Jump to content

Scotland v Ukraine (21st Sep)


2426255

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Savage Henry said:

It was Denmark reserves.

Quite weird of them to also field half their reserve team in a European Championship semi-final four months earlier then I'd say. Maybe they'd have won the whole thing if they'd picked their full strength team against England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite weird of them to also field half their reserve team in a European Championship semi-final four months earlier then I'd say. Maybe they'd have won the whole thing if they'd picked their full strength team against England.
Couldn't agree with this more.
The "it was a dead rubber/fluke" argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Denmark were missing a few players, yes, but they had both seeding and a perfect 10 wins in qualifying to play for (the former far more important than the latter, granted).
We played really well that night and beat a very good team.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Only if your English language comprehension is extremely poor.

I'm paraphrasing but the discussion was

Original poster: "Pot 1 team isn't that important."

Me: "There are some teams in Pot 1 that we can beat at Hampden"

Other posters: "How dare you suggest that we could consider trying to beat a team we beat 11 months ago", "Ridiculous to suggest we'll easily pump them at Hampden", "How can anyone have them down as a guaranteed 3 points"

There are certainly pot 1 teams we *can* beat at Hampden, but if we can beat them then so can our direct rivals from pots 3 and 4.

 

I always think when there are 2 qualifying slots, you’d rather the pot 1 team just scooshes the group (as Denmark did) and then it reduces the group to really 3 teams competing for one spot.

 

This is exactly what happened last time btw. Denmark scooshed everyone and we got 2nd as a result of 4 points against both Israel and Austria (the win over Denmark was irrelevant for 2nd place and had it been a euros group, we’d have booked qualification before that match) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, craigkillie said:

Only if your English language comprehension is extremely poor.

I'm paraphrasing but the discussion was

Original poster: "Pot 1 team isn't that important."

Me: "There are some teams in Pot 1 that we can beat at Hampden"

 The first sentence here is exactly why you get picked up regularly for being an arse.

I dont care particularly if you think for us Denmark are hugely beatable. I would disagree.

16 hours ago, craigkillie said:


There are hugely beatable teams in Pot 1 as it stands - the likes of Hungary, Denmark and Austria could be in there, all teams you'd fancy us to beat at Hampden.

 

Edited by BingMcCrosby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, craigkillie said:

Quite weird of them to also field half their reserve team in a European Championship semi-final four months earlier then I'd say. Maybe they'd have won the whole thing if they'd picked their full strength team against England.

I think its unlikely they would play injured players when trying to win a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

Those were disappointing results, but the performances were much better.  There have been some issues since SC took over, but it doubtless has been a steady improvement over the time.

I agree that it is nuanced, but whilst you're not a Clarke-hater, I'd suggest you're on the more pessimistic end of things.

probably would agree with that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree with this more.
The "it was a dead rubber/fluke" argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Denmark were missing a few players, yes, but they had both seeding and a perfect 10 wins in qualifying to play for (the former far more important than the latter, granted).
We played really well that night and beat a very good team.

We were also missing, McTominay, Hanley, Hendry, Patterson and Dykes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 2426255 said:

Thats a start.

In the future when we hit a bump in the road take that condor moment. Pause and take in the wider view before you start punching your keyboard. Same goes for you @BingMcCrosby

Why do you see getting carried away by setbacks, as so much more irrational than getting carried away by impressive wins?

People are prone to both and it's a bit daft, as well as basically, fair enough. 

However, It's like there's a moral judgement made on those inclined to take the more negative view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Why do you see getting carried away by setbacks, as so much more irrational than getting carried away by impressive wins?

People are prone to both and it's a bit daft, as well as basically, fair enough. 

However, It's like there's a moral judgement made on those inclined to take the more negative view.

I don't see any difference between setbacks or impressive wins in terms of reactionary behaviour.

People are free to post what they want. It isn't a moral judgement but if they post reactionary poorly thought out rubbish I like calling them on it and seeing what happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, 2426255 said:

I don't see any difference between setbacks or impressive wins in terms of reactionary behaviour.

People are free to post what they want. It isn't a moral judgement but if they post reactionary poorly thought out rubbish I like calling them on it and seeing what happens. 

Did you do that with any of the nutty posts that followed our win over Denmark?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Gordopolis said:

Couldn't agree with this more.
The "it was a dead rubber/fluke" argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Denmark were missing a few players, yes, but they had both seeding and a perfect 10 wins in qualifying to play for (the former far more important than the latter, granted).
We played really well that night and beat a very good team.

And were on a substantial bonus per man to win all their group games.

Edited by Distant Doonhamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It would appear then, that you're less inclined to "call out" "reactionary poorly thought out rubbish" it its tone is positive.

There was a lot of poorly thought out positive rubbish regarding Billy Gilmour with posters foaming at the mouth asserting he was world class. I waded into that.

The common thread if you want to find a link between my posting habits is a lack of objectivity and/or thought and folk getting carried away. I don't have big problem with that if that's their fun and they feel the need to gush or vent, however it amuses me to call them on it and see what happens...heh.

Is that helpful?

Edited by 2426255
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, 2426255 said:

There was a lot of poorly thought out positive rubbish regarding Billy Gilmour with posters foaming at the mouth asserting he was world class. I waded into that.

The common thread if you want to find a link between my posting habits is a lack of objectivity and/or thought and folk getting carried away. I don't have big problem with that if that's their fun and they feel the need to gush or vent, however it amuses me to call them on it and see what happens...heh.

Is that helpful?

Fair enough.

You've been right on the Gilmour front.  Some of the reaction to a couple of promising displays was ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...