Jump to content

England v Scotland

tartanspark

By tartanspark
in Tartan Army Ramblings

Recommended Posts

Malcolm Malcolm

Malcolm Malcolm

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Again I agree, but remember the thread we're on.

In terms of impact on the Scottish National team, it requires a leap to see Souness as vastly important.  He was possibly a blatant symbol of brash materialism, but if it hadn't been for him, I still think it's likely that the OF would have moved clear as consumer behaviour and marketing changed, as European money rocketed and as a mood to copy the greed of the English Premier League breakaway took hold.

Bigger factors than a posturing figurehead took our game in a bad direction.  Even those however, are relatively minor factors in why the Scotland team of today is so poor.

That's fair enough, I'm mostly just responding. My argument was a bit vague and overly symbolic, but some of the answers had glaring holes in them. 

We do need to take the approach most people on this site do and discuss the Scottish national team without getting distracted by the usual arguments and cliches about the Old Firm. On that one I am guilty this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
54_and_counting

54_and_counting

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Malcolm Malcolm said:

 

But ever since The Souness Revolution no club outside the Old Firm has won the league, to give an obvious statistical example. It changed things, and ultimately not for the better. 

that was always going to happen unfortunately, souness or no souness the old firm would have monopolised scottish football eventually simply because the fan base, and income derived from that would allow either of the OF to spend more than anyone else, especially when the riches of europe became more prominent and the SKY money started flowing in, even if rangers had stuck within their means they'd still have blown anyone out the water financially, only difference is that instead of spending big money on foreigners, they'd have simply had to hoover up any scottish talent worth their salt

Would that have been any better for the game? f**k knows

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calum_gers

calum_gers

Posted
Posted
It's very hard to get to the bottom of things where David Murray is concerned. I know a couple of older guys who have done business with him on behalf of major companies and that's the big issue with the guy. I'm honestly not sure what affordable means or has meant in the past in the context of Murray International.

Think about it this way. The England captain turns down Manchester United and moves to Scotland at the peak of his career. That's a bit odd, no?

Perhaps he wanted to play European football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ayrmad

ayrmad

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Malcolm Malcolm said:

True enough, actually. There was a two year gap and it had already kicked off. You're right about that.

However, you could make an argument that Murray's entire approach to business has been based on 'flimsy credit driven behaviour.' He's a bullshitter.

But ever since The Souness Revolution no club outside the Old Firm has won the league, to give an obvious statistical example. It changed things, and ultimately not for the better. 

He's certainly that, what people think he was offering at Ayr wasn't what he was offering at all, I think we actually spent a lot more that season than he was preparing to spend on the team.

I might be wrong but I'm sure a board member from that time told me Murray was intending to buy Ayr with cash secured against Ayr's assets, ie nowt of his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Malcolm Malcolm

Malcolm Malcolm

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

He's certainly that, what people think he was offering at Ayr wasn't what he was offering at all, I think we actually spent a lot more that season than he was preparing to spend on the team.

I might be wrong but I'm sure a board member from that time told me Murray was intending to buy Ayr with cash secured against Ayr's assets, ie nowt of his own.

I would love to know more about that because it's one of the great bullshit 'what ifs' of Scottish football, or at least was before the liquidation of Rangers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ayrmad

ayrmad

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Malcolm Malcolm said:

I would love to know more about that because it's one of the great bullshit 'what ifs' of Scottish football, or at least was before the liquidation of Rangers.

IIRC  he was intending to put an extra £90k into the player budget that season and we spent something like £180k extra, I'm quite sure we went full-time that season.

I really can't add anything further about the proposed buyout because I don't really know anything more.

Even what I've posted could be untruths designed to lessen the culpability of those in control at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bennett

bennett

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Gordopolis said:

Are we still f*cking talking about Rangers? Seriously?

 

We're called sevco now and everything which is wrong with our game is apparently our fault.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DA Baracus

DA Baracus

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Blootoon87 said:

The most demoralising thing about Friday was that England were pretty shite and still beat us 3-0. It was basically a carbon copy of the Slovakia game last month.

England didn't even get out of 'park', let alone first gear. Their game plan was to let us have the ball, knowing we'd pretty do much f**k all with it. I have no doubts that had we actually taken the lead or equalised that England would have started playing and would have easily won.

I can't believe that I've heard so many folk claim we played well. Aye, we passed the ball about in midfield and created a couple of chance, but that's it. We didn't score. We lost 3 easy goals and could have lost more. In what way is that a good performance? A few tidy passes in harmless areas of the field somehow had some folk wanking that it was a good performance. Mental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
forameus

forameus

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

England didn't even get out of 'park', let alone first gear. Their game plan was to let us have the ball, knowing we'd pretty do much f**k all with it. I have no doubts that had we actually taken the lead or equalised that England would have started playing and would have easily won.

I can't believe that I've heard so many folk claim we played well. Aye, we passed the ball about in midfield and created a couple of chance, but that's it. We didn't score. We lost 3 easy goals and could have lost more. In what way is that a good performance? A few tidy passes in harmless areas of the field somehow had some folk wanking that it was a good performance. Mental.

I wouldn't say it was.  Their game plan was what it usually is, try and keep possession.  We put them under pressure they don't usually experience, and we made them make mistakes.  I don't think they really ever sat back to let us have the ball.  Of course, we did do pretty much f**k all with the ball, but I don't think that was their plan in any way.

We played relatively well.  Against Malta we were absolute dog shit for 45 minutes, then only really had a good half, helped heroically by Malta chucking it.  Against Lithuania we weren't particularly good either.  Definitely improved, but I don't think you could ever say we played well.  Slovakia...:rolleyes: So relative to those, we probably played better than any of those games considering it was - on paper - our hardest game.  But that's like saying it's better to get pumped off of Matt Ritchie rather than Grant Hanley. Technically it's true, but you'd probably rather neither, and it's not something you're going to boast about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...