England Semi

[AltheHibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Their population is 13 times that of Croatias and the English game is awash with money. By any criteria you choose to look at they should have been heavy favourites to win that game.

While i agree that they surpassed the public expectations before the tournament (mainly because their recent efforts in 2014 and 2016 have been utter embarrassments) the idea that are heroic underdogs is laughable. They’ve had a good tournament but they blew a massive opportunity.

And in your first sentence lies the problem. The money is being spent on foreign players to the detriment of local people. Exactly what happened here with Murray at deadco.

In my opinion, the money and foreign players caused problems at international level, and could well do the same to the England team. But I hope not.

[G B Young]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is such an empty argument that you're making; 'Scottish people aren't allowed to make an objective analysis of England's world cup run because the Scottish national team didn't qualify'. Eh?

England got lucky with the group draw they got, the half of the draw they were in after qualification, and the state of the teams that they met when they got there. When they came up against Croatia they encountered superior players and came up short. I don't see how you can dispute this. Unless this is all about something else than football.

It's not an 'objective' analysis though is it? That would imply impartiality. Instead it's weighted wholly towards being unable to find anything positive to say about England for no other reason that because 'it's England'.

If you read my post again you'll also see I'm not disputing they got beaten by a stronger team in Croatia.

If I thought England were 'lucky' I'd acknowledge it. Personally I still think they were lucky to win the World Cup final in 1966. That 'goal' was never over the line and the fourth one shouldn't have counted with a pitch invasion already under way. However, this time I thought they performed well with a young team and an impressive manager and they reached heights Scotland can only dream of.

[Pagan Hibernia]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How much bigger than Croatia is Russia?

to be honest i’d also argue that Russia regularly underachieve.

[G B Young]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Their population is 13 times that of Croatias and the English game is awash with money. By any criteria you choose to look at they should have been heavy favourites to win that game.

While i agree that they surpassed the public expectations before the tournament (mainly because their recent efforts in 2014 and 2016 have been utter embarrassments) the idea that are heroic underdogs is laughable. They’ve had a good tournament but they blew a massive opportunity.

The population argument simply doesn't wash and never has. If the countries with the biggest populations should always be favourites why don't nations like Russia, India, China and the USA sweep the board at international level? Why have nations like Iceland (and for that matter Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland) recently started to qualify for major tournaments while Scotland still don't? I'm sure I read that Uruguay have a smaller population than us yet are historically a giant of the world game.

Croatia have for the most part been a strong side since their inception less than 30 years ago whereas England haven't, for reasons which go beyond population.

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/footb...llow-1-4767975

[SRHibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The population argument simply doesn't wash and never has. If the countries with the biggest populations should always be favourites why don't nations like Russia, India, China and the USA sweep the board at international level? Why have nations like Iceland (and for that matter Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland) recently started to qualify for major tournaments while Scotland still don't? I'm sure I read that Uruguay have a smaller population than us yet are historically a giant of the world game.

Croatia have for the most part been a strong side since their inception less than 30 years ago whereas England haven't, for reasons which go beyond population.

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/footb...llow-1-4767975

Not just population, but football infrastructure too. England have both though, and I would say they are underachieving based on that.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The population argument simply doesn't wash and never has. If the countries with the biggest populations should always be favourites why don't nations like Russia, India, China and the USA sweep the board at international level? Why have nations like Iceland (and for that matter Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland) recently started to qualify for major tournaments while Scotland still don't? I'm sure I read that Uruguay have a smaller population than us yet are historically a giant of the world game.

Croatia have for the most part been a strong side since their inception less than 30 years ago whereas England haven't, for reasons which go beyond population.

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/footb...llow-1-4767975

Football isn't the main sport in any of those countries. It is undeniably true that over the long term, drawing from a bigger pool will find more talent.

btw, if Scotland and England had entered the world cups pre-1950, we and they would've been favourites and they at least would have multiple to their name. The FA and SFA considered international tournaments beneath them!

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The population argument simply doesn't wash and never has. If the countries with the biggest populations should always be favourites why don't nations like Russia, India, China and the USA sweep the board at international level? Why have nations like Iceland (and for that matter Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland) recently started to qualify for major tournaments while Scotland still don't? I'm sure I read that Uruguay have a smaller population than us yet are historically a giant of the world game.

Croatia have for the most part been a strong side since their inception less than 30 years ago whereas England haven't, for reasons which go beyond population.

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/footb...llow-1-4767975

Oh, and btw, serious question to yourself, ODS, etc. Since you guys don't really think Scotland should be a country, wouldn't you be better throwing your lot in with a UK team? In all fairness, Scotland shouldn't really have an international football team, it's a historical quirk.

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The population argument simply doesn't wash and never has. If the countries with the biggest populations should always be favourites why don't nations like Russia, India, China and the USA sweep the board at international level? Why have nations like Iceland (and for that matter Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland) recently started to qualify for major tournaments while Scotland still don't? I'm sure I read that Uruguay have a smaller population than us yet are historically a giant of the world game.

Croatia have for the most part been a strong side since their inception less than 30 years ago whereas England haven't, for reasons which go beyond population.

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/footb...llow-1-4767975

I read something a while back relating to rugby, and they tend to consider the number of people within a country who play a particular sport regularly.

For a nation the size of New Zealand, Wales or Ireland, there are large numbers of people who play regular rugby either at youth or adult level allowing them to supposedly punch above their weight with larger nations.

I'm convinced the same is true with football.

If we want to be as good as Croatia, we need as a nation to play as much football as Croatia.

The best players can be creamed off to be adequately coached.

Iceland do well because in spite of their climate they have have built facilities that allows them to play regular football.

My brother is a wee bit dejected that his little boy doesn't seem to be much of a football player. He goes to his coaching once a week but he doesn't play football in the playground every lunchtime, with his pals after school every day and every minute he can at weekends like we did. If he did, he'd get better, then the coaching etc comes into it.

TBH we could do more to kick a ball about with him (which incidentally is another problem I think we have with hardworking parents in this country).

It would be interesting to know how many people play football regularly in Scotland, England, Croatia, Brazil, China, USA, Iceland etc.

In many ways I'm not convinced that there's that much of a gulf between nations now. We were seconds from beating the World Cup semi finalists in qualifying. If we hadn't lost that goal we'd have got the same amount of points in qualifying as Croatia, the World Cup finalists did.

I got the feeling that under Strachan we were going in the right direction, even if he did have a tendency to pick teams I disagreed with and make nonsensical comments that I totally disagreed with.

Big countries have struggled against smaller countries of late, and I think there is some decent Scottish talent emerging.

Sometimes having a decent manager, a consistent team, a solid gameplan, a bit of team spirit and players who really want to play for their country can overcome all sort of technical or "genetic" deficiencies.

[Scottie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I read something a while back relating to rugby, and they tend to consider the number of people within a country who play a particular sport regularly.

For a nation the size of New Zealand, Wales or Ireland, there are large numbers of people who play regular rugby either at youth or adult level allowing them to supposedly punch above their weight with larger nations.

I'm convinced the same is true with football.

If we want to be as good as Croatia, we need as a nation to play as much football as Croatia.

The best players can be creamed off to be adequately coached.

Iceland do well because in spite of their climate they have have built facilities that allows them to play regular football.

My brother is a wee bit dejected that his little boy doesn't seem to be much of a football player. He goes to his coaching once a week but he doesn't play football in the playground every lunchtime, with his pals after school every day and every minute he can at weekends like we did. If he did, he'd get better, then the coaching etc comes into it.

TBH we could do more to kick a ball about with him (which incidentally is another problem I think we have with hardworking parents in this country).

It would be interesting to know how many people play football regularly in Scotland, England, Croatia, Brazil, China, USA, Iceland etc.

In many ways I'm not convinced that there's that much of a gulf between nations now. We were seconds from beating the World Cup semi finalists in qualifying. If we hadn't lost that goal we'd have got the same amount of points in qualifying as Croatia, the World Cup finalists did.

I got the feeling that under Strachan we were going in the right direction, even if he did have a tendency to pick teams I disagreed with and make nonsensical comments that I totally disagreed with.

Big countries have struggled against smaller countries of late, and I think there is some decent Scottish talent emerging.

Sometimes having a decent manager, a consistent team, a solid gameplan, a bit of team spirit and players who really want to play for their country can overcome all sort of technical or "genetic" deficiencies.

Agree with a lot of your post Smartie but the bit in bold worries me now. Unfortunately can't see how McLeish is going to help us develop into a nation that can qualify for tournaments again never mind compete at them.

It starts at grass roots , at school level. Todays kids aren't even getting an hour of physical education a week in some parts of the country now a days. Paying for after school sports events and clubs were tuition and coaching are supposably better are out of most parents budget in this economical climate. More money is needed from government and the SFA to support such clubs and causes but its not an bottomless pit. Money has to be found from somewhere.

Look at the results that have emerged for St Georges Park. Winning youth teams right across the board. Money invested by the FA is now reaping rewards of sorts. I don't know the answer but I for one is hell of a depressed by the lack of financial support for all forms of sports in Scotland .

[G B Young]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Oh, and btw, serious question to yourself, ODS, etc. Since you guys don't really think Scotland should be a country, wouldn't you be better throwing your lot in with a UK team? In all fairness, Scotland shouldn't really have an international football team, it's a historical quirk.

Yes, and I've said it before on here. I think a UK team (and indeed a UK league) would make sense if we are looking at the best way to achieve genuine success on the international stage. As you say, it's a quirk that FIFA would probably like to see ironed out that we even have four international teams from the UK.

I've never suggested Scotland shouldn't be a country though.

[Kato]

Don't see how changing manager, slating/praising McLeish. There's no tinkering at the top with selection or coaching which will take Scotland anywhere. The problem lies below the surface.

[AndyM_1875]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The population doesn't matter. Only 11 men can play. Croatia have world class players in their side.

Correct. It's about quality and I was baffled when England were said to be favourites over Croatia. Croatia's team consists of players from Real Madrid, Barcelona, Inter Milan, Napoli and Bayern Munich amongst others whilst England sent out a team of decent enough players who ply their trade at the likes of Everton, Crystal Palace and Leicester.

Modric is coming off the back of Madrid having won 3 Champions Leagues in a row and Rakitic's Barcelona have just won the double in Spain. Roy Keane alluded to this on Wednesday as well, the Croatian team is full of serial winners.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Correct. It's about quality and I was baffled when England were said to be favourites over Croatia. Croatia's team consists of players from Real Madrid, Barcelona, Inter Milan, Napoli and Bayern Munich amongst others whilst England sent out a team of decent enough players who ply their trade at the likes of Everton, Crystal Palace and Leicester.

Modric is coming off the back of Madrid having won 3 Champions Leagues in a row and Rakitic's Barcelona have just won the double in Spain. Roy Keane alluded to this on Wednesday as well, the Croatian team is full of serial winners.

It's a great shame that more young Scottish players don't travel. Unfortunately the money sitting on the bench at Celtc or playing among the hoofers of the English lower leagues is sufficient to take away that motivation. The best Scottish players at 20-25 are rarely found in an environment conducive to developing them into great players.

[Chic Murray]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Correct. It's about quality and I was baffled when England were said to be favourites over Croatia. Croatia's team consists of players from Real Madrid, Barcelona, Inter Milan, Napoli and Bayern Munich amongst others whilst England sent out a team of decent enough players who ply their trade at the likes of Everton, Crystal Palace and Leicester.

Modric is coming off the back of Madrid having won 3 Champions Leagues in a row and Rakitic's Barcelona have just won the double in Spain. Roy Keane alluded to this on Wednesday as well, the Croatian team is full of serial winners.

What gets me, is pundits like Hoddle, and Lawro are paid to point these things out. It was bleeding obvious who the favourites should be in that match.

What was less forgivable was the inability of the media to pick up on the fact that Croatians of their age might have been through things which would be "character forming" to say the least.

Instead we are hearing about how great it is that England (finally) has a team of modest young men, from ethnically diverse backgrounds.

A bit of balance, and respect wouldn't have gone amiss.


At the end of the day, how many of the English lads are even first choice at their own club?

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes, and I've said it before on here. I think a UK team (and indeed a UK league) would make sense if we are looking at the best way to achieve genuine success on the international stage. As you say, it's a quirk that FIFA would probably like to see ironed out that we even have four international teams from the UK.

I've never suggested Scotland shouldn't be a country though.

Definitions of "country" and "nation" are usually a bit woolly. To me, Scotland could and should be a country, but currently isn't. But others define it differently.

It would be interesting to see if a UK team did any better than England over the long term.

[AndyM_1875]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What gets me, is pundits like Hoddle, and Lawro are paid to point these things out. It was bleeding obvious who the favourites should be in that match.

What was less forgivable was the inability of the media to pick up on the fact that Croatians of their age might have been through things which would be "character forming" to say the least.

Instead we are hearing about how great it is that England (finally) has a team of modest young men, from ethnically diverse backgrounds.

A bit of balance, and respect wouldn't have gone amiss.


At the end of the day, how many of the English lads are even first choice at their own club?

You mean like Modric, whose grandfather was shot dead in front of him during the civil war that took place after the break up of Yugoslavia.
Yes, I'd agree.

[Chic Murray]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You mean like Modric, whose grandfather was shot dead in front of him during the civil war that took place after the break up of Yugoslavia.
Yes, I'd agree.

I think most of them were affected by the war, in one way or another. It maybe shows where their drive comes from.

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's not an 'objective' analysis though is it? That would imply impartiality. Instead it's weighted wholly towards being unable to find anything positive to say about England for no other reason that because 'it's England'.

If you read my post again you'll also see I'm not disputing they got beaten by a stronger team in Croatia.

If I thought England were 'lucky' I'd acknowledge it. Personally I still think they were lucky to win the World Cup final in 1966. That 'goal' was never over the line and the fourth one shouldn't have counted with a pitch invasion already under way. However, this time I thought they performed well with a young team and an impressive manager and they reached heights Scotland can only dream of.

Earlier in the main world cup thread I've discussed the merits and weaknesses of Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, France, and the Iranian goalie. How Morocco and Peru have played some of the best football, Denmark and Sweden some of the worst, and how its interesting that the latter two proceeded and the former two didn't. Its been a great tournament and I've enjoyed debating it. So what evidence do you have that I'm not being objective? I've never even voted SNP

But when daring to criticise an England side as being a bit lucky to get to the semi's (which they ****ing well were, look at the ****ing draw! Why was there media debates on the BBC and Itv about whether to throw the Belgium game or not, if there wasn't a favourable and unfavourable side let's get real fgs) the usual suspects on here get all political and see McGlashans when there aren't any. It's a bit pathetic to be honest.

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think most of them were affected by the war, in one way or another. It maybe shows where their drive comes from.

Lovrens story is heartbreaking. Saw his uncle murdered, family ran from the death squads in the middle of the night and received refuge in Germany when he was a little boy.

[snooky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Definitions of "country" and "nation" are usually a bit woolly. To me, Scotland could and should be a country, but currently isn't. But others define it differently.

It would be interesting to see if a UK team did any better than England over the long term.

Any "UK" team would just be from the current England squad + Bale.

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Any "UK" team would just be from the current England squad + Bale.

You think Danny Rose is better than Andrew Robertson?

[G B Young]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Earlier in this thread I've discussed the merits and weaknesses of Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, France, and the Iranian goalie. How Morocco and Peru have played some of the best football, Denmark and Sweden some of the worst, and how its interesting that the latter two proceeded and the former two didn't. Its been a great tournament and I've enjoyed debating it. So what evidence do you have that I'm not being objective? I've never even voted SNP

But when daring to criticise an England side as being a bit lucky to get to the semi's (which they ****ing well were, look at the ****ing draw! Why was there media debates on the BBC and Itv about whether to throw the Belgium game or not, if there wasn't a favourable and unfavourable side let's get real fgs) the usual suspects on here get all political and see McGlashans when there aren't any. It's a bit pathetic to be honest.

It was somebody else's post about England's wins over supposedly c*** teams that you referred to as 'objective' so that was the one I was responding to.

England weren't lucky to get to the last four. That would suggest they were fortuitous to win the games they did or that they were the beneficiaries of some sort of injustice (as they were in the 1966 final). From what I saw that didn't appear to be the case in Russia. Sure, they would have been happy to avoid certain teams but it's not as if they rigged the draw. They did what they had to do, did it well and IMHO earned credit in doing so. There's nothing 'political' about saying so.

[G B Young]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Any "UK" team would just be from the current England squad + Bale.

That's a tired old argument. Yes, the perception of our league as being a one-horse diddy competition doesn't help (which is why I would advocate a UK league) but for the first time in a while there are a sprinkling of Scots doing well towards the upper reaches of English football so I don't think we can dismiss our chances of being able to contribute to a UK team so readily. We'd have had a few in the 2012 Team GB squad had the SFA not been so Luddite in their approach.

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It was somebody else's post about England's wins over supposedly c*** teams that you referred to as 'objective' so that was the one I was responding to.

England weren't lucky to get to the last four. That would suggest they were fortuitous to win the games they did or that they were the beneficiaries of some sort of injustice (as they were in the 1966 final). From what I saw that didn't appear to be the case in Russia. Sure, they would have been happy to avoid certain teams but it's not as if they rigged the draw. They did what they had to do, did it well and IMHO earned credit in doing so. There's nothing 'political' about saying so.

It wasn't, and he didn't the word 'crap' he used the word 'mediocre'. One which I would also use to apply to teams like Panama, Tunisia, a James-less Colombia and Sweden. It's self evident that it's unusual to get to the semifinals of a world-cup without actually beating anyone decent. (in fact, if they'd have beaten Croatia, they would have been the only finalist not to have played at least one previous winner on the way to the final since West Germany in 1974).

Again, whether I happen to be Scottish while thinking this has nothing to do with it.

[Malthibby]

Just in the door from italy & have to say that I was chuffed as hell watching England come unstuck, along with 95% of everyone watching in the bars & restaurants along the lake front.
Does my head in that I feel I have to ensure folk in Europe know I'm not English but it's especially important to me just now that I'm not seen as part of the Brexiteering Little Englanders who want to Rule
Britannia. Just not possible to separate the politics from sport & that's not just England; Putin's also done pretty well out of Russia's over-achievement.
England's team did better than expected but the football on display from Brazil, Belgium and France has been in a different league. Good luck to Croatia but I'd expect France to do them pretty
comfortably.
Meanwhile, the Hibees continue to do us proud.
GG

[cabbageandribs1875]

yep lets have a team GB, we could maybe nickname it ermm team engerlund, we could then have the token scotsman, welshman and an norn irishman, we can play the home games at ermmm maybe wembley ? sounds very wallace mercerish, ram yer team GB where the sun doesn't shine






:)

[CockneyRebel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just in the door from italy & have to say that I was chuffed as hell watching England come unstuck, along with 95% of everyone watching in the bars & restaurants along the lake front.
Does my head in that I feel I have to ensure folk in Europe know I'm not English but it's especially important to me just now that I'm not seen as part of the Brexiteering Little Englanders who want to Rule
Britannia. Just not possible to separate the politics from sport & that's not just England; Putin's also done pretty well out of Russia's over-achievement.
England's team did better than expected but the football on display from Brazil, Belgium and France has been in a different league. Good luck to Croatia but I'd expect France to do them pretty
comfortably.
Meanwhile, the Hibees continue to do us proud.
GG

Not for you anyway.

[Malthibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not for you anyway.

To be honest, I can't separate politics from anything......

[Scouse Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

To be honest, I can't separate politics from anything......

I’m the opposite, politics are completely ignored and have been throughout my life generally. I’m 50 and can count on one hand the number of times I have ever voted.

[G B Young]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

yep lets have a team GB, we could maybe nickname it ermm team engerlund, we could then have the token scotsman, welshman and an norn irishman, we can play the home games at ermmm maybe wembley ? sounds very wallace mercerish, ram yer team GB where the sun doesn't shine

:)

Aye, why bother even giving such an idea the time of day when we know we've no chance of getting anyone in the team? Much better just to accept ongoing failure in our own right