How did we do?

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, HalfCutNinja said:

How does a back 3 make us a man short in midfield?  There's two deep and one attacking that's 3, there are no formations we'd play that would give us more than that.

Rubbish, 1 - 8 - 1 would give us 8 in midfield.

 

[SpoonTon]

1 hour ago, HalfCutNinja said:

How does a back 3 make us a man short in midfield?  There's two deep and one attacking that's 3, there are no formations we'd play that would give us more than that.

In a defensive sense, the proof is in the goals we have been conceding. Too much space outside the box because the back 3 sits too deep, or too much space out wide when there's an overload. 

It happens in different ways, but one of the biggest drawbacks of the back 3/5 is when it's played like a back 4 with an extra man in there. If you want to put it in really simple terms, it can end up being 3 against 5 in the midfield. A big problem against Croatia was that they were happy to go 2 on 2 against us at the back, so once the full backs pushed up, their inside wingers and their middle three had loads of space to operate. Our back 3 sits too deep, essentially being occupied by a single striker, while they weave pretty patterns all around us. 

The most common problem has been that the back 3 sits too deep and doesn't come and engage the attacking midfield. It can't always be the midfielders responsibility to track a run all the way into the box with a back 3 - you just end up with far too many players back in the box (like with the Modric goal) or if the midfield player doesn't track back and a centre back doesn't come out to engage you also end up with a player with bags of space on the edge of the box (like recent goals conceded against Austria, Israel, and Holland).

I'm an attacking sense, it works better with players like Tierney and McTominay, but too often it's like that back 4 with an extra man - and that's the crux of the problem of ending up outnumbered. If you play the back 3/5 poorly, it ends up being a back 4 with an extra man at the back, which inevitably leaves you outnumbered elsewhere (particularly when that extra man at the back could be out there engaging the opposition midfield in a holding midfield role).

[Bing.McCrosby]

31 minutes ago, SpoonTon said:

In a defensive sense, the proof is in the goals we have been conceding. Too much space outside the box because the back 3 sits too deep, or too much space out wide when there's an overload. 

It happens in different ways, but one of the biggest drawbacks of the back 3/5 is when it's played like a back 4 with an extra man in there. If you want to put it in really simple terms, it can end up being 3 against 5 in the midfield. A big problem against Croatia was that they were happy to go 2 on 2 against us at the back, so once the full backs pushed up, their inside wingers and their middle three had loads of space to operate. Our back 3 sits too deep, essentially being occupied by a single striker, while they weave pretty patterns all around us. 

The most common problem has been that the back 3 sits too deep and doesn't come and engage the attacking midfield. It can't always be the midfielders responsibility to track a run all the way into the box with a back 3 - you just end up with far too many players back in the box (like with the Modric goal) or if the midfield player doesn't track back and a centre back doesn't come out to engage you also end up with a player with bags of space on the edge of the box (like recent goals conceded against Austria, Israel, and Holland).

I'm an attacking sense, it works better with players like Tierney and McTominay, but too often it's like that back 4 with an extra man - and that's the crux of the problem of ending up outnumbered. If you play the back 3/5 poorly, it ends up being a back 4 with an extra man at the back, which inevitably leaves you outnumbered elsewhere (particularly when that extra man at the back could be out there engaging the opposition midfield in a holding midfield role).

I've disagreed with you alot in the past, but in fairness thats a pretty good analysis.

I know what you mean, our midfield is dragged deep. Especially when we don't have Tierney on one side and mctominay on the other, driving and creating space for them.

I think in the last game Tierney looked very tired and wasn't at his best also. Which really didn't help.

[Mr Tourette]

We could do worse than copy England’s formation of 4-2-3-1 in future. I think that would address the valid points made in the previous few posts regarding our midfield retreating. It would also allow our full backs to get forward, as the defensive mids could drop back to cover

However, our problems in replicating England’s system are that we don’t have a striker anywhere near the standard of Kane, nor do we have wide attackers anywhere near the standard of Sterling

[Gordopolis]

We could do worse than copy England’s formation of 4-2-3-1 in future. I think that would address the valid points made in the previous few posts regarding our midfield retreating. It would also allow our full backs to get forward, as the defensive mids could drop back to cover

However, our problems in replicating England’s system are that we don’t have a striker anywhere near the standard of Kane, nor do we have wide attackers anywhere near the standard of Sterling

Different time, of course, but when SC came in, we kept on the Strachan 4231 formation, and got thoroughly scudded by Belgium & Russia. The defence in that system just looked porous and flimsy, and that was the thing that drove Clarke to devise the - at first - mental 3 at the back... which in fairness settled and dug us through to this tournament.

You could say that at the tourney, our 3 man defence Vs Czech And Croatia was equally permeable, but that was at tournament level.

Dunno, I don't think it's as simple as a formation, I think we need the system within a formation to be right.

[RobbieD]

On 04/07/2021 at 18:28, Gordopolis said:

I think it's quite clear that@RobbieD was using a figure of speech when he said "they all" - simply meaning that the QPR fans' general opinion of Dieng is positive.

Don't use logic here pal.

 

[Boo Khaki]

18 hours ago, Gordopolis said:

Dunno, I don't think it's as simple as a formation, I think we need the system within a formation to be right.

Pretty much how I see it also

I don't think there's any such thing as a 'wrong' formation that Scotland could play. Much more important are the specific capabilities of the individual players within the formation, how they blend into the system, and how the team operates operates and reacts as a whole under specific circumstances. 

Watching the Swiss play against Spain for example. System notionally a 4-2-3-1, which is what we played when both Russia and Belgium gave us a hiding, yet the Swiss were obviously extremely well drilled in things like pressing, and compressing either side of the pitch. They moved and pressed as a team, remarkably well synchronised, and as a result were still able to give the Spaniards fits despite happily surrendering domination of possession. The Spaniards still found it enormously difficult to break them down, even though the set up in the same way we did, and consequently struggled against Russia and Belgium. It's not as simple as the Swiss simply having better players, although I think its unarguable that they do, they were better coached, better disciplined, and far more capable of the entire side behaving as an instinctual, organic whole than Scotland are.

See the earlier comment about 'England's 4-2-3-1'. I accept that everything is open to personal interpretation, but at no point in this tournament can I recall England playing anything I thought looked remotely like a 4-2-3-1. 3-4-3, with tonto wingbacks who clearly have free reign to cut inside and romp all over the pitch. It sounds like almost a stupidly gung-ho set-up, but in reality the inside 2 in the 4 are so deep and so defensive, that they end up playing right on top of the back 3, meaning England are essentially playing with a back 5 at all times. It's sterile, negative, murder to watch, but effective for them, but if you suggested England were playing 3-4-3 folk would assume that's an overtly offensive set-up.

I think Clarke's back three has it's merits. It's the system I thought we ought to be playing long before Clarke was on the scene because I had the same ideas about getting Tierney and Robertson on the pitch that Clarke obviously does, but I think the issue with it is that he just hasn't found the right balance in midfield, or at least, he has a horrible habit of getting it totally wrong and  rendering the whole setup ineffective as a result. I don't understand playing with two up front when we are so easy to pull all over the place and constantly look short-handed in midfield. It also means that we often go long periods where we don't see the ball, and what possession we do get is often frantic and stressed, meaning we never really get full control of the match or an extended period of play. The lack of talent at right wingback and the lack of cover that side gets from the midfield three means we're pretty easy to get at down that flank as well, so I honestly think that if Clarke is going to persist with the 3 at the back, we need to go to a four man midfield to widen it out, help protect the flanks, and hopefully give us a bit more controlled possession. I don't see any benefit in playing two forwards when the ball doesn't stick up there in any case, and neither of them can score in a month of Sundays anyway. All you are doing is taking one existing problem area and doubling it, with no real kick-back.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Boo Khaki

[craigkillie]

On 08/07/2021 at 03:32, BingMcCrosby said:

If it weren't for that Dutch sending off then the Czechs would have been immediately eliminated

If it wasn't for that Dutch sending off then there's a decent chance the Czechs would have been 1-0 up, given that the red card was literally for denying them a clear goalscoring opportunity.

[Bing.McCrosby]

17 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

If it wasn't for that Dutch sending off then there's a decent chance the Czechs would have been 1-0 up, given that the red card was literally for denying them a clear goalscoring opportunity.

After our last discussion where you accused me of having mental health issues I think were done. 

Im not interested in debating further with you, on any subject.

Edited July 11, 2021 by BingMcCrosby

[craigkillie]

29 minutes ago, BingMcCrosby said:

After our last discussion where you accused me of having mental health issues I think were done. 

Im not interested in debating further with you, on any subject.

Translation: "I have no answer to your point and I am continuing to make false allegations to avoid debating the point further".

Fine with me.

[Derry Alli]

On 01/07/2021 at 19:08, RobbieD said:

Dieng was brilliant at Dundee 

Was he? 

From my memory, he flogged quite a few goals. He looked like he was good. He got a lot of the fundamentals wrong consistently. 

Nothing more than average.

[RobbieD]

5 hours ago, Mr. Alli said:

Was he? 

From my memory, he flogged quite a few goals. He looked like he was good. He got a lot of the fundamentals wrong consistently. 

Nothing more than average.

That’s your opinion.  I don’t agree with it. I’d wager neither do most Dundee fans.

[SpoonTon]

On 09/07/2021 at 22:58, Gordopolis said:

Different time, of course, but when SC came in, we kept on the Strachan 4231 formation, and got thoroughly scudded by Belgium & Russia. The defence in that system just looked porous and flimsy, and that was the thing that drove Clarke to devise the - at first - mental 3 at the back... which in fairness settled and dug us through to this tournament.

You could say that at the tourney, our 3 man defence Vs Czech And Croatia was equally permeable, but that was at tournament level.

Dunno, I don't think it's as simple as a formation, I think we need the system within a formation to be right.

Obviously McLeish had tried both the back 3 and 4 in between, with differing results with both. The back 3 system was a disaster in Israel (and in a friendly against Belgium) and the back 4 was a disaster in Kazakhstan. The back 3 system worked ok at home against Albania and the back 4 worked well at home to Israel and away at Albania. There wasn't particularly a pattern there in terms of systems, apart from the back 4 systems usually allowing us to gain more of foothold in an attacking sense. And it does have to be acknowledged that both under McLeish and Clarke, there have been big differences in terms of what the system entails beyond the formation - and I think that's an important point you make. 

We also cannot get away from the fact that we lack any top level quality at centre back and right back (among other things we lack). It's not an easy job that any Scotland manager has. I can see what Clarke is trying to do, and I think it's good that he's trying to make the back 5 more than just about adding an extra defender to make up for our lack of quality there, but outside of particular tough away ties (where we have gained good draws) I don't think it has really worked. If we're playing with a high defensive intensity, where we're keeping it tight and hoping for a goal on the break, I think it can work. Otherwise, let me put it this way, the midfield should be our strongest all round area of the pitch but all too often recently it has been the weakest. I think that speak volumes about our approach. I look at McTominay, Gilmour, McGinn, and others and think that the priority should be building out from that strong midfield base. 

[Derry Alli]

49 minutes ago, RobbieD said:

That’s your opinion.  I don’t agree with it. I’d wager neither do most Dundee fans.

Well certainly the majority on here that have spoken about him agree with what myself and Ludo have both posted in here. 

[HalfCutNinja]

3 hours ago, Mr. Alli said:

Well certainly the majority on here that have spoken about him agree with what myself and Ludo have both posted in here. 

I understand the confusion here and can clear it up for you guys. Robbie said he was "brilliant" at Dundee, whereas you said he was "average". That's where you digress.

However, Dundee are shite, so average is brilliant at Dundee. So you're really in agreement and both correct/incorrect.  

Happy to help x

[Boo Khaki]

Dieng was an improvement on Hamilton, but that's not saying much since Hamilton was an absolute liability at that point in time, flogging goals more or less every single game.

So far as Dieng's actual ability goes, I didn't think he looked any more talented or capable than Conor Hazard did the next season either, but then that may be because it's rare that a very young or inexperienced keeper is an immediate stand-out, and it's one of the positions where it's really easy to look bad and rather more difficult to impress. I don't think the keeper we saw in his time in Dundee was anything special, but at the same time it wouldn't shock me if he's really pushed on in the past few seasons and become a far more consistent and capable player.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Boo Khaki

[woof!]

On 10/07/2021 at 17:48, Boo Khaki said:

The lack of talent at right wingback

We have the best player in a generation for that role and Clarke gave him about 8 minutes. 

Edited July 14, 2021 by woof!

[Boo Khaki]

 

[RobbieD]

On 12/07/2021 at 17:17, Boo Khaki said:

Dieng was an improvement on Hamilton, but that's not saying much since Hamilton was an absolute liability at that point in time, flogging goals more or less every single game.

So far as Dieng's actual ability goes, I didn't think he looked any more talented or capable than Conor Hazard did the next season either, but then that may be because it's rare that a very young or inexperienced keeper is an immediate stand-out, and it's one of the positions where it's really easy to look bad and rather more difficult to impress. I don't think the keeper we saw in his time in Dundee was anything special, but at the same time it wouldn't shock me if he's really pushed on in the past few seasons and become a far more consistent and capable player.

Hazard was a good keeper too. Massive improvement on what we already had.

[2426255]

On 12/07/2021 at 13:21, SpoonTon said:

Obviously McLeish had tried both the back 3 and 4 in between, with differing results with both. The back 3 system was a disaster in Israel (and in a friendly against Belgium) and the back 4 was a disaster in Kazakhstan. The back 3 system worked ok at home against Albania and the back 4 worked well at home to Israel and away at Albania. There wasn't particularly a pattern there in terms of systems, apart from the back 4 systems usually allowing us to gain more of foothold in an attacking sense. And it does have to be acknowledged that both under McLeish and Clarke, there have been big differences in terms of what the system entails beyond the formation - and I think that's an important point you make. 

We also cannot get away from the fact that we lack any top level quality at centre back and right back (among other things we lack). It's not an easy job that any Scotland manager has. I can see what Clarke is trying to do, and I think it's good that he's trying to make the back 5 more than just about adding an extra defender to make up for our lack of quality there, but outside of particular tough away ties (where we have gained good draws) I don't think it has really worked. If we're playing with a high defensive intensity, where we're keeping it tight and hoping for a goal on the break, I think it can work. Otherwise, let me put it this way, the midfield should be our strongest all round area of the pitch but all too often recently it has been the weakest. I think that speak volumes about our approach. I look at McTominay, Gilmour, McGinn, and others and think that the priority should be building out from that strong midfield base. 

I like your post. I think Steve Clarke will adapt things, he has shown the ability to innovate in his time in charge and also to trust younger players. I don't believe he has a closed mind based on what I've seen on him so far even if our progress in terms of performances or results may not be where some more impatient fans want us to be.

It seems obvious to all fans to play with the ball using the midfield instead of bypassing it and based on what I've seen of Steve Clarke throughout his career he is a logical man, so my suspicion is that what he's doing is logical and we don't have all the information. We know Billy Gilmour would have played against Croatia if he was fit and our injuries to McLean and Jack and shortage at right centre back did significantly reduce our options in midfield.