nate

At least it won’t happen in bevvy-averse Qatar. Double mint teas, anyone?

You’re being silly now. Luck is an imponderable. It comes, it goes. You don’t win international tournaments without a bit of it, because of the number of games required in doing so. And seldom do middle-ranking nations like Scotland qualify for major tournaments without a bit of it too, whether by dint of dodgy refereeing, unforeseen late winners or whatever. What is “terribly revealing” is your inability to accept that Peru were a better team than us, despite the historical facts staring you in the face. That’s why they were seeded above us and that’s why they won the Group. Simple. Facts trump opinions. I suggest you remove your head from the sand and stop deluding yourself with the notion that our 78 squad was better than it actually was (and ultimately proved to be). They were a bunch of decent international players but no more than that, propelled into an extremely tough WC Group. I think they did rather well down there, given the squad’s limitations.

The levels of expectation were mightily fanciful. They were based on nothing more than wishful thinking borne of ignorance. The same squad of players, more or less, at Argentina finished 2nd bottom of our 1976 (and 1980) EC qualifying groups ( or 3rd & 4th if you like). Most of the so-called big hitters that constituted the Argentina squad also played during this period…Dalglish, Jordan, Hartford, Gemmill, Jardine, Buchan etc. Our results were at best mediocre. Our results in the Home Internationals immediately prior to Argentina likewise (winless in the 3 games). Our very participation at Argentina was largely due to The Hand of Joe, it could be argued, particularly by the Welsh. This doesn’t sound like the kind of stuff likely to inspire vaulting expectations, does it? But that’s exactly what happened, and here’s why… … you’re making the same mistake gullible punters made in 1978: you’re thinking that our players were better than they actually were, on the basis that more than a few of them were successful club players, medals and all. The gulf between club football and International football back then was vast. Dalglish was an example of this truism…he was very rarely more than moderately influential at international level, despite sackfuls of caps and a stellar club career. If Peru enjoyed a bit of luck on their way to becoming South American champions, then they would be no different from dozens of others who win tournaments (you’ll also presumably know they won 3-1 away to Brazil during this lucky streak of theirs)They were a damn good side and proved it by winning our Group. They were better than us, no question. It was no disgrace losing to Peru.

In what wacky universe do we expect a Scotland team to beat the South American champions? We’ve never beaten a South American team, ANY South American team never mind their champions, in a competitive match. And the idea that Asian football was utter pants until about 20 years ago is a fallacy. North Korea had already beaten Italy at the ‘66 WC. And it wasn’t a fluke either because they’d taken points off Chile in an earlier group match (Chile had finished 3rd at the previous WC). Remember, we reached Argentina by playing a grand total of 4 games, and effectively qualified courtesy of an outrageously spawny handball. Some even called it cheating. Had such an atrocious refereeing decision knocked us out, instead of Wales, we’d be bleating about it to this day. Still, we got there, and finished the group in 3rd place, exactly where the pre-tournament seedings indicated we’d be (behind Peru and Holland). Bagging half the available points in the group was a decent achievement, bettered only once before or after. It wasn’t the players fault that fans, Press, manager and SFA blazers were arrogant fools with a flimsy grip on reality. I suspect our 78 squad was overrated and, on reflection, we might even have overachieved in Argentina. Before you die laughing at that, consider this: If these players were as good as people say then how come they failed miserably at qualifying for the two Euros either side of Argentina? Bad luck? What, again? Not buying it. It remains the case that in terms of World Cup outcomes - the bald correlation between matches played and points won - Argentina 78 is inarguably one of our finest moments. All that other stuff about dodgy hotels, bonus wrangles and the surreptitious necking of wee hayfever sweeties is a sideshow. The stats don’t lie. Ole Ola indeed

All this excitable chat about imminent WC qualification got me digging into past tourneys. Something baffles me. It always has. Why, exactly, is Argentina 78 dismissed as a calamity, if not our international nadir? It certainly can’t be because of results at that tournament. We claimed a creditable 50% of the available points, a feat bettered only ONCE in 11 WC & EC qualifications. What’s more, our group was excruciating, containing as it did… 1) Holland: reigning WC finalists, and heading for another final weeks after playing us, and generally regarded as the best team never to win the damn thing. That’s a mighty tough opponent by any reckoning. 2) Peru: reigning South American champions, no less. Anyone with even a thin knowledge of football knows you don’t get to be top dogs down there without being a bit special. 3) Iran: they’d been Asian champions for about 10 years and were undefeated in 14 qualifiers for the 78 tournament ( they won 12 of these matches, says Wiki) This is the equivalent of us reaching Qatar and drawing the likes of Croatia, Argentina and whoever No.1 in Asia currently is. How would we fancy our chances against that kind of trio? If there’s a candidate for worst showing at a Finals it should be France 98, not Argentina 78 ( ancient World Cups in the 1950s aside) I suspect the reason why 78 is held up as a so-called disaster has more to do with good old Scottish ignorance and parochialism - uniformed hacks feeding rubbish to even less informed punters - than what actually happened on the pitch down there. Come to think of it, Euro 2020 might even top France 98 for pish results. Next time someone insists Argentina 78 was the pits, you can argue otherwise. Or am I missing something? Over to you, old timers!

Exactly my thoughts. I have got a horrible hunch that Austria are going to qualify from this pathway. The bookies tentatively agree (last I checked they were joint faves to do so). Finishing 4th in a European qualifying section and still qualifying for the WC would surely be a first, not to say a miscarriage of justice, particularly if they eliminate us. How much of a scunner would that be? I remember Austria taking Italy to the brink at the Euros. They could easily have won that match. I think they’ll beat Wales, I really do. Many on here are already talking about a showdown in Cardiff. If I wasn’t Scottish I’d be backing an Austria v Ukraine final. Hope I’m wrong but the football pessimist in me keeps reeling in my expectations.

A depressing if not impossible scenario…how much of an advantage is playing at home come March if Covid developments dictate empty stadiums? It’s hard to quantify but away to, say, Turkey in the “final” would be a lot more appealing in an empty stadium down there than with a full house of screaming Turks. Such are the things going through one’s mind prior to a draw like this. I’ll take any combination of North Mac, Sweden, Wales, Czech Rep (poor in the Euros and worse than Wales).And Italy & Portugal in the same pathway just for good measure. Talking about measures, me and my missus have just poured a malt. Come on ye gods of spawniness.

Cheers. Mind you, my fave “prohibited” match up is Spain v Gibraltar. How silly is that?

Haven’t checked all the previous posts here, but does anyone know if FIFA still deem Russia (seeded) v Ukraine (unseeded) a “prohibited” fixture? The pair have deliberately been kept apart over the past few years. If this is still the case then today’s draw will not be as fair and transparent as we are led to believe.

Does anyone know if Moldovan defender Ion Jardan and ex Scottish journeyman Iain Jardine are by any chance related? Admittedly , years of self-abuse has undermined my eyesight, but the more i compare them, the more i detect similarities in their looks as well as their names. I think it's the nose. They could be father and son. Old timers will remember man-of-many-clubs Iain as a feisty midfielder with a reputation for off-field hellraising and skirt chasing. Question is: did he ever sow any of his wild Ayrshire oats in the vicinity of Greater Romania? I wouldn't be surprised. Iain certainly got around. He was quite the cosmopolitan, one of only a few Scottish players in the early-mid 80s to play his football in a foreign league, at a time when most of them (and us) were still holidaying in Dunoon caravans. Maybe there's a Scotland fan currently in Moldova, perhaps an autograph hunter, who could approach their team's hotel and ask Ion about his parentage? If my theory is correct, it would be a lovely story in these troubled times, I think you'll agree.

I'm with you on the McTominay-for-centre-forward suggestion. Why not? He is familiar with the position and most of our attacking endeavours involve hoofball up to Dykes in the hope inrushing midfielders gobble up the (knockdown) scraps. McTominay might even be bigger and stronger than Dykes, which is the whole idea of hoofball in the first place. Big brawny b*****ds rummaging up defenders. Moreover, since McTominay seems to get a starting berth every time, regardless of how good or bad he has been in the previous match (Faroes?) we might as well shove him up front and free up a valuable position elsewhere in the team. Playing a debutant (Brown) in a match of this importance is surely unwise. And if big Scott can score from two yards out, without even knowing what he's doing, he surely has luck on his side.

It's an interesting concept but we've already tried it. During the Cold War in the 1950s a totalitarian strongman - comrade Willie Allan - oversaw an SFA putsch giving him complete control over the military-industrial-football complex. This so-called Stalin of Park Gardens was so powerful he deemed it unnecessary to appoint an actual International coach, preferring to retain as much power and influence for himself as he could to thwart the ranks of paper tiger reformists. When the poisoned umbrella finally did for him, his understudy Ernie Walker took over, famously instigating a five-year plan of reform popularly known as the Think Tank. General Secretary Walker's populist credentials were cemented when he replaced the bourgeois anthem God Save The Queen with peasants' favourite Flower Of Scotland. Walker was himself replaced with yet another unelected bureaucrat, Comrade Jim "Andropov" Farry, whose dialectical immaterialism became legendary. Alas, it was all downhill from here. World Cup qualification never again troubled the masses and everyone thereafter lived in a permanent state of nostalgia. Great times, mind.

Would Sheriff be the Bessarabian Unionists, then?

This is great news, thanks. I knew one of their midfielders was suspended after getting a red against Israel, but those other absentees must surely enhance our chances. Am wondering how many players who played for the Moldovan side that won v Real Madrid are in their squad. Hopefully none!

Trolling? Explain yourself in coherent language please because your logic baffles me. Here's a fact: 6 out of the last 8 wins under Clarke in regulation time have been one-nils. That's a whopping percentage of one-nils you will agree. It might even be unprecedented. You really think this a coincidence rather than tactical astuteness? It's not a coincidence; it's a pattern. Clarke clearly has a happy knack of winning games one-nil over the past year or so. Long may it continue. I would rather win 1-0, ugly or otherwise, than lose playing swashbuckling football (if the words "Scotland" and "swashbuckling" is not too mind-bending a concept!) The point I was making regarding the Moldova game is that if we find ourselves a goal up and Clarke decides to shut up shop rather than chasing a decisive second - holding out for his 7th one-nil, no less - it will be torture to watch, for obvious reasons. If, as you suggest, it is "bad luck" and "lack of composure" responsible for that astonishing percentage of one-nils, then your judgement is clearly awry. The facts don't lie. Clarke, the best manager we have had in decades, irrefutably knows how to hang on to a one-nil lead.

Your quip about McInally and puddings reminded me of an amusing aside regarding that match in Genoa. The Costa Rican coach, a savvy Slav if I recall, organised a pre-tournament friendly against (I think) Wales, in which he instructed his goalkeeper to deliberately drop every cross that came his way, knowing that Scotland backroom staff were scrutinising their performance. We took the bait and pumped in cross after cross to big puddin' heid McInally that day in Genoa, thinking their keeper was rotten, and the CR goalie mopped up just about everything that came his way. We had been outsmarted before a ball had been kicked. But yes, CR were a decent team. They passed us off the pitch. No-one is suggesting Moldova are comparable to Costa Rica, but it's merely a reminder that we, of all nations, cant be dismissive of anyone. We only beat Moldova 1-0 at Hampden, after all.

Apologies for the sarcasm. Am getting p***kly ahead of Friday. Sorry.

no, it was about 20 years before that in 1990, when everyone -Scottish fans and media alike - had written them off as Group fodder on account of them being World Cup virgins. They turned out to be tactically miles ahead of us. I should know...i was at the game. More uninformed comments welcome, please.

Players and managers come and go, but the fact is our record against the so-called diddies in qualifying groups is abysmal. Only once this century (11 WC & Euros sections) have we NOT dropped points against one or other of the bottom two seeds. It has nullified good results against the better teams. It has killed our qualification chances. We got away with it with a belated win in the Faroes, but historically we bugger it up in exactly these type of "easier" games. I agree that scoring twice over there is probably necessary. My fear is we score first, early on, and then try holding out for a one-nil, Steve Clark style. Torture. Yes, two goals needed. Come to think of it, how many impressive performances have we posted in those 8 qualifiers to date? Two? If we win 2-0 would anyone be surprised? Not really. If we draw 0-0 would anyone be surprised? Not really. If we lose 1-0 would anyone be surprised? Not really. We've seen it all before many times. Costa Rica anyone? Remember those diddies? Cheer up ffs.

No it's goal difference (then goals scored if GD is level). That's what makes the situation a bit scarier for us...Israel v Faroes in the final match while we're taking on Denmark. We really gotta dispose of Moldova, no doubt about it, no excuses

No it isn't really. The betting bumph is an aside to the general, and more important, point that Israel, under the circumstances, are meeting Austria at a very advantageous time. Were this, say, the opening match of the section, you'd find it difficult to present a case for Israel. As things stand, they will never have a better chance of finishing 2nd or 3rd in a WC section. Forget the tips, as the old Israeli (crude) joke has it.

Folks, an indication of Austria's appetite for their match against Israel is that they have moved the fixture from big bad Vienna - the imposing Ernst Happel arena - to provincial Klagenfurt (capacity circa 20,000). They're treating the game as an experiment, so don't be surprised to see them blooding a few young uns here too. Yes, they want to win, obviously, but the bald fact is that in this encounter, all things considered, the bigger and most immediate incentive favours Israel. It's sink or swim. Israel as we already know have been banging in the goals throughout the campaign. I'd expect a silly best-of-5 or 6 goals type affair here. And at around 4/1 for an away win, it has to be a tempting punt. The time difference between us finishing in Moldova, and the Israel match kicking off later on, can work both ways. As things stand, it's unknowable how this will affect events in Austria. Suffice to say, backing Israel in Austria is a win-win for Scotland fans. You either collect a tidy sum if Israel win, or are delighted if they DON'T win because whatever else happens, it makes our passage to the play offs so much easier. 20 quid on Israel. As for Denmark...logic and probability dictates that we are very unlikely to beat them at Hampden. Or even draw. They are currently the only European nation with a 100% WC qualifying record, and we all saw how good they were at the recent Euros (and without their most influential player to boot). It would in my opinion be an excruciating prospect having to get something out of that game at Hampden against them to qualify. It's only the blindly optimistic/deluded who can possibly think otherwise. I cannot recall the last time we beat a top seed at home...was it even this century? Frankly, we simply must win in Moldova, a match that is already causing me some sleepless nights, given the litany of f**k-ups we have historically posted against the lower orders. And lets not forget we only scraped a 1-0 against Moldova at Hampden a few months ago. Georgia on my mind, anyone? The nightmare scenario i outlined in my original post - losing out on goal difference/goals scored - to Israel, remains possible. Let's hope it turns out to be misplaced pessimism.

Let's all descend into a pit of pessimism for a moment and imagine what unlikely sequence of events could deny us a play-off berth. Some good old Scottish doom and gloom. You know you love it. Here's the thing....I fully expect Israel to finish the group on 19 points. They're playing a demotivated Austria (already qualified for the play offs through the back door and consequently very unlikely to be busting a proverbial gut for this one) and then they finish the group with an easy home fixture against the Faroes(nice goal difference booster this one for the Israelis). I'd go further and say an Israel win in Vienna represents one of the best value Fixed Odds bets of the year. They've already taken five off Austria at home and have by far the best scoring record in the group, Denmark aside. They will also be fully aware that Scotland seldom, if ever, get through a qualifying campaign without dropping crucial points to one of the so-called minnows (Kazakhstan ,Belarus, Moldova, Macedonia, Faroes, Lithuania etc etc). Yep, Israel to win in Austria. Put your shirt on it. Scotland, currently on 17 points, therefore need 3 more points from our two remaining fixtures to get that coveted play-off spot (2 points aint enough...the Israelis would pip us on goal difference). Here's the nightmare scenario...we scrape a draw in Moldova (a scrappy, nervy Torshavn type affair on a crappy pitch, our talismanic striker suspended, replacements not up to the task), and then confront Denmark needing ALL 3 points! It wont happen. We are NOT beating Denmark. It's Moldova or bust. Anyone who has followed Scotland over the decades knows that this Moldova match is precisely the kind of affair we traditionally f**k up. I can then see us drawing against Denmark at Hampden (a Braveheart performance, Hampden roar, we gave our all etc) but conceding an 89th minute equaliser and missing out on the play offs on goal difference. How Scottish would that be? Am i the most pessimistic fan in the country or does this sequence of events sound even remotely plausible? Must go, have some wrists to slash...

new here,just testing how this works!