Time to go Steve Clarke

[Marshmallo]

I was on the fence but if Clarke has lost the faith of "around 50 guys offshore" then he has to walk.

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, Marshmallo said:

I was on the fence but if Clarke has lost the faith of "around 50 guys offshore" then he has to walk.

Stick to the pathetic background dotting, your patter is crap

[craigkillie]

48 minutes ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

 

Yip, but played in a back 3, which shows it was also McLeish's idea to play him there but he just didn't have the option very often.

Clarke did claim in an interview that he 'had the idea that Tierney could play centre back' and that he (Tierney) 'needed convincing'. Despite the fact he'd already been playing there whenever he was available. I'm not arguing that he didn't do well to properly embed that system with Tierney in it, he did.

I agree about the possibility of a different option on the left of the 3 being better than Cooper, but I'm not convinced we have another player who could offer anywhere near as much as Tierney does to make it effective.

Both Tierney and Robertson seemed to have fairly public misgivings about the system at one point - I think it may have been after the Israel away game under McLeish. Tierney had basically been playing there at club level with Celtic at the time too with Rodgers' weird lop-sided system that had him tucking in when they attacked down the right.

[eez-eh]

5 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Both Tierney and Robertson seemed to have fairly public misgivings about the system at one point - I think it may have been after the Israel away game under McLeish. Tierney had basically been playing there at club level with Celtic at the time too with Rodgers' weird lop-sided system that had him tucking in when they attacked down the right.

I remember Robertson being interviewed after the Israel game basically saying he didn’t like it because neither were playing in their best position.

Doesn’t say an awful lot for how much respect they had for McLeish either.

[2426255]

34 minutes ago, BingMcCrosby said:

Squad harmony has been brought up a few times, we don't know if there's squad harmony.

Didn't squad members show up early? I don't think they would do that if there wasn't squad harmony. I don't get why you're gagging to get Steve Clarke gone.

Edited June 2, 2022 by 2426255

[KingRocketman II]

6 hours ago, BingMcCrosby said:

Squad harmony has been brought up a few times, we don't know if there's squad harmony.

Its very rare if a footballer is asked they wouldn't say that there is squad harmony and everything is great. Im not saying the squad isn't all getting along. Just we don't really know.

yeah squad harmony is such a throw away cliche. there is squad harmony until the dressing room is "lost" - there is never anything in between. Under Mcleish Mark II there were still players coming out saying the whole squad was behind him and want to play for him. I think you take anything about squad unity with a pinch of salt. 

I think it is right to question the manager - that is not to say he should be sacked. I have questioned him before when we were at a much lower point than this. Since then the results have improved and so have the performances but we remain inconsistent within most games (not all) and see periods of real patchy displays from the team - that shouldn't be happening at this stage of Clarke's time with Scotland

Clarke got it very badly wrong with the formation and team selection on Wednesday and whilst I accept that happens with almost every manager from time to time the fact that it took him to half time and then again 15-20 mins into the second half to address that is hugely questionable. That builds into the fact that he has not been able to address the poor performances against the better teams at crunch games (on the whole) and that to me is the big emerging issue.

I still maintain Clarke should be getting more out of a very talented bunch of players than he currently does but he has done more than enough over the past year or so to merit another crack at it and see where he can take the team - hopefully qualification via the Nations League and/or the qualifiers. 

But his performances as manager rightly should continue to merit debate - and not the cliche ridden or the non committal dull generalisations of "who else is there?" or "we are where we should be" etc etc. 

 

[Dons_1988]

Wednesday was abysmal but we just took 7 wins and 2 draws from a 10 game World Cup qualifying campaign. 

People can say the group wasn’t great but recent history tells you that’s a very, very good return from any Scotland manager. 

[Binos]

8 hours ago, Gordopolis said:

Last night was horrid. I'm frustrated by our apparent shit-the-bediness in crunch matches like last night and Croatia and Czech Republic in the Euros.

 

I don't think it's shitting the bed

I think any team who has studied us tactically have found the flaws in the system and done a number on us, which is a concern 

Others,  like England,  have concentrated on their own game

Czech,  Croatia,  Ukraine  were huge games though. We hadn't learned from the first two which is a concern 

[craigkillie]

Clarke got it very badly wrong with the formation and team selection on Wednesday and whilst I accept that happens with almost every manager from time to time the fact that it took him to half time and then again 15-20 mins into the second half to address that is hugely questionable.

This simply isn't true though. We adjusted after about half an hour by dropping McGinn deeper, then made a sub at half time to shift to a 3-4-3 (which is how we should have started).

[2426255]

1 hour ago, KingRocketman II said:

the fact that it took him to half time and then again 15-20 mins into the second half to address that is hugely questionable.

Steve Clarke made a change midway through the first half switching from a 3412 to a 352 by pulling John McGinn back. he also changed to a 3421 by bringing on Ryan Christie for Lyndon Dykes at half time and moved to a back four on 55 minutes which is only 10 minutes into the second half. 

I think he did quite a lot to be honest and it's quite arrogant you think that while you recognised that our setup wasn't working Steve Clarke was either a bit slower picking that up or he was "too stubborn" to change it. Typical dunderheid fan response. 

Edited June 3, 2022 by 2426255

[Gordopolis]

Squad harmony has been brought up a few times, we don't know if there's squad harmony.
Its very rare if a footballer is asked they wouldn't say that there is squad harmony and everything is great. Im not saying the squad isn't all getting along. Just we don't really know.

True, we don't know for sure. However, the best indicator usually is the number of dubious call offs, and during Clarke's tenure there have been practically none (Ryan Fraser being the only one I can think of)

[Moomintroll]

14 hours ago, RossBFaeDundee said:

Jesus wept.

Did he watch it too?

[Binos]

7 hours ago, 2426255 said:

Steve Clarke made a change midway through the first half switching from a 3412 to a 352 by pulling John McGinn back. he also changed to a 3421 by bringing on Ryan Christie for Lyndon Dykes at half time and moved to a back four on 55 minutes which is only 10 minutes into the second half. 

I think he did quite a lot to be honest and it's quite arrogant you think that while you recognised that our setup wasn't working Steve Clarke was either a bit slower picking that up or he was "too stubborn" to change it. Typical dunderheid fan response. 

For 3412 read 532

For 352 read 532

Both left us outnumbered in midfield

 

[Bing.McCrosby]

4 hours ago, Gordopolis said:

15 hours ago, BingMcCrosby said:

Squad harmony has been brought up a few times, we don't know if there's squad harmony.
Its very rare if a footballer is asked they wouldn't say that there is squad harmony and everything is great. Im not saying the squad isn't all getting along. Just we don't really know.

True, we don't know for sure. However, the best indicator usually is the number of dubious call offs, and during Clarke's tenure there have been practically none (Ryan Fraser being the only one I can think of)

Yeah thats a fair point.

[Binos]

8 hours ago, 2426255 said:

Steve Clarke made a change midway through the first half switching from a 3412 to a 352 by pulling John McGinn back. he also changed to a 3421 by bringing on Ryan Christie for Lyndon Dykes at half time and moved to a back four on 55 minutes which is only 10 minutes into the second half. 

I think he did quite a lot to be honest and it's quite arrogant you think that while you recognised that our setup wasn't working Steve Clarke was either a bit slower picking that up or he was "too stubborn" to change it. Typical dunderheid fan response. 

It took him 55 mins to make the move of bringing Mctominay into midfield 

The Danish manager v wales at euros when clear Ramsey was playing in pockets made same move in 10 mins

[sergie's no1 fan]

17 hours ago, craigkillie said:

Tierney only played three times under McLeish and we lost two of them (one heavily), after which he reverted back to a back four, which is also how Clarke started. I don't think Clarke is claiming that he invented a back three or that he was the only manager to play Tierney there, but rather that it was his eventual solution to getting both in the team.

I still think the back three is the way to go even if we don't have Tierney available, it has got the best out of a lot of our other players too. It has to be a 3-4-3 rather than a 3-5-2 though, the latter has barely ever worked. The important thing is to find a player who can actually play a bit rather than sticking a lump like Cooper there purely because he's left-footed. If we have the likes of Souttar and Hendry on the other side, we can surely pluck out someone a bit better in possession, even McKenna maybe. You mentioned Mulgrew in your post above, and I genuinely reckon he would still have done a better job in that role than Cooper did last night - Cooper has been fine in the middle of the three but is unable to pass or dribble which makes him a waste of a jersey on the left.

Bit harsh on Cooper, you only need to see the effect he has on the Leeds team when he plays compared to when he didn't play this season. Big lumps a bit harsh, especially as you mention McKenna in the next sentence (Before i get pelters  I appreciate he has had a great season for Forrest and will also be a premier league player next season). Neither are KT though, who we always miss greatly when he doesn't play.

I am a bit biased though as I like Leeds.

If we were to go 4 at the back its KT at left back over Robertson, every time. I think KT has been our best player for the past few seasons, he is more vital to us than John Mcginn is. 

 

[2426255]

5 hours ago, Binos said:

Both left us outnumbered in midfield

Things didn't really improve when Scott McTominay was moved into midfield so I don't think it's clear it would have made a difference if he had changed to that after 5 minutes. The Ukrainian team performed better on the night than Scotland and although the initial tactical setup isn't the one I would have chosen I don't think it was what determined the result. 

Ukraine have performed consistently better than us for a period approaching 10 years. I thought they were excellent and everything I watched of them leading up to the Playoff was good. I'd just file it under beaten by a better team rather than hunt for scapegoats mate.

Edited June 3, 2022 by 2426255

[Donathan]

18 hours ago, sergie's no1 fan said:

Bit harsh on Cooper, you only need to see the effect he has on the Leeds team when he plays compared to when he didn't play this season. Big lumps a bit harsh, especially as you mention McKenna in the next sentence (Before i get pelters  I appreciate he has had a great season for Forrest and will also be a premier league player next season). Neither are KT though, who we always miss greatly when he doesn't play.

I am a bit biased though as I like Leeds.

If we were to go 4 at the back its KT at left back over Robertson, every time. I think KT has been our best player for the past few seasons, he is more vital to us than John Mcginn is. 

 

It’s a moot point because I don’t think we will ever play a back four when both AR and KT are fit, but in that scenario I’d be tempted to play Tierney at left back and Robertson as a winger 

[2426255]

1 hour ago, Donathan said:

It’s a moot point because I don’t think we will ever play a back four when both AR and KT are fit, but in that scenario I’d be tempted to play Tierney at left back and Robertson as a winger 

The system isn't just designed around fitting Kieran Tierney and Andy Robertson in the team.

• Using a back-4 during Euro 2020 qualifying we conceded 16 goals in 8 games that Steve Clarke took charge of.
• Using a back-3 we have conceded 21 goals in 22 games. 

Did the new system make us better defensively?

Now if we look through our present cast of central defenders: Jack Hendry, Grant Hanley, Liam Cooper, Scott McKenna and John Souttar. Has anything changed significantly in that department compared to 2019 that would warrant us altering or adjusting our current system to one that demands more of our central defenders?

Where is the logic in this debate? 

Edited June 4, 2022 by 2426255

[Donathan]

1 hour ago, 2426255 said:

The system isn't just designed around fitting Kieran Tierney and Andy Robertson in the team.

• Using a back-4 during Euro 2020 qualifying we conceded 16 goals in 8 games that Steve Clarke took charge of.
• Using a back-3 we have conceded 21 goals in 22 games. 

Did the new system make us better defensively?

Now if we look through our present cast of central defenders: Jack Hendry, Grant Hanley, Liam Cooper, Scott McKenna and John Souttar. Has anything changed significantly in that department compared to 2019 that would warrant us altering or adjusting our current system to one that demands more of our central defenders?

Where is the logic in this debate? 

 

Do you have stats on how many goals we’ve conceded with/without Robertson and Tierney though? I think our upturn in form defensively is as much due to the fact that Robertson and Tierney have generally been available in the last couple of dozen matches rather than the fact we are using a back three alone.

 

 

Three at the back has been a disaster when Tierney has been absent. I don’t necessarily think a four would be automatically better, but at least with that system we could play “you score 4 and we’ll score 5” type football.