dandydunn Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 the ball is round pass to each other also helps to play the ball on the ground and not forgetting to score more goals than the opposition simple A ball is spherical. Unless some ##### sits on it and "eggs" it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I'll be nominating you to replace Sepp. How much will it cost me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagtag Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 The thing you need to look at is we scored more goals than in a long time and some very good goals at that but how many of the goals we conceded were defensive mistakes (howlers) rather than just great football by the opposition? Germany - terrible touch by McArthur Poland - Terrible touch by Hutton Ireland - poor at set piece but offside all the same. Georgia - 3 players standing watching and backing off and not one put pressure on the striker. Poland - poor play in midfield and the defence caught sleeping. Offside again but still could have done better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenmcn Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Parklife why the insults? You don't friggin' agree fine. No need for the nastiness. We are all after the same thing here - the difference of opinion is where the biggest weaknesses are and as far as I can see a blind man can spot our defence has problems if it can't shut out Georgia and Gibraltar and our attack can't be too shabby having scored three goals in two games against the world champions and four against the other automatic qualifiers Poland. This great attack you speak of scored only 1 goal against Georgia and couldn't even manage a shot on goal in Tblisi. Ireland beat them home and away. Goals for and against are irrelevant, only the results matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caledonian Craig Posted October 16, 2015 Author Share Posted October 16, 2015 Sorry no. Attack did their job putting us in positions to win both matches against Poland and shite defending meant we ended up with two draws. Against Germany we had fought back into a position to draw both matches but lost both (defensive howlers again). The only time our attack failed to find the net was in Tblisi but everyone here are in agreement that was down to our tactics in having no Plan B rather than faults in the attack. In any case was it asking too much for the defence to give us a shut out there? Of course not but they failed again. Heck even Gibraltar pierced our defence at Hampden as well - that in itself is a serious clue. Ireland are in the play-offs having scored fewer goals than us so we scored more than enough to have got the required results if only our defence had been as secure as Ireland. They kept it tighter in key matches and kept them in contention enabling them to convert draws to wins and losses to draws. We went the other way in that our defence converted draws to losses and wins to draws by conceding goals in the last few minutes of matches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Caledonian Craig, on 15 Oct 2015 - 7:55 PM, said: Parklife why the insults? You don't friggin' agree fine. No need for the nastiness. We are all after the same thing here - the difference of opinion is where the biggest weaknesses are and as far as I can see a blind man can spot our defence has problems if it can't shut out Georgia and Gibraltar and our attack can't be too shabby having scored three goals in two games against the world champions and four against the other automatic qualifiers Poland. It's not nastiness, you're being silly. You couldn't understand that scoring one more per game or conceding one more per game would result in the exact same outcome to the matches. Our defence is garbage. So is our attack though. From now on, i'm out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khana Lagur Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 This great attack you speak of scored only 1 goal against Georgia and couldn't even manage a shot on goal in Tblisi. Ireland beat them home and away. Goals for and against are irrelevant, only the results matter. Correct. Sorry no. Attack did their job putting us in positions to win both matches against Poland and shite defending meant we ended up with two draws. Against Germany we had fought back into a position to draw both matches but lost both (defensive howlers again). The only time our attack failed to find the net was in Tblisi but everyone here are in agreement that was down to our tactics in having no Plan B rather than faults in the attack. In any case was it asking too much for the defence to give us a shut out there? Of course not but they failed again. Heck even Gibraltar pierced our defence at Hampden as well - that in itself is a serious clue. Ireland are in the play-offs having scored fewer goals than us so we scored more than enough to have got the required results if only our defence had been as secure as Ireland. They kept it tighter in key matches and kept them in contention enabling them to convert draws to wins and losses to draws. We went the other way in that our defence converted draws to losses and wins to draws by conceding goals in the last few minutes of matches. Craig - you are entitled to your opinion but you're making the mistake of trying to apply logic to hindsight. Not only is that impossible but you then fail to see a football match for what it really is - a series of dynamic and random events. We cannot know what is going to happen next, therefore you cannot say for certain that A would have led to B and then to C. Most people interpret a football match through artificial things like tactics, poor defending or lack of talent etc. But it's really just randomness at work. All the artificial parameters we label the game with can do is increase the probability of an outcome - but they can't actually determine it. To keep that concept as simple as possible ask yourself if the finest coaches in the world have a plan to deal with deflections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenmcn Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 The only time our attack failed to find the net was in Tblisi but everyone here are in agreement that was down to our tactics in having no Plan B rather than faults in the attack. In any case was it asking too much for the defence to give us a shut out there? Of course not but they failed again. You are deluded. Not only did they not "find the net", they didn't even have a shot at it. Also, if you take Gibraltar out of the equation, we scored 10 goals in 8 games, an average of just over 1 goal a game. Not exactly $hit hot eh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caledonian Craig Posted October 18, 2015 Author Share Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) Sorry but look back at our last few campaigns:- 2016 Qualis 22 goals scored in 10 games. 12 conceded. 2014 Qualis 8 goals scored in 10 games. 12 conceded. 2012 Qualis 9 goals scored in 8 games. 10 conceded 2010 Qualis 6 goals scored in 8 games. 11 conceded. 2006 Qualis 9 goals scored in 10 games. 7 conceded. Edited October 18, 2015 by Caledonian Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Sorry but look back at our last few campaigns:- 2016 Qualis 22 goals scored in 10 games. 12 conceded. 2014 Qualis 8 goals scored in 10 games. 12 conceded. 2012 Qualis 9 goals scored in 8 games. 10 conceded 2010 Qualis 6 goals scored in 8 games. 11 conceded. 2006 Qualis 9 goals scored in 10 games. 7 conceded. Yeah but 13 of those goals were against the groups whipping boys. Another goal in Ireland or a goal in Tbilisi and it's a different scenario. Fwiw Craig I can see where you are coming from, our defence was shite, but you can't pin it all on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintlyscot Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Sorry but look back at our last few campaigns:- 2016 Qualis 22 goals scored in 10 games. 12 conceded. 2014 Qualis 8 goals scored in 10 games. 12 conceded. 2012 Qualis 9 goals scored in 8 games. 10 conceded 2010 Qualis 6 goals scored in 8 games. 11 conceded. 2006 Qualis 9 goals scored in 10 games. 7 conceded. Even allowing for Gib being weaker than normal Canon fodder that is quite telling. Proof that we were more potent than for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumnio Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Sorry but look back at our last few campaigns:- 2016 Qualis 22 goals scored in 10 games. 12 conceded. 2014 Qualis 8 goals scored in 10 games. 12 conceded. 2012 Qualis 9 goals scored in 8 games. 10 conceded 2010 Qualis 6 goals scored in 8 games. 11 conceded. 2006 Qualis 9 goals scored in 10 games. 7 conceded. So defensively we have been relatively consistent for many years then. Point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wubbs Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Sorry but look back at our last few campaigns:- 2016 Qualis 22 goals scored in 10 games. 12 conceded. 2014 Qualis 8 goals scored in 10 games. 12 conceded. 2012 Qualis 9 goals scored in 8 games. 10 conceded 2010 Qualis 6 goals scored in 8 games. 11 conceded. 2006 Qualis 9 goals scored in 10 games. 7 conceded. in 2010 and 2012 we were in 5 team groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caledonian Craig Posted October 18, 2015 Author Share Posted October 18, 2015 in 2010 and 2012 we were in 5 team groups. Even if you wished to take away the goals we scored against Gibraltar we still ended up averaging a goal a game scored which is more than we managed in our last campaign and in 2006 when we were in contention until the end of the group. And the other groups we have had five opponents in our group we have also had cannon fodder in our group so can we be consistent and take away the goals we scored against them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caledonian Craig Posted October 18, 2015 Author Share Posted October 18, 2015 So defensively we have been relatively consistent for many years then. Point? Well look at it. The last time we got really close to qualifying in 2006 we conceded less than a goal a game whereas here we averaged more than a goal a game conceded in this campaign. In that 2006 campaign we scored less than a goal a game (less than we managed in this campaign even if you disregard our Gibraltar matches0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wubbs Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Even if you wished to take away the goals we scored against Gibraltar we still ended up averaging a goal a game scored which is more than we managed in our last campaign and in 2006 when we were in contention until the end of the group. And the other groups we have had five opponents in our group we have also had cannon fodder in our group so can we be consistent and take away the goals we scored against them? We weren't in contention at the end of the 2006 group (we had a meaningless game in Celje). We were in contention till our final game in 2008q, 2010q and 2012q too. We always have a pot 5 team in our group. Soon enough it might be us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumnio Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Well look at it. The last time we got really close to qualifying in 2006 we conceded less than a goal a game whereas here we averaged more than a goal a game conceded in this campaign. In that 2006 campaign we scored less than a goal a game (less than we managed in this campaign even if you disregard our Gibraltar matches0. Im genuinely not sure if you are it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caledonian Craig Posted October 18, 2015 Author Share Posted October 18, 2015 What? I am at it for daring to suggest our defence has cost us? Jeez then if I am wrong I am in a group of illustrious people who have pinpointed the defence frailties such as Willie Miller and Neil McCann. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecie Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Nobody is disputing that the defence isn't good enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caledonian Craig Posted October 18, 2015 Author Share Posted October 18, 2015 Nobody is disputing that the defence isn't good enough. Yes but lets look back on here in recent months. Look at the thread topics alone and it centres in on Fletcher's involvement up front and dreamers (sorry fans) thinking Rhodes and Griffiths are the answer and should be playing. Many threads have harped on about who is and who isn't good enough questioning Fletcher etc etc. Precious little (apart from slating Hutton) has been posted about our defence. To me that area of our team has got off scot free so to speak and had not been put under the microscope at all compared to the attack. Sure in post-match threads people have spoken of dire defending but then its forgotten come the next match whilst the strikers paying (or not) was always on the agenda. Sorry but for me the defence needs scrutinised much more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintlyscot Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Yes but lets look back on here in recent months. Look at the thread topics alone and it centres in on Fletcher's involvement up front and dreamers (sorry fans) thinking Rhodes and Griffiths are the answer and should be playing. Many threads have harped on about who is and who isn't good enough questioning Fletcher etc etc. Precious little (apart from slating Hutton) has been posted about our defence. To me that area of our team has got off scot free so to speak and had not been put under the microscope at all compared to the attack. Sure in post-match threads people have spoken of dire defending but then its forgotten come the next match whilst the strikers paying (or not) was always on the agenda. Sorry but for me the defence needs scrutinised much more. Possibly but defensive options were much thinner on the ground. Going forward, Patterson,McGhee and others will hopefully stepup and be given a chance. Few would dispute it's the weakest area of our team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringo Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Possibly but defensive options were much thinner on the ground. Going forward, Patterson,McGhee and others will hopefully stepup and be given a chance. Few would dispute it's the weakest area of our team. What he said. We have several alternatives up front but far less at the back to discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robroysboy Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 The defence cost us with failing to clear their lines and statuesque defending. That needs addressing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenmcn Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 What he said. We have several alternatives up front but far less at the back to discuss. Exactly, but I'm sure Caledonian Craig will be along with the alternatives any time now. I don't have an issue with people having an opinion, but at least have an alternative to debate instead of blaming another part of the team which isn't exactly setting the world on fire. Remember, if you take away the Gibraltar games, Fletcher has scored 2 goals for Scotland, and in my lowly opinion not brought a great deal more to the table. Surely using Caledonian Craigs logic, it's actually the strikers fault we didn't manage the play offs since it was the strikers that not only didn't score in Georgia, but didn't even manage a shot on target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caledonian Craig Posted October 19, 2015 Author Share Posted October 19, 2015 Well options are already in the squad. I dont buy into this pish of 'lucky mascot' about Gordon Greer for example. What is it? He has 9 caps and in those games which he has started (which is quite a fair few of those nine) and we have conceded five goals. That surely says something. Yes he is getting on but at the end of the day if he is doing a job for us then who cares? I'd prefer us plsying with less gung-ho full-backs as well which Hutton and Robertson are. We need at least one sitting full-back in the mould of Whittaker or Forsyth for example who aren't too attack-minded and sit-in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.