[fueradejuego]

Supras, on 10 May 2012 - 16:06, said:

We don't need to be on a par with the Basque region, that has nothing to do with anything. If we wanted to become a better footballing nation then importing millions if immigrants of West African descent would be a massive boost to our national team. Statistically, they produce far more professional footballers.

Quite interested in this. I am writing an article for my site examining the "success" of Athletic. Its not a new phenomena yet judging by the media reaction, you would think it was.

Regarding there being, statistically, more footballers of West African descent, can you give me the source for your claim above. I may use it for my article - thanks.

Back on topic, there is a tactical analysis of last night's game......

[Big River]

T_S_A_R, on 09 May 2012 - 20:48, said:

i've been saying this for years

Whoops, meant to green dot this post, but gave it a red by accident instead.

[Supras]

fueradejuego, on 10 May 2012 - 19:36, said:

Quite interested in this. I am writing an article for my site examining the "success" of Athletic. Its not a new phenomena yet judging by the media reaction, you would think it was.

Regarding there being, statistically, more footballers of West African descent, can you give me the source for your claim above. I may use it for my article - thanks.

Back on topic, there is a tactical analysis of last night's game......

Yep, it is covered extensively in Marcotti and Viallis book "The Italian Job".

If you want to beef that out a standard comparison of, say, the footballers of West African descent in comparison to those of West African descent in the population as a whole for France and England it would show that they are significantly over represented.

[fueradejuego]

Supras, on 10 May 2012 - 21:28, said:

Yep, it is covered extensively in Marcotti and Viallis book "The Italian Job".

If you want to beef that out a standard comparison of, say, the footballers of West African descent in comparison to those of West African descent in the population as a whole for France and England it would show that they are significantly over represented.

Is this back to the Abidal thing?

A Barca coach claimed he was a tremendous athlete. Why? Because he was black.

Clubs sign players in the belief they are good due to a stereotype e.g West Africans are physically strong, Brazilians are skilful etc.

[H_B]

Quote

And there evidence of this claim is...?

Where are these various other studies?

there is much evidence for this, from various surveys.

This is the 2008 survey :-

http://www.sgma.com/...tion-in-the-U.S

Re: the 2002 figures, the links are dead due to the age of the articles. But the quotes can be found here :-

http://answers.googl...dview?id=515442

"According to American Sports Data, total soccer participation
in the U.S. is at nearly 18 million. Girls account for 40% of all
soccer players "

"The 1998 National Soccer Participation Survey reports that
while 18.2 million individuals played soccer at least once last year,
slightly more than the 18.1 million reported in 1996, the number of
frequent participants - - those who play 25 or more days a year - -
rose from 7.7 million to 8.5 million. Although other major demographic
measures showed no significant changes, the survey did confirm that
adult (age 18+) participation remains at 4.6 million players after
experiencing 33% growth in 1996."

Quote

You believe? Er, we all have beliefs, what's your point?

My point is that America has a large number of football playing youths or adults. Far more than much better national sides.

Population is just one of many factors. It isn't that important. Which is why The Netherlands, with a very small population, have consistently been at the forefront of football for the past 40 years.

The "fact" about college participation came from Sean Wheelock, the US expert on the five Live Football Program incidentally.

[H_B]

Supras, on 10 May 2012 - 16:06, said:

And who is their national side "fairly average" in comparison to?

The many countries above them in the FIFA Rankings.

The USA rank only 29th, and have been pretty poor under Jurgen Klinsmann. They are fortunate to be in a very easy World Cup qualification section, with only Mexico to challenge them in their region.

This post has been edited by H_B: 11 May 2012 - 09:14

[Supras]

H_B, on 11 May 2012 - 09:04, said:

there is much evidence for this, from various surveys.

This is the 2008 survey :-

http://www.sgma.com/...tion-in-the-U.S

Re: the 2002 figures, the links are dead due to the age of the articles. But the quotes can be found here :-

http://answers.googl...dview?id=515442

"According to American Sports Data, total soccer participation
in the U.S. is at nearly 18 million. Girls account for 40% of all
soccer players "

"The 1998 National Soccer Participation Survey reports that
while 18.2 million individuals played soccer at least once last year,
slightly more than the 18.1 million reported in 1996, the number of
frequent participants - - those who play 25 or more days a year - -
rose from 7.7 million to 8.5 million. Although other major demographic
measures showed no significant changes, the survey did confirm that
adult (age 18+) participation remains at 4.6 million players after
experiencing 33% growth in 1996."

My point is that America has a large number of football playing youths or adults. Far more than much better national sides.

Uhuh, so in response to quantifying your figures you have repeated them. Interesting tactic.

But, either way, the USA has the best womans team in the team because, well, more women play football there than anywhere else. Fine, it suits the population argument nicely. But for your figures to have any validity with relation to mens football (we'll call it 'football') then they have to only count male footballers.

And far more than what "much better national sides"? Is it possible that they play football as a combination with other sports whereas in football mad nations like Scotland it is effectively the only participation sport? Rugby is a considerably distant second - and shit.

Quote

Population is just one of many factors. It isn't that important. Which is why The Netherlands, with a very small population, have consistently been at the forefront of football for the past 40 years.

The "fact" about college participation came from Sean Wheelock, the US expert on the five Live Football Program incidentally.

Well, how important is it? Is it the second most important factor? The 14th? What is more important? Number of professional footballers - which is directly related to population? Why are the best nations those with the highest populations and the worst those with the lowest? Double coincidence?

And the Netherlands doesn't have a very small population at all, it is the 9th highest population in Europe - behind massive under performers like Poland, Romania (Scotland pish all over these nations btw) and Ukraine. The other larger nations are Germany, France, Spain, Italy and England - the first 4 have achieved more whilst England are footballs greatest under achievers.

In world terms it is obviously below Argentina and Brazil but has also not come even close to matching these nations. It is more than 3 times the size of Scotland. So, in reality, the nations they out perform are dross like Poland, Romania and Ukraine. Oh, and England, who conspire to perform to incredibly low standards.

And where is your evidence of this fact? Did you listen to it on 5live?

H_B, on 11 May 2012 - 09:12, said:

The many countries above them in the FIFA Rankings.

The USA rank only 29th, and have been pretty poor under Jurgen Klinsmann. They are fortunate to be in a very easy World Cup qualification section, with only Mexico to challenge them in their region.

Erm, but they still finished above England.

You've said it yourself - 40% of their players are women!

And don't think for one minute one nation destroys the population argument - there are always going to be exceptions - but it is an excellent guide and benchmark. With a tiny population Scotland can never be expected to achieve anything in international football, barring a miracle.

[H_B]

Supras, on 11 May 2012 - 16:37, said:

Scotland can never be expected to achieve anything in international football, barring a miracle.

Not really. Look at Croatia, or even Ireland.

The former managed 3rd place in a WC and the latter were Quarter Finalists, and unlucky to go out at that stage. Scotland could acheive this - if we were any good.

[Supras]

H_B, on 11 May 2012 - 17:07, said:

Not really. Look at Croatia, or even Ireland.

The former managed 3rd place in a WC and the latter were Quarter Finalists, and unlucky to go out at that stage. Scotland could acheive this - if we were any good.

It doesn't matter what metric you use, Scotland have substantially outperformed Ireland in international football.

Croatia, yeah they've got a good team, but these things go in cycles.

How could Scotland achieve any of this? Be specific?

We could get very lucky I guess. Ireland, even now, are pretty pish and are only doing well because they have a magnificent old school Italian in charge - he could do the same with Scotland I'm sure.

[fueradejuego]

Supras, on 11 May 2012 - 20:56, said:

Croatia, yeah they've got a good team, but these things go in cycles.

How could Scotland achieve any of this? Be specific?

Improved coaching with an emphasis upon technique over physical development at an early age. This would also include a focussed reduction in the pace of the game.

Better facilities for young players including indoor pitches and all weather pitches which can survive the winter weather.

With regard to the Croatian cycle, its been pretty decent since 1998.

I would accept a similar cycle for Scotland.

[Supras]

fueradejuego, on 11 May 2012 - 21:25, said:

Improved coaching with an emphasis upon technique over physical development at an early age. This would also include a focussed reduction in the pace of the game.

Better facilities for young players including indoor pitches and all weather pitches which can survive the winter weather.

With regard to the Croatian cycle, its been pretty decent since 1998.

I would accept a similar cycle for Scotland.

Physical development? That's one of those points that is correctly applied to England and then lazily applied to Scotland. We don't have ANY overtly physical players, if anything we lack either strong players or quick players. The coaching could be improved, of course it could, but the same could be said of any nation.

Scotland was brilliant throughout the 70s and 80s, as I've already discussed. Even now we are still outperforming many far larger European nations, this isn't a good or bad period - it's pretty much what it should be.

[fueradejuego]

Supras, on 11 May 2012 - 22:39, said:

Physical development? That's one of those points that is correctly applied to England and then lazily applied to Scotland. We don't have ANY overtly physical players, if anything we lack either strong players or quick players. The coaching could be improved, of course it could, but the same could be said of any nation.

Scotland was brilliant throughout the 70s and 80s, as I've already discussed. Even now we are still outperforming many far larger European nations, this isn't a good or bad period - it's pretty much what it should be.

Physical development at senior level differs vastly from physical development at youth levels.

There are public parks near me which are used every weekend with youth teams. You always see the same long hoof down the park and a preference for stronger players at a young level as they can impose themselves over smaller, less physical players.

We need to move away from that. Focus on technique first and as the player develops then look at the physical aspect later.

We go for players who can run etc then worry about whether they can pass the ball or not.

The coaching is primitive. You may receive your coaching badge etc but you watch games at youth level and you wonder if the coaches of the players have a basic theoretical understanding of what they are supposed to be doing.

Rather than just telling young boys to run forward with their arm up and shout offside, do they understand what they are doing and why they are doing it?

We seem to produce a never ending succession of brain dead players who lack game intelligence. The ability to recognise a problem on the pitch and have the intelligence to try and resolve it.

The coaching issue is never tackled head on. Of course every country could improve but consider the number of qualified coaches the main European countries have in comparison to what we have. We are years behind as are England.

With fewer coaches coming through, the key jobs in the Premiership keep going to foreigners.

Yet if you look at Spain, there are a number of young managers coming through and progressing. Of course there are still foreign managers but many have been in the country for a long time having played there also such as Pochettino at Espanyol - player and now manager.

[Supras]

fueradejuego, on 11 May 2012 - 22:55, said:

Physical development at senior level differs vastly from physical development at youth levels.

There are public parks near me which are used every weekend with youth teams. You always see the same long hoof down the park and a preference for stronger players at a young level as they can impose themselves over smaller, less physical players.

We need to move away from that. Focus on technique first and as the player develops then look at the physical aspect later.

We go for players who can run etc then worry about whether they can pass the ball or not.

You always see it? Really? Cause I don't "always" see it. And if you watch any pro youth games you absolutely would not see it.

Again the running is just unsubstantiated and elitist, because Spain produce such magnificient Scotland focuses on the 1970s percentages game - which actually has no basis in reality. Look at the younger Scottish players coming through, how many of them can run but not pass? You said were too vertical - we're not even remotely vertical. Your statements about Scottish football seem to be based in ignorant condescension - not reality.

Quote

The coaching is primitive. You may receive your coaching badge etc but you watch games at youth level and you wonder if the coaches of the players have a basic theoretical understanding of what they are supposed to be doing.

Rather than just telling young boys to run forward with their arm up and shout offside, do they understand what they are doing and why they are doing it?

We seem to produce a never ending succession of brain dead players who lack game intelligence. The ability to recognise a problem on the pitch and have the intelligence to try and resolve it.

The coaching badges in Scotland are regarded as amongst the best in the world! (Second behind Italy). Were they primitive when AVB and Mourinho learned them? Whilst Lippi and SAF were the teachers? And the theoretical comment is again blatant elitism.

Quote

The coaching issue is never tackled head on. Of course every country could improve but consider the number of qualified coaches the main European countries have in comparison to what we have. We are years behind as are England.

With fewer coaches coming through, the key jobs in the Premiership keep going to foreigners.

Yet if you look at Spain, there are a number of young managers coming through and progressing. Of course there are still foreign managers but many have been in the country for a long time having played there also such as Pochettino at Espanyol - player and now manager.

Er, well, consider it then. Post the figures. England are behind - we know that - but Scottish coaches have a worldwide reputation for excellence.

And surely you are not serious with your second comment? Scotland has six premiership managers, three times the number of English managers, three times the number of NI managers and 6 times the number of Spanish managers. Scotland is massively over represented when it comes to managers in the EPL. Even when it drops to 5 or even 4 we will still be massively over represented - our managers have done incredibly well and your criticism of Scottish managers is blatantly counter factual. Nor is it a statistical anomoly, Scotland has always produced far more excellent managers than our tiny populace would indicate - Spain should be learning from us in this regard.

[Erin Go Bragh]

Supras, on 10 May 2012 - 16:06, said:

What are you talking about?

We don't need to be on a par with the Basque region...

I don't even know what argument you're trying to make?

This whole thing started because I pointed out the Basque's are pretty good for a place with a population of just over two million. You seem determined to write off every small country that's better than Scotland as just having a good cycle. Scotland are on a cycle all right, a cycle down a steep hill leading to nothingness. I accept what you're saying about Scotland not being a disgrace for a country its size, but you have to accept that there's similiar or smaller countries who are just better. It's not a cycle, they'll just be better nearly all the time from now on.

Supras, on 11 May 2012 - 20:56, said:

We could get very lucky I guess. Ireland, even now, are pretty pish and are only doing well because they have a magnificent old school Italian in charge - he could do the same with Scotland I'm sure.

Do you really think Ireland's team isn't better than Scotland's? If you could pick a team from both squads, it'd probably be something like:

Given

Kelly Dunne O'Shea Ward

McGeady Naismith D.Fletcher Duff/Whelan

Keane S.Fletcher

All comments about McGeady being Scottish aside, most people wouldn't have any more than three Scotland players in their team. Trappatoni couldn't turn Gary Caldwell and Christophe Berra into international standard defenders.

fueradejuego, on 11 May 2012 - 21:25, said:

With regard to the Croatian cycle, its been pretty decent since 1998.

Only Supras could call a nations entire football history a cycle. Those Brazilians have had a good cycle whilst we're at it.

Ultimately, Scotland aren't too bad. There are football nations the same size that are just better now and probably always will be. Supras is delusional if he thinks differently, in fact it was this "we were good in the 70's so f**k making changes" attitude that's made Scotland fall behind.

This post has been edited by Erin Go Bragh: 12 May 2012 - 02:11

[H_B]

Supras, on 11 May 2012 - 20:56, said:

How could Scotland achieve any of this? Be specific?

We could get very lucky I guess. Ireland, even now, are pretty pish and are only doing well because they have a magnificent old school Italian in charge - he could do the same with Scotland I'm sure.

Well, you've just answered your own question in part. Appointing Trappatoni wasn't lucky. It was a calculated decision to give the country their best chance of performing well. Scotland could also do this, if we re-prioritised our spending.

And what you say above isn't true - as I said Ireland have been World Cup quarter finalists - Scotland, embarrassingly, have never emerged from the groups. There's a metric where Ireland outperform us.

Also Ireland reached the top 10 in the FIFA World Rankings. Something Scotland have never managed. And that's a smaller country, with a much poorer domestic league, where football is a much more marginal sport than in Scotland.

[H_B]

Erin Go Bragh, on 12 May 2012 - 02:08, said:

Trappatoni couldn't turn Gary Caldwell and Christophe Berra into international standard defenders.

Eh?

This is in a post where you include the awful Richard Dunne in the side Gary Caldwell is a fine international defender, as he has proven in campaigns gone by.

There's very very little between Ireland and Scotlan in terms of player quality. If you swapped the managers about, we would be superior to Ireland.

[Supras]

Erin Go Bragh, on 12 May 2012 - 02:08, said:

This whole thing started because I pointed out the Basque's are pretty good for a place with a population of just over two million. You seem determined to write off every small country that's better than Scotland as just having a good cycle. Scotland are on a cycle all right, a cycle down a steep hill leading to nothingness. I accept what you're saying about Scotland not being a disgrace for a country its size, but you have to accept that there's similiar or smaller countries who are just better. It's not a cycle, they'll just be better nearly all the time from now on.

Do you really think Ireland's team isn't better than Scotland's? If you could pick a team from both squads, it'd probably be something like:

Given

Kelly Dunne O'Shea Ward

McGeady Naismith D.Fletcher Duff/Whelan

Keane S.Fletcher

Well, it is hard to judge how good they are given they aren't a national team and you are not seriously trying to compare a club side - who play and train together every week - with a national side? Who are these sides that are always better out of interest? How many is there? In the scheme of things we are doing pretty much exactly what you'd expect of us, we finished above Ukraine - a far larger nation - in qualifications recently, and ran the Czech Republic very close.

The Irish team is certainly not better than Scotland - Duff or Whelan ahead of Charlie Adam and Naismith in central midfield? No idea what McGeady is like how - but I hope he's pish. His inclusion is counter productive anyway, if you are criticising Scotland for not producing enough good players with comparison to Ireland - Scotland produced McGeady 100% and Ireland 0%. Oh, and Kelly ahead of Sunderlands POTY last year Bardsley?

Quote

All comments about McGeady being Scottish aside, most people wouldn't have any more than three Scotland players in their team. Trappatoni couldn't turn Gary Caldwell and Christophe Berra into international standard defenders.

Only Supras could call a nations entire football history a cycle. Those Brazilians have had a good cycle whilst we're at it.


Ultimately, Scotland aren't too bad. There are football nations the same size that are just better now and probably always will be. Supras is delusional if he thinks differently, in fact it was this "we were good in the 70's so f**k making changes" attitude that's made Scotland fall behind.

Caldwell is having a brilliant second half of the season - far better than the utter pish Richard Dunne.

Erm, that's not the point I'm making at all. Small nations cannot consistently punch above their weight, Brazil are consistently good because they are the largest footballing nation in the world. They could easily produce 20 teams better than Scotland - because their population is 192 million and ours is 5 million.

Who are these nations? You seem to stop short of actually naming them. I think you are bit influenced by the fact you support ROI - but they have been consitently worse than us for what, 95% of the respective histories? There is a minor blip - caused entirely by ROI appointing a terrific manager.

And I don't think we really have fallen behind, the qualification system for WCs is set up to give nations like ours almost no chance of getting in. The Euros, when they expand, is something we should qualify for but in their current format we aren't the in the top 16 nations in Europe, and certainly shouldn't expect to get in. Other nations are getting better as football continues to penetrate other countries - but we certainly aren't getting any worse.

Scotland hasn't fallen behind at all, but undoubtedly our biggest barrier is the incredible negativity that surrounds everything attached to Scottish football or even society in general. We love to hate things, especially the things we love.

H_B, on 12 May 2012 - 08:47, said:

Well, you've just answered your own question in part. Appointing Trappatoni wasn't lucky. It was a calculated decision to give the country their best chance of performing well. Scotland could also do this, if we re-prioritised our spending.

And what you say above isn't true - as I said Ireland have been World Cup quarter finalists - Scotland, embarrassingly, have never emerged from the groups. There's a metric where Ireland outperform us.

Also Ireland reached the top 10 in the FIFA World Rankings. Something Scotland have never managed. And that's a smaller country, with a much poorer domestic league, where football is a much more marginal sport than in Scotland.

Yep, well, we should have done if the opportunity arose. The xenophobic argument cuts no water, get in an aging Italian masterclass - they produce so many excellent managers. What's Capello up to these days?

It's a pretty stupid metric to use though, it says that South Korea have outperformed Argentina and England over the past 20 years. Why not look at head to heads? Number of times qualified for major tournaments? Number of times winning the Home Championship? Even anecdotal - number of good players - the fact your good players tended to be English and Scottish cast offs.

Erm, I didn't even know that - and I don't think many Irish people would either - cause it's utterly meaningless. So, do you think Ireland have outperformed Scotland in footballing terms over the course of their history? Be specific - I'm really looking for a yes or no here.

[H_B]

Supras, on 12 May 2012 - 09:49, said:

. So, do you think Ireland have outperformed Scotland in footballing terms over the course of their history? Be specific - I'm really looking for a yes or no here.

No.

But Ireland have outperformed Scotland in the last 20 years and with seeding for qualification being so vital, that situation isn't likely to change any time soon.

Berti Vogts was a disaster for us - not only because he did poorly, but because it gives ammunition to the idiot "Only a Scot should manage the side" fans, who will burden us with dross like Levein and Burley for the foreseeable future.

We should be looking for the best available coach, and we should be reatly increasing the salary available for the role, at the expense of youth development if necessary.

[Supras]

H_B, on 12 May 2012 - 09:54, said:

No.

But Ireland have outperformed Scotland in the last 20 years and with seeding for qualification being so vital, that situation isn't likely to change any time soon.

Berti Vogts was a disaster for us - not only because he did poorly, but because it gives ammunition to the idiot "Only a Scot should manage the side" fans, who will burden us with dross like Levein and Burley for the foreseeable future.

We should be looking for the best available coach, and we should be reatly increasing the salary available for the role, at the expense of youth development if necessary.

I've just seen their record - 3 world cups and 2 ECs. That's a lot shitter than I thought it was

20 years, of 140 odd, it's exactly the kind of cycle I am talking about. And in the early 90s how many of their players were actually Irish and not Scottish/English cast aways?

I don't think Levein is that bad a manager at all really - and he could get better - but we would ideally be looking for an older hand with more international experience. I don't know how much Trap is paid but if Ireland can afford it - despite having effectively no domestic league - then we should easily match it.

[H_B]

Supras, on 12 May 2012 - 09:58, said:

I've just seen their record - 3 world cups and 2 ECs. That's a lot shitter than I thought it was

20 years, of 140 odd, it's exactly the kind of cycle I am talking about. And in the early 90s how many of their players were actually Irish and not Scottish/English cast aways?

That's the point though. International football's rules have changed greatly in the modern era. You have Poles playing for Germany and Scots playing for Ireland.

If Ireland had to rely on actual Irishmen, they'd be screwed and wouldn't have reached any finals tournament. But they don't - and neither do we.

Quote

I don't think Levein is that bad a manager at all really - and he could get better - but we would ideally be looking for an older hand with more international experience. I don't know how much Trap is paid but if Ireland can afford it - despite having effectively no domestic league - then we should easily match it.

Trappatoni is apparently paid a fortune, funded by "a private individual". Might even be Dermot Desmond of Celtic.

Maybe Sean Connery will stump up for Fabio.

[fueradejuego]

Supras, on 11 May 2012 - 23:48, said:

You always see it? Really? Cause I don't "always" see it. And if you watch any pro youth games you absolutely would not see it.

Again the running is just unsubstantiated and elitist, because Spain produce such magnificient Scotland focuses on the 1970s percentages game - which actually has no basis in reality. Look at the younger Scottish players coming through, how many of them can run but not pass? You said were too vertical - we're not even remotely vertical. Your statements about Scottish football seem to be based in ignorant condescension - not reality.




The coaching badges in Scotland are regarded as amongst the best in the world! (Second behind Italy). Were they primitive when AVB and Mourinho learned them? Whilst Lippi and SAF were the teachers? And the theoretical comment is again blatant elitism.



Er, well, consider it then. Post the figures. England are behind - we know that - but Scottish coaches have a worldwide reputation for excellence.

And surely you are not serious with your second comment? Scotland has six premiership managers, three times the number of English managers, three times the number of NI managers and 6 times the number of Spanish managers. Scotland is massively over represented when it comes to managers in the EPL. Even when it drops to 5 or even 4 we will still be massively over represented - our managers have done incredibly well and your criticism of Scottish managers is blatantly counter factual. Nor is it a statistical anomoly, Scotland has always produced far more excellent managers than our tiny populace would indicate - Spain should be learning from us in this regard.

I'll respond to this fully tomorrow but it's fair to say our understanding of football differs quite a bit.

Based upon my own knowledge and experience of the game in Scotland, I am content with my viewpoint.

If searching for improvement is going to be labelled as elitist, then I will happily be tarred with that particular brush all day long.

[Supras]

fueradejuego, on 12 May 2012 - 12:00, said:

I'll respond to this fully tomorrow but it's fair to say our understanding of football differs quite a bit.

Based upon my own knowledge and experience of the game in Scotland, I am content with my viewpoint.

If searching for improvement is going to be labelled as elitist, then I will happily be tarred with that particular brush all day long.

Uh, yes, it does. You think Spanish football is the ultimate and everyone does things that are anathema to them - regardless of the evidence.

Spain produce smaller stature technical players - Scotland produces 6,4 merchants who can run all the day but not pass (which we don't).
Spain focuses on technique at a younger age whilst Scotland prefers physical players to win youth international (which we don't).
Spain has excellent young coaches

Quote

We seem to produce a never ending succession of brain dead players who lack game intelligence. The ability to recognise a problem on the pitch and have the intelligence to try and resolve it.

And apparently our players are stupid too. Got any examples of these players?

This is the most galling point:

Quote

Yet if you look at Spain, there are a number of young managers coming through and progressing. Of course there are still foreign managers but many have been in the country for a long time having played there also such as Pochettino at Espanyol - player and now manager.

And this progression of young managers...doesn't happen in Scotland?

[FC_1919]

Got to agree with Supras here, some of the football the Pro Youth players I have seen this season have been different class. Supported by coaches of all ages encouraging the boys to pass the ball, yes some of the boys are good athletes but I am yet to see ability sacrificed for actually ability. It seems a bit of a myth to me anyway at pro youth level anyway, actual boys club football is a wee bit different but if you are 15 and not pro youth you are very unlikely to make it in football.

Also Queen's played in the reserve LC final yesterday, with a whole team of boys under 20, I would say there were 4 players over 6ft. The two centre backs, the left back and one winger, all are great athletes with the winger probably being the best athlete Queen's have on their books. But he can back that up with great close control, Hamiltons team was about the same and played some great football.

[fueradejuego]

Supras, on 11 May 2012 - 23:48, said:

You always see it? Really? Cause I don't "always" see it. And if you watch any pro youth games you absolutely would not see it.

Again the running is just unsubstantiated and elitist, because Spain produce such magnificient Scotland focuses on the 1970s percentages game - which actually has no basis in reality. Look at the younger Scottish players coming through, how many of them can run but not pass? You said were too vertical - we're not even remotely vertical. Your statements about Scottish football seem to be based in ignorant condescension - not reality.

Yes, in my experience. I have seen it often and still do.

Can I ask what your understanding of vertical is? I don't think it is the same as mine and we are not talking about the same thing as a consequence.


Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with being vertical. My problem is that we are solely vertical. I forgot the translation but in Argentinean football they talk about the "pause". This is the moment when normally the enganche puts his foot on the ball before playing the killer pass, slowing the game right down in the process.

With a mainly vertical approach, we limit ourselves and at higher levels we will concede possession needlessly.

Supras, on 11 May 2012 - 23:48, said:

The coaching badges in Scotland are regarded as amongst the best in the world! (Second behind Italy). Were they primitive when AVB and Mourinho learned them? Whilst Lippi and SAF were the teachers? And the theoretical comment is again blatant elitism.

Why is the theoretical comment blatant elitism?

A desire to have a greater understanding of the game is elitism? Yet across Europe, such an understanding is amongst the masses.

My comment regarding coaching was focussed on the youth element which I was taling about at the time.

The coaching badges at Largs are highly regarded. My only issue is thereafter foreign coaches return home and move around experiencing different cultures and styles whilst we remain within the UK.

I accept the game across the world is being homogenised but much can still be gleaned from working in different countries.

From a tactical perspective, working in Holland can be benefical due to the contratsing formations which are deployed.

Supras, on 11 May 2012 - 23:48, said:

Er, well, consider it then. Post the figures. England are behind - we know that - but Scottish coaches have a worldwide reputation for excellence.

And surely you are not serious with your second comment? Scotland has six premiership managers, three times the number of English managers, three times the number of NI managers and 6 times the number of Spanish managers. Scotland is massively over represented when it comes to managers in the EPL. Even when it drops to 5 or even 4 we will still be massively over represented - our managers have done incredibly well and your criticism of Scottish managers is blatantly counter factual. Nor is it a statistical anomoly, Scotland has always produced far more excellent managers than our tiny populace would indicate - Spain should be learning from us in this regard.

Why post the number of Scots managing in the Premiership? Because it suits your argument?

Why not post the number of Scots managing in European Leagues?

Is Stuart Baxter still kicking about? Jimmy Calderwood is in Holland. I cannot think of any else.

A measure of our excellence should be demonstrated by our exports. Look at the Dutch in that regard and guys like Van Gaal, Advocaat, Hiddink etc

Supras, on 12 May 2012 - 20:54, said:

Uh, yes, it does. You think Spanish football is the ultimate and everyone does things that are anathema to them - regardless of the evidence.

Spain produce smaller stature technical players - Scotland produces 6,4 merchants who can run all the day but not pass (which we don't).
Spain focuses on technique at a younger age whilst Scotland prefers physical players to win youth international (which we don't).
Spain has excellent young coaches

No, I use Spain as an example as I know more about players, clubs, managers etc than any other European league.

There is much that we can learn from Spain just as there is much that we can learn from other countries.

The one key issue that Spain does well, it does not discard young players who are physically small in stature whereas we still do. I have seen it happen.

Supras, on 12 May 2012 - 20:54, said:

And apparently our players are stupid too. Got any examples of these players?

Is this one of the occasions where a viewpoint opposing yours must produce clear statistics / evidence which meets your satisfaction?


Are you going to suggest that no player in senior Scottish football is lacking in intelligence?

[green and white]

We need to discard the win at all cost mentality. We need to stop trying to gain every single possible advantage as a replacement for technique and skill. Better facilities and better coaches. Success shouldn't be measured on how much you've won, just how much you are improving.

imo