World cup 2018 campaign

[TrueDiamond]

These are the points we absolutely HAVE to get:

6 against Malta home and away.

6 against Lithuania home and away.

A win against Slovenia at home and at least a point away.

At least something against Slovakia in either match.

Even then this may not be enough. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility for Slovakia to exceed this tally, simply by beating Slovenia home and away. Making it imperative that the 'something' against Slovakia at home has to be more than a point

[Jamaldo]

Even then this may not be enough. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility for Slovakia to exceed this tally, simply by beating Slovenia home and away. Making it imperative that the 'something' against Slovakia at home has to be more than a point

I'm basing the must-get points on our ability as well though. The building blocks of a strong campaign if you will.

No chucking away daft points like we've done in the last billion campaigns.

[Bully Wee Villa]

We haven't taken twelve points off the bottom two teams in a qualifying group since 2000-01. Admittedly a few time we've been handicapped by being in a five team group but it's still poor.

I reckon we'll beat Malta but I've no confidence we'll get six points from Lithuania. We might need to edge the head to head records against both the Slo countries and rely on England not going out of their way to f**k us over like Germany did in order to finish second.

[Poet of the Macabre]

Beat Slovenia, Lithuania and Malta home and away. Beat Slovakia at home. 21 points. Easy.

[Monkey Tennis]

It's interesting that you think that my points afford me confusion. I don't quite see that. I could concede that 74-58 is not 20, but that is a failure in arithmetic and not confusion. (I could be as pedantic as yourself, and point out that 54-30 is 24 years, but that would be even more pedantic).

You concentrate on the choice of teams who I described as shoe ins, preferring to accentuate results that were unusual rather than the point being made. The team you refer to did nothing for the next 14 years and then nothing for the next 18 years. (No I haven't checked my maths 62-76-94. No doubt you will)

All this whilst ignoring the main points of my post.

I'll summarise.

a. Football is cyclic.

b. Scotland's current players will not be suddenly replaced by young world beaters.

c. We can only worry about what we can affect and influence. Everything else will see to itself in its own good way.

Identifying the period from 1930 - 54 as one of comparably prolonged failure to qualify would of course be bonkers, as opposed to pedantry, given that we turned down our invitations to the early ones and that some sort of minor skirmish prevented a couple of tournaments from taking place.

I stand by the suggestion that your list of "shoe-in wins" is deeply flawed, containing as it does, some sides who have not only performed better than us on occasion, but also in a very sustained way. I'll concede the point about the Scandinavian sides, but again, we need to go back a longer way than I think you imply.

As for your "main points", I'll accept 'b', given that it's blindingly obvious and nobody is seriously suggesting otherwise.

Point 'a' is more problematic. The reasons are complicated and have a lot to do with history, politics, culture and the advance of the sport, enabling our advantage as an early adopter of the game to be eroded. Our current period of exile is unprecedented despite your claims. Now I'm not saying we'll never qualify again because we probably will some time. It's difficult however to envisage a time when we become a fixture at these tournaments as was once the case. Football does sometimes move in cycles, but I'd contend that our current malaise is not merely cyclical.

This of course relates to point 'c' where I cannot adopt your laissez faire approach, on the assumption that it'll all come good again if we just leave well alone.

[TrueDiamond]

Identifying the period from 1930 - 54 as one of comparably prolonged failure to qualify would of course be bonkers, as opposed to pedantry, given that we turned down our invitations to the early ones and that some sort of minor skirmish prevented a couple of tournaments from taking place.

I stand by the suggestion that your list of "shoe-in wins" is deeply flawed, containing as it does, some sides who have not only performed better than us on occasion, but also in a very sustained way. I'll concede the point about the Scandinavian sides, but again, we need to go back a longer way than I think you imply.

As for your "main points", I'll accept 'b', given that it's blindingly obvious and nobody is seriously suggesting otherwise.

Point 'a' is more problematic. The reasons are complicated and have a lot to do with history, politics, culture and the advance of the sport, enabling our advantage as an early adopter of the game to be eroded. Our current period of exile is unprecedented despite your claims. Now I'm not saying we'll never qualify again because we probably will some time. It's difficult however to envisage a time when we become a fixture at these tournaments as was once the case. Football does sometimes move in cycles, but I'd contend that our current malaise is not merely cyclical.

This of course relates to point 'c' where I cannot adopt your laissez faire approach, on the assumption that it'll all come good again if we just leave well alone.

You're a tough crowd. No wonder your rep on P&B goes before you!!!

I am not sure what period you thought I was implying, but in my mind it was primarily the 60s if that helps.

[Dunning1874]

There'll probably be some players who have massive drops in form, age may catch up with Maloney, maybe a late developer'll emerge from relative obscurity like Hartley or Anya and hopefully Gauld or Armstrong will make the breakthrough, but right now this is the team I'd like to see us going with.

Marshall

Hutton - Martin - Hanley - Robertson

McArthur - Morrison

Maloney - Snodgrass - Anya

Naismith

Obviously in reality Strachan will go with Fletcher at centre forward instead, while I can see him leaving both Maloney and Anya out to accommodate Naismith and, unfortunately, to persist with Ritchie. If Maloney does deteriorate or Snodgrass continues to struggle with injury, my first choice would be to bring Armstrong into the team, then to move Morrison forward and bring Mulgrew or Brown in, assuming Darren Fletcher retires.

The defence picks itself, despite it being the weakest area of the starting eleven it's also the area where there's the biggest gap in quality between the first choices and the cover. There's absolutely no question of leaving any of them out in favour of alternatives.

This is our best eleven for me, and we should pick our best eleven at all times rather than just throwing young players in for the sake of it.

[No_Problemo]

Someone wrote this on the TAMB, unbelievable.

"Woy made a big deal about all the English players singing their anthem and I think he's right. Give me 11 players that want to belt out FoS over those that just stand there emotionless any day. Anyone got the stats on the correlation to those that don't sing to those that call off friendlies/ retire early?"

Possibly the worse thing I've ever read, so for 2018 11 loud singers and we are sorted, simplifies things somewhat.

[pandarilla]

Identifying the period from 1930 - 54 as one of comparably prolonged failure to qualify would of course be bonkers, as opposed to pedantry, given that we turned down our invitations to the early ones and that some sort of minor skirmish prevented a couple of tournaments from taking place.

I stand by the suggestion that your list of "shoe-in wins" is deeply flawed, containing as it does, some sides who have not only performed better than us on occasion, but also in a very sustained way. I'll concede the point about the Scandinavian sides, but again, we need to go back a longer way than I think you imply.

As for your "main points", I'll accept 'b', given that it's blindingly obvious and nobody is seriously suggesting otherwise.

Point 'a' is more problematic. The reasons are complicated and have a lot to do with history, politics, culture and the advance of the sport, enabling our advantage as an early adopter of the game to be eroded. Our current period of exile is unprecedented despite your claims. Now I'm not saying we'll never qualify again because we probably will some time. It's difficult however to envisage a time when we become a fixture at these tournaments as was once the case. Football does sometimes move in cycles, but I'd contend that our current malaise is not merely cyclical.

This of course relates to point 'c' where I cannot adopt your laissez faire approach, on the assumption that it'll all come good again if we just leave well alone.

Did you just argue against point c: we can only affect what we can affect...

How the hell do you propose influencing those things which we have no influence over?

I know your trigger happy with managers but we can't exactly sack the managers of the countries that are doing better than us.

[Monkey Tennis]

Did you just argue against point c: we can only affect what we can affect...

How the hell do you propose influencing those things which we have no influence over?

I know your trigger happy with managers but we can't exactly sack the managers of the countries that are doing better than us.

I see what you mean.

I think I was arguing with what I saw as the spirit of the point, midst the others implying that it'll come good anyway, rather than its actual content.

I agree that we should not get upset over the things we can't influence, but I think TrueDiamond and I might draw the line over what can be influenced, in a different place.

[Monkey Tennis]

You're a tough crowd. No wonder your rep on P&B goes before you!!!

I am not sure what period you thought I was implying, but in my mind it was primarily the 60s if that helps.

Yeah fair enough.

The cycle has a wide radius though, if we're talking half a century.

I get your general point about us not being all that awful a side. I also agree that we're unlikely to keep failing to qualify forever.

I do think though that we need to pro-actively address this slump as a nation, if we're going to perform consistently better.

[TrueDiamond]

I see what you mean.I think I was arguing with what I saw as the spirit of the point, midst the others implying that it'll come good anyway, rather than its actual content.I agree that we should not get upset over the things we can't influence, but I think TrueDiamond and I might draw the line over what can be influenced, in a different place.

I think you will be surprised as to where that line is for me.

[TrueDiamond]

I do think though that we need to pro-actively address this slump as a nation, if we're going to perform consistently better.

That won't change significantly just by dumping a manager. It requires a complete overhaul from the base up by coaches, players, clubs and fans.

Coaches need to coach basic skills at a young age. Passion will no longer outplay skill.

Players need to want to be successful and understand the concepts of diet etc is to success

Clubs need to put National Teams interest higher (will never happen in the modern climate. Just look at Celtics business plan)

Fans need to stop demanding the ball to get forward quicker and that our traditional style is no longer suitable.

Now where have I heard this before.....

[Savage Henry]

Look who we've just appointed as under 21s head coach. An utter moron who wants his team to be tall and run about a lot, and when getting horsed by France instructed his players to kick them off the pitch. Whilst this kind of thing often gets put down to "the game being soft" and "football used to be a contact sport", there's really not a place for it any more.

The longer our game gets its knickers in a twist over "not being able to tackle" and what-have-you, the longer we stay in the dark ages.

I know nothing of Brian McClair's football philosophies, but his first appointment does not signal much of an intent to change.

[Monkey Tennis]

That won't change significantly just by dumping a manager. It requires a complete overhaul from the base up by coaches, players, clubs and fans.

Coaches need to coach basic skills at a young age. Passion will no longer outplay skill.

Players need to want to be successful and understand the concepts of diet etc is to success

Clubs need to put National Teams interest higher (will never happen in the modern climate. Just look at Celtics business plan)

Fans need to stop demanding the ball to get forward quicker and that our traditional style is no longer suitable.

Now where have I heard this before.....

Of course changes need to run deeper than a managerial switch.

Some of what you suggest, is in place already, but it's too early to assess impact.

In providing such a list of complex, lengthy steps, you appear to be departing from your earlier stance of 'Don't panic. Our time will come.'

[TrueDiamond]

Of course changes need to run deeper than a managerial switch.Some of what you suggest, is in place already, but it's too early to assess impact.In providing such a list of complex, lengthy steps, you appear to be departing from your earlier stance of 'Don't panic. Our time will come.'

Nope. Our time will come. But if we want to make our time come more often we need to implement.

Why do you spend your life trying to pick tiny holes in people's views? Are you a failed lawyer or a wannabe politician?

[Monkey Tennis]

Nope. Our time will come. But if we want to make our time come more often we need to implement.

Why do you spend your life trying to pick tiny holes in people's views? Are you a failed lawyer or a wannabe politician?

I'm neither I'm afraid.

Just trying to explore exactly what you're saying - that's all.

I reckon we're approaching something similar to agreement.

[TrueDiamond]

I'm neither I'm afraid.Just trying to explore exactly what you're saying - that's all.I reckon we're approaching something similar to agreement.

So a failed politician then!

[Monkey Tennis]

So a failed politician then!

Nah, a wannabe lawyer. Bit late though, I fear.

[dogmc]

Look who we've just appointed as under 21s head coach. An utter moron who wants his team to be tall and run about a lot, and when getting horsed by France instructed his players to kick them off the pitch. Whilst this kind of thing often gets put down to "the game being soft" and "football used to be a contact sport", there's really not a place for it any more.

The longer our game gets its knickers in a twist over "not being able to tackle" and what-have-you, the longer we stay in the dark ages.

I know nothing of Brian McClair's football philosophies, but his first appointment does not signal much of an intent to change.

totally agree....id actually be far more concerned with the coaching team for u21s (and indeed other age groups) than Strachan staying or going.....we clearly have weak spots in senior team but very few young players pushing to replace the seniors....havent seen anything from u21s that says there will be a chance to significantly evolve the senior squad for the next campaign or even next euros....