Next Scotland Manager

[HibeeJibee]

It's a fair point.

If he has to miss a few weeks this year, but can choose when and is keeping playing... why the Scotland internationals in early June, opposed to (say) the post-split fixtures, or mid-June to early/mid-July i.e. initial part of Celtic's pre-season.

Edited May 2, 2019 by HibeeJibee

[Gordopolis]

1 hour ago, Savage Henry said:

Presumably; don't have the operation that trained medical staff and your employers have advised you that you need.  Instead, go away and play football for free and risk further injury.  

Or: have the operation now instead of playing more (meaningless) club matches while injured. Come back in time for the Scotland games and then have a full summer off.

[morrison1982]

8 minutes ago, Gordopolis said:

Or: have the operation now instead of playing more (meaningless) club matches while injured. Come back in time for the Scotland games and then have a full summer off.

if he has the 3-4 week operation now he would definitely miss the cup final and would be doubtful for the Scotland games anyway.

That's accepting the dubious notion that Celtic's remaining league games are meaningless. It wouldn't take a ridiculous series of results for the league title to go to the final day. The only unlikely one is Aberdeen beating Celtic on Saturday, given Aberdeen's lack of form and injury problems. If Rangers then win their following two games (at home v Hibs and Celtic) they would be three points behind Celtic, but with a better goal difference, going into the final round.

Edited May 2, 2019 by morrison1982

[Kuro]

3 hours ago, Big Fifer said:

I prefer the latter personally, for the same reasons as I'd rather less of the "top 4 from each of the top leagues" entering into the champions league. Some people would rather see an effectively closed shop in the CL but with better teams. I'd rather more variation of teams to keep it interesting, and its the same as the world cup. I think the number of people that share my views on that, especially the CL bit, are slowly fading away mind. 

The aim of any qualification tournament should be to.identify the best teams.  Nothing more. 

Even if you don't agree with that you must agree any sporting event has to be fair, you don't say to golfers well golf isn't very big in your country so you can play from fees fifty yards in front of tiger woods cause it's massive in his. 

It's corruption pure and simple, they are just buying votes to stay in their positions.  UEFA is heavily discriminated against for being good and making the game what it is and it's just not fair.  I

All I want is for Scotland to be given an equal chance to anyone else not preferential treatment, and that clearly isn't the case right now.

[Kuro]

3 hours ago, M0rtonfc said:

So Euro 96 was an easy tourny for Germany then aye? We know the rest of his career isn't the best but he won that in 96 which is more than Moyes has ever done, that's the point several people have tried pointing out to you.

The point is nonsense.  I can't even be bothered explaining to you.  Moyes record shits all over vogts.

[Kuro]

3 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

Presumably; don't have the operation that trained medical staff and your employers have advised you that you need.  Instead, go away and play football for free and risk further injury.  

They can shedule it.whenever they want don't be so naive.  He could have it now but is delaying it to play for celtic, he could delay it to play for Scotland too but Celtic want him back for their qualifier against a team from Iceland or something.  My answer would be no problem, take the next three years off Scotland duty make sure.you're properly rested.

[Kuro]

2 hours ago, morrison1982 said:

if he has the 3-4 week operation now he would definitely miss the cup final and would be doubtful for the Scotland games anyway.

That's accepting the dubious notion that Celtic's remaining league games are meaningless. It wouldn't take a ridiculous series of results for the league title to go to the final day. The only unlikely one is Aberdeen beating Celtic on Saturday, given Aberdeen's lack of form and injury problems. If Rangers then win their following two games (at home v Hibs and Celtic) they would be three points behind Celtic, but with a better goal difference, going into the final round.

Shut up, Celtic need one point from three games.  They don't need Tierney for that.

[craigkillie]

8 hours ago, nsr said:

It was bad enough when Australia were still in Oceania as at least New Zealand could occasionally give them a game. Now giving Oceania a guaranteed spot is identical to giving New Zealand a bye into the tournament.

If WC places were actually decided on the merit of the continents' performances, you'd be looking at almost all of South America plus half of Europe. Africa, North America and Asia would have a couple of teams each. Oceania could get in the ocean.

I wouldn't say it's an absolute given that New Zealand will always win it - there are other countries who have the potential to run them close given a bit of luck.

New Caledonia beat them in the OFC Nations Cup in 2012 (which led to the farce of Tahiti playing at the Confederations Cup and getting pumped 10-0 by Spain). In the 2016 Nations Cup they only beat New Caledonia 1-0 in the semis and then beat Papua New Guinea on penalties in the final. Going further back, the Solomon Islands finished ahead of them in the 2006 World Cup Qualifying table (but lost to Australia in the final).

It's obviously not a perfect indicator, since some of their best players play overseas and some of the domestic ones play for Wellington in the A League, but both New Zealand sides were beaten in the OFC Champions League semi-finals by clubs from New Caledonia.

Everyone in Oceania is utter pish and it would definitely be beneficial for all parties if they were lumped in with Asia for qualifying. I've argued for a while that it would be better to only have 4 regions for qualifying - Europe, Africa, The Americas and Asia/Oceania, and to have several places decided by intercontinental play-offs.

 

[Bing.McCrosby]

Wtf I'd the sfa actually doing, how long is this now?

Nobody interviewed (as far as we know) games imminent.

The whole timeline and process is a joke.

[nsr]

23 hours ago, Estragon said:

This is an interesting debate, albeit one that has no real conclusion.  Whether the WC should be contested between the 32 best teams on the planet, or whether there should be attempts made to make it as globally diverse as possible.  FIFA, for now, seems to lean towards the latter, but both arguments have merit IMO.

Global diversity is all very well, but it doesn't change the fact that dross teams from North America, Asia and Oceania can get in while equally dross teams from South America and Europe haven't a hope in hell.

Either make it properly diverse (by I suppose completely randomising the qualifiers across the world) or make it properly based on merit (which would almost certainly give us a permanently closed shop).

[Estragon]

34 minutes ago, nsr said:

Global diversity is all very well, but it doesn't change the fact that dross teams from North America, Asia and Oceania can get in while equally dross teams from South America and Europe haven't a hope in hell.

Either make it properly diverse (by I suppose completely randomising the qualifiers across the world) or make it properly based on merit (which would almost certainly give us a permanently closed shop).

Wouldn't that make it less diverse?  If the qualifiers were totally randomised I can't see how there'd ever be as many Asian/African/North American teams get there as do just now.

Anyway, there's little to worry about, the governing bodies continue to rehash these things with the sole motivation of getting Scotland back there.  Introduction of the NL/expansion to 48 at the WC.

[nsr]

4 minutes ago, Estragon said:

Wouldn't that make it less diverse?  If the qualifiers were totally randomised I can't see how there'd ever be as many Asian/African/North American teams get there as do just now.

It would give everyone the same chance of qualifying, which would be a very small chance if you weren't very good. That seems a bit fairer than an accident of geography.

[forameus]

While it might give us a better chance of qualifying, I can't really think of much less interesting than the World Cup becoming some international version of the Champions League, with the same nations - barring a few exceptions - playing every 4 years.  Tournaments are made more interesting by having unusual - and likely diddy - teams in it.  Purists can scoff all they want, and watch re-runs of some semi-final with one shot on target between two "giants", but I'd far rather watch a mental game between two unfancied sides.  The last Euros should have been proof of that.

If anything changes, make it a completely unseeded single-game knockout draw across the entire world.  

[craigkillie]

I don't see how making it fully international would mean that the same nations were involved every time. By that logic, the same nations would qualify every time from the individual continents, which doesn't happen. Under any system you could dream up, only a handful of the best countries would be immune from missing out.

Teams go through peaks and trophs naturally - it's not like club football where the richest clubs can just throw money at their problems. The Netherlands made the 2010 World Cup final and the 2014 semis, but managed to fail to qualify for a 24 team European Championship. Given their travails in World Cup qualifying, I doubt they would have had a great chance of making it regardless of what system was employed.

If anything, it would make the tournament more diverse. At the moment it is basically impossible for Argentina or Brazil not to qualify - they've had some utter dreck teams over previous campaigns but given that 5 of the 8 competent nations in South America qualify they make it anyway. The same goes for Mexico or Japan or South Korea.

I think there should be some spots allocated to the confederations (maybe about half of the total available spaces) to ensure that every continent is still represented in some way, but I'd also like to see much more in the way of international play-offs.

Edited May 3, 2019 by craigkillie

[ilostmyself]

17 hours ago, craigkillie said:

I wouldn't say it's an absolute given that New Zealand will always win it - there are other countries who have the potential to run them close given a bit of luck.

New Caledonia beat them in the OFC Nations Cup in 2012 (which led to the farce of Tahiti playing at the Confederations Cup and getting pumped 10-0 by Spain). In the 2016 Nations Cup they only beat New Caledonia 1-0 in the semis and then beat Papua New Guinea on penalties in the final. Going further back, the Solomon Islands finished ahead of them in the 2006 World Cup Qualifying table (but lost to Australia in the final).

It's obviously not a perfect indicator, since some of their best players play overseas and some of the domestic ones play for Wellington in the A League, but both New Zealand sides were beaten in the OFC Champions League semi-finals by clubs from New Caledonia.

Everyone in Oceania is utter pish and it would definitely be beneficial for all parties if they were lumped in with Asia for qualifying. I've argued for a while that it would be better to only have 4 regions for qualifying - Europe, Africa, The Americas and Asia/Oceania, and to have several places decided by intercontinental play-offs.

 

The worst standard of football I've ever seen was the NZ top league. Truly abysmal fare, I think this seasons Falkirk could win that league at a canter and I consider them the worst professional team of all time.

Edited May 3, 2019 by ilostmyself

[nsr]

2 hours ago, forameus said:

While it might give us a better chance of qualifying, I can't really think of much less interesting than the World Cup becoming some international version of the Champions League, with the same nations - barring a few exceptions - playing every 4 years.  Tournaments are made more interesting by having unusual - and likely diddy - teams in it.  Purists can scoff all they want, and watch re-runs of some semi-final with one shot on target between two "giants", but I'd far rather watch a mental game between two unfancied sides.  The last Euros should have been proof of that.

True. For a while I was disappointed by WC 2018 due to the lack of unfancied diddy sides going on a mad run re Costa Rica and Algeria in 2014. Then I realised there was one: England!

[forameus]

1 hour ago, nsr said:

True. For a while I was disappointed by WC 2018 due to the lack of unfancied diddy sides going on a mad run re Costa Rica and Algeria in 2014. Then I realised there was one: England!

That got made up for by traditional fancied sides being utter mince.  Germany's complete bedshitting was glorious, Argentina were a mess, Brazil never really looked quite at it.  They're hardly a diddy, but you could add Croatia to the list of unfancied sides given how far they got.

I'm quite looking forward to a 48 team tournament to be honest.  I can completely understand why people would be against it, but it'll probably mean we get a couple more big sides dealing out an absolute dicking in some games, and maybe some wee teams upsetting the odds.  And one more round of "oh f**k we're going out" knockout games.  We should do away with Euros qualification and just chuck everyone in.  Fucking yass.

[Enigma]

Getting a bit close to the games now, isn’t it?

[Gordopolis]

Yeah I'd expect we need someone in in time for the squad to be picked and announced (probably 24th May-ish)

[SlipperyP]

On 4/28/2019 at 15:27, SlipperyP said:

^^^ Last Sunday

McInnes on the move & Clarke drifting.  Also Maloney on shortening....Obviously Dick odds have been smashed with him speaking to the Daily Rangers last week.