Roker Rover Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Cockwombles haircut is modelled on Michael Douglas' (D-Fens) in 'Falling down' It looks like he used one of those home hair cut gadgets and ran out of battery power before he could do the fringe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broccoli Dog Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Doncaster pictured earlier this evening. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Paisley Cab drivers are shitebags Glasgow actually and i was. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drever Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Doncaster in his younger days apparently, complete with pet tarantula and old woman porn (out of shot) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) How do Uraguay, Denmark and Holland fit into your numbers argument? Quite comfortably I'd imagine. In each of these cases, the domestic league is nothing to shout about, but they have some good players who play their club football elsewhere. Supras was talking about domestic leagues, not the success or otherwise of representative national teams. Edited June 23, 2012 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotelandywalker Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Quite comfortably I'd imagine. In each of these cases, the domestic league is nothing to shout about, but they have some good players who play their club football elsewhere. Supras was talking about domestic leagues, not the success or otherwise of representative national teams. Not really getting your measure of success here. The most important measure of a country's football success is surely its national team. The national teams mentioned above don't just magic up their best players 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roker Rover Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Quite comfortably I'd imagine. In each of these cases, the domestic league is nothing to shout about, but they have some good players who play their club football elsewhere. Supras was talking about domestic leagues, not the success or otherwise of representative national teams. I think you are right. The Uruguayans stand out as a successful small nation but they have the huge advantage of qualifying from a continent with only 9 other sides and which includes some minnows. Its far easier for them to reach a World Cup Finals than Scotland and they don't even need to qualify for their continental tournament. They also hosted the first world cup and effectively got one in the bag early before the rest of the world woke up. Denmark won one Euro, but they have not done a lot before or since. Scotland had a very good side in the 70's but fell short, but I don't see a huge difference between the two countries, its just a case of having a crop of good players in the same era and Scotland have not had this for a while now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTJ Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 The only way the Scottish league can ever compete with the English league is importing 45 million immigrants and waiting about 50 years. It's a number game, and the English league will always be better than the Scottish because they are ten times the size. If we get summer football and a 16 team league we will win a major championship. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Not really getting your measure of success here. The most important measure of a country's football success is surely its national team. The national teams mentioned above don't just magic up their best players But nobody's saying England have a terrific team - they don't. However, they have a very lucrative league, crammed full of very good players from across the globe. This has much to do with marketing, alongside a huge footballing tradition, supported by a large population. The fact is that our league can't begin to compete, because despite our game attracting a bigger proportion of our population, it still means the number of people involved is far, far smaller. What you fail to grasp about this self-evident truth is something I fail to grasp. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabianKnight Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 If we get summer football and a 16 team league we will win a major championship. No we won't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 How do Uraguay, Denmark and Holland fit into your numbers argument? Very easily. The Netherlands have a quality of league dictated by their population, that is why it isn't as good as far larger nations like Italy, Germany, France and Spain. Scotland actually has better league than far larger nations like the Czech Republic, Sweden and Poland which is a really tremendous achievement. Scottish football, much as it is laughably derided, punches well above its weight and has done for decades. Our league is actually terrific, given our population, and its a shame people don't see this. Quite comfortably I'd imagine. In each of these cases, the domestic league is nothing to shout about, but they have some good players who play their club football elsewhere. Supras was talking about domestic leagues, not the success or otherwise of representative national teams. The population argument works for both, really. Not really getting your measure of success here. The most important measure of a country's football success is surely its national team. The national teams mentioned above don't just magic up their best players No, you're right, and that's why Denmark are being far worse than us for most of their history. The Netherlands perform to expectation (still below other larger nations in Western Europe but the "best of the rest") whilst Uruguay is a slightly strange case with their greatest success coming before football was a popular sport around the world. Even in South America they are up against two giants (guess who?) but beyond that it's anyones game with Colombia having a tendancy to murder their national captai and it not even being the top sport in places like Venezuela. They wouldn't have had anywhere near the same level of success in Europe where there is more depth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBairn Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 If we get summer football and a 16 team league we will win a major championship. I've always maintained that if Greece can win Euro 2004 then there's no reason Scotland couldn't do the same. Is Greek Football head and shoulders better than ours? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyle Lanley Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) http://www.dailyreco...86908-23899716/ 1st Division. Fucking unbelievable. Edited June 23, 2012 by Isaiah Osbourne 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 I've always maintained that if Greece can win Euro 2004 then there's no reason Scotland couldn't do the same. Is Greek Football head and shoulders better than ours? Aye. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) The population argument works for both, really. Oh, no doubt about that. Despite odd blips, the countries that qualify and go furthest in tournaments tend to be large ones with significant footballing traditions. It's exaggerated further in domestic leagues however, where if you've many clubs who can draw tens of thousands, this makes the game attractive to broadcasters and in turn, overseas players. There's no mystery as to why the English Leagues are awash with cash in a way that ours simply couldn't be. Measuring our domestic league against theirs is pointless. Edited June 24, 2012 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gav-ffc Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Martin Ritchies comments seem to coincide with the plans outlined. No to Newco as league rules are set but if change was brough ( I.e playoffs) then would be welcome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Koop Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 No we won't. OOOOOH YES WE WILL ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeTeeJag Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 I think that we wont have a rankers 2.0 at all next season, and that they will be allowed in the following season after the leagues have been reconstructed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTaxMan Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 No we won't. Can I quantify that with 'mibees aye, mibees naw' - tend to agree with you though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Hopefully the fans will hold out, as usual the intelligence of ordinary supporters is being underestimated by those in authority. Sadly,I think most club boards have the intelligence of their fans pegged quite well, we've more sheep than NZ. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.