RicoS321

I'm just in the benefit of the doubt stage, no reason to think otherwise. Other than Ramirez and Gurr, these are very much McInnes style signings. I literally see no difference, and no reason to get excited (or the opposite). Had McInnes signed Ramirez, we'd be excited because of the "out of the box" thinking - as we were (apart from me, because I'm a miserable dick) with Hernandez - however Hernandez soured that and made us question the Atlanta/US link which is unfair on Ramirez. I think that when you sack a successful manager, the expectation is raised that something systemic will change too and I think that the evidence for that hasn't materialised yet. Nor is the stated tactical goal represented by the signings, which is so often the case. I'd like to see us add a left back, a wide player and a fast striker if that helps!

Was that not brown? I reckon Cormack and Glass will think so. Nae for me like. Ramirez would have been an exciting signing if the Hernandez thing hadn't happened previously. I'm slightly struggling to see how a front two of Ramirez and Jet fits the fast flowing fitba promised.

I'm not one for telling tales, but it appears someone has broken forum rules and basic etiquette here by not searching for an existing Andy Murray thread and utilising, rather than starting a fresh one. I mean, I'm not a moderator or anything - I couldn't be trusted with the power - but it's safe to say that if I were, it's this type of offence that I'd be cracking down on. I don't know what the forum moderator equivalent of a water cannon is, but I'd be taking a leaf out of Johnson's book and buying up a few before this sort of thing gets out of hand.

Didn't realise that Langfield was in goals for Spain these days?

Probably isn't one. I think that we maybe just have to accept that it's an area where we struggle, which is often the case at international level. In my mind, Clarke is as good as anyone at working out players' limitations and getting the best out of them based on simple instructions, and I think that if he saw a better option than Dykes (he did in Adams) then he'd have no issue playing them. We're just unfortunate that at this point in time we don't have a striker, but to be honest I'm struggling to remember the last international class striker we had in the Dykes mould (Ferguson and Durie probably). Guys as good as McFadden would really have struggled at tournament level up front on their own, so it's not a small undertaking to find a striker good enough (so I can see why Clarke would play two).

What does vamos mean, and why couldn't we use the English equivalent?

Judging by the England game, and our WC qualification games, that's not a tactic though. We don't play long balls as instructed, we end up doing it out of necessity because the opposition pressures us into doing it. That's all I'm saying. We would have done exactly the same had the only change been Nisbet (I don't think he's nearly at the level required yet) for Dykes. I get the impression that Fraser wasn't fully fit, Clarke seems to like him and I think he'd have featured more. Overall, I just think that we needed a better version of Dykes to be honest. I understood why Clarke picked him though as he was the best of a bad bunch.

The article says: "subject to securing a visa". Maybe it's easier to get a visa as a footballer with a fixed contract? No idea. They're obviously either fairly confident it'll be fine, or they're using it as a bit of good news to sell season tickets. Either way, should be an interesting one, welcome aboard CR9.

You seemed to have missed the nod to the Hernandez deal in Slim's post.

Ramsay? Aye, he's a suspicious one.

Like most teams, Scotland rarely setup to play long ball, that's simply a function of being a worse team than your opponent, being pressured and then having to go long. Had we played with nisbet instead of Dykes, we'd still have seen the same volume of long balls, just we'd have seen the ball coming back at us quicker. We didn't play long ball against England because we had a more balanced midfield with Gilmour there rather than Armstrong, so even with Dykes up front we could keep the ball in to feet and utilise the long ball when under pressure. In reality it's very difficult for a manager to prevent the long ball when his team is under pressure and I can guarantee that Clarke wasn't asking his players to play long ball as a tactic. We had a midfield three that was playing in a straight line for most of the game, all doing similar things at the same time (as happened against Czech Republic), inviting pressure on to us as soon as we got possession. Clarke should have recognised this earlier than he did and should have fixed it. To be honest, he should be using the metric of the number of times that we're forced to go long as an indicator that his tactics were failing and acted much sooner to change it. Belgium went long to Lukaku on numerous occasions last night as Portugal got more and more possession, similarly the Czechs with Schik against the Dutch, it's just a function of ability versus pressure rather than a coaching decision.

Good to see he's sorted himself out with a new career.

I've a feeling that they won't be publicised to avoid folk turning up. Probably all be at Cormack park to avoid covidry.

I think they were on their backs.

That's pish, think he'll turn into a very good player.

I agree with your first point, but not your solution. The midfield and the wide areas were the issue. I don't think it's stubbornness either, it's fear, as it was with McInnes (and many, many other managers). The inability to see that the game isn't going your way and a goal for the opponent is inevitable. The subs should have been on well before their second goal (well, a few minutes at least). Despite our great chance with McGinn, that game was only going one way. We needed to be proactive and take the gamble to win the game, as you nearly always do as the underdog. O'Donnell off for Forrest or Fraser and Armstrong off for Christie or Turnbull. Double sub, try and affect the game positively and throw them off their stride. Our midfield was a straight line, just as it was against the Czech Republic, and was far too easy to play against. Clarke changed nothing tactically. You only get one chance and you need to be prepared to take risks.

I'm fairly confident he'll be shite.

McRorie likely right back next season anyway, maybe this guy will be the pressure he needs to get his finger oot. I don't think Ramsay is ready and could do with a 6 month loan at a championship club.

Could imagine that if Ukraine get an equaliser we'll see a very pedestrian draw played out.

Gurr joins on a one year deal (no loan). Welcome aboard etc.

Could have been a big table tennis table.

Nice goal. We'll take him back now. Return the English guy.

I had a tenner on that result at 50-1. Funded my season ticket. Was bricking it for the last twenty. Had the tenner covered by a more sensible bet like, I wouldn't normally put that on at such large odds. Also had a tenner on morata to score first. Been a great day for gambling.

It just shows how difficult it is in my opinion. I didn't agree with Clarke's team on Monday but I can completely understood his reasons for picking it. McGregor wasn't in great form, Adams hadn't completely proven himself, O'Donnell showed tonight that with good support he's much better than some Hun no mark. The margins are so fine in international football, it's exceptionally difficult to get every selection right. Well done Clarke tonight, spot on.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree to an extent, but those were Marshall's instructions (or certainly he wasn't told not to push forward), so I don't see how it's his fault. You can see him coming further and appears to be shouting at the defence. The two players you suggest were covering were clearly not further enough across because they weren't expecting Henry to fuck up from that position either. They were as far out of position as Marshall was with obviously a slightly less risk attributable.