Jump to content

TheScarf

Gold Members
  • Posts

    25,541
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Posts posted by TheScarf

  1. 32 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

    You've got a point in your first paragraph, but to suggest that population "is completely irrelevant" is utterly mental, probably the silliest post on this thread, an accolade for which the competition will be fierce.

    Oh look, the contrarian’s contrarian has piped up. 
     

    Of course it’s irrelevant. How good an international team is, is down to football infrastructure and how good the coaches are. Not many people live in its towns and cities.  Your shouts on here continue to be unhinged

  2. 25 minutes ago, Forza Alba said:

    They might be, it's not really facile, the best footballing nations are the biggest footballing nations. The worst are the smallest.

    Brazil might underperform, Andorra might over perform, but never the twain shall meet.

    And it makes sense, more people, more players to choose from (assuming a broadly similar interest in football).

    It is, by far, the best predictor of success over the long term.

    Yes, a loss to Croatia is probably worse than a loss to Poland. Over the next 30-40 years I have little doubt Poland will outperform Scotland and Croatia, it would be an absolute travesty if they don't.

    I'm equally confident Germany and Brazil will shit over Poland.

    If you really believe in the last statement, you will make an absolute fortune on the betting market.

    Good luck to you on that.

    These countries don't really have much interest, and don't play Scotland in any competitions.

    Provided footballing interest is broadly similar, population is clearly the best metric.

    And even if the nations don't care about football, I'd take football apathists China or India ahead of football mad Gibraltar.

    Within Europe, most nations are pretty into football, and success is near linear on population basis 

    It is completely linear? No, that would also be statically extraordinary, some over perform and some under perform.

    But broadly, the biggest nations do well, the smallest nations do nothing and those in between (like Scotland) win some lose some.

    And the world keeps spinning. If you want to support a successful national team, I recommend Brazil or Germany. Italy and Spain are good shouts too.

    Not England or Turkey, they horribly underperform. Still better than San Marino though.

    Scotland historically outperformed, and even now are just about above average.

    It can change for large non footballing nations quite quickly, the USA was a joke for decades. Even though the sport is far from fully established there, it would be surprise if Scotland are ever consistently better than them. They are so big the relative lack of interest doesn't matter so much.

    Why aren’t China and India the two best football teams in the world? They’ve got the two biggest populations. Surely they have the most players to choose from so should be the best?

  3. 1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

    Ralston is a proven failure, who yet again cost Scotland because of his rashness. 

    Johnston might not be good enough, but he also might be.

    It feels pointless sticking with the "safe, experienced" option who costs you a goal almost every time he plays yet that's where we are.

    Indeed, surely it's better to go with a potential failure, than a proven one.

  4. 4 minutes ago, Ya Bezzer! said:

    Having missed the game last night and watched. the highlights this morning I have to say that Grant Hanley at the end there has made the most inexplicably idiotic decision I've ever seen in football.

     

    Former The Caley chairman Graham Rae appointing Scot Gardiner for me, brother.

×
×
  • Create New...