🔵🟡Scotland v Poland 🔴⚪

[craigkillie]

5 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

Don’t know if I’m oversimplifying (and there’s probably a good reason why), but if the purpose of this latest announcement is to ensure that all the top teams are in pot one, wouldn’t it have been easier just to use the FIFA world rankings full stop? 

That was sort of the point I was initially making. This change from the last time makes it more likely "diddies" will make it into Pot 1, not less likely. Sure, doing it purely by rankings would be a bit fiddly in terms of the number of matchdays, but they are having to deal with that problem with this approach anyway.

[Venti]

3 hours ago, TheScarf said:

A pity, will just have to wait and watch him for Unai Emery's Aston Villa.

Matty Cash is of the same ilk as Solly March.

Need to have their full names spoken or the world will end.

[Jaggy McJagface]

2 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The announcement about the South American teams was nearly 3 years ago, I don't think I was claiming otherwise, I gave the exact date in my post. How long ago it was isn't the relevant part, the gap between it being announced and England being relegated to League B is what is relevant, since the argument being made by you and the Master revolves around the assumption that this Nations League format was designed BEFORE England's relegation (since otherwise, the fact they were in League B would already have been known).

You are right to say that England weren't guaranteed to be relegated in June 2022, but it looked very likely. The other two teams likely to be relegated from the group at that point were Germany and Italy, who are also clearly elite nations - the only "non-elite" team were Hungary, who topped the group. So to any observer looking in at that stage, it was pretty clear that an elite team would be relegated. Incidentally, France were also bottom of their group at this stage, albeit with more chance of survival than England. So again, I find it unlikely that UEFA would not have been expecting an elite team to be in League B as of June 2022.

Your reading of those FIFA regulations is clearly very different from mine. It explicitly states that the World Rankings should be the predominant method used for seeding, and that any variation at all requires FIFA's permission. It is therefore not at all clear that FIFA would agree to an approach which completely ignores World Rankings, which is the central point of your argument. You have also overlooked the point I made about these regulations (created June 2023) not even existing at the stage where the new Nations League format was released (January 2023) - in the absence of any other information, you'd therefore be expecting the qualifying rules to be the same at this stage.

 

I can absolutely imagine UEFA lobbying to use the Nations League rankings for seedings (as they also did for the 2022 World Cup), and I can imagine this clause being inserted partly as a result of this lobbying, but there will also be a reason why FIFA have still insisted on their rankings as being the predominant factor in seeding. There will be a big difference in FIFA's eyes from an system which is almost entirely based on World Rankings but deviates slightly for operational reasons (ie this proposed approach) and one which completely abandons World Rankings (the approach which a handful of bloggers speculated about and you seem to have taken as gospel).

The central topic in this argument is not that there is a conspiracy years in the making to get England to the 2026 World Cup. We are saying that using the Nations league in full to determine the WC pots is CLEARLY the simplest, fairest and most efficient way to do it, and that the only reason it is not being done for this edition is because one of the most commercially lucrative teams happens to be in pot 2 this time around.

 

You know this. You have been told this multiple times. You are shifting the goalposts and deliberately choosing to avoid this central point because you are a pedantic smartarse who likes to argue with people on the internet.

 

Wrt the fifa regulations - if they really were so insistent on using the rankings alone, then why would they make any alterations to these regulations at all? They are clearly not against using something other than the rankings as a matter of principle as they’re letting UEFA do it as we speak. It’s quite clear to anyone looking at this holistically that these alterations to the regulations were made with the UEFA Nations League in mind.

 

I won’t be engaging any further as we’re basically retreading the same ground, but I know you won’t be able to resist getting the last word in as usual, so batter in.

Edited September 5 by Jaggy McJagface
Typo

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

3 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

That was sort of the point I was initially making. This change from the last time makes it more likely "diddies" will make it into Pot 1, not less likely. Sure, doing it purely by rankings would be a bit fiddly in terms of the number of matchdays, but they are having to deal with that problem with this approach anyway.

Yeah, I thought maybe the reason for not going down the rankings route, might have just been FIFA throwing UEFA a bone by giving some sort of relevance to the NL, but in reality it’s only giving relevance to League A and even then only the teams with a realistic chance of finishing first or second in their group. Most if not all of these teams would likely have landed in pot one anyway by way of their ranking. 
There is zero relevance for leagues B, C & D. 
Yes you could say teams still have to play for ranking points to improve their pot standing, but that would equally apply even if the games were just “meaningless friendlies”.

You could also argue that the weaker teams in League A (like us) are at a disadvantage because we’re less likely to accumulate ranking points.

I like the NL in the context of the Euros but I think it’s a bit pointless when it comes to the WC.

[Jaggy McJagface]

19 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

Don’t know if I’m oversimplifying (and there’s probably a good reason why), but if the purpose of this latest announcement is to ensure that all the top teams are in pot one, wouldn’t it have been easier just to use the FIFA world rankings full stop? 

It would, but the new nations league format makes this virtually impossible due to the increased number of games in the NL, so something had to give.

[Skyline Drifter]

14 hours ago, accies1874 said:

If Christie plays deeper then I'd maybe go for Dykes or Conway up front and play a bit more of a transitional game, but if Shankland plays up front then McLean could be the best option so that we've got a more controlled midfield. Or Gauld could start with McTominay deep and McGinn wide.

I'm not really sure what basis there is for suggesting Shankland start up front. He is the only 'forward' in our squad to have started more than about 2 games this season right enough but he's looked well out of form and has yet to score a goal. I'd be shocked if Dykes doesn't start, probably both games this week. He's fit and he's fresh and he was badly missed in Germany. And much as he's barely played this season due to his impending move from QPR, he's still scored a cracker of a goal in his limited time.

If for any reason Dykes can't play both or in terms of replacing him late on, I'd quite like to see Conway over Shankland but I do accept if we're chasing a goal late on Shankland's the more likely to score one.

13 hours ago, Chripper said:

There's no way we should change to a back four. We aren't equipped for it. Haven't been since 1992.

The centerbacks are a worry. Only 2 from 4 are playing regularly.

Right back is an issue.

Hanley did fine in Germany despite being well short of match fitness. I think he plays, with McKenna (who has to play given he's the only one playing regularly at any sort of level). Porteous or Souttar only play if we do play a five.

Right back's obviously an issue but we can't help that. It's same again with Ralston or blood Johnston. I'd like to see Johnston personally but fairly likely it'll be Ralston.

13 hours ago, Scary Bear said:

2nd Is super optimistic. Which games do you see us winning?

Well we're certainly not incapable of beating anybody at Hampden. None of these sides are as good as Spain. Not even sure there's as good as the Spanish 2nd team we largely played. I agree 2nd is very optimistic. The hardest game will be in Lisbon and getting anything in Croatia is also unlikely.

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

A crumb of comfort must be our record against Croatia. Played 6, won 2, drawn 3 and lost 1 (albeit the loss coming in the most recent fixture)

Whatever way you cut it though, worse Scotland teams have got results against better Croatia teams. 

[Richey Edwards]

27 minutes ago, Venti said:

You could make more money auctioning dogs.

I don't have any dogs to auction.

[Tartan Dave]

Seeing far too many teams with Mcginn on a wing in a 433. We need to stop shoehorning guys in just cause they're one of our better players. Pick players who suit roles. 

[accies1874]

28 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I'm not really sure what basis there is for suggesting Shankland start up front. He is the only 'forward' in our squad to have started more than about 2 games this season right enough but he's looked well out of form and has yet to score a goal. I'd be shocked if Dykes doesn't start, probably both games this week. He's fit and he's fresh and he was badly missed in Germany. And much as he's barely played this season due to his impending move from QPR, he's still scored a cracker of a goal in his limited time.

If for any reason Dykes can't play both or in terms of replacing him late on, I'd quite like to see Conway over Shankland but I do accept if we're chasing a goal late on Shankland's the more likely to score one.

He's not a bad player just because he's out of form, same as he wasn't as good as folk made out just because he was in form. Dykes has had lean spells at club level, but I'm sure you'll agree that he's done well for us even during them. 

I think that Shankland links play better than Dykes and is a better finisher. Conway's linkup seems decent, too, offers more energy than Shankland and is a threat in behind. I've not seen too much of him though. 

Dykes v Shankland probably boils down to similar arguments around Dykes v Adams. 

11 minutes ago, Tartan Dave said:

Seeing far too many teams with Mcginn on a wing in a 433. We need to stop shoehorning guys in just cause they're one of our better players. Pick players who suit roles. 

His brilliant season for Villa was mostly from him starting off out wide. He'd likely be coming inside anyway, especially if he plays on the left. 

[MarkoRaj]

22 minutes ago, Tartan Dave said:

Seeing far too many teams with Mcginn on a wing in a 433. We need to stop shoehorning guys in just cause they're one of our better players. Pick players who suit roles. 

That's where he plays for Villa

[Skyline Drifter]

15 minutes ago, accies1874 said:

He's not a bad player just because he's out of form, same as he wasn't as good as folk made out just because he was in form. Dykes has had lean spells at club level, but I'm sure you'll agree that he's done well for us even during them. 

I think that Shankland links play better than Dykes and is a better finisher. Conway's linkup seems decent, too, offers more energy than Shankland and is a threat in behind. I've not seen too much of him though. 

Dykes v Shankland probably boils down to similar arguments around Dykes v Adams.

I'm not sure what evidence there is at international level that Shankland "links play better than Dykes". On the contrary, he's looked off the pace largely. I suppose he did ok starting in Netherlands in March. He's certainly a better finisher, which is why I conceded if we need a goal near the end he's the best bet.

I don't actually think the Dykes v Shankland debate is similar to the Dykes v Adams one. Adams is far more mobile than Shankland but Shankland scores more actual goals. Shankland's also much slower. With Dykes v Adams their mobility and workrate is similar. I think Dykes links play a little better and he certainly offers far more defensively, both at set pieces and at closing down midfielders in open play. Adams scores more goals generally (though hasn't for Scotland). That's the trade off. With Shankland he doesn't have anything like the workrate or pace of either of them but he's better actually on the ball and scores far more goals.

Edited September 5 by Skyline Drifter

[++Ammo - Airdrie++]

This is the first ever Scotland football match I'll ever have been to.

 

[Granny Danger]

9 minutes ago, ++Ammo - Airdrie++ said:

This is the first ever Scotland football match I'll ever have been to.

 

^^^ Ryan Gould.

[Richey Edwards]

25 minutes ago, ++Ammo - Airdrie++ said:

This is the first ever Scotland football match I'll ever have been to.

 

Congratulations on your first Scotland game m8.

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

9 minutes ago, Richey Edwards said:

Congratulations on your first Scotland game m8.

No sure if congratulations is the right word? 

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

I’m thoroughly unconvinced by Shankland. Quite prepared to accept I simply don’t understand football, but he looks overweight, slow, and not of the standard of international football.

Something to be said of the lack of interest this summer. 

I expect Dykes to start.

[Bobcat]

How many tickets have been sold for the match tonight 

[TONTROOPER]

1 minute ago, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

I’m thoroughly unconvinced by Shankland. Quite prepared to accept I simply don’t understand football, but he looks overweight, slow, and not of the standard of international football.

Something to be said of the lack of interest this summer. 

I expect Dykes to start.

He is overweight.

He's a fat mess.

[BFTD]

Really hoping to be wrong, but Shankland does look like being one of our occasional strikers who scores at Scottish Premiership/English Football League level, but is only good for a goal against Liechtenstein or Gibraltar.