Clyde 1 Clown Call-In Clinic thread * MERGED *

WalterLoyal said:
It's been the same again today with Gordon the host setting the agenda. Anyone who dares to even mention Patterson faces an interrogation from Gordon who is trying to shut down any talk whatsoever of Patterson starting.
Click to expand...
Nathan is never starting in these games.
the manager and team mates were always going to back O’Donnell, and so they should.
 
Looks like they are setting up O' Donnell for a fall. As someone said he has went from Motherwell journeyman to Cafu in 3 days.
In the real world it doesn't work like that.
 
Guy on just now nailed it.

We came into the game saying they were an "aging team", so we set-up to provide Modric with a pipe and slippers. Strolled around with no pressure and all the time he needed for 90 minutes. Basic shit that Clarke and his apologists won't admit.
 
Here's the thing for me. If Clarke was so adamant in playing O'Donnell then why didn't he play him on the right of a back 3?

He is more of a defensive defender than an attacking one and would have allowed NP to be inserted in as the wing back on that side.

Would then have allowed McTominay to play the holding role or where Armstrong played.

His unwillingness (some would say stubbornness) to play NP bit him in the arse big time.
 
ottawabear said:
Here's the thing for me. If Clarke was so adamant in playing O'Donnell then why didn't he play him on the right of a back 3?
Click to expand...
Did you see him trying to head a ball on Croatia's first goal?

The facts are, before the tournament, the massive majority of reasonable supporters wanted Patterson to play. Ultimately the selection of O'Donnell proved to be wrong against the Czechs.

Clarke's stubbornness in defending O'Donnell and Marshall meant he was never going to play Patterson against England. The full team did well against a below average England team and of course O'Donnell had "The Shot".

"The Shot" meant O'Donnell stayed against Croatia, when we needed to score and the choice of Patterson was obvious. He was responsible for the first Croatian goal. He then spent the game passing backwards, when we needed goals to win.

The O'Donnell situation was the tournament in a nutshell. Gordon Duncan isn't going to admit that, so deflection is the approach.
 
Skyy Bluenose said:
It was game one that was the issue and he had months to plan for that one.
Click to expand...
Without doubt .
Out of the 3 games surely you pick the weakest tie and go for it , just so happens it was the opening game and at home aswell , couldn't of asked for a better circumstances to play first tournament tie in over 2 decades .

Laughable , they can dress it up all they want , it is what it is the bench would of pumped the starting 11 that day
:))
 
Skyy Bluenose said:
Did you see him trying to head a ball on Croatia's first goal?

The facts are, before the tournament, the massive majority of reasonable supporters wanted Patterson to play. Ultimately the selection of O'Donnell proved to be wrong against the Czechs.

Clarke's stubbornness in defending O'Donnell and Marshall meant he was never going to play Patterson against England. The full team did well against a below average England team and of course O'Donnell had "The Shot".

"The Shot" meant O'Donnell stayed against Croatia, when we needed to score and the choice of Patterson was obvious. He was responsible for the first Croatian goal. He then spent the game passing backwards, when we needed goals to win.

The O'Donnell situation was the tournament in a nutshell. Gordon Duncan isn't going to admit that, so deflection is the approach.
Click to expand...

I did, not disputing that at all.

My post was concerning the fact that Clarke, no matter who was saying it was wrong, was always going to play O'Donnell. To do that he played McTominay out of position in the back three and didn't play his best RB for most of the tournament.

O'Donnell (if he HAD to play) playing in the back three was the only way to suit our players and 3-5-2 system. O'Donnell is not a f*kking wing-back on any day of the week never mind a major football tournament.
 
StuGers said:
I’ve noticed this is the narrative being shoved down our throats.
Clarke has been in the job for two years and we have got worse.
Click to expand...
As I said this morning elsewhere, according to a text I received last night, under Clarke, Scotland have won just two out of eleven matches in 90 minutes. Against the Faroe Islands and Luxembourg.

That I couldn't care less is neither here nor there.

What should concern every Rangers fan is why such an atrocious record from a sellik-minded non achiever, will receive no rebuke, no censure and far less scrutiny, from the press or the ones running the game.

When you think of the rancour aimed at Alex McLeish in the dug out and the likes of Gordon Smith in the head office, yet again the double standards are mind blowing.
 
wee bud's pit boots said:
As I said this morning elsewhere, according to a text I received last night, under Clarke, Scotland have won just two out of eleven matches in 90 minutes. Against the Faroe Islands and Luxembourg.

That I couldn't care less is neither here nor there.

What should concern every Rangers fan is why such an atrocious record from a sellik-minded non achiever, will receive no rebuke, no censure and far less scrutiny, from the press or the ones running the game.

When you think of the rancour aimed at Alex McLeish in the dug out and the likes of Gordon Smith in the head office, yet again the double standards are mind blowing.
Click to expand...

I posted earlier that Clarke would be lauded and praised in the media as a football genius simply for taking Scotland to a major tournament.
 
I know where you're coming from but O'Donnell is a giant, yet shit in the air, immobile, cumbersome, first touch of Fred West with a shovel. It wouldn't matter where he played we'd have been exposed
ottawabear said:
Here's the thing for me. If Clarke was so adamant in playing O'Donnell then why didn't he play him on the right of a back 3?

He is more of a defensive defender than an attacking one and would have allowed NP to be inserted in as the wing back on that side.

Would then have allowed McTominay to play the holding role or where Armstrong played.

His unwillingness (some would say stubbornness) to play NP bit him in the arse big time.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top