Argentina 78: a reappraisal

[nate]

All this excitable chat about imminent WC qualification got me digging into past tourneys. Something baffles me. It always has. Why, exactly, is Argentina 78 dismissed as a calamity, if not our international nadir? It certainly can’t be because of results at that tournament. We claimed a creditable 50% of the available points, a feat bettered only ONCE in 11 WC & EC qualifications. What’s more, our group was excruciating, containing as it did…

1) Holland: reigning WC finalists, and heading for another final weeks after playing us, and generally regarded as the best team never to win the damn thing. That’s a mighty tough opponent by any reckoning.

2) Peru: reigning South American champions, no less. Anyone with even a thin knowledge of football knows you don’t get to be top dogs down there without being a bit special.

3) Iran: they’d been Asian champions for about 10 years and were undefeated in 14 qualifiers for the 78 tournament ( they won 12 of these matches, says Wiki)

This is the equivalent of us reaching Qatar and drawing the likes of Croatia, Argentina and whoever No.1 in Asia currently is. How would we fancy our chances against that kind of trio?

If there’s a candidate for worst showing at a Finals it should be France 98, not Argentina 78 ( ancient World Cups in the 1950s aside)

I suspect the reason why 78 is held up as a so-called disaster has more to do with good old Scottish ignorance and parochialism - uniformed hacks feeding rubbish to even less informed punters - than what actually happened on the pitch down there. 
Come to think of it, Euro 2020 might even top France 98 for pish results.

Next time someone insists Argentina 78 was the pits, you can argue otherwise.

Or am I missing something?

Over to you, old timers!

[BFTD]

It's embarrassing because it's one of the few occasions where the Scottish public decided we had a serious chance of winning the tournament and we fell at the first hurdle. We were entirely ignorant of Peru and Iran and were expecting them to be walkovers, which is embarrassing hubris in and of itself. The Scottish FA apparently didn't even bother researching our opponents, one of our players was sent home for failing a drugs test, and preparation was generally shambolic.

The 1954 World Cup was possibly even more embarrassing though, but is outshined by our more recent humiliation.

[Ken Deans]

Aye your missing a lot. It wasn't the quality of the opposition was the problem. It was the quality of our management from top blazers to the manager. We didn't even know that Cubillas was good at free kicks

[Lurkst]

The fact that we were the only UK representatives increased the hype, but we were literally among the favourites for the tournament.

Historical ELO ratings show that prior to the finals we were ranked 4th in the world. We knocked the European champions out in qualification and our star striker had just scored the winner in the European Cup final. 

Compared with other groups we had a great draw (Argentina/Italy/France/Hungary was one  ). Peru were very much underestimated by us but we should still have had enough to take care of them. Iran were absolutely mince, watching that game back we were brutal and should have won with ease. Didn't help when the ref gave us an indirect free kick in the box instead of a blatant penalty 

 

[Lurkst]

Here were the pre-tournament odds...

West Germany 3/1
Brazil 7/2
Argentina 5/1
Netherlands 6/1
Italy 6/1
Scotland 6/1

 

 

 

 

[BFTD]

I'm too young to comment on the quality of the AFC back in the Seventies, but I do remember South Korea romping to World Cups in the Eighties/Nineties with consummate ease, and not winning a game until they hosted the tournament in 2002. I'd imagine that being Asian Champions meant even less on the global stage then than it does now.

[HibeeJibee]

As stated it's a calamity due to the wild build-up, where everybody got convinced we were in genuine contention to win a World Cup... not just as we were doing fairly well, but as we dismissed Iran as make-weights (since they weren't European/South American), and Peru as second-raters (since they weren't Argentina or Brazil).

We were seeded 3rd i.e. behind Copa America holders Peru.

We finished 3rd.

[BFTD]

I don't know if it had any effect on the lasting view of our performance at the tournament, but it probably didn't help that Peru lost all three games in the next round, didn't score a goal, and shipped six goals to Argentina. There must have been a few folk thinking that they'd been shite after all.

[Gordopolis]

I don't know if it had any effect on the lasting view of our performance at the tournament, but it probably didn't help that Peru lost all three games in the next round, didn't score a goal, and shipped six goals to Argentina. There must have been a few folk thinking that they'd been shite after all.

I was born in '78. I didn't even realize there was a second group phase (such has been the focus in this country on Scotland in their opening group).

[Monkey Tennis]

We have had worse showings at World Cups.

1986 and 1998 saw us scrape just one point.

What happened in 1978 was calamitous though.  I agree that there was a wild mismatch between expectations and performance.  I don't much agree, however, with the popular narrative that suggests the expectations were wildly unrealistic.

We had a lot of top players in our squad and were a very capable side.  Being dismissive of Iran probably wasn't wise, but wasn't entirely unreasonable either.  Sides from Asia were not capable of making an impact at that time.  Peru should have looked trickier, but I still maintain we were entitled to fancy our chances against them.

In reality, the campaign went badly wrong.  Hubris may have played a part, but a bigger one was played by all manner of factors like a crap hotel, a bonus row, poor management at different levels, a drug scandal, a weak goalkeeper and too many players having off days.

There are a couple of good books on it all.  I remember it as someone who turned 8 during the tournament.  It was fantastically exciting and incredibly disappointing.  It's probably coloured my football outlook ever since.

[BFTD]

9 minutes ago, Gordopolis said:

I was born in '78. I didn't even realize there was a second group phase (such has been the focus in this country on Scotland in their opening group).

Yeah, I was surprised by some of the results when looking at the tournament again. In my head it's first phase, Argentina pump Peru, then beat the Dutch in the final.

TBH, the only reason the Peru pumping sticks in the memory is due to the Orbis World Cup 90 Collection having a pull-out about it  

[BFTD]

"Fantastically Exciting and Incredibly Disappointing: The Scottish Football Story"

[Gordopolis]

We have had worse showings at World Cups.
1986 and 1998 saw us scrape just one point.
What happened in 1978 was calamitous though.  I agree that there was a wild mismatch between expectations and performance.  I don't much agree, however, with the popular narrative that suggests the expectations were wildly unrealistic.
We had a lot of top players in our squad and were a very capable side.  Being dismissive of Iran probably wasn't wise, but wasn't entirely unreasonable either.  Sides from Asia were not capable of making an impact at that time.  Peru should have looked trickier, but I still maintain we were entitled to fancy our chances against them.
In reality, the campaign went badly wrong.  Hubris may have played a part, but a bigger one was played by all manner of factors like a crap hotel, a bonus row, poor management at different levels, a drug scandal, a weak goalkeeper and too many players having off days.
There are a couple of good books on it all.  I remember it as someone who turned 8 during the tournament.  It was fantastically exciting and incredibly disappointing.  It's probably coloured my football outlook ever since.

Can't recall which book it was from but the "empty swimming pool* and steaks as tough as old boots" anecdote sticks in the mind. It does come across as great players, calamitous preparation.

*As in no water in it

[Monkey Tennis]

38 minutes ago, Gordopolis said:

I was born in '78. I didn't even realize there was a second group phase (such has been the focus in this country on Scotland in their opening group).

Yip, despite the tournament featuring the ideal number of teams in 16, there were no knockout matches until the final.  There were not even semi finals as such ( 1950 didn't even have an actual final). 

Peru did indeed do nothing in the next phase but shipping 6 to Argentina probably needs a large asterisk, directing the reader towards military juntas and suchlike.

[nate]

In what wacky universe do we expect a Scotland team to beat the South American champions?  We’ve never beaten a South American team, ANY South American team never mind their champions, in a competitive match. And the idea that Asian football was utter pants until about 20 years ago is a fallacy. North Korea had already beaten Italy at the ‘66 WC. And it wasn’t a fluke either because they’d taken points off Chile in an earlier group match (Chile had finished 3rd at the previous WC). 

Remember, we reached Argentina by playing a grand total of 4 games, and effectively qualified courtesy of an outrageously spawny handball. Some even called it cheating. Had such an atrocious refereeing decision knocked us out, instead of Wales, we’d be bleating about it to this day. Still, we got there, and finished the group in 3rd place, exactly where the pre-tournament seedings indicated we’d be (behind Peru and Holland). Bagging half the available points in the group was a decent achievement, bettered only once before or after. It wasn’t the players fault that fans, Press, manager and SFA blazers were arrogant fools with a flimsy grip on reality.

I suspect our 78 squad was overrated and, on reflection, we might even have overachieved in Argentina. Before you die laughing at that, consider this: If these players were as good as people say then how come they failed miserably at qualifying for the two Euros either side of Argentina? Bad luck? What, again?  Not buying it. 
 

It remains the case that in terms of World Cup outcomes - the bald correlation between matches played and points won - Argentina 78 is inarguably one of our finest moments. All that other stuff about dodgy hotels, bonus wrangles and the surreptitious necking of wee hayfever sweeties is a sideshow.

The stats don’t lie.

Ole Ola indeed

[Monkey Tennis]

6 hours ago, nate said:

In what wacky universe do we expect a Scotland team to beat the South American champions?  We’ve never beaten a South American team, ANY South American team never mind their champions, in a competitive match. And the idea that Asian football was utter pants until about 20 years ago is a fallacy. North Korea had already beaten Italy at the ‘66 WC. And it wasn’t a fluke either because they’d taken points off Chile in an earlier group match (Chile had finished 3rd at the previous WC). 

Remember, we reached Argentina by playing a grand total of 4 games, and effectively qualified courtesy of an outrageously spawny handball. Some even called it cheating. Had such an atrocious refereeing decision knocked us out, instead of Wales, we’d be bleating about it to this day. Still, we got there, and finished the group in 3rd place, exactly where the pre-tournament seedings indicated we’d be (behind Peru and Holland). Bagging half the available points in the group was a decent achievement, bettered only once before or after. It wasn’t the players fault that fans, Press, manager and SFA blazers were arrogant fools with a flimsy grip on reality.

I suspect our 78 squad was overrated and, on reflection, we might even have overachieved in Argentina. Before you die laughing at that, consider this: If these players were as good as people say then how come they failed miserably at qualifying for the two Euros either side of Argentina? Bad luck? What, again?  Not buying it. 
 

It remains the case that in terms of World Cup outcomes - the bald correlation between matches played and points won - Argentina 78 is inarguably one of our finest moments. All that other stuff about dodgy hotels, bonus wrangles and the surreptitious necking of wee hayfever sweeties is a sideshow.

The stats don’t lie.

Ole Ola indeed

You're overdoing this.

Peru were indeed South American Champions, but they'd won it back In 1975.  Brazil and Argentina had been in the same group, meaning only one progressed.  Peru got past Brazil by the drawing of lots.  Obviously they were a decent side who we probably did underestimate.  I think the 'South American Champions' tag perhaps paints a slightly misleading picture though.  They did indeed fare poorly in the subsequent stage.

As for us being overrated, there may be something in that.  I think we did have weaknesses in a couple of key positions.  However, we also had some really good players, a few of whom had either just won the title in England, or the European Cup.  A school of thought says we peaked the previous year when winning the Home Internationals and touring South America.  Again though, there was nothing outlandish about thinking we could make an impact.  Our performance against the final bound Dutch would certainly suggest as much.

Your absolute dismissal of the off field factors and their morale sapping effect is a bit daft in truth.  They're well documented and plenty of those involved have highlighted them.

I do agree that it wasn't our worst tournament, but it was a bad one.  What made it worse was vaulting expectation, but the levels of expectation, whilst perhaps a little exaggerated, were not as fanciful as you now wish to claim.

[Lurkst]

10 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

In reality, the campaign went badly wrong.  Hubris may have played a part, but a bigger one was played by all manner of factors like a crap hotel, a bonus row, poor management at different levels, a drug scandal, a weak goalkeeper and too many players having off days.

There were key players out injured too, Danny McGrain and Gordon McQueen.

Plus some odd selections in the squad, taking Joe Harper ahead of double English POTY Andy Gray, and omitting Notts Forest title winning skipper John McGovern. 

 

Edited November 28, 2021 by Lurkst

[Lurkst]

No longer on the iplayer but it's on YouTube  

 

[Uncle Scan]

17 minutes ago, Lurkst said:

There were key players out injured too, Danny McGrain and Gordon McQueen.

Plus some odd selections in the squad, taking Joe Harper ahead of double English POTY Andy Gray, and omitting Notts Forest title winning skipper John McGovern. 

 

MCLeod perfered midfield were out of form by the time Argentina came around. Sourness was under used and McGovern wasn't even selected as McLeod didn't know he was Scottish. That took a phone call from Clough who wanted to know why his Captain wasn't even considered. Joe Harper who played instead of Derek Johnstone or Andy Gray. 82 was our best squad and I felt we were too passive against the big guns . We didn't have a decent keeper at that level to play defensive 

[lubo_blaha]

The squad had 15 players playing for top 12 teams in England that season including 9 in the top 6. The remaining players (aside from Alan Rough) played for Rangers and Aberdeen, the top 2 in Scotland and both European trophy winners within a few years of the World Cup. Admittedly I wasn’t born at the time but was the squad really that overhyped?