Scotland's WC 2006 New Strip

[King Ellis]

The only team I don't like is Wales. That is down to when they beat Italy and all the fans were like "Oh we're better then England now. We're going to qualify and we'd beat England anytime." Then they fell flat on their face and didn't qualify.

[Guest Ringo Von Masterson]

To be fair, I don't think its simply Scottish fans that hate the England national team. Because England are (player wise at least) in the top 5 teams in the world, they're gonna be hated by most because of the "good teams suck" mentality. Just ask yourself how the average English supporter feels about Brazil, France, Italy, Spain and Argentina and you've got the same sort of hate as the whole England-Scotland thing.

Although I've got to agree with Liam, player-for-player, I honestly don't believe the Scots would have walked through their WC opposition.

[NobBe Nobbs]

Beaten by Russia, if I recall correctly. Oh, I did laugh at that one.

[hugobomb]

The only team I don't like is Wales. That is down to when they beat Italy and all the fans were like "Oh we're better then England now. We're going to qualify and we'd beat England anytime." Then they fell flat on their face and didn't qualify.

The reason we got a bit over the top over that result was because the last time we qualified for any internation tournament was the 1958 World Cup, so excuse us for thinking 'woo hooo, we might be ending 40 years of shitness'

[TheArsenal]

Just ask yourself how the average English supporter feels about Brazil, France, Italy, Spain and Argentina and you've got the same sort of hate as the whole England-Scotland thing.

[Guest Ringo Von Masterson]

Just ask yourself how the average English supporter feels about Brazil, France, Italy, Spain and Argentina and you've got the same sort of hate as the whole England-Scotland thing.

That's not a "good teams suck" thing. That's a Falklands/Hand of God thing.

[Dan]

I enjoy watched Brazil and France play. Italy can be good to watch, Spain too, dive too much though. I like watching the Czechs too. And the Swede's.

I Most English don't mind good teams, really.

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

Hahahaha

I find it amusing enough that you're sponsored by "Morrisons" and have their logo everywhere....

Classy

[The Kraig]

But we could have qualified if we won the matches we should have won. (0_o)

We dropped points to Moldova, Belarus and Slovenia, all of whom we should have beat. We should have been trying to hold Norway to draws as well. Norway were the 2nd place team in our group at the end.

The fact England fans get such a weird satisfaction out of it is sad, because it's not like we were dead favourites to qualify. I could understand if we were all like, 'HEY, SEE YOU IN GERMANY PRICKS!' when we entered, etc, but we weren't.

When will Scottish fans (or maybe just you) realise that the Scottish team isn't that much better than any of the teams mentioned?

In your group, there were no matches you should have won because there were no teams that you are head and shoulders above (well, out of the ones listed). Until it changes drastically, you have to realise that Scotland generally are an average International team, and losing to other average International teams is par for the course.

Plus, not all English fans were that bothered by whether Scotland got in or not, so I wouldn't say we all get a weird satisfaction out of it, although Scottish fans seem to hate England doing well.

EDIT: With a quick look at the FIFA rankings, Moldova were the only side nowhere near you in the rankings, so fair enough about that one. But both Belarus and Slovenia are around the same place as you, and that's considering Scotland have risen recently and they have both fallen places (at the start of the year 2005, Slovenia were 40+ places ahead of you, and Belarus were 18 places ahead of you)

Edited January 26, 2006 by The Kraig

[lanky316]

And Scotland fans probably don't want a repeat of the 1966 World Cup, because we never hear the end of it as it is. I mean, surely England's bored to hell with it as well?

[Grounded Wingman]

There's a bright side to Scotland not qualifying. At least the press can't say any violence is caused by "British" hooligans if only England are at the World Cup.

Having said that, England fans get it pretty harsh if someone steps out of line. Turkey, Italy, Spain etc get away with things that are just as bad or worse.

Oh, and this St Johnstone fan would like to point out that Scotland will be at the World Cup. He'll be playing up front for Trinidad and Tobago.

The big worry is England are certainly capable of winning the World Cup. The positive is that Eriksson's so stupid that they'll have to do it in spite of him, rather than because of him.

[Liam]

But we could have qualified if we won the matches we should have won. (0_o)

We dropped points to Moldova, Belarus and Slovenia, all of whom we should have beat. We should have been trying to hold Norway to draws as well. Norway were the 2nd place team in our group at the end.

The fact England fans get such a weird satisfaction out of it is sad, because it's not like we were dead favourites to qualify. I could understand if we were all like, 'HEY, SEE YOU IN GERMANY PRICKS!' when we entered, etc, but we weren't.

When will Scottish fans (or maybe just you) realise that the Scottish team isn't that much better than any of the teams mentioned?

In your group, there were no matches you should have won because there were no teams that you are head and shoulders above (well, out of the ones listed). Until it changes drastically, you have to realise that Scotland generally are an average International team, and losing to other average International teams is par for the course.

Plus, not all English fans were that bothered by whether Scotland got in or not, so I wouldn't say we all get a weird satisfaction out of it, although Scottish fans seem to hate England doing well.

EDIT: With a quick look at the FIFA rankings, Moldova were the only side nowhere near you in the rankings, so fair enough about that one. But both Belarus and Slovenia are around the same place as you, and that's considering Scotland have risen recently and they have both fallen places (at the start of the year 2005, Slovenia were 40+ places ahead of you, and Belarus were 18 places ahead of you)

I never said we should annihilate them, but we should be beating them like 2-0 at home, 1-2 away, or whatever. We're not that much better, but we are better as we have higher quality players (almost all of them playing for Premiership, SPL or yo-yo Championship clubs) who usually have much more experience and a much larger backing (in fan support and financially). You have to aim high if you want to succeed, and Berti Voghts didn't know what to do at all. And if we'd have any chance of qualifying we'd need to try and get a draw out of Norway. I generally wouldn't expect to, since they have big names like Carew, Sorensen, Pedersen, etc, in the team, but you have to at least try. We have a lot of young players coming into the team like Derek Riordan and Scott Brown for example, so hopefully Euro 2008 qualification will be easier on us. You all look down on Scottish football, when really the Premiership uses the SPL as a sort of feeder system, and we get all your rejects. It's a financial thing.

And everyone knows the FIFA Rankings are a joke, why bother quoting them?

They are a joke when comparing sides in different continents, but not on the same continent, really, as the standard of competition you'd be playing would be the same. The only way they are a joke is because teams like the US, Mexico and Australia get higher placings than European teams who face stiffer competition, but that's it.

And I know you didn't say you should annihalate them, but as RM agreed with (coming from a more neutral perspective than me, arguably), Scotland shouldn't have walked the group the way you made it sound. As much as you may have been "oh, we should have beaten them 2-0 home, 2-1 away",if Scotland had done that, there'd be Slovenian and Belurussian fans probably saying the same thing.

And just because the players are better known to us, doesn't make them by default better players.

Edited January 26, 2006 by rvdwannabe

[The Kraig]

No, the fact they play at a higher level of competition on a regular basis with success makes them the better players (on paper, I know). Every good player eventually ends up at a good club, unless they chose not to, no matter where they're from.

And the FIFA Rankings are always just a vague order. You can't put teams into an order and pretend that's the way the results will happen. I could understand a ranking system if it was annual, or biannual, and takes into account the performances of the teams over that certain period of time. Then you'd have a pretty good comparison of how the teams compare to each other. But they try and keep it going constantly, which is stupid. Greece have a high rank, even though they were very disappointing in the World Cup qualifiers. But they retain a high rank because of their fortunate European title win. By the FIFA Rankings, the Czech Republic is the best team in Europe, which doesn't make sense. You'd expect France, Germany, England, Italy, etc to beat the Czechs with their best teams playing to their full potential.

But the point is, you just can't have a constant ranking system and expect it to be 'correct'. Mainly because there's no such thing as correct when every team can't play every other team, as it just depends on how well the players played in the past, not how well they will do in the future. If you know what I mean. The rankings are a joke.

[Liam]

No, the fact they play at a higher level of competition on a regular basis with success makes them the better players (on paper, I know). Every good player eventually ends up at a good club, unless they chose not to, no matter where they're from.

And the FIFA Rankings are always just a vague order. You can't put teams into an order and pretend that's the way the results will happen. I could understand a ranking system if it was annual, or biannual, and takes into account the performances of the teams over that certain period of time. Then you'd have a pretty good comparison of how the teams compare to each other. But they try and keep it going constantly, which is stupid. Greece have a high rank, even though they were very disappointing in the World Cup qualifiers. But they retain a high rank because of their fortunate European title win. By the FIFA Rankings, the Czech Republic is the best team in Europe, which doesn't make sense. You'd expect France, Germany, England, Italy, etc to beat the Czechs with their best teams playing to their full potential.

But the point is, you just can't have a constant ranking system and expect it to be 'correct'. Mainly because there's no such thing as correct when every team can't play every other team, as it just depends on how well the players played in the past, not how well they will do in the future. If you know what I mean. The rankings are a joke.

Yeah, but just because the players are better on paper doesn't really mean much in practice, which is why Scotland are out.

The rankings work to an extent because they are based over the past few years, rather than just annually, or whatever you'd prefer (although admittedly, there are flaws). It takes years for a team generally to build up to being something special, and even for teams on thier way out, it doesn't happen overnight. It's just like cricket....England beat Australia, but didn't suddenly make Australia not the best team in the world (tenuous, I know, but bear with me...).

And it's pointless saying who should win if certain teams best players playing to full potential, as that is a big "what if...?". The Czech Republic are ranked so highly because although they don't always perform in big tournaments, they tend to win the most competitive matches (taking into account qualifying and the actual tournaments) than a lot of European teams. Does that make them the best European team? No, not neccessarily, but how else are you going to rank teams other than based on actual victories and results?

And I'd argue that Czech Republic could beat all 4 teams you mentioned, because again, it isn't about how players are on paper or thier potential to do good, and the Czechs not only have a good side, but they play better as a team than most other International teams.

EDIT: Out of interest for people:

The ranking list is produced by a computer program which assigns a team points for every match, according to clearly defined criteria. The factors taken into consideration are:

1. Winning, drawing and losing

2. Number of goals

3. Home or away match

4. Importance of the match (multiplication factor)

5. Regional strength (multiplication factor)

For each team only the seven best results per year are given full weighting. Results from the past are given progressively less weighting year by year until after eight years they are dropped completely. In this way current success is rated more highly than past results.

Edited January 26, 2006 by rvdwannabe

[Grounded Wingman]

Personally I feel that Scotland's infrastructure is still not good enough. Sure, there are a few decent youngsters coming through but nowhere near the quality needed.

Scotland, as a nation, also lack ambition and are happy with the "Glorious failures" tag. For a nation of supposed fighters we sure accept loss easily.

There is a total overhaul needed, which won't come because those in the SFA are busy with their individual agendas.

It also doesn't help that any half-way decent prospect that comes through ends up ruining their career by leaving the club that nurtured them and, subsequently, they either kick heels in the Old Firm's stiffs or go to a club in one of the Nationwide divisions and flit in and around the fringes of the team there too.

One final point - it should be more important, to a Scottish player, to play for Scotland rather than to play for their club.

[Summers]

I quite love how there's "England suck because they think they'll win the world cup."

God damn. Yeah, we obviously suck because we believe we can. Of course the pundits and commentators are going to be biased, if they're English - of coutse they're going to want a fucking English victory.

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

The multiplication for the regional strength of South America is a little too high.....

[MDK]

I quite love how there's "England suck because they think they'll win the world cup."

God damn. Yeah, we obviously suck because we believe we can. Of course the pundits and commentators are going to be biased, if they're English - of coutse they're going to want a fucking English victory.

'zactly.

What is the point of supporting your team if you don't think they can win anything? Pffft, I support Orient and I am confident we can win the FA cup. Okay, it is bind optimism, but so what? We can do it!

But yeah, I'm sure I made a point there.

[Dan]

Will they use this kit in the Euro's too?

[MDK]

Silly chavmo, Trinidad and Tobago aren't part of Europe.

EDIT - Or Paraguay, it seems >_>

Edited January 27, 2006 by Myked