Jump to content

Time to go Steve Clarke


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, AJF said:

I never called for him to be sacked because I felt we were capable of doing much better and I was willing to give him more time. Mind you, I think a new 5 year contract was maybe a bit too much time at that stage, but you get my point 🤣

The new contract was preset before the Euros, he gets us to a tournament he gets and extension to keep his job at two tournaments. It wasn't a complicated thing. 

Quote

"Stage two is quite a good way to put it," Clarke said. "You come in as Scotland head coach and you get the two tournaments. Basically your brief is that you've got to qualify for the tournaments. It was nice to get the first qualification done and the reason for extending was just getting another tournament to keep it at two tournaments. We got that monkey off our back and it's now time to do that more consistently. I have two tournaments to try and do that."

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/aug/24/scotland-manager-steve-clarke-signs-contract-extension-until-euro-2024

Edited by 2426255
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who actually thought about whether sacking Steve Clarke after the Euros would come to the conclusion that it was a shit idea. The fact is that people such as King Rocketman II and Bing McCrosby won't just accept they got it wrong and let their emotions take over leading to them chucking their toys out the pram. Worse is how they are trying to climb down by pretending this was all just a critical evaluation of Steve Clarke's performance as a manager is hideous and hilarious in equal measure because it obviously wasn't ever a critical evaluation. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, JamesM82 said:

~15% (after the Faroes)

https://twitter.com/We_Global/status/1448054055398428678

By getting to the playoffs we would effectively be in a cup semi-final, but we would be underdogs against most of the teams that are likely to be in the draw. That drags what would be a 25% chance if all of the teams were the same standard down to 15%. Getting seeded would help a bit - home advantage in the semi, and would mean avoiding any big hitters that might drop into 2nd (e.g. Spain) in that round.

15% seems a bit mean. We’ve recent history of getting past a better side (Serbia) away from home in a play-off situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

15% seems a bit mean. We’ve recent history of getting past a better side (Serbia) away from home in a play-off situation.

If we aren’t seeded for the playoffs we would more than likely have 2 away games against much tougher opposition that Serbia so 15% sounds about right tbf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted Stevie out after the Croatia game. The Hampden games were disappointing to say the least. Since then our results have improved although in all honesty we still look less than the sum of our parts. 

He's got another 2 years anyway so is a moot point but he has earned the right to take us forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15% seems a bit mean. We’ve recent history of getting past a better side (Serbia) away from home in a play-off situation.

Even with equal ability it would only be 25%, so when you factor in the fact that we haven't actually sealed a play-off place, might be away in the semi, and are probably slightly weaker than some of the others, I think it's fair enough.

Some of the figures seem a bit wild though - Canada's percentage in particular stands out given how many games they've still got to play and the fact they've not qualified for so long.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ken Deans said:

I wanted Stevie out after the Croatia game. The Hampden games were disappointing to say the least. 

That's what really did it when we get down to it, the two games at Hampden - the rest is basically spin. People got upset at the results against Croatia and Czech Republic and the tears started to flow.

Edited by 2426255
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those making the argument that Clarke has much more to work with than his predeccesors, it's worth noting that the only players from the most recent squad who's first call up came after Clarke was appointed are Patterson, Ferguson, Gilmour, Turnbull, Dykes, Adams, and Nisbet.

Of those, Dykes and Adams are the only two who're into double figures in terms of caps.

I think the squad is better now that it has been for a while and of course some of the players in it have improved individually over Clarke's tenure but let's not pretend what Clarke has at his disposal is a huge step up from what was available at the tail end of McLeish's time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me he still has to stay. The euros were a nightmare. I still reckon if we had equalised with one of our many chances before the wonder goal then we we go on and win the match. After the England game we could have been on 4 or even 6 points and all of a sudden he is a god. We had 42 attempts on goal over the 3 games so the finger can hardly be pointed at the manager. Its fine margins at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

For those making the argument that Clarke has much more to work with than his predeccesors, it's worth noting that the only players from the most recent squad who's first call up came after Clarke was appointed are Patterson, Ferguson, Gilmour, Turnbull, Dykes, Adams, and Nisbet.

Of those, Dykes and Adams are the only two who're into double figures in terms of caps.

I think the squad is better now that it has been for a while and of course some of the players in it have improved individually over Clarke's tenure but let's not pretend what Clarke has at his disposal is a huge step up from what was available at the tail end of McLeish's time.

So 4 first choice players then, its a huge difference. Especially one being the Lord himself billy gilmour!!

And also as you say the rest of the squad improving with age. Hes got a much better squad and team than even mcleish had.

Also I dont think anyone has argued we should be bringing mcleish back at any point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cant believe this is even a discussion. As mentioned, people have been moaning for years about not qualifying for a play off, nevermind a major tournament. Clarke has scotland doing this and people still want a rid. I tend to agree that his insistence on playing the same formation when playing weaker teams is frustrating and we got lucky against faroes. However, on the whole, I can’t see many negatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BingMcCrosby said:

So 4 first choice players then, its a huge difference. Especially one being the Lord himself billy gilmour!!

And also as you say the rest of the squad improving with age. Hes got a much better squad and team than even mcleish had.

Also I dont think anyone has argued we should be bringing mcleish back at any point.

I'll have some of this then. Put him in at RCB and drop McTominay. Sorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BingMcCrosby said:

So 4 first choice players then, its a huge difference. Especially one being the Lord himself billy gilmour!!

And also as you say the rest of the squad improving with age. Hes got a much better squad and team than even mcleish had.

Also I dont think anyone has argued we should be bringing mcleish back at any point.

You can't wait for the results to turn so you can stick the boot back in, can you?     

Steve Clarke has reformed this squad from the molten mess Alex McLeish left behind. Dykes and Adams didn't just fall from the sky, Steve Clarke deserves some credit for both of them joining the Scotland set up and also some credit for keeping one eye on our future by giving chances to Gilmour and Patterson plus Ferguson, Turnbull and Nisbet for that matter.

Clarke has made this squad better, made it into a good team with spirit, a structure and foundations albeit with some advantages other predecessors haven't had. I think he is due a lot of credit for the way he has done his work and maybe if you let go of your need to be right you would see that one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BingMcCrosby said:

So 4 first choice players then, its a huge difference. Especially one being the Lord himself billy gilmour!!

And also as you say the rest of the squad improving with age. Hes got a much better squad and team than even mcleish had.

Also I dont think anyone has argued we should be bringing mcleish back at any point.

Patterson has started 2 competitive games (both of which we won) and Gilmour has started 6 (of which we've won 4, drawn 1 and lost 1). I don't think they're great examples of Clarke not living up to expectations with greater resources.

Dykes and Adams, with all due respect to them, are probably not the players most people are thinking of when they talk about us having potentially the best squad in 20 years.

We're in a better position than we have been in a while and we're also performing better. I don't think the quality has improved to such an extent from McLeish's time that our expectations should have increased by that much that we should be judging Clarke by a totally different standard.

It's not about bringing back McLeish, obviously, it's about saying that what Clarke's working with isn't radically different than what McLeish was.

I'd be interested to hear the list of countries you think have worse players than us that are performing significantly better right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aufc said:

I cant believe this is even a discussion. As mentioned, people have been moaning for years about not qualifying for a play off, nevermind a major tournament. Clarke has scotland doing this and people still want a rid. I tend to agree that his insistence on playing the same formation when playing weaker teams is frustrating and we got lucky against faroes. However, on the whole, I can’t see many negatives.

the defence !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/10/2021 at 09:48, KingRocketman II said:

I think as a team we have been very unlucky in the past

I don't.

Strachan was big on such a claim and it simply represented self serving nonsense that could not bear any scrutiny at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, dysartrovers said:

 I still reckon if we had equalised with one of our many chances before the wonder goal then we we go on and win the match. 

Did we really have "many chances" in the ten minutes of play between the Czech goals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

Patterson has started 2 competitive games (both of which we won) and Gilmour has started 6 (of which we've won 4, drawn 1 and lost 1). I don't think they're great examples of Clarke not living up to expectations with greater resources.

Dykes and Adams, with all due respect to them, are probably not the players most people are thinking of when they talk about us having potentially the best squad in 20 years.

We're in a better position than we have been in a while and we're also performing better. I don't think the quality has improved to such an extent from McLeish's time that our expectations should have increased by that much that we should be judging Clarke by a totally different standard.

It's not about bringing back McLeish, obviously, it's about saying that what Clarke's working with isn't radically different than what McLeish was.

I'd be interested to hear the list of countries you think have worse players than us that are performing significantly better right now.

Your constantly referencing mcleish all the time as if he's some kind of yardstick. Mcleish should never have been given the job second time round. It never done him or us any favours. So if your argument is Alec Mcleish couldn't do better with this squad then I'd agree. But im not sure why were talking about it.

We all have different opinions and thats fine the worlds big enough for that. I respect you think the recent performances have been good. I think they have been good in patchs. And the potential is their for us to improve the consistency hopefully. 

Edited by BingMcCrosby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BingMcCrosby said:

Your constantly referencing mcleish all the time as if he's some kind of yardstick. Mcleish should never have been given the job second time round. It never done him or us any favours. So if your argument is Alec Mcleish couldn't do better with this squad then I'd agree. But im not sure why were talking about it.

We all have different opinions and thats fine the worlds big enough for that. I respect you think the recent performances have been good. I think they have been good in patchs. And the potential is their for us to improve the consistency hopefully. 

Nothing I'm saying is about McLeish's ability (or lack of) as a manager. I'm talking about the relative strength of squad available to Clarke vs previous Scotland managers and whether it's fair or reasonable to hold Clarke to a significantly higher standard or expectations because he has a significantly better squad to work with.

I'm comparing to McLeish because he was the previous manager and worked with squads filled with largely the same players.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...