Euros

[CryptoPlankton]

Well done the Danes, but aberration not proof of the potency of smaller nations

How much of an aberration was it though?

Euros:

Czechoslovakia won 1976 (approx 71st in world by population)
Netherlands won 1988 (68th)
Denmark won 1992 (115th)
Greece won 2004 (87th)
Portugal won 2016 (88th)

Copa America:

Uruguay 15 times winners (134th)
Paraguay won 1953 and 1979 (106th)
Bolivia won 1963 (80th)
Chile won 2015 and 2016 (63rd)

World Cup:

Uruguay won 1930 and 1950 (134th)
Czechoslovakia finalists 1934 and 1962 (71st)
Hungary finalists 1954 (94th)
Sweden finalists 1958 (91st)
Netherlands finalists 1974, 1978 and 2010 (68th)
Croatia finalists 2018 (130th)

Given football is a global game, the fact that only two of the 20 most populous countries (Brazil, 6th, and Germany, 17th) have won a major tournament suggests to me that this population theory may need a little refinement - especially as it is the most popular sport in many of these countries, including NIgeria (7th), Mexico (10th), Egypt (14th) and Turkey (18th).

My statement was

Gist: It's population times how embedded football is in your culture which will provide a decent guide to your prospects as a footballing nation.

1. China - No significant long term footballing culture.
2. India - No significant long term footballing culture.
3. USA - No long term footballing culture, and with a very developed and professional sporting system which sees NFL, NBA, and MLB hoover up talent. Football isn't competitive.
4. Indonesia - Not renowned as football crazy
5. Pakistan - It's simply not cricket
6. Brazil - 5 World Cups/9 South American Championships
7. Nigeria - 3 AFCON titles/4 times losing finalists/8 3rd place finishes out of 32 tournaments
8. Bangladesh - It's simply not cricket
9. Russia
10. Mexico - Regular World Cup attendees without much success. Won 11 out of 26 CONCACAF Gold Cops/ Championships, twice Copa America finalists, 4 times semi finalists.
11. Japan - Not renowned as football crazy
12. Ethiopia
13. Phillipines
14. Egypt - Record 7 times AFCON champions.

I could go on... but you have to go down to 33rd to find the least populace World Cup winner...

Apart from Uruguay (134th), but apparently we're only counting tournaments since the dark ages of 1950? I see also that the "weaker" tournaments carry more weight when it suits the argument

Anyway, I was merely pointing out that your so-called "aberration" really wasn't that unusual. But stats can be manipulated to support whatever narrative one wants and it really isn't of any consequence so I think I'll conclude with a slightly dismissive "whatever..."

[BobbyD]

Apart from Uruguay (134th), but apparently we're only counting tournaments since the dark ages of 1950? I see also that the "weaker" tournaments carry more weight when it suits the argument

Anyway, I was merely pointing out that your so-called "aberration" really wasn't that unusual. But stats can be manipulated to support whatever narrative one wants and it really isn't of any consequence so I think I'll conclude with a slightly dismissive "whatever..."

I said it provides a pretty good guide to how you should be doing, based on availability of footballing resources and competition from other sports not that it was a perfect predictor of how every side has done. Bigger countries are going to have bad patches and there will always be smaller countries making waves, but generally speaking they won't be sustained. I've yet to see a cogent counterargument.

Yes Uruguay have done very well, as have the Netherlands. No a 13 team tournament played in 1930 probably doesn't have any relevance to an analysis of the factors behind modern international footballing success.

Yes, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a team winning a tournament they failed to qualify for is an aberration, and one made easier by the fact that once they'd lucked in to the tournament there were only 7 other sides and one of them was hosts Sweden, one of them Scotland and another England! Smaller tournaments provide more potential for upsets. There's more chance of decent sides not qualifying, France or Spain were eliminated in '92 based just on the qualifying group draw and you need fewer results to win the tourney which is also why I would favour World Cup performance over local federation. In '92 the Danes finished second to Sweden on 3 points to get through the group at the expense of France and England both on 2. They beat the Netherlands on penalties in the semis and then a lacklustre Germany in the final. Great achievement? Yes. Would they have won a 16 or 32 team tournament? No.

[Bubblesofearth]

I said it provides a pretty good guide to how you should be doing, based on availability of footballing resources and competition from other sports not that it was a perfect predictor of how every side has done. Bigger countries are going to have bad patches and there will always be smaller countries making waves, but generally speaking they won't be sustained. I've yet to see a cogent counterargument.

No cogent counterargument but this all smacks of yet another excuse by Scots as to why they've not done well. Blame the size of the population. Not wanting to get political but it's a bit like the 'blame Westminster' culture up here. All very negative and to some extent stops us addressing those underlying issues that can be addressed and adopting a far more positive attitude of how can we change things for the better.

IMO there is absolutely no priori reason, certainly not population, why Scotland cannot compete more effectively at international level. A good start would be to ask 'how can we do better?' rather than 'this is why we don't do well' It's a mindset thing.

BoE

[BobbyD]

I said it provides a pretty good guide to how you should be doing, based on availability of footballing resources and competition from other sports not that it was a perfect predictor of how every side has done. Bigger countries are going to have bad patches and there will always be smaller countries making waves, but generally speaking they won't be sustained. I've yet to see a cogent counterargument.

No cogent counterargument but this all smacks of yet another excuse by Scots as to why they've not done well. Blame the size of the population. Not wanting to get political but it's a bit like the 'blame Westminster' culture up here. All very negative and to some extent stops us addressing those underlying issues that can be addressed and adopting a far more positive attitude of how can we change things for the better.

It's mathematical reality, whether that is convenient or not as is being 7.5% of the votes of a legislative body and being over-represented at that.

Exactly how successful do you think a country with a population the same size as Finland's should be over say a 30 year period? A country that size simply isn't always going to have your Sounesses, your Dalglishes, your Hansens or your Robertsons to select from. England may have absolutely no clue how to use them but even in a bad crop they will consistently have more players and better players than Scotland to pick from.

[Bubblesofearth]

Exactly how successful do you think a country with a population the same size as Finland's should be over say a 30 year period? A country that size simply isn't always going to have your Sounesses, your Dalglishes, your Hansens or your Robertsons to select from. England may have absolutely no clue how to use them but even in a bad crop they will consistently have more players and better players than Scotland to pick from.

I suspect the influence of population approaches an asymptote and once you get past a million to choose from it's a law of diminishing returns. At that point money, desire, coaching, youth policy, facilities etc all become more important.

Look at tennis for example. Some countries with relatively small populations have produced a number of outstanding players whilst countries with larger populations have struggled - England once again a shining example!

BoE

[servodude]

Exactly how successful do you think a country with a population the same size as Finland's should be over say a 30 year period? A country that size simply isn't always going to have your Sounesses, your Dalglishes, your Hansens or your Robertsons to select from. England may have absolutely no clue how to use them but even in a bad crop they will consistently have more players and better players than Scotland to pick from.

I suspect the influence of population approaches an asymptote and once you get past a million to choose from it's a law of diminishing returns. At that point money, desire, coaching, youth policy, facilities etc all become more important.

Look at tennis for example. Some countries with relatively small populations have produced a number of outstanding players whilst countries with larger populations have struggled - England once again a shining example!

BoE

Agree with you both

Bigger pool to draw from really helps
But if no-one in that pool wants to play it doesn't count for much

Once you get past a point, it's not who you've got to choose from that matters as much as how they're supported/invested in
- hard to find the "natural talent" if there is no-one looking
- and even if you find Ryan Giggs - who's he got to play with?!

-sd

[Lootman]

Look at tennis for example. Some countries with relatively small populations have produced a number of outstanding players whilst countries with larger populations have struggled - England once again a shining example!

Tennis is an odd example because its players represent the UK and not England, Scotland etc. So the UK has produced a recent Wimbledon mens winner. He may not have been English but he was British.

It can be instructive to consider which non-English football players were good enough to clearly get into the England (or UK) squad of their day. Arguably:

Scotland: Law, Dalgleish, Hansen, Souness
Wales: Rush, Giggs, Bale
Northern Ireland: Best

I might have missed a few but cannot believe it is that many.

[Leothebear]

A number of factors why England don't do particularly well at International tournaments.

1. The fans on the whole prefer club football rather then International.

2. The "little England" mentality has bared us from learning from the best of other Countries until we started to get foreign coaches working over here.

3. As eluded to above in this Country it's been a case of brawn over brains sadly.

4. Our historic Colonial false superiority is also a factor as with other Colonial Countries.

AIMHO.

IMHO

People tend to over-analyse England's performances and underestimate the role of luck in such sudden death competitions. We are one of only eight countries to win the World Cup - that's pretty cool. A lot of it boils down to who gets the breaks. Some countries have had a bit more luck than others and that is the nature of sport. I'd suggest that England has had slightly below average luck over the years, which may have led to the perception that they have "underperformed". But they have reached the quarter finals 9 times and had a couple of unlucky eliminations in the round before that, which compares favourably with all but the top three or four countries in terms of performance.

Some examples of how things could have been different:

1982 - didn't lose, but eliminated. (West Germany)
1986 - Hand of God in quarter-final - how might things have gone if it had been spotted? (Argentina)
1990 - Semi-final, Gazza's feet too short, Waddle's shot an inch or two from going in off the post - penalties lottery. (Germany)
1998 - Last 16 penalties. (Argentina)
2002 - Freak goal by Ronaldhino in quarter-final (Brazil)
2006 - Penalties in the quarter-final (Portugal)
2010 - Last 16, goal disallowed (no goal line technology) at 1-2 - who knows how it would have gone? (Germany)
2018 - Semi-final

It's hardly catastrophic to have lost to those nations and in many cases England could be justified in feeling a little hard done by. With a bit of luck in 1990, I fancy England would have beaten a very average Argentina in the final. We would then be comparing England's two World Cup wins with Germany's three. I think England have been about as good as we can expect, but not quite had that little bit of luck needed to beat the very best.

Well constructed and thoughtful post CP.
I still maintain we were crap in many of those World Cups.

[BobbyD]

Exactly how successful do you think a country with a population the same size as Finland's should be over say a 30 year period? A country that size simply isn't always going to have your Sounesses, your Dalglishes, your Hansens or your Robertsons to select from. England may have absolutely no clue how to use them but even in a bad crop they will consistently have more players and better players than Scotland to pick from.

I suspect the influence of population approaches an asymptote and once you get past a million to choose from it's a law of diminishing returns. At that point money, desire, coaching, youth policy, facilities etc all become more important.

Look at tennis for example. Some countries with relatively small populations have produced a number of outstanding players whilst countries with larger populations have struggled - England once again a shining example!

BoE

Agree with you both

Bigger pool to draw from really helps
But if no-one in that pool wants to play it doesn't count for much

Once you get past a point, it's not who you've got to choose from that matters as much as how they're supported/invested in
- hard to find the "natural talent" if there is no-one looking
- and even if you find Ryan Giggs - who's he got to play with?!

-sd

We were talking specifically about whether or not Scotland have underperformed over the years.

I've never denied that there are other factors including money which is to some degree a proxy for footballing infrastructure, but that pop times footballiness offer a predictable and rational baseline from which to judge performance.

Obviously the closer two countries are in pop and footballiness the more different factors will have an effect, and smaller countries are more penalised by the random distribution of footballing potential in the same way that premium bond holders with a single bond are unlikely to win anything ever whilst somebody holding their full allowance will have a reasonably predictable income. Small countries will also have more varied results, with the odd stand out result pushing a small number of them to temporary prominence, whilst a similar number experience correspondingly negative runs in the full glare of the World's complete indifference. Single bond holders do win the £1000 prize, and you would expect them to. They don't however win it consistently over a period of 30 years and they don't win the million. Not that they can't win the million, but given the short period of time before the sun explodes taking international football with it...

I wouldn't go as far as saying 'after a certain point', but other factors will be stronger or weaker in specific comparisons. However even if 'up to a point were true' (which it isn't!) SCOTLAND are nowhere close top 'the point'. You could argue that Germany, France, Spain and England were past this point (if it existed), but SCOTLAND????

Pick three other countries to make up a similar foursome with SCOTLAND and you don't end up with Brazil, Italy and the Netherlands you'd end up with something closer to Denmark, Finland and Slovakia. Scotland's performance needs to be seen in that context.

[servodude]

I suspect the influence of population approaches an asymptote and once you get past a million to choose from it's a law of diminishing returns. At that point money, desire, coaching, youth policy, facilities etc all become more important.

Look at tennis for example. Some countries with relatively small populations have produced a number of outstanding players whilst countries with larger populations have struggled - England once again a shining example!

BoE

Agree with you both

Bigger pool to draw from really helps
But if no-one in that pool wants to play it doesn't count for much

Once you get past a point, it's not who you've got to choose from that matters as much as how they're supported/invested in
- hard to find the "natural talent" if there is no-one looking
- and even if you find Ryan Giggs - who's he got to play with?!

-sd

We were talking specifically about whether or not Scotland have underperformed over the years.

<snip>

Pick three other countries to make up a similar foursome with SCOTLAND and you don't end up with Brazil, Italy and the Netherlands you'd end up with something closer to Denmark, Finland and Slovakia. Scotland's performance needs to be seen in that context.

So if Euro 2020/21 is the first time that Scotland has been in the finals of a major tournament [1] since 1998
how would that compare to Denmark, Finland, Slovakia, Norway, Croatia etc in the same period?
- about the same as Finland?

- sd
[1]football obviously; Scotland punch well above their weight in curling

[BobbyD]

Agree with you both

Bigger pool to draw from really helps
But if no-one in that pool wants to play it doesn't count for much

Once you get past a point, it's not who you've got to choose from that matters as much as how they're supported/invested in
- hard to find the "natural talent" if there is no-one looking
- and even if you find Ryan Giggs - who's he got to play with?!

-sd

We were talking specifically about whether or not Scotland have underperformed over the years.

<snip>

Pick three other countries to make up a similar foursome with SCOTLAND and you don't end up with Brazil, Italy and the Netherlands you'd end up with something closer to Denmark, Finland and Slovakia. Scotland's performance needs to be seen in that context.

So if Euro 2020/21 is the first time that Scotland has been in the finals of a major tournament [1] since 1998
how would that compare to Denmark, Finland, Slovakia, Norway, Croatia etc in the same period?
- about the same as Finland?

- sd
[1]football obviously; Scotland punch well above their weight in curling

Well with both Sami Hyypia and Jari Litmanen playing in that period those were Finland's glory days, and they still failed to qualify for every previous major championships ever held, so pretty Scottish...

Croatia and Slovakia may be somewhat confounded by having been part of bigger systems up until the beginning of that period, emerging nationality etc. I'm not quite sure how eligibility was handled. Many players from ex-Yugoslav nations actually grew up elsewhere as a result of the wars. There's a great documentary on Dejan Lovren, who was somewhat shocked when as a youth he was kicked out of Germany where he had essentially grown up.

Anyway point being, comparing Scotland's international record to England's is inane. Scotland are in the group of countries who can most realistically be judged on whether or not they have qualified rather than whether or not they have won, despite the fact that they are a whole 1 major tournament victory behind the mighty English.

[BobbyD]

* For clarification, it's perfectly possible that Scotland have underperformed historically, infact it feels likely, but to dismiss a result within a tournament as another Scottish failure when the currency of Scotland's under or over performance is qualification is wrong headed, and questioning their abilities on the grounds they have never won a major insane.

[servodude]

* For clarification, it's perfectly possible that Scotland have underperformed historically, infact it feels likely, but to dismiss a result within a tournament as another Scottish failure when the currency of Scotland's under or over performance is qualification is wrong headed, and questioning their abilities on the grounds they have never won a major insane.

Yup that sounds about right

I've spent decades thinking Scotland can/should do better
Mostly because when watching them there's normally 85 minutes of decent performance that gets spoiled by brainfarts (or Tom Boyd)

But we can't take it too seriously; Scotland isn't Colombia (and for that I'm sure David Marshall is very glad)

I know I'm just celebrating the fact they're playing
- while trying to workout the most likely permutation that will inevitably result in Scotland not progressing because someone else lets in a goal after being 4-0 up


- sd

[BobbyD]

* For clarification, it's perfectly possible that Scotland have underperformed historically, infact it feels likely, but to dismiss a result within a tournament as another Scottish failure when the currency of Scotland's under or over performance is qualification is wrong headed, and questioning their abilities on the grounds they have never won a major insane.

Yup that sounds about right

I've spent decades thinking Scotland can/should do better
Mostly because when watching them there's normally 85 minutes of decent performance that gets spoiled by brainfarts (or Tom Boyd)

But we can't take it too seriously; Scotland isn't Colombia (and for that I'm sure David Marshall is very glad)

I know I'm just celebrating the fact they're playing
- while trying to workout the most likely permutation that will inevitably result in Scotland not progressing because someone else lets in a goal after being 4-0 up


- sd

Well with 4 3rd place teams already on 3+ points they need to beat Croatia, which is the first stumbling block.

Also after points and GD the third criteria is goals scored.

Possibly one best lived in the moment.

Still Andy Robertson lifting the cup would be a sight! Just don't send him back broken like England always do with our boys.

[Stan]

Billy Gilmour has tested Covid.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57551368

What a great shame after his brilliant debut.

[Leothebear]

I thought England were better last night - the movement of Saka and Grealish had the attack looking more effective.
Our back line take an eternity to get the ball forward though giving opponents ample time to organize defence.

I'm not sure England will get much further. They look to me to be one of the weaker nations left in.

[GrahamPlatt]

Have briefly edged over 1.17 to the pound this week.

[gryffron]

What's happened to Portugal?

In the previous 2 tournaments, any Portugese player who lost the ball would immediately fall to the ground clutching his leg and scream like a baby. In a cheating attempt (far too often successful) to get a free kick, or stop play and the counter attack. Last night, not once. Despite it being largely the same group of players. Do they have a new manager or something?

Gryff

[pje16]

Good point
Fernandes does it when playing for Man Utd, so beats me how he doesn't with a Portugese shirt on

[marronier]

You can understand why the Group stage matches are boring when you see that Germany get second place because they conceded fewer goals than Portugal , who had scored more goals to finish with the same goal difference. UEFA rules reward the negative and punish the positive.