BFTD Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Just watching the Uruguay - Scotland match from Mexico 86 again, as I hate myself. So many things I'd forgotten about the past; remember when two-footed tackles from behind were perfectly fine, it was completely acceptable to grab the referee's arm to stop him brandishing a card, and every game finished with several minutes of the "pass back to the keeper, stand with the ball at your feet until an opponent gets close, then pick it up" game? How on Earth did televised football go so long without an on-screen clock? Fucking bane of my childhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 20 minutes ago, Nowhereman said: 78 was similar with four groups of four moving on to two groups of four Yes which meant there were no semi finals as such. 1950 took it further with no actual final. Brazil would have won the Cup if they'd drawn the last game with Uruguay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Just now, BFTD said: Just watching the Uruguay - Scotland match from Mexico 86 again, as I hate myself. So many things I'd forgotten about the past; remember when two-footed tackles from behind were perfectly fine, it was completely acceptable to grab the referee's arm to stop him brandishing a card, and every game finished with several minutes of the "pass back to the keeper, stand with the ball at your feet until an opponent gets close, then pick it up" game? How on Earth did televised football go so long without an on-screen clock? Fucking bane of my childhood. Did mild mannered SFA wallah Ernie Walker not call Uruguay the “scum of the earth” after that match? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 19 minutes ago, rollstar said: 1974 as well, but at least both those times the 2nd round was 4 team groups which are big enough to get a meaningful result to decide the semi-finalists. In 1978, there were no semi finalists. The winners of each group contested the final, with 2nd in each playing off for 3rd place. I'm not sure about 1974, and consider it cheating to check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 74 same format as 78. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollstar Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 7 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: In 1978, there were no semi finalists. The winners of each group contested the final, with 2nd in each playing off for 3rd place. I'm not sure about 1974, and consider it cheating to check. I did check, and you're right. Not that I was old enough at the time to understand but from later reading I had it in my head that the runners up in each of the two 2nd round groups of 4 played the winners of the other group in the semi-finals. It turns out it was just the 2 winners that played the final in 74 and 78. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollstar Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 32 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said: 1950 was just a pure cash grab, I think. After the war none of the major European nations could afford to host it as they were ruined. Brazil agreed to step in but only on condition that they could add a final group stage to increase gate receipts. Interesting, I didn't know this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) 6 minutes ago, rollstar said: I did check, and you're right. Not that I was old enough at the time to understand but from later reading I had it in my head that the runners up in each of the two 2nd round groups of 4 played the winners of the other group in the semi-finals. It turns out it was just the 2 winners that played the final in 74 and 78. It's odd. I don't know what the logic for it would have been. 16 is a perfect number for going to knock-out after the groups and it's what had happened before, certainly in 66 and 70, and I'd guess beforehand too. Was there not a bizarre one, 1954 I think, where despite being in a group of 4, we only played 2 opponents? Not sure how it worked exactly, but it didn't suit Scotland, who managed a 7-0 defeat. Edited June 21 by Monkey Tennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollstar Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: It's odd. I don't know what the logic for it would have been. I've always assumed that it was felt that group sections were more scientific than one on one cup-ties for identifying the best team. It also reduces the need for coin tosses/penalty shoot-outs. But then it could also be done just to increase the number of games for gate revenues. I remember in around 1982 looking at the results for world cups in the 60s and thinking how quaint and exciting it would be to have quarter finals in the world cup. Now we have rounds of 16 as well (but we didn't know what to call them for a long time!). Edited June 21 by rollstar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 5 minutes ago, rollstar said: I remember in around 1986 looking at the results for world cups in the 60s and thinking how quaint and exciting it would be to have quarter finals in the world cup. 1986 would have seen the first World Cup quarter finals since 1970. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollstar Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Yeah, corrected that a minute ago! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 We're in danger of picking at this thread until we realise that World Cups have always been a bit shit. Nobody wants that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 By the seem of it if we do qualify out the group, the nation of Germany will reach climax. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurkst Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 11 hours ago, nate said: Did mild mannered SFA wallah Ernie Walker not call Uruguay the “scum of the earth” after that match? Pretty much. "The scum of world football". 10 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said: Was there not a bizarre one, 1954 I think, where despite being in a group of 4, we only played 2 opponents? Not sure how it worked exactly, but it didn't suit Scotland, who managed a 7-0 defeat. The groups at that finals each contained two seeds, who both played the non seeds, with play-offs required if teams ended up tied on points. Despite this, the group containing Hungary, South Korea, Turkey and West Germany featured the most ever goals scored in a World Cup group, an incredible 32 goals across the four games, with a further 9 scored in the play-off. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 I don't think we will but it is a great chance If we hadn't been here a hundred times before then I think we'd be all over this game and expectations would be through the roof Hungary are a good side but not a great side. They need to win so that probably means we won't stutter to a 0-0 draw. There will be goals 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 (edited) 15 hours ago, rainbowrising said: The whole third place thing leaves me cold. A compete invention that could just as easily be dumped for the next tournament. For me there's also a question that if we beat Hungary, finish third and then qualify for the knockouts for a first time, would that alone really be a sign of improvement on anything we've done before? After all, we finished 3rd place with 4 points and a GD of -1 at Euro '96, which I can only imagine would have seen us through has the new format rules applied back then. That was in a group with two of the 'big hitters', rather than Germany and two mediocre (albeit still decent) sides, so it could be argued that our best showing has already occurred (unless we absolutely smash Hungary, which we all know is somewhat unlikely). I'm not saying that's the case, but it would be interesting to see others' thoughts on it. Edited June 22 by Hedgecutter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shizzlemanizzle Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 On 20/06/2024 at 16:22, BFTD said: Just occurred to me that I've only seen Scotland win one game at a tournament - Switzerland in 1996. too young in 78/82 no idea what I was doing for Sweden in 1990 - probably dragged away from the TV by family, as I watched most of that World Cup stuck in the middle of a forest on a school trip for the CIS in 1992 - didn't even know the Danes had won the whole thing until I got home That's yer lot Is your name Jay Slater by any chance? If it is, your mums looking for you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2426255 Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 32 minutes ago, Hedgecutter said: For me there's also a question that if we beat Hungary, finish third and then qualify for the knockouts for a first time, would that alone really be a sign of improvement on anything we've done before? I think it could be taken as sign this team under Clarke is continuing to move in the right direction. I don't personally buy that much into comparisons between generations or the 'making history' line from Clarke and Scotland. It's good in the sense that it gives us a goal and a purpose at the tournament to focus the mind, but beyond that if your line between success and failure is decided by 90 minutes of football then you're probably looking at the wrong things. If we win, it would be a big boost for everyone ahead of the Nations League, but regardless of how we do tomorrow we know we're still a bit short of being consistently competitive against the top-10 nations, but we can be consistently competive against the teams just below that and in one off games against the top-10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Ferguson's Hat Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 Looking increasingly likely the tournament is going to be put on hold until they find that lad in Tenerife. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Scotch Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 Aye don't really care about comparing this team to past achievements personally, every tournament has to be based on its own merits. Failure to qualify out of this group should be seen as a failure IMO considering four points gets you through and we don't have two big hitters in this group so more chance to pick up more points. It's unlikely we will get a better chance to progress than this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts