Time to go Steve Clarke

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, Loominous said:

I'd be surprised if anyone went back and looked at your earlier posts on the subject, I certainly didn't. To be honest man, I downvoted your post because it's another in a long line of argumentative, attritional and combative posts.

I try to stick to football as thats what were here to discuss. But me being told that I hate a person when the proof is there that I dont. I think its perfectly fair of me to correct this.

Also I think its fair that I snub a conversation with someone looking to attribute what they belive i think rather than continue that, as its pointless.

If we disagree about the direction of the national team thats fine by me, you won't find me trying to insult you because of this.

[Jambomo]

2 minutes ago, BingMcCrosby said:

I try to stick to football as thats what were here to discuss. But me being told that I hate a person when the proof is there that I dont. I think its perfectly fair of me to correct this.

Also I think its fair that I snub a conversation with someone looking to attribute what they belive i think rather than continue that, as its pointless.

If we disagree about the direction of the national team thats fine by me, you won't find me trying to insult you because of this.

I disagree, the very first post on this thread is you being unnecessarily negative on him after the Euros (including the games up to that tournament) and most of your posts after that are as Loominous states, argumentative and attritional . The proof, as you put it, firmly points to your dislike of him rather than the opposite as you claim.

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, Jambomo said:

I disagree, the very first post on this thread is you being unnecessarily negative on him after the Euros (including the games up to that tournament) and most of your posts after that are as Loominous states, argumentative and attritional . The proof, as you put it, firmly points to your dislike of him rather than the opposite as you claim.

The first post where I say.

"Hes produced some good performances"

And "Nothing against the guy, I want every Scotland manager to succeed" ???

And dont criticise him personally at any point? Or at any point throughout the thread?

You are welcome to believe I dislike Steve Clarke if you want, but its factually incorrect.

I dont dislike anybody involved in football, I might agree or disagree with the choices they make. But as I dont know them, im not qualified to make a personal assessment.

I have a question for you and @Loominous

Have you ever wanted a Scotland manager sacked? Mcleish? Strachan? Levein? And if so can we assume that it was because you didn't like then personally, rather than based on your opinion of the job they were doing.

[Scary Bear]

On 23/06/2021 at 09:08, BingMcCrosby said:

Overall performances and results have been poor.

We managed to get to this tournament by an excellent draw with serbia. A game we should have won in the 90mins. That along with the England game is our only good performances under Clarke.

Hes produced some good performances when our backs to the wall. But thats it. He's unable to win games at home, we always look like the away team.

He got us to a tournament for the first time in 23 years, but we were not good. 2 home games and 0 points, its unforgivable.

Hes already made a terrible start to the next qualifying. Its time we parted ways, hes never going to be a good manager for us.

Last night as Souness says was dark ages stuff. Also the wrong team and tactics. 

But the worst thing of all was the reluctance to change things. We were on top in spells for the first half. Croatia started to control the game and we left the players out there to rot. Rather than freshen things up and get back at them. 

The changes were to litte to late and now were out. Arguably the worst team in the tournament.

Yes turkey and North Macedonia lost all 3 games, but neither played a home game. And we played 2. 

Nothing against the guy, I want every scotland manager to succeed. But its been poor overall. It really has.

Strachan when we went deserved to go, but he had the team playing better than this. Were going nowhere.

 

You created a topic titled ‘Time to go Steve Clarke’ and that opening post doesn’t exactly drip with positivity. 

Any time we lose you are on this thread. It’s not exactly a huge leap to say you don’t like him, or at least don’t like his managerial style and tactics, and that you won’t be happy until he’s gone.

Out if interest, how does Steve Clarke’s win percentage as a Scotland manager look? Given the recent run of results I’m assuming it’s pretty favourable, relative to previous Scotland managers.

[2426255]

only behind Chesney unless you count big eck. He's had easier games though.

Edited June 16, 2022 by 2426255

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, Scary Bear said:

You created a topic titled ‘Time to go Steve Clarke’ and that opening post doesn’t exactly drip with positivity. 

Any time we lose you are on this thread. It’s not exactly a huge leap to say you don’t like him, or at least don’t like his managerial style and tactics, and that you won’t be happy until he’s gone.

Out if interest, how does Steve Clarke’s win percentage as a Scotland manager look? Given the recent run of results I’m assuming it’s pretty favourable, relative to previous Scotland managers.

Thats not actually true tho is it?

After the euros I gave my opinion and after that got back on with supporting the team. And was positive with my praise of the results to get us into the world Cup play off.

Would it be fair to assume at that point that i was in love with Steve clarke?

[2426255]

Bing give it a rest will you. Go out and play in the yard or something. 

[Bing.McCrosby]

Oh oh, stalkers back

Ill guess again, you agree with me and think im handsome, cheers mate

[BFTD]

6 hours ago, Jambomo said:

I disagree, the very first post on this thread is you being unnecessarily negative on him after the Euros (including the games up to that tournament) and most of your posts after that are as Loominous states, argumentative and attritional . The proof, as you put it, firmly points to your dislike of him rather than the opposite as you claim.

It's a Morton thing.

[LiviLion]

8 hours ago, BingMcCrosby said:

Oh oh, stalkers back

Ill guess again, you agree with me and think im handsome, cheers mate

For someone you claim to have on ignore you seem to always post directly after they do, about the fact that they've posted.

Completely normal behaviour.

[GroundskeeperWillie]

Some of the stuff in the last few pages of this thread...

[Bing.McCrosby]

8 hours ago, LiviLion said:

For someone you claim to have on ignore you seem to always post directly after they do, about the fact that they've posted.

Completely normal behaviour.

Thats the 2nd time you have commented like this. I've had the guy on ignore and not responded to one post in over a year. In that time he's followed me round posting directly after I post on here and other threads for this time. So actually the complete inverse of what you said. And me recently (last 2 pages) doing that is actually working to get rid of him. So I will continue to do so, and your welcome to come on with your snide remarks.

Yes when someone is on ignore you can see they have posted, but not what is written unless you choose to.

Backing up someone who's on ignore stalking someone for over a year? Completely normal behaviour i guess

Edited June 17, 2022 by BingMcCrosby

[2426255]

I'm  the stalker. 

Edited June 17, 2022 by 2426255

[Bing.McCrosby]

Speak of the stalker and he will appear

 

[BFTD]

If the numbers station has any sense at all, all of these posts will have been nothing to do with anything Bing's said, just to make him look like an absolute loon.

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, BFTD said:

If the numbers station has any sense at all, all of these posts will have been nothing to do with anything Bing's said, just to make him look like an absolute loon.

That would be quite funny and well played, can't imagine him thinking of that tho.

Any chance we can leave it there tho mate, I dont want to keep this going. For the sake of everyone it would be better to talk about football.

[2426255]

Thread deleted. Results from the poll. Not sure why it says 80 members have voted - the percentages are calculated from the column on the right which adds up to 75 votes.

Edited June 18, 2022 by 2426255

[Elgin Macca]

On 18/06/2022 at 11:59, 2426255 said:

Thread deleted. Results from the poll. Not sure why it says 80 members have voted - the percentages are calculated from the column on the right which adds up to 75 votes.

The big thing for me is I still think the players look like they want to do well for him/play under him and he hasn't 'lost the dressing room'. Ukraine & Ireland games were obviously a disaster but I don't think it was down to players not wanting to be there/undermining the manager ect etc. So I believe/hope we will get back on track in September and he gets to lead us into the Euro qualifiers. 

[BFTD]

28 minutes ago, Elgin Macca said:

The big thing for me is I still think the players look like they want to do well for him/play under him and he hasn't 'lost the dressing room'. Ukraine & Ireland games were obviously a disaster but I don't think it was down to players not wanting to be there/undermining the manager ect etc. So I believe/hope we will get back on track in September and he gets to lead us into the Euro qualifiers. 

Something you'll notice about the national team, more so than club sides I think, is the number of people who'll have totally opposing opinions on simple things like this. There were a number of posters during the last window who were absolutely determined that Clarke had lost the dressing room, and that the players couldn't be arsed playing for him.

I don't think it's ever been true, personally. The closest we've come is during spells under Vogts and McLeish II, when players just looked confused about what they were supposed to be doing.

[Gordopolis]

Something you'll notice about the national team, more so than club sides I think, is the number of people who'll have totally opposing opinions on simple things like this. There were a number of posters during the last window who were absolutely determined that Clarke had lost the dressing room, and that the players couldn't be arsed playing for him.
I don't think it's ever been true, personally. The closest we've come is during spells under Vogts and McLeish II, when players just looked confused about what they were supposed to be doing.

Burley too from the outset, based on the things Lee McCulloch and Kris Boyd said of that period. Both bawbagishly chucked the national team at the time as well, with Boyd specifically saying he didn't want to be considered for selection under GB.