Marshall

[king_dezeeuw06]

I watched it live and they showed about 3 replays after. Not seen it since. All just seems a bit over analytical to me. Did Marshall drop the ball and therefore a major bollock? No. Did Mulgrew let a ball between his legs that Russia scored from? No. For me that's a major cock-up that I'd be "seething" about if they played for us.

Could they have both done better for the goals? Possibly, if you go into all the Sky/Gary Neville style analysis and say they could've been 6 inches more one way or the other but neither goal was their 'fault' so to speak and it didn't strike fear into me as to how they might do for us. Plus you have to give credit to the international level players they were playing against, sometimes there's nowt you can do.

Marshall was voted man of the match for Scotland in most papers so he can't have been that bad.

I didn't say Marshall was bad for 90 mins i said he bottled that goal - look at the replay he could've gotten accross but pulled up short.

A mistake doesn't have to be an embarrasing fumble - being caught badly out of position or turning off when the ball is in the danger zone are just as costly.

Watch it back - look at Marshall and Mulgrew for the winner - Mulgrew could've easily got accross in time to clear the ball if he kept running rather than slow down and ball watch and Marshall could easily have got at least closer to the shot - but he likely would've had to have risked impact with the striker. I don't think you need to be Gary Neville to see this.

 

[Roy Race]

Just watched the goal again to make sure and sorry KDZ but you are talking out of your arse.

Firstly Mulgrew. He stops momentarily because there are two attackers one in front and one behind him who the awol right back should be marking and he's clearly thinking which one do I cover as I've got two to mark here. Not his fault. He didn't switch off. Even if he had carried on sprinting as you say he would never have have cut out the cross as it comes across the goal about 6 or seven yards in front of him (see the replay from behind the goal) while the full back can't catch the man he should've been marking.

Secondly Marshall. He's sprinting back across the goal and he doesn't pull out because he's scared of clashing with the defender as you suggest. If you watch the replay from behind the goal he slows down for a split second as the shot is going back across the goal from where marshall is coming from and he momentarily puts on the brakes so he doesn't run past it but it hits the defender and goes in the opposite corner and Marshall would unlikely have got to it anyway if he hadn't paused.

So in conclusion, just purely in relation to the goal and nothing else, they cannot be blamed for either. (Can't believe I've just gone all Gary Neville)

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

Just watched the goal again to make sure and sorry KDZ but you are talking out of your arse.

Firstly Mulgrew. He stops momentarily because there are two attackers one in front and one behind him who the awol right back should be marking and he's clearly thinking which one do I cover as I've got two to mark here. Not his fault. He didn't switch off. Even if he had carried on sprinting as you say he would never have have cut out the cross as it comes across the goal about 6 or seven yards in front of him (see the replay from behind the goal) while the full back can't catch the man he should've been marking.

Secondly Marshall. He's sprinting back across the goal and he doesn't pull out because he's scared of clashing with the defender as you suggest. If you watch the replay from behind the goal he slows down for a split second as the shot is going back across the goal from where marshall is coming from and he momentarily puts on the brakes so he doesn't run past it but it hits the defender and goes in the opposite corner and Marshall would unlikely have got to it anyway if he hadn't paused.

So in conclusion, just purely in relation to the goal and nothing else, they cannot be blamed for either. (Can't believe I've just gone all Gary Neville)

The Russian winger is under pressure from the full back, he's running at pace and the angle means the ball is almost certainly coming in as a cross rather than a pull back - the cross is clear the imminent danger - at that point as a defender you have to try and cut out the cross. Mulgrew even looks behind him and see's the striker has already got free and is making a clear run on goal so it will be a free shot from 5 yards at back post if the cross reaches him. Yet Mulgrew who already slowed down doesn't speeds up or move towards the ball even then. When the ball is played he's marking no one, he's not moving toward the striker steaming in and unable to cut out the cross - he's in no mans land despite having a good starting position when the ball was originally played. The goal scorer starts his run much further back than Mulgrew when the original through ball is played - so if he can get on the end of the cross, i can't see how if Mulgrew with the head start couldn't have got there in time to make a clearnance if he doesn't hesitate or slow down so much when the danger is there (hence why he was 6 or 7 yards away from it). He's not the only one who cocked up but for me in that situation your centre back has to attack the cross. In that situation when 2 players have lost their men, you have to go to the ball rather than mark space as it's you're best chance to stop a goal.

Marshall knows the ball is coming accross the face of goal and the striker is steaming in, it's a goal unless you get as close to the striker as possible and jumping at full stretch towards the ball he almost falls to the ground at with his arms not fully extended. He may not have been able to get there to stop it but in that instances as a keeper you have to just go for it to have any chance - yet he wasn't at full stetch and held back rather than dived in.

If you see it differently we'll have to agree to disagree but that's what i see and i think it's pretty clear both could've done better.

 

[Martinez1986]

If you see it differently we'll have to agree to disagree but that's what i see and i think it's pretty clear both could've done better.

and so could the other nine Scottish players conveniently left out of your quite shocking analysis

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

If you see it differently we'll have to agree to disagree but that's what i see and i think it's pretty clear both could've done better.

and so could the other nine Scottish players conveniently left out of your quite shocking analysis

Is that aimed at me?

Shocking analysis? - It's shocking attempt at post from you - no counter argument just a snipe for the sake of it.

Why would I analyse the Scottish players who don't play for us?

As usual you have added nothing to the debate.

 

[Will_Shahane]

I think we should probably just leave this alone now, guys. It doesn't really matter, after all, and I think it's just a classic case of people seeing things differently in this highly subjective game. That's part of the beauty, I guess. Personally, I agree with KDZ; Mulgrew did seem to lose his man, and I think Marshall's inability to command his box authoritatively, which has been exposed on an all too frequent basis when he has pulled on a shirt for us, was exemplified through Russia's goal. That's just my opinion, though. Either way, I just think that, at this point, it's best to agree to disagree now.