Let’s be blunt — that Norway win deserved celebration. It got us there for the first time in 28yrs and we were right to enjoy it. But that doesn’t mean the following three games were celebrated or that there’s anything to cheer about in the way people now pick apart how we set up.

There’s a lot of noise about the Curacao match, with folk saying we should have scored two or three. Do people honestly think the players didn’t try? To be fair, attempts were made, chances were chased. The truth is more prosaic: we don’t have the personnel to turn every chance into a goal against teams at that level. It’s frustrating, but it’s not down to lack of effort on the pitch.

As for the Morocco game, Clark kept things tight. You can see why — a draw would have given us a decent route through and, given the group we were in, pragmatism was a defensible plan. Any manager in that position might have done the same. Should we have gone toe-to-toe with Morocco after winning the first game and knowing we had Brazil in the group? It’s an easy thing to criticise in hindsight, but it wouldn’t have been sensible to throw caution to the wind and likely invite a hammering.

So if it’s not Clark’s tactics that are the root cause, where does the blame sit? For me it’s higher up. The shortage of top-quality players, and the wider structural problems with how the game is run here, fall squarely under the SFA’s remit. Years of mismanagement and a lack of coherent long-term development leave managers with less than ideal squads. That’s the rotten part — managers can only work with what’s handed to them.

Call it disappointment if you like, but don’t make the manager the scapegoat for problems that stretch far beyond one set of tactics or a handful of matches. The conversation we need is about fixing the system, not endlessly cycling through excuses aimed at whoever is in the dugout.

Written by Boy blue 4: 13 July 2026

Tags: tactics