May and June face Peru & Mexico

[forameus]

f**k...I'm actually agreeing with Pep.  Does that mean I've made it?

I'm not buying the "oh they've got other lives" stuff.  Amateur players like you have a lot of other stuff on, and that's fair enough, but the life of a footballer is hardly comparable.  They probably have more free time than they know what to do with.  I doubt any of them are saying "aye, I could go to Mexico, but I've got to take the car in for a service".  

They probably do want to play, but like I said before the clubs will be leaning on them in certain cases.  Not really fair on the player, and they can't really be blamed in that situation.  Who knows though.

[Peppino Impastato]

2 minutes ago, forameus said:

f**k...I'm actually agreeing with Pep.  Does that mean I've made it?

I'm not buying the "oh they've got other lives" stuff.  Amateur players like you have a lot of other stuff on, and that's fair enough, but the life of a footballer is hardly comparable.  They probably have more free time than they know what to do with.  I doubt any of them are saying "aye, I could go to Mexico, but I've got to take the car in for a service".  

They probably do want to play, but like I said before the clubs will be leaning on them in certain cases.  Not really fair on the player, and they can't really be blamed in that situation.  Who knows though.

David Beckham had it written into his contract he had to be released for every England get together friendly competitive game or training camp.  Thats the level of commitment we need. No club if they want a player is going to change their mind if they insist on something similar.

[The Algebraist]

I'm aware consensus is against me which is fine and don't disagree with a lot of the points above. 

The only thing I would say is that I'm not really talking about whether it's justified or not. I'm talking about how our players will feel about it. The long and the short of it is I don't think you can blame them really and lots of us would do the same in their situation. Doesn't make it right necessarily.

 

[Peppino Impastato]

14 minutes ago, The Algebraist said:

I'm aware consensus is against me which is fine and don't disagree with a lot of the points above. 

The only thing I would say is that I'm not really talking about whether it's justified or not. I'm talking about how our players will feel about it. The long and the short of it is I don't think you can blame them really and lots of us would do the same in their situation. Doesn't make it right necessarily.

 

Players generally do want to play for their country.  They want to get as many caps as possible.  They want to play against teams like Mexico and in front of crowds of 87 thousand in one of the most famous stadiums in the world.  It's the clubs pulling them out not the players.

[gannonball]

16 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said:

They want to play against teams like Mexico and in front of crowds of 87 thousand in one of the most famous stadiums in the world.  It's the clubs pulling them out not the players.

The last game they had at the azteca the attendance was less than half that and that was for a world cup qualifier.

[wastecoatwilly]

18 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said:

Players generally do want to play for their country.  They want to get as many caps as possible.  They want to play against teams like Mexico and in front of crowds of 87 thousand in one of the most famous stadiums in the world.  It's the clubs pulling them out not the players.

If you can tell me that at lease 6 or 7 players that are going to Peru and Mexico will start the game against Albania then it's not a waste of time,there is no doubt that in world cup year there would have been teams wanting to play Scotland in warm up games in Europe, the fact we have to travel half way around the world is bad decision making at the SFA ,for me these fixtures are more of a hindrance to Scotland moving forward.

[Peppino Impastato]

1 minute ago, wastecoatwilly said:

If you can tell me that at lease 6 or 7 players that are going to Peru and Mexico will start the game against Albania then it's not a waste of time,there is no doubt that in world cup year there would have been teams wanting to play Scotland in warm up games in Europe, the fact we have to travel half way around the world is bad decision making at the SFA ,for me these fixtures are more of a hindrance to Scotland moving forward.

That's the point champ there isn't.  Though the SFA will get a million quid so there is that.

[wastecoatwilly]

8 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said:

That's the point champ there isn't.  Though the SFA will get a million quid so there is that.

So it's more important to full the coffers at the SFA than try to improve our chances to qualify?

[Peppino Impastato]

9 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

So it's more important to full the coffers at the SFA than try to improve our chances to qualify?

I didn't say that.  This does both.

[the snudge]

Any other Scots playing in the states that could show up? Callum Mallace? 

[forameus]

So basically, a few players call off, so we should fold the game like a 5s game down at Powerleague because there's "no point"?

[forameus]

Just now, the snudge said:

Any other Scots playing in the states that could show up? Callum Mallace? 

Craig Ferguson?

[ONeils40yarder]

20 hours ago, Gordopolis said:

21 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

Media and plenty supporters are criticising the friendlies being arranged. To me this misses the point: surely criticism should be levelled at the players who are withdrawing?

It's not like it's an unusual idea to play friendlies now - most nations will be playing including many that have not qualified for WC2018, and many will be doing so considerably deeper into the post-season than we are. Even within the British Isles we find Wales and Northern Ireland also travelling to the Americas; Eire are visiting France then hosting USA.

If we weren't playing now, we'd have gone 6 months without a game by time NL started (and it's only by chance we're in 3-team group and idle the opening day to have a friendly v Belgium) and only played twice in preceding 10 months.


As it stands we've now just 1 player in the entire squad with serious experience (Mulgrew) and only 3 more with any notable experience at all to speak of (and 2 of those are McGinn and Paterson - the other Phillips). Wales, Northern Ireland, Eire are nothing like so badly depleted. With a new manager you'd expect extra motivation, too?

People are always looking for reasons why we haven't qualified for 20yrs, and not playing enough games was a good example. Perhaps a lack of total commitment from the players is another?

Absolutely spot on

I think a lot of the blame has to be left at the door of the SFA for taking stupid friendlies on in the 1st place, and also for their stance on allowing certain players from certain clubs to withdraw from selection prior to the squad being named.

 

Its a ridiculous set of fixtures

[wastecoatwilly]

21 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said:

I didn't say that.  This does both.

So what we have here is a trip that pays for itself plus the self interest is in full swing to hang with the consequences of qualifying and point the finger at the players for their commitment.
Fecking great start to a new campaign.  

[Marshmallo]

21 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

Media and plenty supporters are criticising the friendlies being arranged. To me this misses the point: surely criticism should be levelled at the players who are withdrawing?

It's not like it's an unusual idea to play friendlies now - most nations will be playing including many that have not qualified for WC2018, and many will be doing so considerably deeper into the post-season than we are. Even within the British Isles we find Wales and Northern Ireland also travelling to the Americas; Eire are visiting France then hosting USA.

If we weren't playing now, we'd have gone 6 months without a game by time NL started (and it's only by chance we're in 3-team group and idle the opening day to have a friendly v Belgium) and only played twice in preceding 10 months.


As it stands we've now just 1 player in the entire squad with serious experience (Mulgrew) and only 3 more with any notable experience at all to speak of (and 2 of those are McGinn and Paterson - the other Phillips). Wales, Northern Ireland, Eire are nothing like so badly depleted. With a new manager you'd expect extra motivation, too?

People are always looking for reasons why we haven't qualified for 20yrs, and not playing enough games was a good example. Perhaps a lack of total commitment from the players is another?

Playing games at this time of the season is fine but playing them in Mexico and Peru is a nonsense. It was always going to be the case that you'd have withdrawals. Surely there were teams we could've played either at home or in Europe to make it easier for fans and players? 

I'd like to see those called up being more committed but this is hardly a surprise. It's purely a cash grab by the SFA.

[The Moonster]

2 hours ago, Peppino Impastato said:

No club if they want a player is going to change their mind if they insist on something similar.

 

1 hour ago, Peppino Impastato said:

It's the clubs pulling them out not the players.

I'm not sure this conspiracy is adding up. You say no club would not sign a player based on them being adamant that they want to represent their country at every opportunity yet in your next post suggest that clubs are pulling players from squads against their will?

 

[velo army]

Aye I think we're mostly agreed that a friendly is fine. The more games the more chances we have of trying different players and formations.

The problem is that the decision to participate in this game seems motivated by money purely and simply, with the actual match, its effect on the players and supporters an afterthought.

A wee jaunt to Poland or Serbia would have been more constructive. Fans can travel there cheaply, they're at about our level, and players don't have to play a game in sweltering heat at altitude.

 

 

[Gordopolis]

4 hours ago, The Algebraist said:

Tbh I think people complaining about players' commitment would do well to consider it from their perspective. People have other things in their lives apart from their jobs, even if those jobs are well paid and good fun.

I play a different sport at a half decent amateur level and by March I am struggling with a list of stuff I've been needing to do on a Saturday for ages. Stuff like "take car to garage" and "hang out with wife and small child that calls me daddy." What we're talking about here is travelling thousands of miles across two continents in June ffs.

In the grand scheme of things these games are unlikely to matter much. They look special to us because we're not anywhere near playing for the national team, but to most players it's going to look like work, very far away, at a time of year when work is usually over. If it was going to be my first cap or I was just getting established I would be there, otherwise my reaction would likely be that  long way to go on likely a hiding to nothing.

Knowing me I would drag myself along a bit reluctantly secretly jealous of the folk who decided not to go. I would then enjoy it when I got there.

You've thought that through quite carefully. I bet you even know what cereal you'd have each day.

[The Algebraist]

4 minutes ago, Gordopolis said:

You've thought that through quite carefully. I bet you even know what cereal you'd have each day.

External processor.

[forameus]

I took a look at this after hearing people complain on another forum about the choice of friendly, think it's quite interesting to look at

tl;dr - if we look at it from the perspective of boosting our ranking, which every friendly from now on should be, then there weren't really any options to play close by.  Of course, whether they were available when the SFA booked these ones is something we're never going to know for sure, but given how slow they usually are, I wouldn't be surprised if these were the best remaining options.

Quote

Could we?  Given the SFA seem to have only just discovered that you can play games outwith the ones FIFA/UEFA tell you you have to, I wouldn't be surprised if the more suitable teams already had their dance partners.  Over the next couple of weeks there's 83 friendlies currently listed, and a lot of European nations are heading further afield.  Wales are playing Mexico in the first round of fixtures while we're playing them in the 2nd.  Northern Ireland are going to Panama, Bosnia to South Korea...etc etc. 

If you take into account that you want the friendly to actually be worthwhile, then the pool limits further.  We're 34th in the rankings currently.  Friendlies should be used as a powerful tool to mould our ranking towards the higher pots (although that's maybe going to become less important).  In that case, we want to play a side above us, or at the very least pretty close to us.  Ideally, we want a side artificially high in the rankings on a downward slope.  Maximise our points for the lowest challenge (theoretically).  So being generous, there's 40 sides above or around us in the rankings worldwide.  If you then limit it just to European opposition (because long plane journeys in first class are just too much apparently) then the pool of opponents reduces to 21.  Take out the ones that we'd get absolutely ridden by, and you've got - being very generous - 13 nations.  To show my working, I have those as Romania, ROI, Ukraine, Slovakia, N. Ireland, Austria, Sweden, Iceland, Wales, Netherlands, Croatia, Denmark and Poland.  I'd say they are teams that can be beaten (although obviously a few that could style absolutely ride us).  Out of those teams, every single one of them are currently involved in friendlies.

Now taking the opponents we did get, Peru are currently 11th, having qualified for their first World Cup in ages, and Mexico are 15th.  Can we beat them?  Of course.  Will we?  Probably not.  Concentrating on the former, they're the type of opponent we absolutely need to be organising games against to take a step up, and hopefully get points.  We could go and play Gibraltar and dick on them, but what's the point in that from any perspective?  The only questionable one is the venue, but I'd imagine Peru and Mexico are reluctant to travel ahead of the World Cup at the end of May when they've already got to head to Russia a week or so later.  What's better?  No games at all?

It might be giving them too much credit, but I don't think the SFA have made the decision lightly.  It's a trip away, some testing opposition, and even if the game was at Firhill you'd get drop-outs.  It's not ideal, but there's a lot of unnecessary pish thrown around about the games.

Of course, feel free to pick any of the gaping holes that are present in my logic.