Just because he deserves another crack at leading Scotland’s rejuvenation, it doesn’t necessarily follow that Steve Clarke ought to be given a free pass.
Late on Tuesday night at Hampden, when the national manager was going through the motions during a series of stern-faced post-match interviews, on more than one occasion Clarke talked of a need to review and assess his own contribution as head coach during these last few weeks.
Let’s hope he really meant it because there is much for him to learn – and perhaps even regret – from a three-game Euro 2020
adventure which should have been so much more fruitful than it ultimately turned out.
No wins, one point and only a single goal scored.
Those are the hard, cold facts behind Scotland ending this tournament anchored to the bottom of Group D and leaving before the serious business begins.
Let’s start with some positives. First, Clarke has earned another campaign, not only because he is the first man to qualify for a major finals in 23 years but because the improvements made during his time in charge have been undeniable.
His meticulous methods on the training pitch have made Scotland organised and capable of competing on the big stage again.
Also, he has assembled a highly talented and motivated squad while creating the kind of club chemistry that goes a long way at this level.
For all of those reasons there seems no benefit to be gained from throwing the baby out with the bathwater, even though the calls
for Clarke’s head will doubtlessly increase in volume as the national post-mortem gathers pace – and added vitriol.
But while all of the above mean the manager’s credentials are robust, it would be negligent of Clarke not to be asking himself some searching questions now it has ended in an unshakeable sense of disappointment.
So when he talks of taking stock and examining his own performance this summer, it is to be hoped he doesn’t simply reach the convenient conclusion that it all came down to Scotland’s rotten luck.
While there is no doubt that bad fortune played its hand, there has been some wonky decision-making along the way too.
Quite a bit of it, if truth be told – and it was right there in plain sight from the start, not just obvious with the benefit of hindsight.
On the contrary, when Clarke’s first team selection emerged online ahead of the opener against the Czechs, it immediately dampened the sense of anticipation which had been building up a head of steam for months.
Yes, wretched misfortune struck in the unexpected absence of Kieran Tierney.
But Clarke stuck with his preferred formation regardless, even though his three at the back set-up had been designed specifically with the Arsenal man’s attacking drive in mind.
By selecting three out-and-out centre-backs Clarke sacrificed Scotland’s ability to play out from the back.
As a result, his team was reduced to lumping long balls in the general direction of Lyndon Dykes and hoping the big Aussie could make some of them stick. It did not come close to working out.
That he was too cautious to trust in Billy Gilmour, despite all of the evidence the Chelsea youngster is capable of controlling
any midfield battle, set a negative tone.
That Callum McGregor was also left on the bench meant the heart of his side was bereft of composure and craft. Clarke has created his own narrative since that 2-0 defeat 10 days ago by sticking to the line that this was, in fact, a strong Scotland performance.
It was nothing of the sort.
Yes, chances were created but most of them came out of desperation when his team was already trailing by two goals and
left with no other option but to throw the kitchen sink at it.
At half-time this match was screaming out for Gilmour to be introduced to the middle of the park.
That Clarke stubbornly resisted that temptation remains a source of enormous regret and not least because of Gilmour’s masterclass at Wembley in game two.
What changed the manager’s mind? Having spent weeks with this squad, watching Gilmour train the way he plays, it’s difficult to comprehend why Clarke suddenly deemed him ready to face the English just four days later. He was correct, of course, but his big epiphany had come too late. Scotland’s horse had already bolted.
If only the 20-year-old had been trusted to run the show against the Czechs, then Scotland might have had four points from the first two games, rendering Tuesday’s clash with Croatia an irrelevance in terms of the race to the last 16.
Of course, Clarke’s bad luck struck again when the youngster then went down with Covid, which represented another shattering blow.
And it can be argued too that, with a rub of the green in front of goal, Clarke’s side could have helped itself to six or seven goals over three games in Group D.
Close things came and went in each of them without a clinical final touch being applied.
Such are the fine margins at this level. But they should not mask the missteps made along the way by a manager who must also be wondering if his final team selection was as flawed as his first.
By replacing Gilmour with Stuart Armstrong he was swapping a specialist in ball retention in the tightest of areas with a natural runner who prefers to gallop with it into wide open spaces.
It may have made more sense – and caused less of an imbalance – to ask John Fleck to fill Gilmour’s boots and allow him to demand the ball from the back and recycle it in much the way the youngster had done with such style and conviction on Friday night.
Clarke won’t enjoy reading any of this, of course. He does not respond well to criticism and has a tendency to become prickly and at times entrenched.
Perhaps this explains why Nathan Patterson was given just seven minutes against the Croats when all hope was already gone – and
why James Forrest was similarly overlooked for Stephen O’Donnell’s right-back role.
He might not like having his judgment questioned but if Clarke is true to his word, he will reflect on all of it. If he is the man to take Scotland to the next level, these are some of the key lessons that will have to be addressed.
