so I'd prefer the draw for now. Dropped points for both, and makes it harder for Austria to win the group without winning in Denmark.

I might actually watch this instead of our game tonight, as we'll likely be grinding out a dull win, and if it's any less than that then I don't want to know. Austria v Denmark is important to us too, and is more likely to be a decent game IMO. Unfortunately, I don't have the red button feature  

[accies1874]

On the assumption that Robertson and Marshall will miss out and McGinn needs a rest. One team with a back four and one with a back three.

I'd rather have Tierney at LWB but think he's more of an asset at LCB with Taylor at wing-back than Considine is in the back three, but I'm not overly bothered either way. McLaughlin and Gordon is another position that I'm 50/50 on and just went with McLaughlin because Gordon got a go last time (compelling argument, I know).

[GordonS]

McGregor; Hutton, McManus, Weir, Wallace; McCulloch, Fletcher, Brown, McFadden; Miller, Boyd.

That's the starting line up that beat Liechtenstein 2-1 at home thanks to an injury time goal from Stephen McManus.

If Faroes score to take the lead or to equalise I'll be watching from behind the couch. 

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

1 hour ago, accies1874 said:

On the assumption that Robertson and Marshall will miss out and McGinn needs a rest. One team with a back four and one with a back three.

I'd rather have Tierney at LWB but think he's more of an asset at LCB with Taylor at wing-back than Considine is in the back three, but I'm not overly bothered either way. McLaughlin and Gordon is another position that I'm 50/50 on and just went with McLaughlin because Gordon got a go last time (compelling argument, I know).

McLean/McGregor a dynamic midfield does not make... maybe McGregor could pass even more sideways to Robertson constantly before turning around and sending it back to the centre half?

If Robertson wasn’t to start, I’d want Tierney pushed up as much as possible. Christie has been really poor so I’d happily have him replaced by almost anyone. 

We’ve gone from having pretty much all options available, to none being appealing because most of our attackers are not in form.

Adams, Fraser, and Armstrong need to start. And Fraser shouldn’t be allowed to cross with his left foot.

Tierney clearly the best player in the squad right now. I’d want to build this game around him...

[The Moonster]

3 hours ago, Antiochas III said:

Agree with the jist, but Belgium actually have a very good midfield.  We have something, but it isn't a good midfield 

We don't have a good midfield? 

[Scary Bear]

I think we should go 6-4-0. Confuse them.

[The Moonster]

10 minutes ago, Baptiste Bourgeois said:

Belgiums centre-midfield isn't even that good. Tielemens, De Bruyne, Vanaken, Praet, Sambi Lakongo. 

 

Outside of De Bruyne ours shits all over that. 

I don't really agree with that either. We have a good midfield but it's not as good as Belgiums. 

[DanMc99]

On 28/03/2021 at 23:04, Gordopolis said:

 

Time we absolutely sworded these c*nts

 

Marshall

 

O'Donnell Hanley Tierney Robertson

 

McTominay

 

Christie Armstrong Fraser

 

Adams Nisbett

 

thats the team i'd go for but Dykes with Adams.

[DanMc99]

fully expecting clarke to keep it cagey for the first 30 until the faroes score

[G51]

All the bedwetters are talking about how "The Faroes aren't as bad as you think actually"  and "They've only lost one of their last nine games!"

Those games were against Andorra, Malta, Moldova and Latvia. As soon as they stopped playing other teams comprised of brickies and posties, and played a team of actual professional footballers in Austria, they got humped.

They're so small time, that googling "What are the Faroe Islands famous for?" gives you some patronising shite about how they're famous for being peaceful and hospitable.

This is a country with a population roughly similar to Orkney and Shetland combined. And I would expect any Scotland team to beat a combined Orkney and Shetland XI. We could even afford to play complete haddies like Craig Gordon and Stephen O'Donnell and still expect to win this game.

We're going to absolutely crush them. I'm going for Scotland to win 6-0, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if we ended up surpassing our 11-0 win vs Ireland in 1901. If you can't be hubristic when you're playing this collection of utter no-marks, then when can you be?