England v Belgium, 28th June, 7pm(GMT)

[St. Juste]

This is a fair point. When do you think we can expect this to happen?

Scotland have performed at a level above Latvia for our entire footballing history.

In your attempt to look smart you have achieved the exact opposite.

And also, Latvia is much much closer proportionally to Scotlands population than we are to England. A more appropriate comparison would be Scotland against Luxembourg or Malta.

There is nothing wrong with having confidence in your own country/or club, I just find it hypocritical that some who don't like us pull us up calling us arrogant, and not others. Achievements are irreverent as Arrogance and having confidence aren't necessarily the same thing.

Not at all, England fans are always incredibly blissfully confident about their chance.

It's quite endearing really, I wish I had that kind of confidence. Very intune with the English psyche, never mind how bad they have been recently, this really is their year.

 

[WilsdenBantam]

Not really, there’s only a handful I’d value over £10m. So just off the top of my head, say you’re trying to buy everyone of our 23 man squad I’d hazard a guess at somewhere just shy of 100 million (Forsberg skews the number). Tottenham would laugh at that for Kane.

Do you mean we have 4 or 5 players put together worth more than your squad? Or 4 or 5 players that are each worth more than your total squad? I read it as the latter so it maybe crossed wires. But other than Kane nobody in our team is worth anywhere near £100 mil, even in this ridiculous climate we are in.

 

[Bobbin']

Scotland have performed at a level above Latvia for our entire footballing history

Seeing as you both never qualify for tournaments I'd say you're probably on about par.

Although, Latvia have been involved in a major tournament as recently as 2004 so they're probably slightly ahead at this moment.

 

[WilsdenBantam]

Scotland have performed at a level above Latvia for our entire footballing history.

In your attempt to look smart you have achieved the exact opposite.

And also, Latvia is much much closer proportionally to Scotlands population than we are to England. A more appropriate comparison would be Scotland against Luxembourg or Malta.



Not at all, England fans are always incredibly blissfully confident about their chance.

It's quite endearing really, I wish I had that kind of confidence. Very intune with the English psyche, never mind how bad they have been recently, this really is their year.

We are blissfully confident because of our massive population m8, everyone knows that's how you judge teams.

 

[Bilo]

Do you mean we have 4 or 5 players put together worth more than your squad? Or 4 or 5 players that are each worth more than your total squad? I read it as the latter so it maybe crossed wires. But other than Kane nobody in our team is worth anywhere near £100 mil, even in this ridiculous climate we are in.

Don’t think you’d get either Sterling or Stones off City for £100m tbh but fair point, you catch my drift. The quality in our squad is way, way below yours.

 

[WilsdenBantam]

Don’t think you’d get either Sterling or Stones off City for £100m tbh but fair point, you catch my drift. The quality in our squad is way, way below yours.

Hope we see you in the quarters then.

 

[Pagnell]

It's good you escaped from the statement that no side can ever have a good qualifying campaign without qualifying. Saved by the lock.

Wait, you actually wanted to continue that? I'd have thought you'd have been ecstatic about the fact you yet again talking complete bollocks could be quietly and conveniently forgotten about? Like I said though, in the context of good or bad, the fact you're unable to differentiate between a qualifying campaign and the world cup proper renders the debate pointless in the first place.

Now run along and compose a 5000 word response. *



*that could have been said using 100.

 

[markwwfc1992]

We're living in the shadow of the biggest underachievers in international football history.

Felt awful cold when you were hammered by Germany, or given the runaround by Italy, or finishing bottom of your last WC group, or losing to Iceland. Lots to be jealous of there.

England are a much bigger country than Scotland or Wales, doing better than us is the same as Scotland doing better than Latvia.

Bigger in what respect? Population, land mass? If you're seriously going down this route then why haven't India or China qualified for the World Cup. How are Iceland, a country with the population the size of Leicester able to qualify for a World Cup and Scotland fail time and time again?

It's funny because if Scotland or Wales lose a game nobody here could care less. If England lose a game it makes your summer. Speaks volumes on how bad your own shithole country must be if waiting for England to lose is your highlight.

 

[St. Juste]

Seeing as you both never qualify for tournaments I'd say you're probably on about par.

Although, Latvia have been involved in a major tournament as recently as 2004 so they're probably slightly ahead at this moment.

Well, you would completely wrong.

But there you go, nobody is perfect. Continue believing Scotland is better than Latvia if it gives you some pleasure.

Some people swear the earth is flat too.

We are blissfully confident because of our massive population m8, everyone knows that's how you judge teams.

Wonder where all the micro nations are in the last 16?

 

[Bobbin']

Well, you would completely wrong.

But there you go, nobody is perfect. Continue believing Scotland is better than Latvia if it gives you some pleasure.

Some people swear the earth is flat too.



Wonder where all the micro nations are in the last 16?

But I don't believe that.

 

[SF_]

Marian Pahars is better than any Scottish player ever.

 

[St. Juste]

Wait, you actually wanted to continue that? I'd have thought you'd have been ecstatic about the fact you yet again talking complete bollocks could be quietly and conveniently forgotten about? Like I said though, in the context of good or bad, the fact you're unable to differentiate between a qualifying campaign and the world cup proper renders the debate pointless in the first place.

Now run along and compose a 5000 word response. *

*that could have been said using 100.

It is indeed yourself who is unable to differentiate that different countries will have different expectations with regards to qualifying.

Scotland can, and have, had good qualifying campaigns without qualifying. 2008 is an excellent example of this.

In your mind no nation can have a good qualifying campaign without qualifying.

So here is a direct question - if Andorra win five games, beat Germany twice but miss out on qualifying due to goal difference, you wouldn't think they would consider this a 'good campaign'?

Bigger in what respect? Population, land mass? If you're seriously going down this route then why haven't India or China qualified for the World Cup. How are Iceland, a country with the population the size of Leicester able to qualify for a World Cup and Scotland fail time and time again?

It's funny because if Scotland or Wales lose a game nobody here could care less. If England lose a game it makes your summer. Speaks volumes on how bad your own shithole country must be if waiting for England to lose is your highlight.

Land mass isn't relevant at all, population is.

As for your questions, these have been dealt with extensively on this site. Population is only a valid metric when comparing two nations where football is the dominant sport. It is not in India and China, and therefore isn't terribly relevant. It is in, say, England and France. Or Brazil and Colombia. And then the comparison is valid.

Icelands record in international football is far worse than Scotlands. Their recent success doesn't change history, we have played them 6 times and won 6 times and qualified for many more tournaments than they have.

And indeed, if population is not a factor why are the two most successful nations in football also the two largest (Germany and Brazil)? Why have only one nation with a population below 30 million ever won the world cup (and they did so in 1950)?

Why are San Marino and Andorra the weakest nations in European football?

As for the last paragraph, yes, you can really taste the seethe there. Stop taking this so seriously. In football people like to see their rivals do badly (look at the reaction here and in the media to Germany going out). Stop crying about it.

 

[WilsdenBantam]

Well, you would completely wrong.

But there you go, nobody is perfect. Continue believing Scotland is better than Latvia if it gives you some pleasure.

Some people swear the earth is flat too.



Wonder where all the micro nations are in the last 16?

At home watching the mighty England obviously, but at Least Iceland gave it a good go and they don't moan about a small population.

 

[TomPNE94]

Going back to the actual game for a second rather than this shite...

I didn't think Rose was very good tbh, saw a couple of comments praising him. Was absolutely embarrassing defending for the goal showing Januzaj onto his stronger foot and giving him 18 miles of space to pick out the top corner. I'd stick with Young.

We played pretty well against Italy and Uruguay in 14, those were tight games that could have gone either way. Euros other then Iceland wasn't as bad as people make out either.

I went to the 0-0 against Slovakia and I couldn't tell you one thing that happened in that game, I've struck it from my memory it was so bad.

 

[SF_]

Imagine not watching your country play in a tournament since 98.

Enough to make anyone turn into a bitter little bellsmash.

 

[Pagnell]

So here is a direct question - if Andorra win five games, beat Germany twice but miss out on qualifying due to goal difference, you wouldn't think they would consider this a 'good campaign'?

Haven't I already directly answered an almost identical direct question? I can draw you a diagram if you like?

No, they didn't qualify. So by definition it can't be a good qualifying campaign.

But, to point out an important factor again as it appears to be where you're getting confused, that's not to say they can't take positives from it and improve from the experience.

You bore me, I'm done as this is going around in circles.

Going back to the actual game for a second rather than this shite...

To be fair even 'this shite' is more interesting than that shitty fucking game.

 

[Gassy]

Continue believing Scotland is better than Latvia if it gives you some pleasure.

Some people swear the earth is flat too.

There was me thinking Scotland were better - but when you put forward an argument of that strength it is hard to argue

 

[St. Juste]

Marian Pahars

At home watching the mighty England obviously, but at Least Iceland gave it a good go and they don't moan about a small population.

Correct, Iceland beat England in Euro 2016.

Imagine not watching your country play in a tournament since 98.

Enough to make anyone turn into a bitter little bellsmash.

Nothing to be too concerned about, Scotland will qualify more often than not for a 24 team Euros.

Haven't I already directly answered an almost identical direct question? I can draw you a diagram if you like?

No, they didn't qualify. So by definition it can't be a good qualifying campaign.

But, to point out an important factor again as it appears to be where you're getting confused, that's not to say they can't take positives from it and improve from the experience.

You bore me, I'm done as this is going around in circles.

To be fair even 'this shite' is more interesting than that shitty fucking game.

Right, so, many countries who will realistically never qualify can never have a good campaign.

Quite astonishing.

The aim of school exams is to get people into higher education, for anyone who doesn't get into higher education, they presumably did not get good results? (Regardless of any personal circumstances)?

An utterly bizarre world view. Of course nations can have good qualifying campaigns and not qualify. If you are a 6th seed finishing third you have not failed, and have had a good campaign.

There is also no real difference between that and the World Cup. The intention of the World Cup is to win it, but plenty of teams have good world cups without winning. You intend to draw a distinction here but there is none, different nations have different expectations. I'm sure the people of Andorra would be ecstatic finishing third in their qualifying group - it would be by far the best achievement in their footballing history. Even if you would sneer at it.

 

[St. Juste]

There was me thinking Scotland were better - but when you put forward an argument of that strength it is hard to argue

If you believe something so clearly untrue, then no argument will satisfy you.

Like someone who believes the earth is flat.

 

[Pagnell]

If you believe something so clearly untrue, then no argument will satisfy you.

I laughed.

 

[SF_]

Nothing to be too concerned about, Scotland will qualify more often than not for a 24 team Euros.

Aye, it's a big shame they keep trying to expand it to include the shit nations.

 

[Steve_Wafc]

If you believe something so clearly untrue, then no argument will satisfy you.

Like someone who believes the earth is flat.

He’ll realise in a sec..

 

[Bobbin']

Nothing to be too concerned about, Scotland will qualify more often than not for a 24 team Euros.

How embarrassing.

Scotland are like that kid at school that couldn’t play football and just sat on their own somewhere watching all the other kids play and UEFA are the teacher that walks over and says “come on now kids, do you mind it little Scotland plays with you?”

 

[G.B]

We played pretty well against Italy

Wut? We were dismantled by Matteo fucking Darmian.

 

[WilsdenBantam]

How embarrassing.

Scotland are like that kid at school that couldn’t play football and just sat on their own somewhere watching all the other kids play and UEFA are the teacher that walks over and says “come on now kids, do you mind it little Scotland plays with you?”

When the World Cup goes to 48 teams they might have a chance as well, actually probably not most of the places aren't going to Europe.

 

[SF_]

When the World Cup goes to 48 teams they might have a chance as well, actually probably not most of the places aren't going to Europe.

Doesn't matter, they can be happy as long as they nearly qualify.

 

[WilsdenBantam]

Doesn't matter, they can be happy as long as they nearly qualify.

It's good to have these ambitions.

 

[Pagnell]

Doesn't matter, they can be happy as long as they nearly qualify.

That would be a good campaign.

 

[St. Juste]

How embarrassing.

Scotland are like that kid at school that couldn’t play football and just sat on their own somewhere watching all the other kids play and UEFA are the teacher that walks over and says “come on now kids, do you mind it little Scotland plays with you?”

Er, it was hardly our decision to expand the tournament.

When the World Cup goes to 48 teams they might have a chance as well, actually probably not most of the places aren't going to Europe.

Correct, indeed in the future of the World Cup I wouldn't be surprised to see teams automatically qualifying. FIFA really want the likes of China, India and the US to be qualifying regularly. Small European countries like Scotland, where football is already massive, are the complete opposite of what they are looking for.

That would be a good campaign.

In some cases, yes.

Good to know you've totally abandoned the fallacy that Andorra finishing 3rd wouldn't be a good campaign.

 

[Pagnell]

Hook, line and sinker