Euro 2024 Draw (Saturday 2nd December 5pm)

[Arch Stanton]

7 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Was 1967  "competitive" because it counted as a qualifier of sorts?  

If that's the case, then quite a few earlier ones would have counted too.

In fact, Home Internationals would have been considered competitive for much of their existence, so the nature of fixtures with England is a bit trickier to define.

It was a qualifier for the 1968 Euros.

[Monkey Tennis]

16 minutes ago, Arch Stanton said:

It was a qualifier for the 1968 Euros.

Some 1950s ones must have counted as World Cup qualifiers too then.  Mind you, our record in the fixture in the 50s was pretty poor I think.

 

I wonder if there was much sense in 1967 of it being a European qualifier.  I doubt it, as the finals weren't a tournament in the way we'd now recognise, until 1980.

I'm guessing these British fixtures were no more or less competitive in such years than they otherwise were.

[KirkieRR]

I agree about avoiding England. Beating them is the best thing in the world but losing to them is a sickened and since they bring out the worst in us there would likely be trouble at the game.

I'm not so keen as some to get Germany. Their current form is poor, yes, but mostly they get it together for tournaments and they're at home.

[Lurkst]

1 hour ago, KirkieRR said:

I agree about avoiding England. Beating them is the best thing in the world but losing to them is a sickened and since they bring out the worst in us there would likely be trouble at the game.

I'm not so keen as some to get Germany. Their current form is poor, yes, but mostly they get it together for tournaments and they're at home.

Agreed. Belgium or Spain would be best from Pot 1 IMO.

 

[nate]

14 hours ago, Lurkst said:

Only 2 points for a win in 1986 though. I'd say these days it'd be almost impossible to qualify as a best 3rd place with 2 points (ironically you could be a group runner up with 2 points though).

 

Point taken, but Bulgaria would still have qualified with 2 points even if it was 3 points for a win back then. I’m no mathematician but it seems to me there are several scenarios where 2 points gets you into R16…

TEAM A 3 wins = 9 pts

TEAM B 2 wins, 1 loss = 6pts

TEAM C 1 draw,2 losses = 1pt

TEAM D 1 draw, 2 losses = 1pt

                Or

TEAM A 3 wins = 9pts

TEAM B 1 win,1 draw,1 loss = 4pts

TEAM C 2 draws,1 loss = 2 pts

TEAM D 1 draw,2 losses = 1pt

There might be other permutations, but for qualification with only 2 points it would require at least 3 of the 6 groups finishing with something like the above. Unlikely but not impossible.

 

[Skyline Drifter]

On 22/11/2023 at 21:44, BFTD said:

So what's our record like against the seeds?

(W-D-L)

Germany: 4-5-8 (0-2-6 competitive)
Portugal: 4-3-8 (2-2-4 competitive)
France: 8-0-9 (3-0-2 competitive)
Spain: 4-4-7 (3-1-6 competitive)
Belgium: 4-3-13 (2-2-10 competitive)
England: 41-26-49 (1-2-3 competitive)

Strangely enough, tournament favourites France are undeniably our best option, going on past results. Spain and England would probably be the next best along with Portugal, but we've not played them in a consequential game since the traumatising 5-0 defeat in 1993.

Avoiding Belgium might be a good thing, considering they've beaten us in our last six consequential ties, and we've not beaten them in seven attempts since 1987. Like many teams, we've never beaten Germany in a game that mattered.

Doesn't necessarily mean a lot in a one-off game, but interesting nonetheless. I'll do the other pots over the weekend if I have time, or someone else doesn't get to it first!

Not to discount history altogether, but I don't see the relevance of our competitive record against Portugal for instance when our last competitive meeting was 30 years ago when almost everybody in both squads wasn't even born (ok, some were and Ronaldo was nearly at secondary school!). Equally our good competitive record against France is skewed by beating them twice in the Euro 2008 qualifying which was fairly miraculous and Craig Gordon's the only player from either squad who is still playing (theoretically anyway). The other win was about 40 years ago.

From pot 1, whilst anything we might get from any of these sides can be regarded as a bonus to an extent, I'd prefer Portugal or Belgium. Portugal's qualifying record is skewed by being in a very weak group. Belgium are a shadow of the side they were 4 or 5 years ago. I'd bracket Germany similarly but they do have home advantage going for them so I'd have them and Spain in the middle. We can get a result against either with a bit of luck. Absolutely don't want to see France or England.

[BFTD]

15 hours ago, Arch Stanton said:

Scotland have beaten England in at least 2 "competitive" games, both at Wembley (1967 and 1999).

When we played them in 1996, it was widely reported that it was our first "competitive" fixture, despite the prior Home Internationals occasionally counting as de facto qualifiers for political reasons, so I went with that, for better or worse.

It does seem rather mad to modern eyes that some of the World Cups used the Home Internationals as a qualifying tournament, and our FA sulkily turned down our place at one because we lost to England.

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Not to discount history altogether, but I don't see the relevance

Neither do I, other than the possible stagefright of playing an opponent that the nation has a poor record against; it's just a bit of fun.

[Arch Stanton]

[Lurkst]

1 hour ago, BFTD said:

It does seem rather mad to modern eyes that some of the World Cups used the Home Internationals as a qualifying tournament, and our FA sulkily turned down our place at one because we lost to England.

Given the shambles of 1954 it's probably more likely the SFA didn't want to fund a trip to Brazil.

 

[BFTD]

8 minutes ago, Lurkst said:

Given the shambles of 1954 it's probably more likely the SFA didn't want to fund a trip to Brazil.

This World Cup thing is a passing fad anyway. All anyone's ever going to care about are the champions of a small island off the coast of Europe.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, Arch Stanton said:

Interesting.

Maybe it was regarded as a qualifier more than I'd imagined.

[nate]

On 23/11/2023 at 13:28, Boo Khaki said:

Can see our Finals playing out in my mind right now. 

We get an "easy" group of England, Albania, Scotland, Wales. Draw in the opening fixture v's England courtesy of Southgate being his usual massive shiter self and playing not to lose, utterly robbed by Wales in the 2nd game after a hilarious dive in our box is somehow not overturned by VAR, then Clarke has a brainfart, plays two up front against Albania in the final game, we Morocco it after Ryan Porteous gets a red for hooking someone in the 3rd minute, we finish bottom of the "easiest" group imaginable with one solitary point.

It's the Scotland way.

But what if the glass was half full…

We cuff surprise pot 4 entrants Kazakhstan followed by a narrow win against pot 2 Albania. Remarkably, Scotland have now replicated the qualifiers by reaching the next stage WITH A GAME TO SPARE, against pot 1 France as it turns out. And being in the group that completes its fixtures last, we now know that finishing second is more advantageous than actually winning the group (easier R16 opponent). SC then puts out a weakened team against France with a view to losing and finishing 2nd, shoving Jacob Brown into the team for instance. Next up is plucky Iceland in R16 who have somehow emerged as the surprise entrant (there’s always one). Dawdle. It’s Switzerland in the Quarters - doing their usual of reaching the knock outs but going no further. Ditto dawdle. A semi against Holland looks a toughie, but true to form the Dutch squad   Implodes in the days leading up to the match, bickering with the coach over tactics and half of them refuse to play. We’re then facing a team of diddies from Zvolle and Sparta Rotterdam. Cakewalk. It’s hosts Germany in the final. They’re over confidant…kleine Schottland…was is das? We hang on for a dour 0-0, a Wembley Euro 2020 affair, and it goes the distance. Greg Taylor scores the winning penalty in a 10-9 shootout.

Aye I know…the men in white coats are already at my front door.

[ekok]

Agree we have some ok or nightmare draws, none of that matters one jot. On our day we can compete with the best, or lose to teams we should be beating.  We could just as easily gub Italy or lose to Estonia, both entirely possible. If they qualify. 

Just lets enjoy the fact we absolutely 100% deserved  to qualify and embrace the occasion.

One  of my favourite tunes " que sera " should be our National Anthem. 

 

[BFTD]

After a controversial first entry, what's our record like against the second seeds?

(W-D-L)

Hungary: 3-2-4 (0-0-0 competitive)
Turkey: 0-0-2 (0-0-0 competitive)
Romania: 2-2-2 (1-2-1 competitive)
Denmark: 11-0-7 (6-0-3 competitive)
Albania: 2-0-0 (2-0-0 competitive)
Austria: 7-8-8 (3-3-3 competitive)

Interesting we've never played Hungary in a meaningful game - I'm guessing we used to get drawn in the same pots a lot, as their arc in world football has mirrored ours (albeit without a World Cup final to brag about). We've only played them twice in friendlies since 1987, one of which was the awful 0-3 Berti Vogts era home humiliation when they were utter dugshite under Lothar Mattheus.

Never having played Turkey (or their rebrand Turkiye) is a bit more of a surprise considering they used to be a lot shitter than they are now. Other than the recent friendly, we've not been beaten by them since 1960, which I'm guessing was considered a pretty poor result at the time. No doubt plenty of folk remember that we'd managed to avoid Albania in any game at all until the inaugural Nations League a few years back. With Romania, I'm guessing that we also end up in the same pots a lot, at least in the past thirty or forty years.

Our 1986 World Cup defeat against Denmark marked a bit of a changing of the guard, with Denmark becoming a force in European football and us becoming...well, whatever we are now. There's a clear dividing line either side of that fixture where we used to beat them regularly, only for the roles to be reversed from there. The good news is that we've done quite well against them in more recent fixtures.

Finally Austria, who we have a long history against, and which is almost the opposite of our record against Denmark. They had an excellent record against us back when they were one of the leading lights of European football, but it's been very one-sided in our favour for a good fifty years.

Based on history, we don't have a lot to fear from Pot 2; Austria are probably the side we've come closest to having a poor record against, and that's only due to results from the early days of international football. Denmark are more dangerous in modern terms, but even then we've managed three wins from four in the past twelve years. There's not a huge amount of data to go on with the others, but it would be nice to finally get a win against the Turks, just for the sake of completeness.

[dstuart82]

11 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Not to discount history altogether, but I don't see the relevance of our competitive record against Portugal for instance when our last competitive meeting was 30 years ago when almost everybody in both squads wasn't even born (ok, some were and Ronaldo was nearly at secondary school!). Equally our good competitive record against France is skewed by beating them twice in the Euro 2008 qualifying which was fairly miraculous and Craig Gordon's the only player from either squad who is still playing (theoretically anyway). The other win was about 40 years ago.

From pot 1, whilst anything we might get from any of these sides can be regarded as a bonus to an extent, I'd prefer Portugal or Belgium. Portugal's qualifying record is skewed by being in a very weak group. Belgium are a shadow of the side they were 4 or 5 years ago. I'd bracket Germany similarly but they do have home advantage going for them so I'd have them and Spain in the middle. We can get a result against either with a bit of luck. Absolutely don't want to see France or England.

Was gonna say that we beat France in 1989……then realised that’s not far off 40 years ago!!……oh ma heed!!

[BFTD]

France are a bit like the Dutch, in that they have some really top quality squads before slipping back into the pack of 'B' grade nations again for a while. We caught them during a fallow period during the World Cup 90 qualifiers; they went almost ten years without winning a game at a major tournament.

They seem to have sorted this out a fair bit since France 98; I could be wrong, but I think they've finished top of almost all of their qualifying groups (Euro 2008 being a memorable exception), and have reached five finals since then. I don't know if any other nation can better that. They've also taken over from the Germans as being the "establishment" side that I always seem to enjoy watching.

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

9 hours ago, BFTD said:

France are a bit like the Dutch, in that they have some really top quality squads before slipping back into the pack of 'B' grade nations again for a while. We caught them during a fallow period during the World Cup 90 qualifiers; they went almost ten years without winning a game at a major tournament.

They seem to have sorted this out a fair bit since France 98; I could be wrong, but I think they've finished top of almost all of their qualifying groups (Euro 2008 being a memorable exception), and have reached five finals since then. I don't know if any other nation can better that. They've also taken over from the Germans as being the "establishment" side that I always seem to enjoy watching.

I’d agree with that. After the absolute failure of 2002, they seem to have become that unstoppable train. They never seem to have a squad full of no-marks.

I’d have once said that about the Italians (regardless of their recent qualification faux pas) but honestly I’ve no idea who most of their players are these days. Similar story for the Germans, Belgians, and Dutch.

France and England are absolute streets ahead, though the former seems to have a much better organisation and collective agreement on a way to play. In some ways, despite their results, England seem to play within themselves quite often.

[VictorOnopko]

McFadden sensibly saying no thanks to drawing England on 5 Live, to the apparent surprise of the presenter and other pundits.

[Binos]

On 25/11/2023 at 10:01, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

I’d agree with that. After the absolute failure of 2002, they seem to have become that unstoppable train. They never seem to have a squad full of no-marks.

I’d have once said that about the Italians (regardless of their recent qualification faux pas) but honestly I’ve no idea who most of their players are these days. Similar story for the Germans, Belgians, and Dutch.

France and England are absolute streets ahead, though the former seems to have a much better organisation and collective agreement on a way to play. In some ways, despite their results, England seem to play within themselves quite often.

2010 went tits up for them 

[Gibby82]

On 25/11/2023 at 00:25, BFTD said:

France are a bit like the Dutch, in that they have some really top quality squads before slipping back into the pack of 'B' grade nations again for a while. We caught them during a fallow period during the World Cup 90 qualifiers; they went almost ten years without winning a game at a major tournament.

They were never really a B grade team, more of a weirdly underperforming one. Those squads that failed to qualify for the World Cup in '90 and '94 had some incredible players.