Argentina 78: a reappraisal

[nate]

On 04/12/2021 at 13:39, Ewan8472 said:

I do not think Jock Stein can be held responsible for one of Hansen and Miller being a ****

or Evans and McGrain's individual mistakes

The deeper malaise might have been S**n*SS not tracking back his runners.. The midfield has to provide the defence with some support.

Choosing Evans was a bit strange

On the other hand the point about Northern Ireland is extremely valid , and illuminating

The underlying point is that the Miller-Hansen debacle wasn’t some kind of one-off example of disorganisation or confusion. Our 82 WC was full of idiotic defending. At least half the goals we conceded were the direct result of defensive frailty/naïveté. Is this the fault of the players or coach? If coaches are praised to the rafters for selecting and organising a successful team then they must also be accountable for failures. They can’t have it both ways.
Middle ranking nations like Scotland must at the very least have credible defences. It’s unknowable, but I cannot see a Fergie or a Craig Brown or even a Steve Clarke tolerating the kind of schoolboy errors we made at the back in 82, typified by the two NZ goals.  Ultimately the buck stops with the boss. I stand by my claim: Stein bungled 82.

[Ray Patterson]

On 27/11/2021 at 22:21, BFTD said:

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.

Apparently this was due to Grain Exports between the two and there was heavy pressure put on Peru to throw the game from the junta.

[Marlow]

23 minutes ago, ArabAuslander said:

Apparently this was due to Grain Exports between the two and there was heavy pressure put on Peru to throw the game from the junta.

Aye, I think a lot of very credible sources, including in Argentina, have discussed this. The junta was a nasty bunch of evil shites and this was far from the worst of their many crimes.

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

3 hours ago, nate said:

The underlying point is that the Miller-Hansen debacle wasn’t some kind of one-off example of disorganisation or confusion. Our 82 WC was full of idiotic defending. At least half the goals we conceded were the direct result of defensive frailty/naïveté. Is this the fault of the players or coach? If coaches are praised to the rafters for selecting and organising a successful team then they must also be accountable for failures. They can’t have it both ways.
Middle ranking nations like Scotland must at the very least have credible defences. It’s unknowable, but I cannot see a Fergie or a Craig Brown or even a Steve Clarke tolerating the kind of schoolboy errors we made at the back in 82, typified by the two NZ goals.  Ultimately the buck stops with the boss. I stand by my claim: Stein bungled 82.

We qualified with 5 clean sheets in 8 games, and conceded 2 of the 4 goals we conceded in a dead rubber.

Stein I would 100% agree got things wrong in Spain, not picking Leighton being top of the list, but the biggest problem with the defending was a series of disastrous individual errors

[Anfield 1977]

2 hours ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

We qualified with 5 clean sheets in 8 games, and conceded 2 of the 4 goals we conceded in a dead rubber.

Stein I would 100% agree got things wrong in Spain, not picking Leighton being top of the list, but the biggest problem with the defending was a series of disastrous individual errors

And Alan Rough was outstanding in that qualifying campaign, particularly in Tel Aviv and the 0-0 at Windsor Park where we secured the point which saw us qualify.

He also played well in the Home Internationals and warm up games pre World Cup so I can see why Stein stuck with him, but agree Leighton did prove to be a better goalkeeper.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Anfield 1977
error

[Jacksgranda]

On 27/11/2021 at 23:05, Monkey Tennis said:

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.

I was 26. It was incredibly disappointing.

Quite frankly I think it knocked the national psyche for 6 for years after.

[Jacksgranda]

On 28/11/2021 at 23:44, nate said:

The levels of expectation were mightily fanciful. They were based on nothing more than wishful thinking borne of ignorance. The same squad of players, more or less, at Argentina finished 2nd bottom of our 1976 (and 1980) EC qualifying groups ( or 3rd & 4th if you like). Most of the so-called big hitters that constituted the Argentina squad also played during this period…Dalglish, Jordan, Hartford, Gemmill, Jardine, Buchan etc. Our results were at best mediocre. Our results in the Home Internationals immediately prior to Argentina likewise (winless in the 3 games). Our very participation at Argentina was largely due to The Hand of Joe, it could be argued, particularly by the Welsh. This doesn’t sound like the kind of stuff likely to inspire vaulting expectations, does it? But that’s exactly what happened, and here’s why…

… you’re making the same mistake gullible punters made in 1978: you’re thinking that our players were better than they actually were, on the basis that more than a few of them were successful club players, medals and all. The gulf between club football and International football back then was vast. Dalglish was an example of this truism…he was very rarely more than moderately influential at international level, despite sackfuls of caps and a stellar club career. 

If Peru enjoyed a bit of luck on their way to becoming South American champions, then they would be no different from dozens of others who win tournaments (you’ll also presumably know they won 3-1 away to Brazil during this lucky streak of theirs)They were a damn good side and proved it by winning our Group. They were better than us, no question. It was no disgrace losing to Peru. 

I've always felt he was very over rated as an international.

Not a popular view, I know.

[nate]

This thread has morphed into a more general debate about Scotland’s comparative successes/failures at big tourneys, so here’s a statistical breakdown of our 11 appearances at these events. “Points” are expressed as a percentage of those won v those available (the toughness of the opposition is used as a ranking decider for those occasions where the figures are identical). It’s not an exact science. How could it be? Even comparing a 1950s WC with this year’s Euros is a bit apples and oranges, not to mention 3 points for a win being a relatively newish innovation. But still, it’s interesting to compare performances. I think the big question from this data is…where the hell were Scotland in the 1960s?

TOURNEY.    POINTS.      RANK

74 WC.         67%.                1

78 WC.         50%.                2

82 WC.         50%.                3

96 EC.           44%.                4

92 EC.           33%.                 5

90 WC.         33%.                 6

86 WC.          17%.                 7

58 WC.          17%.                 8

2020 EC.        11%.                 9

98 WC.           11%.                10

54 WC.           0%.                 11

[Ewan8472]

19 minutes ago, nate said:

This thread has morphed into a more general debate about Scotland’s comparative successes/failures at big tourneys, so here’s a statistical breakdown of our 11 appearances at these events. “Points” are expressed as a percentage of those won v those available (the toughness of the opposition is used as a ranking decider for those occasions where the figures are identical). It’s not an exact science. How could it be? Even comparing a 1950s WC with this year’s Euros is a bit apples and oranges, not to mention 3 points for a win being a relatively newish innovation. But still, it’s interesting to compare performances. I think the big question from this data is…where the hell were Scotland in the 1960s?

TOURNEY.    POINTS.      RANK

74 WC.         67%.                1

78 WC.         50%.                2

82 WC.         50%.                3

96 EC.           44%.                4

92 EC.           33%.                 5

90 WC.         33%.                 6

86 WC.          17%.                 7

58 WC.          17%.                 8

2020 EC.        11%.                 9

98 WC.           11%.                10

54 WC.           0%.                 11

62 Brussels ? lost play off.

66 Hampden lost 1 - 2 Poland.

70 West Germany lost 2 - 3 away

 

 

 

 

[Jacksgranda]

20 minutes ago, Ewan8472 said:

62 Brussels ? lost play off.

66 Hampden lost 1 - 2 Poland.

70 West Germany lost 2 - 3 away

 

 

 

 

That still rankles.

[Ewan8472]

IIRC I read somewhere that Henderson , at least ,  was injured during the game

but our defence was rather poor in the last ten minutes

 

 

[Monkey Tennis]

7 hours ago, Jacksgranda said:

I was 26. It was incredibly disappointing.

Quite frankly I think it knocked the national psyche for 6 for years after.

Agreed.  

It knocked mine for at least 43.

 

 

PS Great to see you back on here Mate.

[Ewan8472]

7 hours ago, Jacksgranda said:

I've always felt he was very over rated as an international.

Not a popular view, I know.

I am not his greatest fan , but for one thing his absence was obvious when he retired.

There was no focus for the team going forward with him gone !

 

[Lurkst]

4 hours ago, nate said:

 I think the big question from this data is…where the hell were Scotland in the 1960s?

 

3 hours ago, Ewan8472 said:

62 Brussels ? lost play off.

66 Hampden lost 1 - 2 Poland.

70 West Germany lost 2 - 3 away

 

Also we didn't bother entering the first two Euros.

 

[BFTD]

4 minutes ago, Lurkst said:

Also we didn't bother entering the first two Euros.

Nor the first four World Cups, with the SFA deciding we wouldn't go to the one in 1950 because we didn't beat England in the Home Championships. When they did let us go in 1954, they decided to prove why it was probably a good thing that they didn't send a team four years prior.

What a shower of utter roasters.

[Uncle Scan]

10 hours ago, Jacksgranda said:

I've always felt he was very over rated as an international.

Not a popular view, I know.

If you went to the games instead of watching the telly your view would change. His international opposition certainly rated him as he was regularly man marked. He was also miles ahead of his team mates who weren't on his wavelength regarding space on the pitch. Dalglish was our greatest ever player and I would argue British as well.

[Sergeant Wilson]

23 minutes ago, Uncle Scan said:

If you went to the games instead of watching the telly your view would change. His international opposition certainly rated him as he was regularly man marked. He was also miles ahead of his team mates who weren't on his wavelength regarding space on the pitch. Dalglish was our greatest ever player and I would argue British as well.

I think people tend to compare his international impact with his club achievements. Even playing in a decent Scotland team, he could never achieve the same degree of success he had in totally dominant club sides.

He's certainly one of the best,  but like all these arguments e.g. Maradona or Messi, who knows if he was better than, Hughie Gallacher?

[HibeeJibee]

1 hour ago, BFTD said:

What a shower of utter roasters.

During recent coverage of 100yrs since the ban on ladies games at English senior grounds I noted the studious silence that 50yrs ago only 1 nation voted against UEFA recognising women... us.

[HibeeJibee]

Btw an illustration of Scottish expectations at WC 1978: the Hamilton by-election was advanced 24hrs, to avoid clashing with opening game. Last-ever not on Thursday. (George Robertson beat Margo MacDonald).

[HibeeJibee]

2 hours ago, Lurkst said:

Also we didn't bother entering the first two Euros.

We didn't intentionally enter 3rd either: replacing knockout qualifiers with groups UEFA let Home Nations count (over 2yrs):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_1968_qualifying#Group_8


SFA didn't treat 4th properly: sent qualifier v Belgium to Pittodrie:

It was our only home game - qualifier or friendly - played outwith Hampden between 1938 and 1990; which tells you the sort of attitudes prevailing in its corridors towards the Euros as late as 1971.