Your first XI vs England

[No_Problemo]

Fully expecting Clarke to go into stubborn mode here. He took until the 80th fucking minute to give us more quality higher up the right hand side yesterday - frankly, that was shameful. 
 

Fraser and McGinn in behind Adams. Gilmour and McTominay at the base of the midfield. Patterson or Forrest RWB. When we get the ball in decent positions I don’t want it going to SOD. 

[HalfCutNinja]

10 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

However the obvious trade-off is that O'Donnell was completely untroubled defensively yesterday - the Czechs achieved absolutely nothing down his side, whether that was down to anything good he did or just the success of the system in that respect. You therefore run the risk that if you bring in any of the three other options (Forrest, Fraser, Patterson), you end up being caught out defensively.

You can't make a decision on a defensively position based purely on how good a player is in one facet of the game when there are others to consider.

You're assuming Patterson is a worse defender with nothing to base that on. You have no evidence of that, its just your preconcpetion of a young inexperienced player.

You're also ignoring the fact that starting O'Donnell again is a risk in itself, as he clearly isn't good enough. Its a risk to start a player who is substandard, who is proven to be of a lower standard than the rest of our squad and all the opponents he will face. That's a risk. And yesterday it backfired terribly. 

At this stage anyone still advocating for O'Donnell to start on Friday needs their head looked at. 

[DanMc99]

1 minute ago, HalfCutNinja said:

Put it this way if Patterson was at Motherwell would he start in front of O'Donnell. Fuckin right he would. He is better at every aspect of the game. Witness against Luxembourg the way he recovered and shoulder charged their best player off the ball. He's a better defender already.

exactly, i do understand managers have certain loyalties to players and need to trust players etc but its quite clearly obvious to all patterson has more ability than o'donnell and is far more suited to the wing back role.

[AJF]

6 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

This isn't really the case for two reasons. First, and fairly obviously, a Motherwell right-back last season had to play against Ryan Kent and Borna Barisic and a Rangers right-back had to play against Nathan McGinley and Jordan Robertson, which affects the average quality. However, as well as that, teams tend to be more defensive in general against Rangers which means that they have fewer of their best attacking options on display when they play them.

But surely basing the stats on 'average' across all opponents mitigates this? It may deviate slightly but O'Donnell coming up against Kent and Barisic 3 times out of 34 matches is not going to result in any meaningful variation I wouldn't have thought?

Edited June 15, 2021 by AJF

[Juanhourjoe]

26 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

In a fucked up system. McGinn needs to be more advanced and McTominay battled manfully in an unbalanced midfield due to Armstrong.

There are better advanced player than McGinn, including Armstrong. He was fairly anonymous yesterday. And Mctominay slowed us down too much.

[craigkillie]

3 minutes ago, HalfCutNinja said:

You're assuming Patterson is a worse defender with nothing to base that on. You have no evidence of that, its just your preconcpetion of a young inexperienced player.

You're also ignoring the fact that starting O'Donnell again is a risk in itself, as he clearly isn't good enough. Its a risk to start a player who is substandard, who is proven to be of a lower standard than the rest of our squad and all the opponents he will face. That's a risk. And yesterday it backfired terribly. 

At this stage anyone still advocating for O'Donnell to start on Friday needs their head looked at. 

I haven't assumed he's a worse defender, I've said we're running the risk that he is.

[HalfCutNinja]

6 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

I haven't assumed he's a worse defender, I've said we're running the risk that he is.

Based on what?  You also are completely ignoring the proven fact there is risk to picking O'Donnell in the first place. So you're presenting one otoption as risky, with no basis in fact, and the other as risk-free, when its actually been thoroughly proven to be a risk. 

What has O'Donnell done to justify taking that risk on him again?  Why would you?

Personally I'd be willing to bet Forrest is starting on Friday anyway as O'Donnell has surely played himself out of the team yesterday, he was shocking. Genuinly looked like a competition winner. I would say the bigger risk now is by far sticking with him over any of our other options. None of them could be any worse surely.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

Does Patterson have a lot of pace ? 

If so, then he may be worth the gamble as pace is something we'll desperately need against players like Sterling and Foden. He would also be much more of ann attacking asset than O'Donnell. 

My only recollection of Patterson against Luxembourg was him getting outpaced by his opponent at one point, so maybe that's not something we should be hanging our hat on. 

[AJF]

13 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

I haven't assumed he's a worse defender, I've said we're running the risk that he is.

At what stage do you think it is worth taking that risk on Patterson then? If we are saying he shouldn't play because it's a risk selecting players that have never played for Scotland before then when exactly do you play them?

[AJF]

10 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Does Patterson have a lot of pace ? 

If so, then he may be worth the gamble as pace is something we'll desperately need against players like Sterling and Foden. He would also be much more of ann attacking asset than O'Donnell. 

My only recollection of Patterson against Luxembourg was him getting outpaced by his opponent at one point, so maybe that's not something we should be hanging our hat on. 

He is relatively quick, yes. Not lightening quick like elite players, but he scored a nice goal against Antwerp in the Europa League where he burst into space and accelerated away from their full back (I've no idea how quick that player was though) which is maybe a good example.

Whether that is effective against the likes of Sterling who is one of the games quickest players is another matter entirely  

[craigkillie]

43 minutes ago, AJF said:

At what stage do you think it is worth taking that risk on Patterson then? If we are saying he shouldn't play because it's a risk selecting players that have never played for Scotland before then when exactly do you play them?

The risk isn't about a player who has never played for Scotland before - I included Fraser and Forrest in the same discussion. The risk is playing a more capable attacking player who is less defensively capable or, in the case of Patterson, who we are not sure is as defensively capable. It was in response to someone suggesting that because Patterson is a better footballer he should start.

I'm not even saying one of those three shouldn't start, just that it's not some glaringly obvious decision to be made.

[Biscuits]

Tierney is training today so fingers crossed

[HalfCutNinja]

1 hour ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Does Patterson have a lot of pace ? 

If so, then he may be worth the gamble as pace is something we'll desperately need against players like Sterling and Foden. He would also be much more of ann attacking asset than O'Donnell. 

My only recollection of Patterson against Luxembourg was him getting outpaced by his opponent at one point, so maybe that's not something we should be hanging our hat on. 

Yeah he's probably Scotland's quickest player. Would fancy him much more against Sterling or Rashford than any of our other options, though at least Forrest can shift a bit.

[HalfCutNinja]

34 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The risk isn't about a player who has never played for Scotland before - I included Fraser and Forrest in the same discussion. The risk is playing a more capable attacking player who is less defensively capable or, in the case of Patterson, who we are not sure is as defensively capable. It was in response to someone suggesting that because Patterson is a better footballer he should start.

I'm not even saying one of those three shouldn't start, just that it's not some glaringly obvious decision to be made.

That's the manager's decision he's watching him in training. The only reason you are not sure Patterson is less defensively capable is something you've invented in your own head. There has been no evidence of that in any of his games for club or country yet. 

As for dropping O'Donnell it absolutely is a glaringly obvious decision, how could he have done any worse?  He looked so far out of his depth it was painful. Stevie Wonder could have watched that and told you he needs dropping, that was about as bad as performances get.  Miles and miles and miles out of his depth and by far the worst player on the park. 

[HalfCutNinja]

37 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The risk isn't about a player who has never played for Scotland before - I included Fraser and Forrest in the same discussion. The risk is playing a more capable attacking player who is less defensively capable or, in the case of Patterson, who we are not sure is as defensively capable. It was in response to someone suggesting that because Patterson is a better footballer he should start.

I'm not even saying one of those three shouldn't start, just that it's not some glaringly obvious decision to be made.

I mean look, here's Alan Hutton, I'm sure you'll agree he knows something about playing RB. He says his defending is 'solid'. 

 

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/7222636/rangers-patterson-attacking-defending-must-scotland-hutton/

 

 

This idea that his defending is suspect exists only on this forum as a few people have said it as that's all they have to contribute to the discussion and it makes them feel like they know what they're talking about. There's never been any suspect defending from him in the football we've been able to watch in his career so far.

He got caught out of position once, in about 16 games. That was happening to multiple CL winner Gary Neville all throughout his career. That's the game, if that didn't happen all games would finish 0-0. Defenders make mistakes, probably more goals come from that than good play. Its no reflection on his defensive capabilities.

[HalfCutNinja]

This is why I always say as a fan you shouldn't assume you know a great deal or your opinion is particularly valid. If you want to gain knowledge the best way to do it is listen to what people who do know what they're talking about have to say and watch what they do.

This is Scotland's best RB of the modern era's opinion on Patterson's defending

“I’ve seen quite a bit of Patterson when covering a few Rangers games and his defending is actually really good."

 

So this is why you can really just dismiss people on here saying Patterson's defending is suspect. It isn't. He's seen more of him than any of us and knows what he's talking about more than we do. And that's what he has to say.

As I said earlier the only concern with him is he is still physically developing so not very strong yet. Could be outmuscled. But that's much less of a concern at RWB than RB. We are playing an inferior player in our biggest games for decades when we have someone who is better than him sitting on the bench. Its madness. 

[The Ghost of B A R P]

If Tierney isn't fit and Clarke persists with three at the back, he needs his head looked.

If we do have three at the back and he persists with O'Donnell at wing-back... well, he needs his head looked.

Assuming it is some sort of 3-5-2, I'd drop O'Donnell, Hendry, Armstrong, Christie, and Dykes and replace them with Forrest, Tierney, Gilmour, Fraser, and Adams. The result is a team that's miles better than what started yesterday.

If we end up with a back four, O'Donnell can stay at right-back: ask him to defend and shuffle over when Robertson goes forward. 4-5-1 with Forrest and Fraser wide, McGinn playing off Adams. Also a much better team than the one that started yesterday.

Whatever the formation, he needs to go with every scrap of pace and energy we've got in forward and wide positions or these fuckers will just run over the top of us.

[scottsdad]

Tierney looking good

Spoiler

 

[ZX1886]

If he’s going to give boys like Paterson and Turnbull a shot then surely it has to be now.

It does them no good if Clarke just runs them out in (what could be) a meaningless game against Croatia.

I would be a lot more optimistic seeing either of those two names in the starting 11 instead of players like Christie, MacGregor and SOD.

Edited June 15, 2021 by ZX1886

[ahemps]

The fact Clarke brought on Forrest before Patterson yesterday tells us if SOD is to get dropped then it will likely be for Forrest before Patterson. Patterson should have been given more game time before now but he hasn't so it is very unlikely we will see him start a game in this tournament.

If Tierney isn't fit then I think we should go to a back 4 but then that would probably mean leaving SOD in as he would be unlikely to play Forrest as an out and out right back but can get away with him playing there with 5 at the back.