Scottish Decline

T

TenG

Member
May 15, 2011
399
10
18
NULL
If ENgland had lost even 1-0 to USA or Norway last night there'd be uproar.

Scotland's 5-1 defeat to USA hasn't even raised any eyebrows.

As it stands, your only chnace of improvement is the increase of teh Euors to 24 teams from 2016, which should make it easier for you to qualify for a major at least once every 4 years.

I remember the tournaments of 1990, 1998 where the UK media looked upon Scotland as being in serious competition for qualification from the group rounds, and blatant dismissal of the like of COsta Rica as minnows.

Well, Scotland are minnows are, and I think it is sad since Scotland is per head of capita one of the highest attendance in wolrd football, and has traditionally produced some of the best players who have been the back bone of many a great English side.

I wonder why the likes of Norway/Sweden with their poor leagues produces higher calibre players than Scotland?

Surely you should at the very least be able to compete with the likes of Greece, Turkey, who regularly qualify depsite having leagues dominated by 2-3 teams.
 
If you read 'Why England Lose: And other curious phenomena explained' they've done a statistical analysis and come up with a pretty accurate formula of how national football teams perform over an extended period of time. The major factors are income per capita, international experience and population. Assuming the first 2 are around level, population will be the deciding factor. We've no excuse against Norway, but the populations of Sweden and Greece are around double that of Scotland and they therefore have a talent pool twice the size. As for Turkey, they're 12x bigger than Scotland though this is partly mitigated by the fact that their per capita income is considerably lower.
 
Scotchlanders are very football interested though, i read something like 2.5% of the population go to football matches a week, compared to 1.something% with England and 0.something% for the Irish <ok>
 
Ever since the 9 in a row era of Rangers, where punt, rush and elbow were the tactics of the day for them, Scottish teams and managers believed that this was the only way to play football

Small skillfull players were chased away or told they weren't big enough to play football

The national team adopted this due to the success of Rangers

They had it ingrained once Walter Smith took the job as national boss

If Messi was Scottish he would be playing for Blackpool right now
 
I can't believe it would be so hard if clubs like Rangers and Celtic puttheir mind to it to nurture real talent.

The list of skillful yet gritty Scottish footballers of old is endless. It was actually once held up as a reason why England couldn't win because our toip club sides were manned by Scots. I remember an England team comprising 8 Liverpool players losing to the Swiss 2-1 in a world cup qualifier, at a time when Liverpool were dominant home and abroad.

Although I'm English, I would love for the world to see Auld Enemy games between us at Euros and World Cups because the atmosphere would be immense and really show the world how big a deal football is to us.

I am sure, given even a budget of 10 million pounds a talent pool of around 100 yougnsters could be found and nurtured.
 
Tarquin Biscuit-Barrel said:
If you read 'Why England Lose: And other curious phenomena explained' they've done a statistical analysis and come up with a pretty accurate formula of how national football teams perform over an extended period of time. The major factors are income per capita, international experience and population. Assuming the first 2 are around level, population will be the deciding factor. We've no excuse against Norway, but the populations of Sweden and Greece are around double that of Scotland and they therefore have a talent pool twice the size. As for Turkey, they're 12x bigger than Scotland though this is partly mitigated by the fact that their per capita income is considerably lower.
Click to expand...

What about Switzerland, Croatia, Uruguay, Denmark, Norway and all the other wee countries that have succeeeded at international tournaments? And wee Ireland and Wales
 
London's Only EC Winners said:
What about Switzerland, Croatia, Uruguay, Denmark, Norway and all the other wee countries that have succeeeded at international tournaments? And wee Ireland and Wales
Click to expand...

We can ignore Uruguay as their success was back in the 30s. From the rest of your list, only Denmark has succeeded - and don't forget they weren't good enough to qualify. They were parachuted in at the last minute because of the civil war in Yugoslavia.
 
Tarquin Biscuit-Barrel said:
We can ignore Uruguay as their success was back in the 30s. From the rest of your list, only Denmark has succeeded - and don't forget they weren't good enough to qualify. They were parachuted in at the last minute because of the civil war in Yugoslavia.
Click to expand...

Uruguay reached SF in 2010. Denmark QF in 86 and last 16 in 2002. Scotland have never got past group stages.

Lots of countries sub 5 million have reached knockout stages
 
London's Only EC Winners said:
Uruguay reached SF in 2010. Denmark QF in 86 and last 16 in 2002. Scotland have never got past group stages.

Lots of countries sub 5 million have reached knockout stages
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say reaching the knockout stages could be counted as a 'success'. In any case, the formula predicts the countries' performance over an extended period of time and can't take into account the occasional spike in results. None of these small countries you mentioned consistently reach the knockout stages.
 
Mind The Step said:
Ever since the 9 in a row era of Rangers, where punt, rush and elbow were the tactics of the day for them, Scottish teams and managers believed that this was the only way to play football

Small skillfull players were chased away or told they weren't big enough to play football

The national team adopted this due to the success of Rangers

They had it ingrained once Walter Smith took the job as national boss

If Messi was Scottish he would be playing for Blackpool right now
Click to expand...

WRONG!!!!
You must be pretty young MtS, as I can remember the decline starting during the 1978 world cup finals - there was much talk of adopting Dutch coaching methods to use with our kids after that debacle. Then the teacher's strike in the 80s, when they refused to take after school classes (inluding sports), was another nail in the coffin. The drinking culture and general lazy, "we're too cool" attitude we see nowadays, means that decline can only get worse IMHO. By the time of Walter Smith, we were already p**s poor - and BTW I am in no way a supporter of Rangers (or Celtic, who are just as bad).
 
Let's be honest, forget about the meaningless stats - the empirical evidence speaks for itself - Scotland are abyssmal to watch, absolutely abyssmal. Put yourself in the shoes of a neutral - would you go and watch them??? I rest my case.
Uruguay 'only' reached the semis, aye but they'd knock at least 6 past our lot!!
Sad to say but we have been utter rubbish for at least two decades now
 
Some of the worst players in our national team play in best league in the world !! and are on 50/60 grand a week .
 
the truth is that the majority of our technically gifted players are prone to start smoking hash and drinking wine at 13, so you end up with the less naturally talented, but more dedicated and basically gay borderline rugby ****s sticking at it and going pro.

the fact that the youth system is non competetive up to a certain age, and the fact that big and fast is more important than a football brain at most youth teams dosent help either. we need a complete change from the ground up but i cant see it happening, also less and less kids playing on the streets which is probably down to technology and ****s who phone the police for kids kicking a ball about.

to produce world class players you have to either have the right kind of poverty in the country ie brazil and argentina, or the setup, ie germany and spain and we dont have either.
 
The problem with the Scottish team is the league itself, there is no real competition and 2 clubs (ok, maybe only one now) have such a dominating position that they can, and do, buy anyone the others have simply so they can't. A young Scot appears on the scene, say playing for Partick, before he really has a chance to develop he is purchased by one f the big 2, and then sits on the bench stagnating while some 30 year old cheap foreign import gets the game time. Until this stops Scotland won't go anywhere. Rangers and Celtic have destroyed your national team.
 
eddie\/eeee said:
the truth is that the majority of our technically gifted players are prone to start smoking hash and drinking wine at 13, so you end up with the less naturally talented, but more dedicated and basically gay borderline rugby ****s sticking at it and going pro.


to produce world class players you have to either have the right kind of poverty in the country ie brazil and argentina, or the setup, ie germany and spain and we dont have either.
Click to expand...

I agree - it's a big ask on the clubs to produce talent when there is a wider social issue working against them. When the investment isn't there either it's even harder. If a player does come through with enough quality the next challenge is keeping them grounded.

I think we are also seeing the aftermath of the early 00's when neither Celtic or Rangers had many Scots in the starting 11.
 
silkship said:
I agree - it's a big ask on the clubs to produce talent when there is a wider social issue working against them. When the investment isn't there either it's even harder. If a player does come through with enough quality the next challenge is keeping them grounded.

I think we are also seeing the aftermath of the early 00's when neither Celtic or Rangers had many Scots in the starting 11.
Click to expand...


The bottom bit is true, I reckon, but there's a "can't have it both ways" thing going on when it comes to the attitudes of non Glasgow fans.

If Celtic and Rangers buy lots of Scots, other fans will moan that they're taking the players who won't get as much gametime in Glasgow as in another city - therefore ruining the Scottish game.

If Celtic and Rangers buy lots of foreigners and these players get to start for Aberdeen, United etc etc, then it's Celtic and Rangers fault for having too many foreigners and denying Scottish players games in European competition etc etc

If a Scotland team plays with 9 or 10 Celtic and Rangers players in the starting line-up, it's the Glasgow teams' fault if we get beat and isn't mentioned if we win.

If it rains, it's the Old Firm's fault.

For what it's worth, I agree with silkship in that having fewer Scots in the top teams is damaging - good players thrive on the pressure (Charlie Mulgrew and Kenny Miller being examples of players who were/are clearly at their peak whilst playing in Glasgow) although this isn't universally true (Paul Hartley made more of an impact for Scotland whilst at Hearts).

You can't have it both ways but most Scottish fans are VERY keen to blame the Old Firm teams if Scotland lose - whether the team is full of Celtic and Rangers players or not.



P.S - on the comparable countries bit, no-one has mentioned larger European countries than us who have football as a national sport who don't do as well as us.
Austria has over 8,000,000 as a population and has failed to qualify for 5 of the last 7 world cups and has never gotten past the first round of the Euros.
 
Tarquin Biscuit-Barrel said:
We can ignore Uruguay as their success was back in the 30s. From the rest of your list, only Denmark has succeeded - and don't forget they weren't good enough to qualify. They were parachuted in at the last minute because of the civil war in Yugoslavia.
Click to expand...
Urugauay won the world cup in 1950 and finish 4th in 2010 and won the Copa America last year.
 
Tarquin Biscuit-Barrel said:
I wouldn't say reaching the knockout stages could be counted as a 'success'. In any case, the formula predicts the countries' performance over an extended period of time and can't take into account the occasional spike in results. None of these small countries you mentioned consistently reach the knockout stages.
Click to expand...

Croatia looking good again this year. 4.2m and main sports tennis and basketball
 
There are twice as many Belgians as Scots.

How's their team getting on?

For every footballing nation with less than 5 million people you can pull out, there are plenty with larger populations that are doing hee haw.


The thing is, Scotland overacheived at certain points in history - just because our team played in the first ever international, it doesn't mean we should be amongst the top 20 or 30 teams in the world forever.

I look forward to the day that we qualify for major tournaments again.

It's not a disaster if we don't as we aren't that important globally.

I'd hate to live with a superiority complex that meant you were always disappointed <ok>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back