🔵🟡Scotland v Poland 🔴⚪

[DiegoDiego]

17 hours ago, GordonS said:

launch it for McTominay, McGinn or Dykes to battle in a 50-50. We won about a third of these

So we launched it for 33-66s then.

16 hours ago, Forza Alba said:

look at Tom English's latest column.

No thank you.

7 hours ago, Scary Bear said:

Scotland are a small nation who have done f**k all worth talking about on the international scene for their entire history.

It's like the Kirin Cup never happened.

5 hours ago, Frankie S said:

He might have saved the second penalty, but the fault lay with McGinn and Hanley there.

A goalkeeper's job is to stop the faults of their teammates being punished.

28 minutes ago, Nightmare said:

Aye, and even if you use the argument that football isn’t their national sport, look no further than the likes of Mexico or Nigeria. Two football-mad countries with huge populations who never do anything on the international stage.

Well, over half of Nigeria's population isn't eighteen yet, so that probably explains a fair bit. 

It's blatantly obvious that there are multiple factors at play, and population is one of them. If you try and keep other variables constant, say by putting together a Greater Glasgow-born XI and an Aberdeen-born XI, then it's clear population has an effect.

[MarkoRaj]

2 hours ago, Arthurlie1981 said:

 (he was never the most mobile as it was)

 

Never understand this levelled at Hanley.

As centre backs go he's very quick. I think because he looks like a lumbering oaf, people think he's slow but pace has never been one of his many issues

[BucksburnDandy]

I came away from the game last night massively annoyed and while slightly mellowing today, I'm still very grumpy.

 

I feel that Clarke got his starting lineup wrong. Ralston and Hanley cost him with their lack of match sharpness, McLean starting was poor and we played some fairly pedestrian stuff at the start of the game. I felt we wasted the first half.

 

Clarke ultimately did change things by bringing on Doak, Shankland and Gauld which helped massively to bring some attacking threat down the right wing. But bringing Gilmour off for Morgan was a sub that killed our momentum and the winner starts with McGinn dithering on the ball in the middle of the park.

 

Playing the same personnel that let him down over the last year in a different system didn't work for too long of the game last night. It's a real struggle to see where the next win comes from right now. If he loses all 6 games in this group, fan pressure will mount hugely. Clarke currently has enough media fans that mean the SFA board won't pull the trigger regardless of what the punters think.

 

There were positives and I will list below while going through individuals:

 

Gunn - felt he could have been more nimble at the opener to stop it, but no chance with the other two goals

 

Ralston - For long spells of that game last night, he was really good. First half bar the penalty, he engaged the wing back early, he was tenacious and he was comfortable. Second half he started poorly then won a couple of tackles and grew back into it. Brilliant assist for the equaliser. However he was dreadful for the penalty. And that's his problem. He makes a game changing mistake in most games.

 

Hanley - Very good all night until the inexplicable brain fart at the end. Ridiculous decision. Idiotic

 

McKenna - For a team who conceded 3 and lost, I thought McKenna was really good last night. A very assured display

 

Robertson - Steady enough display. Can't complain defensively. Unlucky with the McTominay goal with a great delivery. Sometimes not the best decision making.

 

Gilmour - he was grand, a really good player. Lacks physically but my God he is tenacious. Good sharp finish for his goal.

 

McLean - not his fault but he's not up to this level. Too slow on the ball, too many poor decisions with passes and too loose with his passing. An impact player at best to close games out. Criminal that Clarke played him, the man not good enough to dislodge McGregor.

 

McGinn - I'm going against the general train of thought. I thought he was mince last night. Offered no real defensive support and protection for Ralston, didn't offer width in an attacking sense, took a few fouls but I have to say I wasn't massively impressed at all. Also guilty at the winner for being caught taking far too long on the ball.

 

McTominay - Aye a good display. Offered real quality on the ball, took his goal well, should have scored in the first half. Calm and assured on the ball, good working back off the ball and grew better as the game wore on. He was pretty decent.

 

Christie - Really happy with his display. First half he was a good attacking outlet, combining well with McTominay and Robertson down the left, hitting the byline a few times. Immense touch to set up Gilmour and thought he was unlucky to be taken off although maybe his race was run. Defensively works his socks off too.

 

Dykes - Worked hard, he did fine. Got some mixed service and did fine with it

 

Doak - what a joy. Really good attacking threat. Brilliant at the equaliser. Brought Ralston on. Some start

 

Gauld - really mature display. Combined well with Robertson wide left then when central combined well with Morgan and Doak

 

Shankland - much like Dykes, received mixed service and did fine. Lacking a bit of confidence but was absolutely fine

 

Morgan - carried some threat but felt him coming on lost some momentum in the middle of the park. Not held against Morgan at all. A good option to have.

 

Hard to see where we get a win in the rest of the group. Been a real brutal last 12 months as a Scotland fan. Even the one win was hard going.

[Monkey Tennis]

On 06/09/2024 at 09:17, TheScarf said:

Croatia and Uruguay are better than Scotland because they, like nearly every nation in the top 75 of the world rankings, will have better youth coaches, who teach youngsters how to actually be footballers.  

The population of a country is completely irrelevant.

You've got a point in your first paragraph, but to suggest that population "is completely irrelevant" is utterly mental, probably the silliest post on this thread, an accolade for which the competition will be fierce.

[Monkey Tennis]

On 06/09/2024 at 09:47, Nightmare said:

Correct. Uruguay, and to a lesser but still impressive extent Croatia disprove the notion that population has anything to do with the ability of a nation to produce top players and international teams.

(Where’s Supras these days anyway?)

They don't "disprove" it at all.

What absolute nonsense.

[Gordopolis]

For anyone with the slightest capacity to think critically and objectively, the population "debate" is hardly a conundrum.

Population is clearly an advantage, but only if allied to a footballing system/culture etc.

You can have a population of 1 billion+ and be absolute no marks at international football (e.g. China, India)

Just as you can have a population of 3 million and excel (Croatia, Uruguay)

That's not particularly difficult to grasp, is it?

And for Scotland, that means we have to focus on our systems/grassroots in order to make the most of our relatively small population.

 

Edited September 7 by Gordopolis

[Monkey Tennis]

On 06/09/2024 at 09:50, Skyline Drifter said:

 I'm inevitably biased to an extent about Dykes 

There's nothing inevitable about it.

[TheScarf]

32 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

You've got a point in your first paragraph, but to suggest that population "is completely irrelevant" is utterly mental, probably the silliest post on this thread, an accolade for which the competition will be fierce.

Oh look, the contrarian’s contrarian has piped up. 
 

Of course it’s irrelevant. How good an international team is, is down to football infrastructure and how good the coaches are. Not many people live in its towns and cities.  Your shouts on here continue to be unhinged

[Monkey Tennis]

Just now, TheScarf said:

Oh looks, the contrarian’s contrarian has piped up. 
 

Of course it’s irrelevant. How good an international team is, is down to football infrastructure and how good the coaches are. Not many people live in its towns and cities.  Your shouts on here continue to be unhinged.

It's unhinged and contrarian to suggest that population is a factor in footballing success for countries?

 

Ok Mate.  You have a good day.

 

[Nightmare]

31 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

They don't "disprove" it at all.

What absolute nonsense.

MT trying to get in another tedious debate based on semantics. Yawn.

[DiegoDiego]

1 hour ago, TheScarf said:

Of course it’s irrelevant.

Not if your population is fewer than eleven.

[Butters Scotch]

On 06/09/2024 at 13:16, Sarto Mutiny said:

The nature of his injury. He's been out for near enough a year, and there are no signs of him coming back. Even if he does come back, the amount of scar tissue his hamstring will have makes him much more susceptible to that type of injury happening again, even assuming he can get back to his previous performance levels. I really hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't look great.

Unless you're a doctor then I don't see why you would think he may not play for the national team ever again when he is only 22.

Knowing from personal experience, surgery can have the opposite effect, it can make the hamstring tendon even stronger than what it was before so let's just wait and see how he recovers once he's back playing next year 

[immcinto]

2 hours ago, TheScarf said:

 

Oh look, the contrarian’s contrarian has piped up. 
 

Of course it’s irrelevant. How good an international team is, is down to football infrastructure and how good the coaches are. Not many people live in its towns and cities.  Your shouts on here continue to be unhinged

Have you ever wondered why England,Germany, France, Spain and Italy seem to consistently produce so many top quality footballers compared to other western European nations?

[TheScarf]

18 minutes ago, immcinto said:

Have you ever wondered why England,Germany, France, Spain and Italy seem to consistently produce so many top quality footballers compared to other western European nations?

I don’t need to wonder. It’s because of their footballing infrastructure and coaching at youth level which is able to constantly produce world class players. 
 

Edit - It’s the same for the lesser populated Western European nations who do well. Portugal, Belgium and The Netherlands for example.

Edited September 7 by TheScarf

[welshbairn]

16 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

I don’t need to wonder. It’s because of their footballing infrastructure and coaching at youth level which is able to constantly produce world class players. 
 

Edit - It’s the same for the lesser populated Western European nations who do well. Portugal, Belgium and The Netherlands for example.

It's probably also to do with the percentage of youths living active and healthy lives. I remember hearing during Holland's golden years that far more Dutch played football than watched it, in Scotland it was the reverse. 

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

28 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

I don’t need to wonder. It’s because of their footballing infrastructure and coaching at youth level which is able to constantly produce world class players. 
 

Edit - It’s the same for the lesser populated Western European nations who do well. Portugal, Belgium and The Netherlands for example.

Blimey!

Someone ought to tell San Marino all they need to do is build a proper football infrastructure and get some good coaches. They’ll be winning the World Cup before we know it. 

[Butters Scotch]

31 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

I don’t need to wonder. It’s because of their footballing infrastructure and coaching at youth level which is able to constantly produce world class players. 
 

Edit - It’s the same for the lesser populated Western European nations who do well. Portugal, Belgium and The Netherlands for example.

Extremely foolish to think that population size doesn't have a major impact, it's why the bigger nations consistently produce world class teams year in year out. 

 

Coaching is obviously a huge part of developing the players but you have to bear in mind that the more footballers there are, more facilities there are, more coaches, more pitches, more investment etc etc

[TheScarf]

1 minute ago, Butters Scotch said:

Extremely foolish to think that population size doesn't have a major impact, it's why the bigger nations consistently produce world class teams year in year out. 

 

Coaching is obviously a huge part of developing the players but you have to bear in mind that the more footballers there are, more facilities there are, more coaches, more pitches, more investment etc etc

What about the smaller nations who consistently manage it? What’s their secret?

Its extremely foolish to think a countries population determines how successful they are at international football.

[TheScarf]

12 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

Blimey!

Someone ought to tell San Marino all they need to do is build a proper football infrastructure and get some good coaches. They’ll be winning the World Cup before we know it. 

You’ve used the absolute extreme to make your point, I can do that too. Why are China and India not that two best footballing nations? They should be surely?

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

Just now, TheScarf said:

What about the smaller nations who consistently manage it? What’s their secret?

Its extremely foolish to think a countries population determines how successful they are at international football.

Portugal, Holland and Belgium have won the grand total of 2 Euros between them EVER!. Christ even Denmark and Greece have managed to win one Euros.

Germany, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Argentina on the other hand……

Mate, give it up. Not one single person on here is saying that population is the ONLY driver for success. 

You are the only one holding an “extreme” view by saying it is completely irrelevant. 

What absolute utter bollocks.