You are funny:). Holland only lost one game in qualifying for Euro 2012 and that was the last one, when they were already sure to win the group. In qualifying this is the only game the Dutch didn’t win in the last three qualifying campains. Qualifying for SA 2010, won every game; qualifying for Euro 2012, won everything apart from the last game when it didn’t really matter anymore; qualification for WC 2014, six wins out of six games so far.
Up to the 2012 tournament the only meaningful games they didn’t win since Euro 2008 were the WC final (in extra time) and the game against Sweden at the end of the qualifying campain. To say the US team is comparable is insulting.
A global qualifying campain would be sure to lead to more European teams and less Costa Rica’s, Jamaica’s and Trinidad and Tobagos.
The most difficult tournament to win isn’t the World Cup btw, it’s the Euros;).
Absent a golden generation coming through, you may well be right. Once you (the generic - not Scotland per se) fall out of the top 2 groups of seeds for qualification, you’ve got harder qualifying groups to contend with, which makes it more difficult to qualify, which makes it more likely you stay in lower pots of seeds. It’s a vicious downward spiral, that you can only really arrest by getting a super talented group together and consistently beating the teams in the 1st and 2nd seeding pots in your pools. It can be done, though it’s going to take some real investment in generating new footballers to do it.
I think the Scots will rise again. How high I couldn’t say but they will defo get a team together that can qualify for major tournaments. The complete absence of talent in Scottish football atm and for the past few years is more the aberration, and it will pass given how serious the Scots take the fitba.
You’re right about falling out of the top seeding groups making things much harder, but phrases like golden generation are bollox really. Anyone who supports a shite team will tell you that things are fine, they just need eleven new players. Reality is, though, that 3 or 4 quality players can totally transform a side. This is doubly true for the international game, where a canny fitba man at the helm of a limited side can still get results. It’s reasonable to think that Scotland can produce the handful of legitimately good players needed to build a side around that can compete at international level.
I’m not sure that the phrase golden generation is any different to 3 or 4 quality players to be honest. It’s just a shorthand for “have 3-4 decent players to hang your team around”.
I think a good manager could turn Scotland around and qualify them by being hard to beat. Due to the lack of time international managers have with their squads, someone with strong tactical ideas and a set of players who can carry them out can be quite effective in the international arena, especially in the qualifying groups - I’d even go so far as to say that Capello is a good example of this (given basically the same players failed to qualify for Euro 2008).
This site might be helpful. The US has played Germany 8 times since reunification and have lost 6/8 (so I’m assuming the missing two matches were against East Germany). The two victories were in a friendly and a Confederations Cup match in 1999.
I see the same myopic arrogance here as I did in the headline in a UK daily after the WC 2010 group draw:
E(ngland)
A(lgeria)
S(lovenia)
Y(anks)
Now who won that group?
And its silly to say that the Euros are more difficult than the WC…the Euros have 3 more middling Euro nations while lacking the other world powerhouses. Get back to me when a Greece or a Denmark win the WC.
I’m not sure how serious you’re being here but I don’t think you’re massively wrong. Your comparison is ridic-u-lous on the face of things because there’s such a gap in quality between the NA and European players. It’s no longer a clearly stratified, different class like 15 years ago, but the gap is still big. International football is a bag of shite, though, so it tends to compress these differences and make it much more competitive than it really should be.
The US and Mexico would get walloped by Spain or Germany, but you’re talking about two class sides there. France, England, Italy in a best of 3? The European sides might edge things but it would be close. Be a brave punter who’d back England in that scenario right now.
Mostly right, but I think you do underrate the US. I’d definitely predict they beat Sweden more times than Sweden would beat us. They’re pretty close in quality though.
[QUOTE=Snarky Kong]
Mostly right, but I think you do underrate the US. I’d definitely predict they beat Sweden more times than Sweden would beat us. They’re pretty close in quality though.
[/QUOTE]
Mostly right? So what part is not right? Actually, I’ll give you Sweden. According to here, Sweden and the USA are 4/4, with the US beating Sweden twice most recently, so yeah. The Zlatan magic does not seem to be working too well for Sweden anyways, although I do maintain there’s no one on the US side who is even remotely close to being of Zlatan’s calibre. Then again, there’s a number of other second tier European countries like (for instance) the Czech Republic, the Republic of Ireland, or Denmark, that have winning records against the US.
As much as I love the American team and support them 100%, I’ve now watched enough European and South American soccer to know that we are far behind their best teams. Our 5-6 very best players can barely make the starting line-up of middle-tier teams in the top 4 leagues (La Liga, EPL, Serie A, Bundesliga). I think that will change over the next 2 decades as parents steer their boys away from American football due to the head injuries.
Come on now Baron Greenback - is that based on anything in particular beyond the Old Firm travesty? I’ve moved away from Scotland now but lived there 10 yrs, played Sunday league for around 5 - there’s massive interest and participation in football (obv the alehouse game I played doesn’t have a lot to do with the national side, but the leagues were really busy and (un)healthy). Consistent interest in the game from the man on the street. That street was an Edinburgh terrace, as well, so things would be even stronger in real Scotland.
Not saying the weight of evidence is not currently on your side with respect to a notably weak collection of players at the moment. But you really think that can’t change and that the game is collapsing?
It’s not just Rangers being busted down to the fourth tier. Dunfermline went into admin yesterday, and that is one of the bigger town clubs with a home following. Hearts are on a drip, too. 42 teams in a population of 5 (ish) million is not sustainable,
Its interesting that so many American kids play it but 99% of them have no real interest in the game. Its hard to imagine little league players not watching baseball on tv.
The part that isn’t right would be Sweden being better than the US. And yeah, it’s a no brainer that nobody on the US comes close to Zlatan. He’s miles better than anything the US has every produced.
Ireland and Denmark have winning records against the US? Going back how far?
Laggard, US fans blame officials a lot? I know there was a lot of talk during and after the game against Slovenia, but that’s one game (a tie) and had one of the worst calls of all time in it.
