Will Scotland ever be good again?

[forameus]

24 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Qualifying for the World Cup

So how do you go from being a point away from the playoffs in two campaigns running (admittedly one not the World Cup, and admittedly we could well have been papped out in the playoffs) to saying that we're never going to be "decent" ever again?  Fair enough if we were back in the days of finishing 4th/5th in groups and one of the first nations to be eliminated, but we've improved massively from those dark days.  Seems pretty defeatist from where we are now.

I can see where you're coming from, although I think it's harsh to have World Cup Qualification as the benchmark.  Qualifying for a European Championship should be the absolute minimum, but even once the World Cup expands it's likely to be a very tough task to get there as it always is from Europe.   Not impossible, of course.  Euro 2020 should be achievable, and from there our seedings should be good enough that we should be in a better group for 2022 qualifying than we've had in a while.

But at the end of the day it's all cyclical.  We're on the up from where we were a few years ago, but there's no telling how much further "up" it can go.  Maybe losing in Slovenia was the peak, or maybe we're going to win our Nations League Group and then render it pointless by finishing top 2 in our qualifying group.  

[RobbieD]

On 7/12/2018 at 23:36, GordonS said:

I don't think it's a coincidence that most of Scotland's genuinely elite level sportspeople in recent years - Andy Murray, Chris Hoy, Laura Muir, Kathleen Grainger among others - are middle class and from supportive families. I think people from a culture of striving for success, hard work and pressure are more likely to have the personal skills to push themselves on. You can't be eating fish suppers, going out drinking with your mates and be a top professional in physical sports any more. Andy Murray begged his parents to send him to Spain, he sacrificed his teenage years in his drive to reach the top, without any guarantees that it would work.

(For the record, I grew up 100% schemie). 

Good point that's gone uncommented on here.  It's not a coincidence that the top Scottish stars have been from middle class (or higher) backgrounds.  I feel like your reasoning is way off though.  They've had better opportunities to get better and become elite because of their backgrounds and the luxuries that brings.  I see young boys who are desperate just to play at some level of football who can't afford trainers, never mind boots, kit or paying for pitch time or subs for local teams.  How are young boys from poor backgrounds meant to show any sort of potential to the elite when they don't get the same breaks in life.  It's not debatable either.  The idea they are less motivated and don't work as hard is really an insult.  Most are doing the best with what they got.  I grew up with boys who were far more talented  players than I was but I got more open trials because they couldn't afford the bus fares or had to help family businesses.  I never got opportunities because I wanted it more than they did.  Quite the opposite.  They were far more willing to sacrifice than I was.  None of us were going to any academy centres unless it was going to be free.  Never going to be though is it?   The boys trying to make it now aren't going boozing at 13 or 14.  They are being told they aren't going to make it for whatever the reasons are though.  That doesn't happen in Iceland, Sweden, Croatia, Slovakia or any other similar size country.  And most of the eastern european or balkan nations producing top players aren't from the middle classes either.  

I'd doubt Murray, Hoy, Muir, etc would have made it to their levels if they grew up in single parent families or low income council homes.  They'd probably still be as hungry to make it though.  

Just my two pence anyway.

[54_and_counting]

11 hours ago, forameus said:

That's all well and good to say, but you've just named four players who are absolutely fucking miles ahead of anything we have.  Eden Hazard would be a Ballon D'Or winner if he wasn't in an era with two of the best players ever.  Raheem Sterling is probably the weakest of the 4, but still a tremendous player.  Mbappe will be the best in the World barring any sort of catastrophe, and Perisic is easily one of the best in his country.   If there are players of that kind of quality in our ranks, they would be getting played.

When this argument comes out people seem to forget that we tried to do it in one notable occasion.  Oliver Burke.  We brought him in while completely skipping the U21s, and had it worked out he would be an ever-present.  Strangely enough, he was nowhere near ready, and now looks like he may well be the type to end up with single figure caps until a later age when he might be more ready.

I quoted they players because they are mainstays in their teams, im not saying scotland will have world cup finalists or something but surely giving younger guys game time cant be bad

[Peppino Impastato]

13 hours ago, forameus said:

That's all well and good to say, but you've just named four players who are absolutely fucking miles ahead of anything we have.  Eden Hazard would be a Ballon D'Or winner if he wasn't in an era with two of the best players ever.  Raheem Sterling is probably the weakest of the 4, but still a tremendous player.  Mbappe will be the best in the World barring any sort of catastrophe, and Perisic is easily one of the best in his country.   If there are players of that kind of quality in our ranks, they would be getting played.

When this argument comes out people seem to forget that we tried to do it in one notable occasion.  Oliver Burke.  We brought him in while completely skipping the U21s, and had it worked out he would be an ever-present.  Strangely enough, he was nowhere near ready, and now looks like he may well be the type to end up with single figure caps until a later age when he might be more ready.

It's totally irrelevant to the point how good hazard is.  All the Scottish young players have to be is better than the alternatives, not as good as hazard.

[Peppino Impastato]

9 hours ago, craigkillie said:

 

These players have loads of caps because they're very good rather than being very good because they won loads of caps.  If any of those players were Scottish they'd already have that many caps if not more (aside from the fact that we often play far fewer games due to not qualifying for stuff).  Any time an exciting young player has burst on to the scene, we've been more than happy to give them a chance at an early age.

Who are these mystical Scotland players who should have been given tons more caps at an early age?  In terms of real top quality players, there haven't been a lot in recent years.  Darren Fletcher made his debut at 18 and won 80 caps for Scotland.  It would likely have been well over 100 had we qualified for major tournaments and had he not had his issues with illness.  You can say the same for Craig Gordon, whose debut came at 21 and who has over 50 caps despite missing years and years through injury.

Looking at some of the younger members of the current squad, Kieran Tierney made his debut at 18 and has basically immediately established himself as a first choice, only missing games through injury.  Andy Robertson made his debut at 19 and aside from ludicrously being dropped for a few games by Strachan, he's been a regular pick.  Oliver Burke was thrown in at 18 and was picked from the start in a couple of qualifiers in the last campaign but hasn't really done it for club or country since.  James Forrest was picked at 19 and was consistently picked in the team despite many complaints that he wasn't good enough.  Even Grant Hanley was flung in at 19 and has picked up a load of caps despite never really living up to his promise.  You can put Barry Bannan in a similar category - plenty of caps based on his early promise, but ultimately his career never really took off.

 

 

Stuart Armstrong made his debut at 25.  You're talking out of your arse and just listing the handful of exceptions.  Scotland have been guilty of this for decades.  The success stories you list Gordon and Fletcher it took a fkn German manager to do that.

 

Lee griffiths only got established with Scotland six months ago aged 26 lol, he's been our best striker for about five years.

[KHVRN]

If Scotland finally realise thay we have a great pool of young talent in our ranks and start playing them and letting them develop and play together consistently i firmly believe well have a good young side more than capable of qualifying for a major tournament. Time we dropped the likes of Mulgrew and them. they dont have the legs to keep up anymore.

[pandarilla]

Good point that's gone uncommented on here.  It's not a coincidence that the top Scottish stars have been from middle class (or higher) backgrounds.  I feel like your reasoning is way off though.  They've had better opportunities to get better and become elite because of their backgrounds and the luxuries that brings.  I see young boys who are desperate just to play at some level of football who can't afford trainers, never mind boots, kit or paying for pitch time or subs for local teams.  How are young boys from poor backgrounds meant to show any sort of potential to the elite when they don't get the same breaks in life.  It's not debatable either.  The idea they are less motivated and don't work as hard is really an insult.  Most are doing the best with what they got.  I grew up with boys who were far more talented  players than I was but I got more open trials because they couldn't afford the bus fares or had to help family businesses.  I never got opportunities because I wanted it more than they did.  Quite the opposite.  They were far more willing to sacrifice than I was.  None of us were going to any academy centres unless it was going to be free.  Never going to be though is it?   The boys trying to make it now aren't going boozing at 13 or 14.  They are being told they aren't going to make it for whatever the reasons are though.  That doesn't happen in Iceland, Sweden, Croatia, Slovakia or any other similar size country.  And most of the eastern european or balkan nations producing top players aren't from the middle classes either.  
I'd doubt Murray, Hoy, Muir, etc would have made it to their levels if they grew up in single parent families or low income council homes.  They'd probably still be as hungry to make it though.  
Just my two pence anyway.

Interesting point about why kids from challenging backgrounds don't make it through regularly.

I take your point but how do you explain success from those areas in the past? When they still couldn't afford the best boots or play on decent facilities?

I think there is an attitude issue out there - but it certainly isn't responsible for everything. It's complicated. But I see lots of opportunities for kids who can't be bothered taking them (not just in football).

[MarkoRaj]

If being middle class had anything to do with Murray's tennis success he wouldn't be the first British Wimbledon champion in about 90 years

Edited July 18, 2018 by MarkoRaj

[forameus]

9 hours ago, Peppino Impastato said:

It's totally irrelevant to the point how good hazard is.  All the Scottish young players have to be is better than the alternatives, not as good as hazard.

The point was that this player has a lot of caps.  He has a lot of caps because he's really quite good, and given Belgium usually qualify he reaches tournaments.  We don't have anyone head and shoulders above like he is (apart from probably Tierney and Robertson, who haven't been around for that long relatively.  They'll end up with a huge number of caps, particularly if we start qualifying.

So, aye, it wasn't really irrelevant, was it?

[pandarilla]

If being middle class had anything to do with Murray's tennis success he wouldn't be the first British Wimbledon champion in about 90 years

Why? What do you mean?

I thought he was from a middle class background?

[DA Baracus]

1 minute ago, pandarilla said:

Why? What do you mean?

I thought he was from a middle class background?

He means there were countless other British tennis players before Murray who were middle class but didn't win Wimbledon

[EH75]

1 minute ago, pandarilla said:

Why? What do you mean?

I thought he was from a middle class background?

I think he's alluding to the fact that most of the other British tennis players for the last 90 years have been even more middle class than Murray but they won f**k all. The point being that being middle class is no guarantee of success (it probably helps though). Also I dunno how middle class he actually is. I mean alright his parents sent him to Spain for his training but I think they had to sacrifice a lot to do so. If Scottish footballers got packed off to the Barcelona training centre for their teenage years they'd probably end up much better players anaw. 

[The Moonster]

42 minutes ago, EH75 said:

I think he's alluding to the fact that most of the other British tennis players for the last 90 years have been even more middle class than Murray but they won f**k all. The point being that being middle class is no guarantee of success (it probably helps though). Also I dunno how middle class he actually is. I mean alright his parents sent him to Spain for his training but I think they had to sacrifice a lot to do so. If Scottish footballers got packed off to the Barcelona training centre for their teenage years they'd probably end up much better players anaw. 

Can't get a cheeky Nando's in Spain though, nae chance our lads are off there.

[Peppino Impastato]

2 hours ago, KHVRN said:

If Scotland finally realise thay we have a great pool of young talent in our ranks and start playing them and letting them develop and play together consistently i firmly believe well have a good young side more than capable of qualifying for a major tournament. Time we dropped the likes of Mulgrew and them. they dont have the legs to keep up anymore.

Exactly.  Get mulgrew right to fk a year ago, typical Scotland loads of good cbs coming through and we're hanging our hat on a 32 year old midfielder who plays in league one.  Laughable.

[54_and_counting]

5 hours ago, forameus said:

The point was that this player has a lot of caps.  He has a lot of caps because he's really quite good, and given Belgium usually qualify he reaches tournaments.  We don't have anyone head and shoulders above like he is (apart from probably Tierney and Robertson, who haven't been around for that long relatively.  They'll end up with a huge number of caps, particularly if we start qualifying.

So, aye, it wasn't really irrelevant, was it?

Yes and funnily enough both have grown in the team and are better players for it, 

However, picking older players that have failed time and time again to qualify for tournaments doesnt help matters when they all get too old and scotland need to bring in untested players, these guys usually are mid twenties with no caps and no international experience, and then fans wonder why they dont qualify for anything

Hell check the full belgian team, their back 3 that lost to france in the semi have 273 caps between then, not one of them is older than 32

The point im trying to make is that Scotland dont have a successful team, so why not pick the 6 or 7 best guys who have the best potential and start playing them now, guys like gauld (aye he's not playing much club football but the level of training he's had is probably miles better than back here, least that's what is used in defense of him in his thread) 

Build something from scratch, simply replacing one old retiree with a 29yo who's never been capped before is like putting a plaster over a stab wound

[Peppino Impastato]

3 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

Yes and funnily enough both have grown in the team and are better players for it, 

However, picking older players that have failed time and time again to qualify for tournaments doesnt help matters when they all get too old and scotland need to bring in untested players, these guys usually are mid twenties with no caps and no international experience, and then fans wonder why they dont qualify for anything

Hell check the full belgian team, their back 3 that lost to france in the semi have 273 caps between then, not one of them is older than 32

The point im trying to make is that Scotland dont have a successful team, so why not pick the 6 or 7 best guys who have the best potential and start playing them now, guys like gauld (aye he's not playing much club football but the level of training he's had is probably miles better than back here, least that's what is used in defense of him in his thread) 

Build something from scratch, simply replacing one old retiree with a 29yo who's never been capped before is like putting a plaster over a stab wound

Exactly.  Get rid of anyone over 28 and build a team.

[forameus]

5 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

Yes and funnily enough both have grown in the team and are better players for it, 

However, picking older players that have failed time and time again to qualify for tournaments doesnt help matters when they all get too old and scotland need to bring in untested players, these guys usually are mid twenties with no caps and no international experience, and then fans wonder why they dont qualify for anything

Hell check the full belgian team, their back 3 that lost to france in the semi have 273 caps between then, not one of them is older than 32

The point im trying to make is that Scotland dont have a successful team, so why not pick the 6 or 7 best guys who have the best potential and start playing them now, guys like gauld (aye he's not playing much club football but the level of training he's had is probably miles better than back here, least that's what is used in defense of him in his thread) 

Build something from scratch, simply replacing one old retiree with a 29yo who's never been capped before is like putting a plaster over a stab wound

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.

Edited July 18, 2018 by forameus

[54_and_counting]

1 minute 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.

Why not toss them in, chances are they are regularly playing club football which brings weekly pressures, probably more than internationals would at that age

As for the middle ground, thats why i said the best 6 or 7 potential players, let some of the older guys coach them through, then they become the coaches, Scotland recently capped a 29yo, is scottish football that bad that there isnt one younger striker who can be tried and blended into the squad, or are scotland too afraid to try something radical, other countries have done it, why not scotland? 

[JamesM82]

11 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

Yes and funnily enough both have grown in the team and are better players for it, 

However, picking older players that have failed time and time again to qualify for tournaments doesnt help matters when they all get too old and scotland need to bring in untested players, these guys usually are mid twenties with no caps and no international experience, and then fans wonder why they dont qualify for anything

Hell check the full belgian team, their back 3 that lost to france in the semi have 273 caps between then, not one of them is older than 32

The point im trying to make is that Scotland dont have a successful team, so why not pick the 6 or 7 best guys who have the best potential and start playing them now, guys like gauld (aye he's not playing much club football but the level of training he's had is probably miles better than back here, least that's what is used in defense of him in his thread) 

Build something from scratch, simply replacing one old retiree with a 29yo who's never been capped before is like putting a plaster over a stab wound

If you followed that approach our team would basically be the under-21 team, who have recently drawn games with illustrious opponents such as Andorra and Latvia, plus Tierney and Robertson (I assume). That wouldn't get us anywhere.

If the younger players are that good they will force their way in.

[ICTChris]

7 hours ago, EH75 said:

I think he's alluding to the fact that most of the other British tennis players for the last 90 years have been even more middle class than Murray but they won f**k all. The point being that being middle class is no guarantee of success (it probably helps though). Also I dunno how middle class he actually is. I mean alright his parents sent him to Spain for his training but I think they had to sacrifice a lot to do so. If Scottish footballers got packed off to the Barcelona training centre for their teenage years they'd probably end up much better players anaw. 

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.