Holland Vs Scotland

[cmdc]

Agree. To say McGregor had no chance with the first goal is just wrong. It was an uncongested box, he had a perfect view of the cross coming over and yet stayed rooted to the line, without even trying to come out to block Hunterlaar's effort. A textbook catch, or should have been. As for the second goal, he should have flattened Kuyt before the corner even came in. Gordon must come back on Wednesday.

 

I also agree about Ferguson, he has a good game every few months, and turns it on for Scotland once in a blue moon. A very good player on his day, but his attitude fairly stinks at times.

 

Just watched the goals again, and I honestly don't think McGregor could have done a thing about the first goal. He did get trapped behind Kuyt for the second though, which was maybe a bit naive...but then I'm not sure he'd have gotten to that cross either.

[Rhubarb Mess]

Just watched the goals again, and I honestly don't think McGregor could have done a thing about the first goal. He did get trapped behind Kuyt for the second though, which was maybe a bit naive...but then I'm not sure he'd have gotten to that cross either.

 

An international level goalie would have.

[GiGi]

An international level goalie would have.

No they wouldn't.

[port-ton]

An international level goalie would have.

 

Thats funny, because Sunderland fans dislike Gordon because he doesn't move off his line for crosses and i would say Gordon is international level.

[Rhubarb Mess]

No they wouldn't.

 

Eh.

 

Are you on about the 2nd Dutch goal? If so how can you say that? It was in an area where the keeper holds all the cards what with him being in a position to get above the forwards. He made no effort to come off his line, that is an error, simple as. By not attacking the ball he left himself in a position where he was completly exposed as the header was far too close to allow him to react. Gordon would have come for that ball.

 

The first goal cut him out, maybe he was in 2 minds what to do but McGregor does not inspire defenders in front of him with his static line stance.

[Rhubarb Mess]

Thats funny, because Sunderland fans dislike Gordon because he doesn't move off his line for crosses and i would say Gordon is international level.

 

 

I was talking to a mackem that goes to many Scotland games and (maybe he was biased) but he also said 'even Gordon would have come for the 2nd cross'.

[GiGi]

Hindsight is wonderful. Speculate all you want but the goals were caused by poor defending not poor goalkeeping.

[Rhubarb Mess]

Hindsight is wonderful. Speculate all you want but the goals were caused by poor defending not poor goalkeeping.

 

 

It's not speculation that the keeper is part of that defence. 1st and 3rd goal where down to dodgy defending, 2nd goal was a mixture of dodgy defending AND a keeper who was rooted to the spot.

 

Thats not hindsight, that is fact.

[EanieMeany]

It's not speculation that the keeper is part of that defence. 1st and 3rd goal where down to dodgy defending, 2nd goal was a mixture of dodgy defending AND a keeper who was rooted to the spot.

 

Thats not hindsight, that is fact.

 

 

Indeed. For the first goal, you could say that it was the difference between an excellent goalkeeper, and an average one. Which would be fair enough, if it wasn't for the fact that we had an excellent goalkeeper on the bench, and an average one at best on the pitch.

 

No excuses for the second though.

[port-ton]

http://www.readytogo.net/smb/showthread.php?t=397605

 

that is 12 pages of People who see him every week mostly saying he's not good enough, that he doesnt come out for crosses and that he doesn't communicate with his defence or organise them well.

 

Gordon would have stood on his line for both goals aswell, and personally i see no problem with that. If coming for crosses isn't you're strongest quality then you decide before the game that you're going to come for nothing, and leave the defenders to do the job. that way you never get caught in no mans land.

 

Gordon is a good goalkeeper, and he's better than McGregor, but McGregor did what he had to do well on Saturday and shouldn't be blamed for any of the goals.

 

You can be sure that if Gordon had conceded those two goals there would have been no mention that the keeper should have done better, its just another bandwagon to jump on to blame Burley for us losing.

[Rhubarb Mess]

http://www.readytogo.net/smb/showthread.php?t=397605

 

that is 12 pages of People who see him every week mostly saying he's not good enough, that he doesnt come out for crosses and that he doesn't communicate with his defence or organise them well.

 

Gordon would have stood on his line for both goals aswell, and personally i see no problem with that. If coming for crosses isn't you're strongest quality then you decide before the game that you're going to come for nothing, and leave the defenders to do the job. that way you never get caught in no mans land.

 

Gordon is a good goalkeeper, and he's better than McGregor, but McGregor did what he had to do well on Saturday and shouldn't be blamed for any of the goals.

 

You can be sure that if Gordon had conceded those two goals there would have been no mention that the keeper should have done better, its just another bandwagon to jump on to blame Burley for us losing.

 

I am sure Gordon would have come for the ball at the second goal, maybe not the first.

How does a keeper who regularly won games for Hearts then become pish poor, maybe joining a pish poor team wasn’t the wisest choice in the first place.

 

I still partly blame McGregor for the 2nd goal, he should have not been left exposed but I will repeat once again I do not have confidence in his dealing with crosses. He should have attacked the ball. Keepers who remain on the line when a ball is delivered into the 6 yard area are for the most part removing themselves from the equation.

 

If Gordon had conceded those goals I would be blaming him exactly as I am blaming McGregor.

Where does this equate into an attack on Burley? (Who I am sure you will know has managed to win one game in this campaign thus far so failing miserably). The jury is still out with regards to Burley (and incidentally I am of those who believe in giving chances first) but he is running out of those chances and that is not a media bandwagon, that seemed the general consensus of the fans who travelled and have watched us stutter along.

 

We all know the limitations, we all know this game was a shadow squad but we can all see the errors in squad selection, come on, who in their right mind would put Alexander up against the Dutch attack, as soon as I seen he was in the defence I feared the worst, he is just not up to it. Burley would have been better playing himself.

 

[port-ton]

I am sure Gordon would have come for the ball at the second goal, maybe not the first.

How does a keeper who regularly won games for Hearts then become pish poor, maybe joining a pish poor team wasn’t the wisest choice in the first place.

 

I still partly blame McGregor for the 2nd goal, he should have not been left exposed but I will repeat once again I do not have confidence in his dealing with crosses. He should have attacked the ball. Keepers who remain on the line when a ball is delivered into the 6 yard area are for the most part removing themselves from the equation.

 

If Gordon had conceded those goals I would be blaming him exactly as I am blaming McGregor.

Where does this equate into an attack on Burley? (Who I am sure you will know has managed to win one game in this campaign thus far so failing miserably). The jury is still out with regards to Burley (and incidentally I am of those who believe in giving chances first) but he is running out of those chances and that is not a media bandwagon, that seemed the general consensus of the fans who travelled and have watched us stutter along.

 

We all know the limitations, we all know this game was a shadow squad but we can all see the errors in squad selection, come on, who in their right mind would put Alexander up against the Dutch attack, as soon as I seen he was in the defence I feared the worst, he is just not up to it. Burley would have been better playing himself.

 

 

I don't believe he's became piss poor, i just believe he has the same weaknesses as McGregor, and with Gordon not having played in months the right decision was made.

 

Burley has to win on wednesday and if he doesn't he should probably go, and there are plenty of reasons for fans not to like him or even our performances. But fans are blaming our defeat to one of the best teams in the world on Burley for starting McGregor over Gordon, and they magnatise everything McGregor done in the game and used it as an excuse to have a dig at Burley, when Gordon would have conceded both of them aswell and nothing would have been said.

 

We had a choice between Alexander or Whittaker. Whittaker has hardly played for Scotland and cant defend for toffee. Alexander had a good game in our win in Paris. There was no contest on who should start. It didn't work out well as Alexander had a poor game, but he was the right choice given the players available as it would have been stupid to risk Hutton in a match we were always going to lose when we have a must win game coming up on wednesday.

[Rhubarb Mess]

I don't believe he's became piss poor, i just believe he has the same weaknesses as McGregor, and with Gordon not having played in months the right decision was made.

 

Burley has to win on wednesday and if he doesn't he should probably go, and there are plenty of reasons for fans not to like him or even our performances. But fans are blaming our defeat to one of the best teams in the world on Burley for starting McGregor over Gordon, and they magnatise everything McGregor done in the game and used it as an excuse to have a dig at Burley, when Gordon would have conceded both of them aswell and nothing would have been said.

 

We had a choice between Alexander or Whittaker. Whittaker has hardly played for Scotland and cant defend for toffee. Alexander had a good game in our win in Paris. There was no contest on who should start. It didn't work out well as Alexander had a poor game, but he was the right choice given the players available as it would have been stupid to risk Hutton in a match we were always going to lose when we have a must win game coming up on wednesday.

 

Having just watched the 2nd goal again I am even more convinced Gordon would not have been forced to stand meekly behind Kuyt.

 

Let get this clear, I am not blaming McGregor for the defeat, Holland never got out of 2nd gear all night, we did not put ourselves about enough and I think the tactics where wrong on our part. Holland would have won but we made it far too easy for them and that is what sticks in the throat, but if you analyse the goals unfortunately McGregor cannot be absolved of blame.

 

Alexander is not good enough. Weak link.

 

[port-ton]

Having just watched the 2nd goal again I am even more convinced Gordon would not have been forced to stand meekly behind Kuyt.

 

Let get this clear, I am not blaming McGregor for the defeat, Holland never got out of 2nd gear all night, we did not put ourselves about enough and I think the tactics where wrong on our part. Holland would have won but we made it far too easy for them and that is what sticks in the throat, but if you analyse the goals unfortunately McGregor cannot be absolved of blame.

 

Alexander is not good enough. Weak link.

 

I thought the tactics were spot on. Holland didn't have a shot on target all night due to our defence and midfield. We lost goals from two set pieces and a penalty. Our defending should have been better from cross balls but thats nothing to do with tactics and all to do with people not tracking their men. We had just as many shots against Holland as we had against France, and France had a lot more shots on goal than Holland did against us. The performances were almost identical except we didn't get a lucky goal out of the blue and our goal lead a charmed life.

[Rhubarb Mess]

I thought the tactics were spot on. Holland didn't have a shot on target all night due to our defence and midfield. We lost goals from two set pieces and a penalty. Our defending should have been better from cross balls but thats nothing to do with tactics and all to do with people not tracking their men. We had just as many shots against Holland as we had against France, and France had a lot more shots on goal than Holland did against us. The performances were almost identical except we didn't get a lucky goal out of the blue and our goal lead a charmed life.

 

The difference between the games were that Holland strolled it where as France toiled. We made France work hard we didn't do enough of that on Saturday night. We looked nervous, the atmosphere was poor, it just didn't happen at all.

 

The midfield did not contain enough defensive cover, Burley is a positive manager but he needs to get a grip on understanding our limitations.

 

Holland knocked the ball about as if it was a training match, probably about the level of one from their point of view, they would have turned us over no matter. Yes we contained them at times.

 

I disagree that the errors at the crosses were not down to tactics, we have 3 defenders running the team and to get caught out blindside for the first was just schoolboy stuff, the second just no one attacking the ball. Holland where always going to try and punish us from crosses.

[dunning1874]

An international level goalie would have.

 

Never mind international level - any remotely competent goalkeeper should have been able to collect that cross for the second goal.

 

I wouldn't blame McGregor for the first as the cross came from so deep and it would have been hard to judge, but the second, when a corner comes into that area, it should be the goalkeeper's ball every single time.

[Savo]

I think McGregor should maybe have come for it. It's not quite in the category of the St Johnstone goal against us at McDiarmid Park before Christmas but it was whipped into a similar area and I think, overall, you are looking for him to come for it.

 

However, when you read things like 'any remotely competent goalkeeper' etc. then you start to detect a bit of over exaggerating in some quarters. It's almost as if some people are relishing the chance to stick the boot in because they never wanted him betweenthe sticks in the first place.

 

Like others on the thread I'm sceptical about whether Craig Gordon would have gone for the ball too, but that's neither here nor there.

 

My major gripe about the goal is the way Fletcher lets his boy go. Defending a dead ball is a shared responsibility and if you are meant to be picking a man up then you do not allow him to wander off you like that.

[Savo]

Word on the sports desks up the road is that Mr McGregor could be back on the bench for the game tomorrow night.

 

 

[ThornTON]

Word on the sports desks up the road is that Mr McGregor could be back on the bench for the game tomorrow night.

It's a harsh lesson, but one which had to be done. Iceland is a MUST WIN, if we lose we are pretty much out and Burley is out a job. He has to pick the best XI available, which regardless of games played includes Craig Gordon, and sadly Kris Boyd... no wait....

[GiGi]

However, when you read things like 'any remotely competent goalkeeper' etc. then you start to detect a bit of over exaggerating in some quarters. It's almost as if some people are relishing the chance to stick the boot in because they never wanted him betweenthe sticks in the first place.

 

Like others on the thread I'm sceptical about whether Craig Gordon would have gone for the ball too, but that's neither here nor there.

 

My major gripe about the goal is the way Fletcher lets his boy go. Defending a dead ball is a shared responsibility and if you are meant to be picking a man up then you do not allow him to wander off you like that.

I agree with that.

 

'That's not hindsight'