League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[Arch Stanton]

4 hours ago, virginton said:

Paisley has long since been absorbed as Glasgow's scummiest scheme anyway, like Govan and Partick were a hundred years ago. 

What are you doing on a top-flight Scottish football thread?

[Golden Gordon]

1 hour ago, Arch Stanton said:

What are you doing on a top-flight Scottish football thread?

No idea, but I could fair go a Rothmans.

[craigkillie]

Belfast Celtic were real enough. They beat Scotland 2-0 in 1949, after which the SFA resolved never to play a club side again.

As much as that might be a nice story, I doubt it's remotely true given that Scotland continued to play club sides on a fairly regular basis afterwards, all the way up to the 1970s.

[Monkey Tennis]

3 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

As much as that might be a nice story, I doubt it's remotely true given that Scotland continued to play club sides on a fairly regular basis afterwards, all the way up to the 1970s.

I take it these were mainly on foreign tours? They certainly played games like that ahead of even later  tournaments.  They played LA Heat ahead of the 1986 World Cup.

I also vaguely recall a game in the 80s, where a pretty strong looking Scotland XI lost to Celtic in a testimonial.

[Arch Stanton]

6 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I take it these were mainly on foreign tours? They certainly played games like that ahead of even later  tournaments.  They played LA Heat ahead of the 1986 World Cup.

I also vaguely recall a game in the 80s, where a pretty strong looking Scotland XI lost to Celtic in a testimonial.

A Scotland XI also lost 5-0 to Rangers in John Greig's testimonial.

[vikingTON]

4 hours ago, Tannadeechee said:

If this is in reference to me,.it WAS entirely relevant as a poster had asked how could more teams mean more meaningless games. After all the poster was probably younger than me (I was born the year the 10 team league came in) and has.no clue of that. If you go back again will.ypu just repeat the same issues again.

Except that nobody is actually calling for a return of a 'straight up, straight down' nonsense setup from the late Triassic period so your 'point' is in fact redundant. The number of meaningless games has now got absolutely nothing to do with how large your league is but rather how many spots qualify for something/are threatened with failure after the final game. Not that Scottish football's fixation with 'every game must be meaningful!!!!111!!!' is in any way a healthy attitude but that's a separate point for another day.

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I take it these were mainly on foreign tours? They certainly played games like that ahead of even later  tournaments.  They played LA Heat ahead of the 1986 World Cup.

I also vaguely recall a game in the 80s, where a pretty strong looking Scotland XI lost to Celtic in a testimonial.

Some on foreign tours, some against domestic club sides for various reasons (mainly charity matches) and some against English clubs in testimonials . As you mentioned, we played Hollywood Kickers as well as LA Heat before the 1986 World Cup, and similarly played IFK Eskilstuna in Sweden before the 1958 World Cup.

The most recent such match was a 2-0 victory over Dundee United at Forthbank in April 2002 when Berti Vogts ran the rule over some fringe players, most of whom were uncapped with the exception of Steven Caldwell (1), Gavin Rae (2), Scott Severin (1) and Graham Alexander (1). Scott Dobie and Paul Dalglish (shudder) got the goals.

Starting XI: Alan Combe, Scott Murray, Lee Wilkie, Steven Caldwell, Warren Cummings, Russell Anderson, Gavin Rae, Brian Kerr, Kevin Kyle, James McFadden, Paul Dalglish.

Subs: Jamie Langfield, Kieran McAnespie, Scott Severin, Graham Alexander, Jim Lauchlan, Scott Dobie, Andy Liddell.

 

Combe and Lauchlan were both United players at the time - Lauchlan was a regular and probably included on merit, but Combe was their sub keeper at the time and was presumably making up the numbers in some way. Of those players, James McFadden (48 caps) and Graham Alexander (40) were the obvious successes, while Lee Wilkie (11) would likely have won more but for injury. Scott Severin (15), Steven Caldwell (12), Russell Anderson (11) and Kevin Kyle (10) all made double figures, while Scott Dobie (6), Brian Kerr (3) and Warren Cummings (1) all went on to win caps, most of them in the months immediately after this United game.

The United goalkeeper Paul Gallacher was presumably also essentially on trial during this game - he went on to be called up for the next squad and went on to win 8 caps.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by craigkillie

[vikingTON]

Kieran McAnespie

[craigkillie]

13 minutes ago, virginton said:

Kieran McAnespie

Very much a remnant of the Vogts policy of picking any guy on the books of an English Premier League club regardless of ability (see also Cummings, Warren).

[Tannadeechee]

31 minutes ago, virginton said:

Except that nobody is actually calling for a return of a 'straight up, straight down' nonsense setup from the late Triassic period so your 'point' is in fact redundant. The number of meaningless games has now got absolutely nothing to do with how large your league is but rather how many spots qualify for something/are threatened with failure after the final game. Not that Scottish football's fixation with 'every game must be meaningful!!!!111!!!' is in any way a healthy attitude but that's a separate point for another day.

OK, so what you want is

Failure in the league still being able to beat a team that finished ,say for argument, 10 points clear in a one off game and get promotion. To me that's just meaningful for the sake of making things meaningful. That team weren't good.enough, otherwise what's the point of the league?

And an team that's done enough under normal circumstances being safe having to go down due to having to have a "double jeopardy" type arrangement  etc.

Not in favour of play offs like that and not in favour of convoluted forced "meaningful". If ever some absolute crap like Belgium is ever seriously considered than I'm done!

Meaningful games do matter as it has been shown that games with nothing to play for mean less hospitality, less pay at the gate, it was one of the reasons along with less money from league for teams saying no to 14 during the Hearts laugh in. While its still a game & with no pressure allows experimentation and youth to play, it can have downsides too. I don't think every game needs to be meaningful, but we do have to be Mindful of the Scottish fans who do not turn out for non games. 

The point is relevant as the original poster I replied to made sod all reference to league format and asked a simple "why does bigger league mean more meaningless games". Simply answered. If they had given an example of an over.complicated, convoluted league format because we're so 2020, then I could have answered differently. 

[vikingTON]

[Golden Gordon]

8 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Very much a remnant of the Vogts policy of picking any guy on the books of an English Premier League club regardless of ability (see also Cummings, Warren).

Doesn't explain Langfield though. 

[Junior_Arab]

20 minutes ago, Golden Gordon said:

Doesn't explain Langfield though. 

I can only assume United insisted he was included to give us half a chance. 

Edited August 4, 2020 by Junior_Arab

[Loonytoons]

3 hours ago, virginton said:

Irony alert!

[PauloPerth]

10 hours ago, Tannadeechee said:

OK, so what you want is

Failure in the league still being able to beat a team that finished ,say for argument, 10 points clear in a one off game and get promotion. To me that's just meaningful for the sake of making things meaningful. That team weren't good.enough, otherwise what's the point of the league?

And an team that's done enough under normal circumstances being safe having to go down due to having to have a "double jeopardy" type arrangement  etc.

Not in favour of play offs like that and not in favour of convoluted forced "meaningful". If ever some absolute crap like Belgium is ever seriously considered than I'm done!

Meaningful games do matter as it has been shown that games with nothing to play for mean less hospitality, less pay at the gate, it was one of the reasons along with less money from league for teams saying no to 14 during the Hearts laugh in. While its still a game & with no pressure allows experimentation and youth to play, it can have downsides too. I don't think every game needs to be meaningful, but we do have to be Mindful of the Scottish fans who do not turn out for non games. 

The point is relevant as the original poster I replied to made sod all reference to league format and asked a simple "why does bigger league mean more meaningless games". Simply answered. If they had given an example of an over.complicated, convoluted league format because we're so 2020, then I could have answered differently. 

I wouldn't bother discussing it. He's been arguing this shite a few times over the past few months, and basically what it boils down to is his team is unfortunately too shite to achieve promotion on its own merit, and therefore the entire league system has to be turned on its head to give them more chance.  Despite the fact that the likes of Accies and Livingston have proved that a well run club with the right man in charge can achieve and maintain Premiership football.

Anyone that thinks an 18 team top league in Scotland would be a success beyond the initial novelty factor first season is deluded.  

This continual argument that meaningful games are not necessary and that we have an obsession with them in Scotland is bizarre.  Why follow professional sport?  Why bother even playing a league, just have a season full of friendlies if we don't need meaningful matches.

[Tannadeechee]

10 hours ago, virginton said:

Fixed that for you

Edited August 5, 2020 by Tannadeechee

[Dons_1988]

I'd say it's a fairly basic point that if one of your objectives is to maximise the amount of viewers to matches, then maximising the number of meaningful games in a season is pretty important.

Only a handful of clubs around the world are an attractive proposition to watch when the game means nothing, outside of that clubs hardcore support.

Clearly there's a balance to be struck between meaningful fixtures and a sensible competition and sustainability, otherwise I'd propose at the end of the season 4 get relegated from the Premiership and the top 8 go into a straight knock out playoff for the title.

[Mr Positive, sometimes.]

People also complain about the cost of Scottish football. Particularly at Premiership level. 

What do you think will happen with an increased number of teams? Even if there's not an increase in games things like the cost of season tickets etc will go up to cover the cost of having to share revenue with more clubs.

[Stellaboz]

1 minute ago, Mr Positive, sometimes. said:

People also complain about the cost of Scottish football. Particularly at Premiership level. 

What do you think will happen with an increased number of teams? Even if there's not an increase in games things like the cost of season tickets etc will go up to cover the cost of having to share revenue with more clubs.

The long term benefits (of which have been widely talked about) are far greater than a short term cash advantage of a few grand. 

[welshbairn]

This stuff about meaningful games is overstated, every game is important in its own right, and getting higher placed in the league than the year before is a meaningful target for most clubs. Personally I'd rather have a decent sized league of 2 games against each club even if you know by Christmas that you're unlikely to be promoted or relegated, as is the case in most leagues around the world. The cups give the added excitement.