Worst tournament performance since 1954 ?

[Gordopolis]

1998 was worse. 

• The standard brave-but-ultimately futile performance against Brazil
• An absolute fucking bore draw against Norway
• An abject 3-0 scudding off Morocco. 

 

And we were certainly more in tonight's game than Vs Morroco.

[BFTD]

Norway was the worst of those. Morocco were better than anyone expected, especially up front, and Brazil are Brazil. Norway was yet another fucking game where we were the better side and were toothless up front. Literally, in Craig Burley's case.

Obviously I didn't see it, as I was watching us get crushed by the Moroccans, but I still wonder about how that Norway team managed to beat Brazil. Again.

[BFTD]

1 minute ago, Gordopolis said:

And we were certainly more in tonight's game than Vs Morroco.

I saw Craig Brown on the telly earlier saying that we were the better side against Morocco, but were just unlucky, and a 3-0 defeat did not reflect how the game went.

Old age really does do shocking things to the memory.

[Gordopolis]

I saw Craig Brown on the telly earlier saying that we were the better side against Morocco, but were just unlucky, and a 3-0 defeat did not reflect how the game went.
Old age really does do shocking things to the memory.

Only good thing about that night is that I got a dry ride in the pub off some filthy lass.

[Dunning1874]

5 hours ago, Day of the Lords said:

1998 was worse. 

• The standard brave-but-ultimately futile performance against Brazil
• An absolute fucking bore draw against Norway
• An abject 3-0 scudding off Morocco. 

 

We didn't have two home games in 1998 and pushed Brazil closer then than Czech Republic or Croatia this time.

[Disco Dave]

I'm disappointed by our performance against Czech Republic. 

Getting a draw against England was a surprise.

Being pumped by Croatia was expected.

Really wish we had played better against the Czechs.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

1 hour ago, Dunning1874 said:

We didn't have two home games in 1998 and pushed Brazil closer then than Czech Republic or Croatia this time.

That Brazil game was simply 1998's England game, ie performing above expectations against a far superior side, although that time we lost.

I don't think there's any such thing as home "advantage" when Hampden is a quarter full. It's a shite ground devoid of atmosphere which carried about as much intimidation to the opposition as a six week old kitten. 

[ewan14]

18 hours ago, BFTD said:

Norway was the worst of those. Morocco were better than anyone expected, especially up front, and Brazil are Brazil. Norway was yet another fucking game where we were the better side and were toothless up front. Literally, in Craig Burley's case.

Obviously I didn't see it, as I was watching us get crushed by the Moroccans, but I still wonder about how that Norway team managed to beat Brazil. Again.

I remember us playing some nice football v. Norway but imho never really going for it

[ewan14]

18 hours ago, BFTD said:

I saw Craig Brown on the telly earlier saying that we were the better side against Morocco, but were just unlucky, and a 3-0 defeat did not reflect how the game went.

Old age really does do shocking things to the memory.

Anybody remember off hand what Burley  ( ? ) got sent off for ?

[Ken Deans]

19 hours ago, GordonS said:

Thanks for the heads up, I wasn't sure whether to start reading the threads so I'll give them a bodyswerve.

The management was very good, the tactics got the best out of our lumpy resources, we created loads of chances in all three games but the bottom line is all three of our opponents were better than us, two of them considerably so, and if better teams than you get their own game right then they'll beat you.

Criticism of a youth football system that has led to Kevin Nisbet being the best current striker produced in Scotland is plenty fair enough. Anyone having a go at the squad or the management can get right in the coldest, darkest patch of sea they can find.

The management was very good? Even from the depths of the North Atlantic this is nonsense

[Binos]

We leaked goals at home which is big worry 

But up front that's how we usually did

86, 1 goal

90, 2 goals 

92, 3 (dead rubber)

96, 1

98, 2

 

[Binos]

1 hour ago, ewan14 said:

Anybody remember off hand what Burley  ( ? ) got sent off for ?

Two footed tackle from behind 

He wanted off

[ewan14]

2 hours ago, Binos said:

Two footed tackle from behind 

He wanted off

Cheers !

[Scary Bear]

On 22/06/2021 at 22:31, Bob Mahelp said:

Despite the hype, despite the apparent depth of players we have, despite our apparent wealth of riches in midfield, we once again meekly departed a tournament having looked like a bunch a naive, pathetic amateurs who didn't deserve to be there. 

I've been watching Scotland since 1974, and I can't think of a worse tournament. Looking back, it would seem that only 1954 was a worse tournament result (and performance) wise. 

Any other bids ? 1986 maybe ?

 

 

1998 - one battling performance against Brazil, which sticks in the memory because of a dodgy penalty and because it was the opening game. Gave us a bit of glorious defeat, but still defeat.

Then a draw against Norway.

Then hammered by Morocco and on the plane home. 

So no wins, 2 goals (1 a penalty), and finishing bottom of the group.

To be fair, World Cups are usually more memorable than Euros, so that 1998 Scotland performance will live longer in the memory than Scotland’s performance in this Euros.

I wonder what the younger generation made of it all. My 7 year old’s memories are almost exclusively focussed on the Czech Republic game. 20 years from now people will probably still remember that second Czech Republic goal.

Edited June 24, 2021 by Scary Bear

[Monkey Tennis]

On 22/06/2021 at 23:37, ewan14 said:

1978 obviously

1978 was better by a distance than this latest tournament from a Scotland point of view.

[ewan14]

6 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

1978 was better by a distance than this latest tournament from a Scotland point of view.

No , 1978 was worse !

[DC92]

On 22/06/2021 at 23:57, GordonS said:

You need to score goals to win football games. Northern Ireland had a goalscorer. We don't.

You can have the 700 best left-backs in the world but if you can't put the ball in the net you can't win.

And there's really not much more to it than that.

 

On 23/06/2021 at 00:01, GordonS said:

Thanks for the heads up, I wasn't sure whether to start reading the threads so I'll give them a bodyswerve.

The management was very good, the tactics got the best out of our lumpy resources, we created loads of chances in all three games but the bottom line is all three of our opponents were better than us, two of them considerably so, and if better teams than you get their own game right then they'll beat you.

Criticism of a youth football system that has led to Kevin Nisbet being the best current striker produced in Scotland is plenty fair enough. Anyone having a go at the squad or the management can get right in the coldest, darkest patch of sea they can find.

I'm going to assume the goalscorer you're talking about Kyle Lafferty, who has a 1 in 4 record at international level, didn't score for them at the Euros, and was less prolific than John McGinn was for us during the preceding qualifying campaign. Che Adams is also clearly a much better goalscorer at club level, and a better player overall.

As for Northern Ireland, they scored two goals at the tournament - one by Gareth McAuley and one by Niall McGinn. They got through the group because, despite having the worst squad, they won their most winnable game and kept the score down in the other two.

To be fair, NI probably had an easier group than us, but the Republic were also able to advance through a harder section without an international standard goalscorer - also scoring two goals.

We faced two teams at Hampden, both of whom had never beaten us there in their histories, despite having stronger squads than us throughout this period. In order to qualify, our challenging (but achievable) task was to win one of these games (two draws would actually have seen us through, with the England result). We emerged from those games with a -4 goal difference, enduring as many 2+ goal defeats as we'd had in the previous 21 years of competitive fixtures at Hampden.

The England game was nice, and a very good performance, but in the games that really mattered for our progression, we didn't even get near an achievable target. Blaming that on "we don't have the players", when we've achieved more with less in these types of fixtures for the last 20 years, lets Clarke off too easily. Maybe it'd have been different if we'd had a full Hampden, or if Tierney and Gilmour had been available for both games, or if we'd scored one or two of the half-chances we created, but a big factor is that Clarke got the selection wrong in the first game, then did the same thing against Croatia, then didn't change anything after we got out of jail at half time, and then didn't change anything in the15 minutes before the inevitable killer goal.

It was never going to be easy, and I don't want him to go, but Clarke is absolutely due some criticism for the nature of our exit.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, ewan14 said:

No , 1978 was worse !

Obviously you can argue that, by pointing to expectation and the relative strengths of our two squads.  That one certainly came as a bigger disappointment at the time.

In absolute terms though, the latest side did much worse, scoring far fewer goals, securing far fewer points whilst getting to play at home or nearby.

 

[GordonS]

3 hours ago, DC92 said:

 

I'm going to assume the goalscorer you're talking about Kyle Lafferty, who has a 1 in 4 record at international level, didn't score for them at the Euros, and was less prolific than John McGinn was for us during the preceding qualifying campaign. Che Adams is also clearly a much better goalscorer at club level, and a better player overall.

As for Northern Ireland, they scored two goals at the tournament - one by Gareth McAuley and one by Niall McGinn. They got through the group because, despite having the worst squad, they won their most winnable game and kept the score down in the other two.

To be fair, NI probably had an easier group than us, but the Republic were also able to advance through a harder section without an international standard goalscorer - also scoring two goals.

We faced two teams at Hampden, both of whom had never beaten us there in their histories, despite having stronger squads than us throughout this period. In order to qualify, our challenging (but achievable) task was to win one of these games (two draws would actually have seen us through, with the England result). We emerged from those games with a -4 goal difference, enduring as many 2+ goal defeats as we'd had in the previous 21 years of competitive fixtures at Hampden.

The England game was nice, and a very good performance, but in the games that really mattered for our progression, we didn't even get near an achievable target. Blaming that on "we don't have the players", when we've achieved more with less in these types of fixtures for the last 20 years, lets Clarke off too easily. Maybe it'd have been different if we'd had a full Hampden, or if Tierney and Gilmour had been available for both games, or if we'd scored one or two of the half-chances we created, but a big factor is that Clarke got the selection wrong in the first game, then did the same thing against Croatia, then didn't change anything after we got out of jail at half time, and then didn't change anything in the15 minutes before the inevitable killer goal.

It was never going to be easy, and I don't want him to go, but Clarke is absolutely due some criticism for the nature of our exit.

No, I don't buy any of that. He set up a team to create chances and to limit the opposition's chances and he succeded. He can't kick the ball into the net and he can't stop centre halves from hitting ridiculous shots when there's no cover behind them. We made enough decent chances to beat the Czechs and England, and to at least draw with Croatia.

Adams was shite at his main job. He showed no composure at all in the box and combined bad execution with bad decisions. The team gave him and Dykes enough supply and they squandered it. That's the truth of the games and there's no denying it.

The idea that Croatia were anything less than they were because we beat them 11 years ago is irrelevant. They were World Cup runners-up three years ago, they were second seeds in the group, they're ranked 7th in Europe. The game was winnable but they're clearly better than us. When the chips were down Modric pulled out a classic performance befitting a guy who has been the first choice midfielder for a decade in a team that's won 4 Champions Leagues in that time. The idea that a defeat in that game somehow proves there was some defect in the management is risible.

I don't agree at all that we achieved more with less over the past 20 years. I think the 2006-07 team was obviously much stronger. It was better in defence and it was better in attack. In fact, I think this is the worst choices Scotland have ever had up front and at centre half. Hanley, McKenna, Hendry, Gallagher, Cooper, Considine - none of them are in the same category even as Gary Caldwell, never mind a David Weir, a Colin Hendry, an Alex McLeish or a Willie Miller.

I'm absolutely certain that if Clarke had picked the team that you say he should have in those games and lost, you'd have been saying he got it wrong. 

[Lex]

Think it was worse than 1954 too tbf. 1954 we only played two games - did lost them both. But hardly fair to compare it to this where we played three games and lost two of them.
That and the fact we had two games makes this our worst ever IMO. Complete failure.