The younger generation of Scots fans have finally become aware this week of what it’s like to follow our international team at major tournaments. As I said in my column last week, and I was trying to avoid being negative, we are very used to going into these tournaments with real and genuine optimism. In many past cases our hopes were to get beyond the group stage and potentially challenge for the trophy. Once again we’ve fallen short by not winning either of our first two games but let’s look on the bright side of what’s occurred this week. It was great to achieve qualification and have the excitement of actually having games at Hampden. During these bleak times, it was a blessing to have something positive to occupy us and especially so for the youngsters who really enjoy playing and watching football.
The Czech result was a major disappointment as this was, on paper, the best chance we had of starting our campaign strongly and winning three crucial points. There were arguments after the match about the team selection and tactics but that always occurs when a defeat is suffered. I personally understood why he went with some players who might have been left out on the day. Steve Clarke was influenced, as many managers are, by loyalty to the players who had been part of the group that got us to the finals. This has happened over almost every campaign and I fully expected it to occur again. It didn’t mean we were necessarily going to lose this game but it was always a potential threat to our chances.
If you consider that we had four players who were strong candidates to make the first team in Che Adams, Billy Gilmour, Nathan Patterson and David Turnbull, then you can understand why he didn’t consider any of them for the Czech game as none of them participated in any of the qualifying games. I believe if it wasn’t for this loyal mindset from Clarke, he would have considered at least two of them as starters.
These would have been Patterson and Adams with Gilmour the most likely third candidate. I actually feel the three of them should have started as this match required us to start off on a positive winning footing. Patterson has proved already that he’s a first class defender but he is excellent going forward and could have provided worthwhile service for the forwards.
With Kieran Tierney being unavailable, Scott McTominay should have gone back into the defensive structure so that we had a playmaker from central defence to link up with the midfield. This would have meant that Gilmour would come in as his replacement as our playmaker. The final alteration to the starting line-up would have been Adams up front instead of Lyndon Dykes. He’s playing at a higher level for his club and I feel he’s already shown that he’s more adept and mobile. When you consider that Stuart Armstrong was selected for our midfield then it would seem more appropriate that you have someone in the team for him to link up with who he plays with on a regular basis.
We didn’t play badly against the Czechs but these key alterations could have made a difference. We did miss crucial chances and their keeper had some excellent saves. David Marshall has been highly criticised for the second goal scored by Patrik Schick but he also made some crucial saves too. I felt the criticism he got for the special Schick finish was too harsh. He was well out of his box but he would have saved this effort if it hadn’t been a strike of absolute perfection, which it was. In terms of the chances in the game being taken by both teams I figured the score would have been 4-3 for the Czechs so no change to the outcome we experienced.
Anyway, with that disappointment now behind us we then faced our most difficult but exciting fixture, England at Wembley. The one big advantage we had going into this game was that we were total underdogs. Other than the loyal and optimistic Scottish fans, nobody thought it would be anything other than an England win. I must be honest I felt this way too although I was considering that we are generally at our best when we’re written off in advance.
I allowed myself a wry smile when the line-up was announced. Tierney and McTominay started in defence which gave us a platform to build out from the back and Gilmour – who was excellent, by the way – dropped deep to collect. As I’ve said, I would have preferred to see Patterson over Stephen O’Donnell but take nothing away from the Motherwell defender. He was brilliant. That was probably the best I’ve ever seen him play for Scotland.
It was a perfect example that demonstrated why Scotland are at their best when the odds are stacked against them. I was left a bit disappointed as we made some good chances but we have to be happy with the outcome. Going to Wembley was always going to be our most difficult test and Gareth Southgate’s side are among the favourites to go all the way and lift the trophy, but we made them look very ordinary.
Croatia will be the favourites on Tuesday but that will suit Steve and his players down to the ground. A home win will more or less see us through and we all know how loud the Tartan Army will be cheering them on. I think Steve will stick largely with the same line-up but I’d like to see Armstrong brought in to link up with Adams.
We are in a strong position. It would be such a welcome sight for the whole country to see the players defeat Croatia and book their place in the knockout rounds, becoming the first Scotland team to make it out of the group at a major tournament. After the horror of the last 18 months, it could be just the timely morale boost the country needs.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel