Hypothetical question

[Stevencc]

 

[HtfcWArrior]

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

I really can't be arsed, look yourself if your so bothered about it...

 

[St. Juste]

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

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.

And that question has been answered, more than a few times.

I've argued against every point that has been made, when it was made.

When it was said Celtic wouldn't get a single point in the entire Premier League season it was pointed out that they had drawn twice with Man City this year.

I think you'll find that's exactly how it works, I have no idea what your position even is, you seem to have abandoned it long ago. Nobody thinks Rangers would survive, that's a given.

If you think Celtic would not - then post your specific reasons, backed up by evidence, as to why this would be the case.

I have no particular case either way, they might do, they might not. Such is a nature of a hypothetical question. A more particular case the evidence points to, unequivocally, is the strength of Scottish football relative to our immediate peers in attendances and European performance.

I really can't be arsed, look yourself if your so bothered about it...

There is so much evidence, so much you can't be bothered to find any.

Good grief.

If your (sic) not interested, maybe best to stop posting in this thread?

 

[HtfcWArrior]

I said I can't be arsed to quote all the pieces of evidence that your looking for but instead you can go back through this thread and look for yourself

 

[St. Juste]

I said I can't be arsed to quote all the pieces of evidence that your looking for but instead you can go back through this thread and look for yourself

I have already read this thread and responded to each point that has came up. There is no 'evidence' being posited that has not been considered and responded to.

In fact, there was absolutely no empirical evidence that Scottish football is objectively "terrible" or indeed that it is getting worse. The only attempt we had was one guy admitting he saw one game, really enjoyed it, but thought it was poor quality. That was, by far, the best evidence provided and it was anecdotal in the extreme.

 

[epic73]

I have no idea what your position even is, you seem to have abandoned it long ago. Nobody thinks Rangers would survive, that's a given.

If you think Celtic would not - then post your specific reasons, backed up by evidence, as to why this would be the case.

My position is that neither of them would survive simply because the Celtic/Rangers players are not good enough to compete with Premier League teams..

 

[Leo]

Sorry, I should have made myself clear. The women are all alcoholics as well.

Does four or five bottles of red per week make me a jakey? Surely not. Now Salty with his drams is an entirely different kettle of fish.....

 

[Stevencc]

Does four or five bottles of red per week make me a jakey? Surely not. Now Salty with his drams is an entirely different kettle of fish.....

No mate, with you I understand that it is purely medicinal.

 

[HtfcWArrior]

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.

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.

Hahaha league one squads playing in prem.

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

http://www.thesportster.com/soccer/top-15-worst-professional-soccer-leagues-in-the-world/

Is this enough for you and this was just the first 2 pages

 

[AFCB_Mark]

T
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.

This is an absolutely beautiful sentence that not only makes me audibly chuckle across the office, but gets to the heart of the matter. You're setting the bar so low that you'll never be disappointed, least Kazakhstan undergoes a sudden nationwide footballing revolution. And that's your prerogative of course. But I can't help feeling that you're doing yourself down, and that a majority of Scottish football fans might be less enthusiastic about comparing their football to that of Kazakhstan. Which has only existed as a country for less than 30 years, when Scotland was producing world class players for fun. Kazakhstan compared with Scotland's importance and strength in football's development over 150 years until recently? It seems mad to me.

 

[St. Juste]

My position is that neither of them would survive simply because the Celtic/Rangers players are not good enough to compete with Premier League teams..

There is a case that Celtic are, Rangers certainly not.

But fine, it's a hypothetical and I don't think there is an easy answer. They would certainly be competitive.

The more relevant discussion from my perspective is to point out the objectively, according to the available empirical evidence, Scottish football is doing well based on both attendances and European performances. Do you agree or disagree with this?

http://www.thesportster.com/soccer/top-15-worst-professional-soccer-leagues-in-the-world/

Is this enough for you and this was just the first 2 pages

And all were responded to at the time. The US article isn't criticising the quality of the league, and contains one horrendous factual error (in only a short paragraph!).Celtics recent European performances seem more relevant than those from years ago, they've done far better last year (and this year).

The Scott Sinclair / Jack Rodwell stuff was weak conjecture and has been dealt with in depth.

The league one stuff is desperation in the extreme. You think a team in the CL group stages last season, who drew twice with Man City, is a league one equivalent team? It's a truly ridiculous notion,

Not that any of this is actually empirical evidence regarding the relative strength of the league, because the only comparable reference point is the English Premier League - which is a ridiculous reference point. The EPL is far above the SPFL, all the top 5 nations are, it's meaningless. When compared against nations of similar population we do quite well recently, and very well over the past 15 years.

 

[HtfcWArrior]

Your saying that a team with there best player (SCOTT SINCLAIR) who was rejected from teams like West Brom and Aston Villa would survive in the premier league. They really wouldn't...

 

[epic73]

There is a case that Celtic are

Spoiler

Scott

Spoiler

Sinclair

Scottish football is doing well based on both attendances and European performances. Do you agree or disagree with this?

Agree, but not strongly.

 

[St. Juste]

This is an absolutely beautiful sentence that not only makes me audibly chuckle across the office, but gets to the heart of the matter. You're setting the bar so low that you'll never be disappointed, least Kazakhstan undergoes a sudden nationwide footballing revolution. And that's your prerogative of course. But I can't help feeling that you're doing yourself down, and that a majority of Scottish football fans might be less enthusiastic about comparing their football to that of Kazakhstan. Which has only existed as a country for less than 30 years, when Scotland was producing world class players for fun. Kazakhstan compared with Scotland's importance and strength in football's development over 150 years until recently? It seems mad to me.

Kazakhstan was merely an example, we compete against all European nations outside the top 10. The top 5 are far ahead of everyone else, and we will obviously struggle against countries like Russia, Turkey, Netherlands and Portugal. It wasn't too long ago we were ahead of Belgium which is an incredible achievement.

As for the rest, we would be a medium sized fish in the pond, no where near as big as, say, Sweden or Poland or the Czech Republic but capable of punching above our weight.

The Soviet Union has an incredibly proud footballing tradition and Kazakhstan was part of that. The terrain is suitable for football, and they have big money backers in some instances. It's also a far larger country with close to 4 times the population. How we were doing in the 60s does not change the extent to which the numbers are against us now. Doing better than Kazakhstan absolutely is an achievement.

Who, exactly, do you think we should be comparing ourselves to?

 

[St. Juste]

Your saying that a team with there best player (SCOTT SINCLAIR) who was rejected from teams like West Brom and Aston Villa would survive in the premier league. They really wouldn't...

Spoiler

Scott

Spoiler

Sinclair

Agree, but not strongly.

Never thought this would come down to Scott Sinclair, but plenty of promoted teams have survived with other 'PL' failures.

Jamie Vardy is a Sheffield Wednesday Failure.

Rather than focusing on one player who not look at how Celtic do against PL teams, like, say Man City?

I don't know if they would survive or not, but I would expect them to get 30 points minimum. They aren't far off, far better resourced, Premier League teams.

I've already pointed out, but plenty of their 'failures' have played in the Premier League - Maloney, Marshall, Murphy, Fortune etc.

 

[HtfcWArrior]

Jamie Vardy is a Sheffield Wednesday Failure.

When he was about 16...

 

[Nilsson]

I appreciate it's difficult to defend shite like Scott Sinclair being Celtic's and the spl's best player but St Juste is doing a really awful job. Bringing up Jamie Vardy being released as a youth player might be his worst moment.

 

[SALTIRE]

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 West Brom and Stoke could last there, Celtic definitely could.

 

[SALTIRE]

Your saying that a team with there best player (SCOTT SINCLAIR) who was rejected from teams like West Brom and Aston Villa would survive in the premier league. They really wouldn't...

This Celtic side would and with the by far greater funds available to them they'd attract better players anyway.

 

[JimJams]

Jamie Vardy is a Sheffield Wednesday Failure.

This is a terrible example, you're saying he's a failure because Wednesday didn't fancy him at 16 and later in his career he's proven himself capable at a much higher level, breaking records along the way, and that makes him a failure at a club that never took him on when he was of senior age in a season they ended up relegated to the 3rd division of English football.
So that's his failure. Not possibly the failure of Wednesday then? Given he's gone on to win the Premier League and they've done nothing noteworthy since.
I guess that makes Dalglish a West Ham failure then after trialling for them and not getting signed.

 

[Leo]

For what it's worth. I'm a Gers fan and watch all their televised SPFL games....also Celtic's and 'most' other Scottish games shown by Sky & BT. I also watch a lot of English football mainly at EPL level but a good few in the Championship & below (got to admit I enjoy the National league games). I've read most of this thread with a tad of amusement. Justy lad throws up stats and 'empirical' evidence....personally I would have thought an assertion of 'evidence' would have sufficed but hey, whatever floats his boat. So, back to the main show. As I said I watch a lot of both Scottish & English football and tbh I don't give credence to stats to simply give a reply on....I prefer giving my opinion on a question like this from what I have actually seen over however long you care to suggest.

Celtic are the dominant club in Scotland at the moment (& have been for the past six years & look to continue that position for the foreseeable future) followed by Aberdeen then Rangers but having watched a lot, if not all, of their (Celtic) SPFL games they certainly play some great football but they also play a lot of very poor football against clubs you would imagine they would blitz and that includes last season when they went through the league unbeaten.

Rangers ? As a fan it hurts me to say that what I have watched over the past six years has been utter garbage in the main especially coming up from the bottom league. Compared to what I watched since I started going to games with my dad then my mates since the mid 60's it was a total embarrassment.....but shit happens and nothing can change that.

As for how Scottish Football is compared to English Football.....outwith Rangers and Celtic games, I have watched some truly dire Scottish shite & if I'm being honest I would rather watch a National League game for entertainment. That's not to say I haven't watched some truly awful English games but the %age is nowhere near like up here. Overall vastly, English football for technical ability and entertainment is far superior to Scotland.

Where would Rangers and Celtic finish ?....Rangers would seriously struggle and be relegated....Celtic perhaps just above the relegation area.

My response is given on how I view both teams at the moment and with no additional Sky money thrown at them. Would that make a difference ? I honestly don't know and that's an entirely different question.

There ye go....just my opinion......

 

[epic73]

Bringing up Jamie Vardy being released as a youth player might be his worst moment.

Either that or "At least we're better than Kazakhstan!"

 

[AnkleBiter]

This Celtic side would and with the by far greater funds available to them they'd attract better players anyway.

I can't disagree with this. We've gone from a record transfer fee of £1.8m to spending £45m in one window due to promotion to the Premier League. With a pre season to prepare I don't think Celtic would struggle to survive at all. Rangers... hmm, more work needed there!

 

[St. Juste]

I appreciate it's difficult to defend shite like Scott Sinclair being Celtic's and the spl's best player but St Juste is doing a really awful job. Bringing up Jamie Vardy being released as a youth player might be his worst moment.

Your contributions to the thread can be summarised as come in, speak nonsense, disappear only to return again a few pages later with yet more nonsense.

You're not enough consistent enough to defend your previous nonsense.

This is a terrible example, you're saying he's a failure because Wednesday didn't fancy him at 16 and later in his career he's proven himself capable at a much higher level, breaking records along the way, and that makes him a failure at a club that never took him on when he was of senior age in a season they ended up relegated to the 3rd division of English football.
So that's his failure. Not possibly the failure of Wednesday then? Given he's gone on to win the Premier League and they've done nothing noteworthy since.
I guess that makes Dalglish a West Ham failure then after trialling for them and not getting signed.

That Vardy example really seems to have touched a nerve but he is one of countless. In addition to the Celtics failures I mentioned previously who competed in the Premier League, why not consider Aston Villa specific rejects like Lowton or Gary Cahill or Maloney (again). There are plenty of players who have survived in the Premier League, even thrived, despite failing at either 1 or 2 clubs along the way. Even Aaron Mooy, St. Mirren failure.

And yes, as you point out, Dalglish is a West Ham failure. Riyad Mahrez failed a trial at St. Mirren too, despite being assessed for two months they didn't particularly want to keep him and he fled Paisley on a stolen bicycle.

But this is a bit of deja vu. If the hypothesis is that a player who struggles in the EPL can thrive in the SPFL then I think that is absolutely the case, the gap between the two leagues is that vast. Similarly, EPL failures can thrive in the Eredivise (like Alfonso Alves) or many leagues around Europe, it really doesn't say very much.

I'm still not fully convinced this is the case for Scott Sinclair, an ex Man City and Chelsea player who did well at Swansea. But even if it was, why would it matter and who would care? Nobody disputes there is a big gulf between the EPL and the SPFL.

In response to the question is Scottish football objectively terrible and getting worse - if the answer is "Scott Sinclair lol" sorry if I don't consider that evidence of anything.

As for how Scottish Football is compared to English Football.....outwith Rangers and Celtic games, I have watched some truly dire Scottish shite & if I'm being honest I would rather watch a National League game for entertainment. That's not to say I haven't watched some truly awful English games but the %age is nowhere near like up here. Overall vastly, English football for technical ability and entertainment is far superior to Scotland.

This is a good example of the Scottish self loathing I referred to earlier.

Still, to be fair, recent years have seen the worst Rangers side possibly ever. Only some of the 70s debacles come close, no wonder they are deeply depressed / embarrassed at the state of their football currently. I would be if I was a Rangers fan.

Either that or "At least we're better than Kazakhstan!"

You've criticised this example a few times, why? What is your problem with it?

You seem quite light on answers here.

 

[epic73]

You've criticised this example a few times, why? What is your problem with it?

Because this thread is about whether Celtic and Rangers could survive in the Premier League, which is nothing like the Kazakhstan league.

 

[Liverlad]

Celtic is just a bunch of Scottish people pretending to be Irish. Even they're embarrassed to be Scottish.

 

[St. Juste]

Because this thread is about whether Celtic and Rangers could survive in the Premier League, which is nothing like the Kazakhstan league.

The question on whether or not Celtic or Rangers would survive has been answered quite comprehensively.

The discussion has evolved as to whether or not Scottish football is objectively terrible and getting worse. That is why the Kazakhstan was brought up, as empirical evidence that we are doing better than some of our much larger European competitors.

 

[epic73]

we are doing better than some of our much larger European competitors.

Just because they're larger doesn't mean their league should be better. By that logic, the Chinese and Indian leagues are the best in the world.

 

[Liverlad]

 

[Renegade]

Can't figure out if you're all wasting St. Juste's time or if he's wasting your time?