Hypothetical question

[HtfcWArrior]

Maybe Mooy couldn't deal with how shit the Scottish leagues are...

 

[epic73]

What kind of evidence do you want?

Any kind.

 

[St. Juste]

Maybe Mooy couldn't deal with how shit the Scottish leagues are...

Or maybe he didn't play well and was released?

Not that you would know, of course.

He did score a good goal against Rangers, to be fair, glad he's doing well. His met his wife when he was here so not a complete loss for him. But he wasn't good enough for us at the time.

Any kind.

Proportionally the attendances are amongst the highest in the world.

We had a team in the Champions League group stages last season (first season in a while, hence the improving).

Our current coefficient, far from our best, is ahead of much larger nations like Serbia, Hungary and Kazakhstan. There is only two nations who are smaller than us and ahead of us, Cyprus and Croatia. Aberdeen recently defeated a team from Croatia, and have a Cypriot team coming up next.

Attendance is the big one though, the SPFL supposedly being terrible hardly squares up with being a world leader in proportional attendance (significantly ahead of, say, England) - https://rowzfootball.wordpress.com/...opulation-across-european-top-flight-leagues/

 

[epic73]

Proportionally the attendances are amongst the highest in the world.

Seattle Sounders have normally had attendances of about 45,000 this season. Does that make them a good team?

Our current coefficient, far from our best, is ahead of much larger nations like Serbia, Hungary and Kazakhstan. There is only two nations who are smaller than us and ahead of us, Cyprus and Croatia.

Having a league with a higher coefficient than the Kazakhstan league and lower than Cyprus isn't much to brag about.

 

[Dirk]

Seattle Sounders have normally had attendances of about 45,000 this season. Does that make them a good team?

HSV has attendances of 54.000 per average. Good team? No and I'll buy my season ticket nonetheless like decades before (when they were a leading club in Europe)

tbh: I can understand St.Juste a bit. Yes, I can!
Celtic gave Borussia Mönchengladbach a good fight in Germany in the last CL season (not in Glasgow but in the return leg. Kudos!)

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Comparisons to Kazakhstan and Cyprus. Surely one of Hugh/Juste's best posts ever?

Scottish clubs' percentage attendances, like some towns/clubs in the north of England, are good indeed. As good as it is for the community, unfortunately it's not directly equal to footballing success or quality.

 

[St. Juste]

Seattle Sounders have normally had attendances of about 45,000 this season. Does that make them a good team?

Having a league with a higher coefficient than the Kazakhstan league and lower than Cyprus isn't much to brag about.

You asked for evidence and I provided it, it's not my fault if you don't like it.

Now, do you care to provide evidence that Scottish football is bad / terrible / getting worse, or whatever you are supposedly saying?

I have no idea if Seattle Sounders are good or not.

It wasn't so much a brag as a statement of evidence, we were recently ahead of, say Belgium and Ukraine. Is that sufficient? Or should we really be first? What are you expecting?

Comparisons to Kazakhstan and Cyprus. Surely one of Hugh/Juste's best posts ever?

Scottish clubs' percentage attendances, like some towns/clubs in the north of England, are good indeed. As good as it is for the community, unfortunately it's not directly equal to footballing success or quality.

Nobody has suggested that attendances are directly comparable to footballing success but rather I was asked to provide evidence of how Scottish football isn't terrible / getting worse / awful etc. and of course attendances are relevant to that. If it was that bad people wouldn't go.

As are European performances and our coefficient ranking. What nations should we be comparing ourselves to, in your opinion?

I really don't know what evidence people were expecting. I guess I'll sit back and wait for the evidence of why Scottish football is terrible - so far we have an American web page with a hilarious mistake. Beat that.

 

[epic73]

You asked for evidence and I provided it, it's not my fault if you don't like it.

It's not really that I don't like it, it's actually quite amusing. It's more of the fact that it doesn't prove your point.

Now, do you care to provide evidence that Scottish football is bad / terrible / getting worse, or whatever you are supposedly saying?

This thread here: https://onefootballforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/hypothetical-question.15819/

I have no idea if Seattle Sounders are good or not.

They're currently 11th in the American league, so no.

It wasn't so much a brag as a statement of evidence, we were recently ahead of, say Belgium and Ukraine. Is that sufficient? Or should we really be first? What are you expecting?

I was kind of hoping for something that showed that Scottish teams could survive in the Premier League, which is a much higher level than Belgium, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Cyprus.

 

[St. Juste]

It's not really that I don't like it, it's actually quite amusing. It's more of the fact that it doesn't prove your point.

This thread here: https://onefootballforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/hypothetical-question.15819/

They're currently 11th in the American league, so no.

I was kind of hoping for something that showed that Scottish teams could survive in the Premier League, which is a much higher level than Belgium, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Cyprus.

I'm sure what hypothesis I'm supposedly trying to prove is, I suspect it can't be proven. The views of Scottish football, on this thread, have been based on perception not evidence.

You asked for evidence, I provided it. Whether or not it satisfies "proof" in your opinion is hardly my concern.

When asked for any counter evidence you have posted a link to this thread, implying you have none.

There's nothing I can provide that would show Scottish teams could survive in the Premier League, only Celtic would have a chance anyway, quite a few of their recent ex players have done very well in the Premier League and they drew twice with Man City last season. That's the only evidence I have. It's literally the only recent evidence available - you will either accept it or not.

I suspect not. You might post a link to the thread again, it worked a treat last time. At least you have satisfied my earlier question, there is no way you are 44. I'm quite sure of that now.

 

[Stevencc]

What is your evidence that Scottish football is not terrible, that people watch it?

People watch Big Brother and Love Island and I can safely say that those two pieces of television are completely and utterly, without any shadow of a doubt, shit.

 

[St. Juste]

What is your evidence that Scottish football is not terrible, that people watch it?

People watch Big Brother and Love Island and I can safely that those two pieces of television are completely and utterly, without any shadow of a doubt, shit.

Refer back to my original point, what evidence do you want?

As for your second point, you could apply that to anything, who decides what objective quality is in art beyond the people that view it? These shows aren't marketed at you, or me, but does that mean they are objectively bad? If someone is getting more enjoyment out of these shows than the Wire, or the Sopranos, then it's clearly better for them.

 

[epic73]

When asked for any counter evidence you have posted a link to this thread, implying you have none.

Other than this entire thread of people providing evidence.

 

[Bilo]

What is your evidence that Scottish football is not terrible, that people watch it?

People watch Big Brother and Love Island and I can safely that those two pieces of television are completely and utterly, without any shadow of a doubt, shit.

Don't think it goes unnoticed that you left out Geordie shore.

 

[Skinner]

I watched Love Island

 

[JimJams]

I'd like to have a word with my client, your honour.

 

[St. Juste]

Other than this entire thread of people providing evidence.

Really? Maybe you should quote one of these posts then.

Should be easy if there is so much empirical evidence provided on this thread that Scottish football is objectively terrible.

 

[epic73]

Not even joking mate, can't imagine any reasonable argument against it. One of Celtic's absolute star players is West Brom and Villa reject Scott Sinclair for fuck sake. Then there's pish like Griffiths who just about did ok playing for the dominant team in our 3rd division. Rangers are slightly better than St. Johnstone and would struggle to compete in League 2. Shit teams littered with foreign rejects and terrible Scottish players playing in a joke league. Tierney and Dembele are possibly good enough for a relegation battling side in England, the rest are just laughably poor players.

Oh look, the deluded Scots have turned up to defend m'ladys honour.



Yet the mighty Celtic have failed to qualify for the several of the last few years of the competition. Losing out to European powerhouses like Malmo and Maribor, as well as being battered twice by Molde on their way to exiting the Europa League without a win Are you going to tell me Molde could rock up in the PL next season and finish mid table as well? Granted they'd probably give a better account of themselves. Deluded.



I don't follow the national team, so no, not really. Huddersfield, Watford and Brighton would batter Celtic home and away playing in second gear, what are you on about? Who's going to stop them? Former Man City reserve and Bolton reject Dedryck Boyata? Or their alcoholic goalkeeper who couldn't make it at Sunderland? It's laughable to suggest a club who believe Scott Sinclair to be a star would stand any chance in this vastly superior division. Bottom 10? Deluded.

Of course they'd both get relegated with their current squads.

All GB had to say was that Scott Sinclair is Celtic's best player. That sums the situation up perfectly.

To show that Sinclair has a similar (if not worse) PL pedigree to Jack Rodwell. That he's Celtic's best player speaks volumes.

Brendan should seriously consider signing Rodwell. He'd absolutely run the show in that penniless pub league.

Pre-season friendlies mean fuck all.

Well, pre-season friendlies is probably the best measure, but it's still not a very good one. For example, we drew against Portsmouth last year in a pre-season friendly. That doesn't mean Portsmouth were as good as we were. Just because St Johnstone beat Sunderland 5-0 in a friendly doesn't mean they would if they were playing the championship.

I can see you're struggling so I'll use bullet points for you.

• You said "Scott Sinclair did well enough with Swansea (in the Premier League) to get signed by Man City" --- Well Jack Rodwell did well enough with Everton (in the Premier League) to get signed by Man City in the same transfer window as Sinclair and has had an almost identical PL career as him
• You went on to ask "Is is not possible he is recapturing form earlier in his career?" --- Well is it not possible that Jack Rodwell would "recapture form earlier in his career" if he too moved to Scotland?
• A player as shit as Scott Sinclair being Celtic's star player doesn't look good. What are you trying to suggest, that Scottish football is in such a good place?

ps. A little tip, pre-season matches are basically training sessions, I wouldn't read too much into them if I were you.

Your skills of interpretation are terrible.
People are talking about how players could go into Scottish football and score 40 goals and you reference Larsson. Larsson doesn't play in Scotland now so his goalscoring feats are a complete irrelevance to the subject of the current state of Scottish football. That you choose to bring up a player who hadn't played in Scotland for 13 years speaks volumes.
And again (sigh) you either don't read or comprehend what is said in my post. Like it or not public perception is that the league is weak, both compared to other European leagues and compared to it's own status in the past. So it's not MY perception, it's THE perception. Just because you'd like to ignore that and talk about punching above your weight doesn't take away from that, it actually just backs up the second point about being weaker than it was, which again, is what your post highlights.
If somebody makes claim that somebody would walk into and piss on your league, then referencing a player who played in that league a decade and a half ago, when the league was better does nothing to prove them wrong.
Surely you reference a player FROM THE PRESENT DAY and compare the two, with the point being about the CURRENT quality of football in Scotland. Bringing up the best player to play in Scotland in the last 20 years or so for comparison is desperation. Which is the point. Which you seem to have spectacularly missed.
How much Scottish football I watch personally has nothing to do with the point at hand in the post. That you can't actually see that is a little more concerning. You engage in debate with everybody yet it seems that you don't even read what you're debating.

Onto the next point, are all those teams doing better purely because Rangers haven't been in the mix? 5 years of one of the big 2 out of the way, some were bound to get better amongst that division weren't they?

I watched Scottish Cup semi final back in April, Hibs v Aberdeen. Belting game, 5 goals, end to end frantic stuff at times. Brilliant entertainment no question. But it was like watching kids football, constantly strewn with basic errors of control, simple passes going all over the shop, inexplicable defensive errors. Coming from a Bournemouth fan more used to lower league football who's seen enough crap football and comical defending down the years to last a lifetime - it was a poor standard.

SV has attendances of 54.000 per average. Good team? No

Comparisons to Kazakhstan and Cyprus. Surely one of Hugh/Juste's best posts ever?

Scottish clubs' percentage attendances, like some towns/clubs in the north of England, are good indeed. As good as it is for the community, unfortunately it's not directly equal to footballing success or quality.

 

[St. Juste]

Could you embolden the empirical evidence? Specific sentences would do.

I mean, some of it, such as:

"SV has attendances of 54.000 per average. Good team? No"

How on earth would this be considered empirical evidence that Scottish football is objectively terrible?

 

[epic73]

How on earth would this be considered empirical evidence that Scottish football is objectively terrible?

Your point, when asked why the Scottish league is improving/good, was that they have good attendances.

 

[HtfcWArrior]

I'll say what most people are saying into 4 words,
SCOTTISH FOOTBALL IS SHIT

 

[Dirk]

I'll say what most people are saying into 4 words,
SCOTTISH FOOTBALL IS SHIT

But their "coefficient" is ahead of Serbia, Hungary and Kazakhstan And Hungary was once great. Remember the wonder team that once beat mighty England for the first time in England with the great Puskas, Koscis, Hidegkuti and so on.....wait....that's more than 60 years ago. Now Hungary is shite..../i

@epic: If you quote me don't make such a horrible mistake and forget the "H" in HSV

 

[St. Juste]

Your point, when asked why the Scottish league is improving/good, was that they have good attendances.

That was the several empirical facts I provided to suggest Scottish football wasn't terrible, or declining. I have made the effort to do this, so far you have only quoted other posts.

Anyway, are you going to make an attempt to embolden the evidence you are 'providing' or not?

I'll say what most people are saying into 4 words,
SCOTTISH FOOTBALL IS SHIT

Compared to what?

I asked the question before, one of the many that has been tellingly unanswered, what other nations should Scotland be comparing themselves to?

But their "coefficient" is ahead of Serbia, Hungary and Kazakhstan And Hungary was once great. Remember the wonder team that once beat mighty England for the first time in England with the great Puskas, Koscis, Hidegkuti and so on.....wait....that's more than 60 years ago. Now Hungary is shite..../i

@epic: If you quote me don't make such a horrible mistake and forget the "H" in HSV

Hungary has almost twice the population of Scotland, and as you point out, a rich footballing heritage.

Kazakhstan is well over three times our size in population terms, it's absolutely relevant that we are doing better than them.

But I feel like I'm in the twilight zone here, providing all the empirical evidence as to why Scottish football isn't objectively terrible / declining and I'm been met with.....nothing. No evidence whatsoever.

So either put up, or admit your "views" are based on perception rather than fact.

 

[HtfcWArrior]

Your fighting a losing battle here mate

 

[St. Juste]

Your fighting a losing battle here mate

If you hold views based on prejudice rather than evidence then everyone loses.

If, say, the evidence changed and Scottish crowds dwindled significantly to ROI levels, and most of our pro teams went part time, then yes there would be an argument it is objectively bad. Especially if it comes close to the likes of the Welsh or Irish leagues. Wales' rampant champions, supposedly League One level club, the New Saints were comprehensively destroyed 4-1 by a (then bottom of the league) second tier St. Mirrren team, literally going through the worst period of form in the clubs 140 year history.

But at the moment the evidence is clear - Scottish football does exceptionally well attendance wise, and is currently doing what you about expect (or slightly more) in European competition.

Those are the empirical facts - statements that are unequivocally true.

If you "feel" something else then until your present the evidence that is merely prejudice.

 

[#Beebot]

Was this debate ever about attendances? If you want empirical evidence why not look through St Johnstone's Europa League record for the past few years?

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

 

[epic73]

Kazakhstan is well over three times our size in population terms, it's absolutely relevant that we are doing better than them.

Unfortunately, I think the Premier League is a step or two higher than the Kazakhstan league.

 

[St. Juste]

Was this debate ever about attendances? If you want empirical evidence why not look through St Johnstone's Europa League record for the past few years?

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

That's not empirical evidence, that's selective evidence.

Why not consider the performance of Scottish clubs in their totality? The coefficient does that, which is why I brought it up as empirical evidence.

This surely isn't new to people, right? How do you think the world works? Scottish football is rubbish because TalkSport thinks it is? No, for this, and any other aspect of your life, look at what the evidence says then form your opinion.

Not the other way around.

Unfortunately, I think the Premier League is a step or two higher than the Kazakhstan league.

Well, obviously it is. Why is it relevant?

A comparison between the SPFL and the Kazakh league is, in every conceivable way, a far more appropriate comparison than the SPFL to the Premier League.

Now, are you going to be embolden your evidence or not?

 

[HtfcWArrior]

If you flick through 4 pages of this stupid fucking thread then you'll find lots of the evidence of why Scottish football is shit and why rangers and Celtic would never last in the premier league...

 

[St. Juste]

If you flick through 4 pages of this stupid fucking thread then you'll find lots of the evidence of why Scottish football is shit and why rangers and Celtic would never last in the premier league...

If there is so many, it should be easy to highlight specific instances in which this happened then.

Why don't you do it? Especially the first part, nobody is denying Rangers would never last in the Premier League.

 

[epic73]

Well, obviously it is. Why is it relevant?

Because the entire point of this thread was to discuss whether Scottish teams could survive in the Premier League.

If there is so many, it should be easy to highlight specific instances in which this happened then.

Go to post number 107.

Instead of arguing against any points, you've been telling people to "highlight specific instances" and "embolden evidence", that's not how it works.