Will Scotland ever be good again?

[DA Baracus]

Not sure if it's just because of how you've worded it, but Croatia have reached 2 World Cup semi finals.

Anyway, only 2 of the current Croatia squad play in Croatia (and one of them is the keeper). Perhaps they encourage their best players to move away at a young age, much like Uruguay do?

[Raidernation]

To answer the OP, nae, mibbies, nae we’re pish, aye cos Tierney is the new Peledonna Ronaldo!

[Peppino Impastato]

9 hours ago, forameus said:

But we shouldn't be exclusively playing older players until they're completley done and then bringing in untested any more than we should be just picking a team of teenagers just so they can get caps in the hope they do something.  The answer is always a middle ground - play the best combination of players that gives us the best chance of success.  If that means playing an 18 year old with genuine potential, fine.  If that means we play a starting eleven with an average age able to get free bus travel, fine.  

You can't just point to young players and hope, we have to be smarter than that.  Youth age groups need to be joined up far better with the senior squad to give a clear and obvious pathway so that there is no such thing as a truly untested player.  There shouldn't be a fanfare when someone gets promoted to the senior team, because they'll have been playing the same system  for years at U19 and U21.  They shouldn't be tossed in to the senior team at 19 with all the pressure that brings.

EDIT: The only instance I can think of of a team clearly and obviously sacking it and effectively starting over was Wales.  They were at a very low ebb (far , far lower than we are now), but also had the benefit of calling on players like Bale, Ramsay and Williams.  We definitely don't have anyone with Bale's talents, and I'm doubtful about the other two either.  Doing similar to Wales might work, but it's a massive, stupid risk.

Yeah huge risk, we could I dunno not qualify for anything for twenty years wouldn't that be awful.

[Peppino Impastato]

7 hours ago, ICTChris said:

I don't think that Andy Murray comes from a rich background but it's not poor either.  I think his dad works for RS McColl, as a regional manager or something like that, and Judy Murray is a tennis coach.  

There's obviously no easy answers to why a country like Croatia have had such success in football and Scotland haven't.   Since they began competing again hte mid 90s Croatia have reached one world cup final and  semi-final and two European Championship quarter finals and a last 16.  They've qualified for every tournament bar two (Euro 2000 and South Africa 2010) and have consistently produced quality players - it's not just one 'golden generation'.   Croatian football is poorly administered though - there's been significant problems with their association and allegations of corruption and favouritism are common. (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/07/how-luka-modric-and-dejan-lovren-got-caught-up-in-croatian-corruption-world-cup-football).  

There's also a good article about Croatian football on the BBC website - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44833318.  Having been on holiday there, I travelled about Dalmatia quite a bit and most of the football pitches you saw were pretty crappy, quite a few were just painted onto concrete playgrounds.  the article also states that you need to have been a professional footballer to become a qualified coach, which obviously hugely restricts the number of coaches.  It's not just football either - look at the success of Croatian tennis players like Ivanisevic, Cilic, Ljubicic, Majoli and others, who have either won Grand Slams or been at the top of the rankings, they seem to be a sporting nation, more than a lot of others.

 

All this pish about middle class is fucking nonsense.  I can tell you exactly why Croatia are successful and we're not.  Poverty.  All our best players have come from poor backgrounds, theirs too.  Poverty and hardship breeds hunger and makes tough people.  Middle class makes soft average players who play for Celtic.  Poverty breeds hard tough hungry players who are desperate to succeed.

[forameus]

8 hours ago, Peppino Impastato said:

Yeah huge risk, we could I dunno not qualify for anything for twenty years wouldn't that be awful.

Ah, so you're one of the morons that just wails "it cannae git any worse min!!!"!"!" then?  Figures.  

We haven't qualified for 20 years, which is obviously not good.  But to throw all the toys out and suggest that that is as bad as it can get is short-sighted at best, and downright moronic at slighty-less-best.  It's not even as if we haven't seen it before - in fairly recent years we've been much, much worse.  Weren't we the first team to be eliminated from a qualifying campaign not so long ago?  As in, earlier than some of the super-diddies?  And that's not even as bad as it could get.

That's where the huge risk comes in.  We could do a Wales and throw 11 young players together and pretend like results don't matter, but that's not really realistic is it?  They could end up qualifying for the first time in 2 decades, or, more likely, they end up getting cuffed because they're - quel surprise - not ready.  Tanking our seedings and rankings and making sure that qualifying campaigns are even harder next time around.

If we were finishing dead last in our group every campaign, then I'd be far, far more inclined to agree to try something more radical.  I don't think it's going to take anything like that to get two more points against Lithuania/Georgia.

8 hours ago, Peppino Impastato said:

All this pish about middle class is fucking nonsense.  I can tell you exactly why Croatia are successful and we're not.  Poverty.  All our best players have come from poor backgrounds, theirs too.  Poverty and hardship breeds hunger and makes tough people.  Middle class makes soft average players who play for Celtic.  Poverty breeds hard tough hungry players who are desperate to succeed.

Genius!  Just make everyone poor and we'll win the World Cup!

[pandarilla]

All this pish about middle class is fucking nonsense.  I can tell you exactly why Croatia are successful and we're not.  Poverty.  All our best players have come from poor backgrounds, theirs too.  Poverty and hardship breeds hunger and makes tough people.  Middle class makes soft average players who play for Celtic.  Poverty breeds hard tough hungry players who are desperate to succeed.

So are you saying Scotland doesn't have enough poverty?

[TheScarf]

My word.

[forameus]

I can just imagine Pep's Scotland.  Food banks on every street corner, kids fighting each other for the last steak bake, a loaf of bread costing five million shortbread.  It'll be worth it for qualification ah tell you wit.

[The Moonster]

What a fucking muppet.

[54_and_counting]

58 minutes ago, forameus said:

Ah, so you're one of the morons that just wails "it cannae git any worse min!!!"!"!" then?  Figures.  

We haven't qualified for 20 years, which is obviously not good.  But to throw all the toys out and suggest that that is as bad as it can get is short-sighted at best, and downright moronic at slighty-less-best.  It's not even as if we haven't seen it before - in fairly recent years we've been much, much worse.  Weren't we the first team to be eliminated from a qualifying campaign not so long ago?  As in, earlier than some of the super-diddies?  And that's not even as bad as it could get.

That's where the huge risk comes in.  We could do a Wales and throw 11 young players together and pretend like results don't matter, but that's not really realistic is it?  They could end up qualifying for the first time in 2 decades, or, more likely, they end up getting cuffed because they're - quel surprise - not ready.  Tanking our seedings and rankings and making sure that qualifying campaigns are even harder next time around.

If we were finishing dead last in our group every campaign, then I'd be far, far more inclined to agree to try something more radical.  I don't think it's going to take anything like that to get two more points against Lithuania/Georgia.

Genius!  Just make everyone poor and we'll win the World Cup!

Who said throw 11 uncapped youngsters in? 

[forameus]

18 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

Who said throw 11 uncapped youngsters in? 

Plenty have.  You didn't, granted, you said just pick the 6 or 7 guys with most potential.  Which would be fine as long as "best" meant better than what we could  otherwise field.  Which we would likely do if our players were good enough.  Our U21s are hardly tearing up trees, in fact they seem to have regressed.  

I'm just totally against using hope as our driving force.  I'm not convinced there's any player currently not getting a game that could genuinely improve us for now, and I would be against playing them in the hope that that changes, because I doubt having 10 games every eighteen months is really going to do much.

[54_and_counting]

Just now, forameus said:

Plenty have.  You didn't, granted, you said just pick the 6 or 7 guys with most potential.  Which would be fine as long as "best" meant better than what we could  otherwise field.  Which we would likely do if our players were good enough.  Our U21s are hardly tearing up trees, in fact they seem to have regressed.  

I'm just totally against using hope as our driving force.  I'm not convinced there's any player currently not getting a game that could genuinely improve us for now, and I would be against playing them in the hope that that changes, because I doubt having 10 games every eighteen months is really going to do much.

If Scotland doesnt have anybody better than an 1 cap 29yo from fulham who didnt get a look in for 8 years after he finished his u21 stint, then they really are in trouble

Also remember there probably is a few gems in the unders, playing with more experienced and better players around them will help them develop, tierney and robertson have proved that, so now itz their turn to help develop the less experienced guys 

Our Southern neighbours done it, rashford, kane and sterling, 3 main front men, have 25, 30 and 44 caps respectively, oldest is kane at 24, these guys were blended in alongside older guys like defoe, rooney etc, they learned from them and now they are leading the team, 

Pretty much all the top teams have young guys with loads of caps that were trained up effectively by the older guys, yet Scotland instead cap a 29yo who was ditched 8 years ago after his u21 years, 

[forameus]

1 minute ago, 54_and_counting said:

If Scotland doesnt have anybody better than an 1 cap 29yo from fulham who didnt get a look in for 8 years after he finished his u21 stint, then they really are in trouble

Also remember there probably is a few gems in the unders, playing with more experienced and better players around them will help them develop, tierney and robertson have proved that, so now itz their turn to help develop the less experienced guys 

Our Southern neighbours done it, rashford, kane and sterling, 3 main front men, have 25, 30 and 44 caps respectively, oldest is kane at 24, these guys were blended in alongside older guys like defoe, rooney etc, they learned from them and now they are leading the team, 

Pretty much all the top teams have young guys with loads of caps that were trained up effectively by the older guys, yet Scotland instead cap a 29yo who was ditched 8 years ago after his u21 years, 

So where are these "gems" then?  Again you've mentioned Rashford, Kane and Sterling - they're playing because they're largely the best options.  If you can identify the players that deserve to be playing and aren't, then fair enough.  But instead it just seems we're getting that there's "probably" players out there, and that "there must be someone better".  Where are they then?

[KHVRN]

Its pretty much all we need to do at this point, We have a great pool of young talent and we dont use it.

Just pick a full team of young guys and let them get playing together regularly and by next world cup they will be more experienced and better chemistry and puts us in a far better position going forward.

Problem with Scotland across the board is the fact that we dont promote the youth structure as much as we could, it needs to change.

[54_and_counting]

4 minutes ago, forameus said:

So where are these "gems" then?  Again you've mentioned Rashford, Kane and Sterling - they're playing because they're largely the best options.  If you can identify the players that deserve to be playing and aren't, then fair enough.  But instead it just seems we're getting that there's "probably" players out there, and that "there must be someone better".  Where are they then?

So when sterling made his debut in 2012, england didn't have better than him, sorry mate but thats a lot of rubbish, he got games early because england knew he would be part of their future and they got him involved early

Rashford made his debut when he was 18, at that point england could call on guys like Rooney, vardy, sterling, defoe and even sturridge, but they knew rashford had a big future ahead of him and got him involved early 

Kane aged 21 brought into the England fold over guys like defoe etc, he now has 30 caps in 3 years, only 10 of them at most coming in major finals, so he'd still have 20 caps 

Yet take leigh griffiths, 17 caps in 6 years, first cap in 2012, 2nd cap 2 years later, 

Do you see a failing here, one team spots their future stars and gets them experience as soon as possible, the other team thinks that playing experienced failures instead is a better option, 

Do you think england would have made the semis this summer if guys like kane, stones, rashford, pickford etc all went to russia with one or two caps to their name? 

 

[JamesM82]

7 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

So when sterling made his debut in 2012, england didn't have better than him, sorry mate but thats a lot of rubbish, he got games early because england knew he would be part of their future and they got him involved early

Rashford made his debut when he was 18, at that point england could call on guys like Rooney, vardy, sterling, defoe and even sturridge, but they knew rashford had a big future ahead of him and got him involved early 

Kane aged 21 brought into the England fold over guys like defoe etc, he now has 30 caps in 3 years, only 10 of them at most coming in major finals, so he'd still have 20 caps 

Yet take leigh griffiths, 17 caps in 6 years, first cap in 2012, 2nd cap 2 years later, 

Do you see a failing here, one team spots their future stars and gets them experience as soon as possible, the other team thinks that playing experienced failures instead is a better option, 

Do you think england would have made the semis this summer if guys like kane, stones, rashford, pickford etc all went to russia with one or two caps to their name? 

 

Pickford had 3 caps before the World Cup started.

Trippier had 7 caps.

Maguire had 5 caps.

That's three of their first choice XI right through the tournament, and arguably their three best performers.

Edited July 19, 2018 by JamesM82

[forameus]

1 minute ago, 54_and_counting said:

So when sterling made his debut in 2012, england didn't have better than him, sorry mate but thats a lot of rubbish, he got games early because england knew he would be part of their future and they got him involved early

Rashford made his debut when he was 18, at that point england could call on guys like Rooney, vardy, sterling, defoe and even sturridge, but they knew rashford had a big future ahead of him and got him involved early 

Kane aged 21 brought into the England fold over guys like defoe etc, he now has 30 caps in 3 years, only 10 of them at most coming in major finals, so he'd still have 20 caps 

And all 3 of them had clear and obvious talent, that is far clearer than any option we have.  That's why they were involved early.

2 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

Yet take leigh griffiths, 17 caps in 6 years, first cap in 2012, 2nd cap 2 years later

 

And by the time he was the clear and undisputed best option, he was the first name on the team-sheet.  In his early caps he looked utterly lost, and couldn't displace the desperately poor options we had elsewhere.  Getting another 15 caps over the intervening years wasn't going to make him into a superstar.

2 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

Do you see a failing here, one team spots their future stars and gets them experience as soon as possible, the other team thinks that playing experienced failures instead is a better option, 

Quite honestly no.  You're acting like we're physically blocking these superstars from being involved, when it's pretty clear that if we think we spot talent, we do bring them in.  Oliver Burke looked like he would be that guy, and it's since turned out that we got it dreadfully wrong and he wasn't even remotely ready.  

And the shining example of the tired, old "repeated failures" argument has already been mentioned - Wales ripped it up and started again, and were still incredible failures until they weren't.  

5 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

Do you think england would have made the semis this summer if guys like kane, stones, rashford, pickford etc all went to russia with one or two caps to their name? 

Yes, I do.

30 minutes ago, forameus said:

So where are these "gems" then?  Again you've mentioned Rashford, Kane and Sterling - they're playing because they're largely the best options.  If you can identify the players that deserve to be playing and aren't, then fair enough.  But instead it just seems we're getting that there's "probably" players out there, and that "there must be someone better".  Where are they then?

So would you like to make an attempt at answering this now?

[velo army]

Also England know they’re going to walk qualification as they’re the top seeds, so can afford to blood guys like Rashford (Man Utd) and Sterling (Liverpool). Also, as had been asked before, who are these young players we should be playing who aren’t being played? We were close to getting to the playoffs (if Armstrong plays a pass to the left against England we win and are two points better off) and came close last time too (jammy flukey last minute equaliser to Poland).  So I don’t reckon we need to be too radical. 

Project brave can probably get tae though.

[Sergeant Wilson]

3 minutes ago, velo army said:

We were close to getting to the playoffs (if Armstrong plays a pass to the left against England we win and are two points better off) and came close last time too (jammy flukey last minute equaliser to Poland).  

Football? If it's not one thing it's another.

[forameus]

53 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Football? If it's not one thing it's another.

Yet it doesn't change the fact that we were one slightly-less-shite result away from getting the playoffs.  Doesn't really necessitate the scorched Earth approach does it?  I don't think we necessarily need to torch the vast majority of our squad just to gain at least two more points.  Not being such unimaginative shitebags against Lithuania would have done that.

Edited July 19, 2018 by forameus