League of Nations

[Dirk]

Do you mean before the Munich game? Because that's not true. You had to go through a play-off because you finished second. Ironically what I remember from this period is not so much the 5-1 win (which was great, I have the DVD) but Beckham's free-kick against Greece.

Yes, you're right. Both, Germany and England, ended with the same points in this group and England got through as #1 on Goal difference and we played a playoff final against Ukraine.

I should've written that we had already 2nd place for sure before the match because the 3rd, Finland, was too far away and couldn't reach us, even if they had won the last game against us (we draw it then)

Matuidi did a lot of clumsy challenges but won us the game with that pen

Although the pen we got was a bit soft (but at least by the book), the pen you got here was a joke. Matuidi fouled Hummels and not vice versa. Anyway, no VAR available, we have to live with it. A draw would be a fairer result.

while Pogba was just downright rubbish.

This guy always has the looks as if he can't be arsed

Didn't think much of Griezmann either. Apart from his header, I don't think he had a particularly good game.

Like I wrote, a beautiful header but tbh, I can't stand this guy. His clown celebrations are always very annoying. Similar result like the Euro 2016 semi-final. 2 Griezmann goals (one penalty each time). Damn, this guy makes me angry.

Oh well, the semi next June should be fun. Would like to play England and not Spain.

Hopefully France is still motivated to get at least a draw against the Netherlands, otherwise our last match against the Dutch is meaningless then

 

[St. Juste]

Actually a pretty good post - although the population argument is incredibly flawed. It’s not always about population, a lot of the time about the investment you’re putting into your leagues, stadiums etc. Scotland should be beating Israel, or at least draw away from home.

Very interesting about Sterling and the home nations though. Where did you find that?

Incredibly flawed? So Andorra should be looking to beat Brazil? There is a clear correlation between population and footballing success for nations with a similar interest in football.

And for a very obvious reason - more people = more potential players. It's the simplest formula of all time. Having more people won't mean you will win but there's a reason the best European teams are also the biggest - Spain, Germany, France, Italy etc. and the worst are the smallest - Faroe Islands, Andorra etc.

Scotland has far more fans in domestic football than Israel. It's poorly governed and under invested - absolutely. I'm not sure if we should be expecting to beat them away, but draw certainly. It wasn't a great result and was a dire performance.

Conversely, we beat Hungary away and Albania at home in two good performances. It's our first competitive defeat since England beat us at Wembley two years ago - so clearly we're not doing badly if we were unbeaten in our previous 6 competitive internationals.

I didn't find it online, but was something I'm aware of. It makes sense, in no sense is Sterling an "English" citizen. He's a British citizen who was born abroad. Grey area in international football that has so far not been exploited, but I can guarantee it would do were the situation reversed and Sterling settled in any other home nation.

How much immigration does Croatia have? Or Iceland? Or Argentina? Or Uruguay? Or Greece?

Argentina is much larger nation and less reliant on immigration. Of course, historically, they have had plenty of immigration from around Europe. Indeed, it was Scottish immigrants who started the Argentinian FA.

Croatia has significant migration from around that region actually.

Iceland and Greece are historically no marks in international football. The latter is a decent sized European nation who won one tournament, and I actually think they have plenty of immigration anyway.

But anyway, I'm not really sure what your point is? The most successful nations of the current era are incredibly diverse and making great use of being high immigration societies. Look at Belgium or France or Germany. If you want historically, look at the great melting pot that is Brazil.

Of the current Scotland squad none, quite literally none, are first / second or third generation immigrants to the UK (at least that I'm aware). It's horrendous and points to a deep societal problem in Scotland.

The Germany side we beat 5-1 reached the World Cup final nine months later. No standout players but they can't have been that bad.

They were pretty bad though relative to past and present German teams. Average players doing well to reach a final but nobody thought they were a good side (not even them).

Tor, an excellent book about German football, covers it quite well.

They did beat England 1-0 in the reverse which was the last ever fixture at Wembley.

I'd put the current Spain side, who are middling themselves, as much better than that German side.

There is a fair amount of money in Israeli club football and both the Jewish and 48 Palestinian parts of the population are football mad but in terms of the national team they are at a low ebb and far below the Israeli teams of the late 90s and early 00s when they reached the play-offs for the 2000 European Championships and had such players as Benayoun, Revivo, Nimni and Ben-Haim. They'd only beaten Andorra and Liechtenstein at home in the past couple of years.
It's also clear that Israel's best current players are coming from the Palestinian part of the population (Kayal, Dabour) who comprise 20% of the population with no one comparable coming from the Jewish part of the population.
So yes, this is a bad result for Scotland.

A not great result - but terrible performance.

All nations have them. Previously we were unbeaten in our last 6 competitive matches which included a game against England, who needed a last minute equaliser to snatch a draw. They are now good apparently - making that result even more impressive.

 

[SF_]

Not buying this gentleman's agreement shite.

Sterling chose to play for England because he's lived in the country since he was 5 and we are the best team in the UK. If Scotland thought he had any interest in playing for them then they would have called him up, instead they didn't bother wasting their time, same with John Barnes.

Why would someone with a free pick of the home nations opt to play for a side that doesn't qualify for tournaments if he doesn't have to?

If Sterling said he was partial to Buckfast and loved Taggart when he was 17 then the Scottish FA would have been all over it.

 

[Gassy]

But there are so many countries that defy the logic. Size makes a difference, yes - but you’re talking like it’s the only factor. Your first comment about losing to Israel was population when in this case - it’s bullshit.

But yes it is clearly flawed. China, India & USA aren’t good at football. Because it also comes down to the interest & investment.

You don’t play against the population, you play from their current bet players - so beating Hungary isn’t incredible because they have a worse squad than you - it’s as simple as that.

Croatia has as much immigration from surrounding countries as Scotland has - so that’s a rubbish answer as well, sorry.

 

[Reaper]

Imagine how shite Scotland would be if half of their squad wasn't English though.

 

[St. Juste]

Not buying this gentleman's agreement shite.

Sterling chose to play for England because he's lived in the country since he was 5 and we are the best team in the UK. If Scotland thought he had any interest in playing for them then they would have called him up, instead they didn't bother wasting their time, same with John Barnes.

Why would someone with a free pick of the home nations opt to play for a side that doesn't qualify for tournaments if he doesn't have to?

If Sterling said he was partial to Buckfast and loved Taggart when he was 17 then the Scottish FA would have been all over it.

Ehm, what? I never suggested that Scotland should have tried to call Sterling up.

And the Gentlemans Agreement stuff....google it yourself!

As for your second paragraph - that's exactly the point - as soon as this agreement becomes inconvenient for England they would gladly flaunt it. Theoretically, a player born in, say, Ghana, with no family links to the UK could move to Scotland and play his club football in Spain - having never set foot in England - yet be called up to the England national side. It would rightly raise a few objections about international football but given how much money it makes nobody will bother that much.

This is not just a football thing - look at Johanna Konta - she has no family background in the UK, and didn't even step foot in the country till she was 15 yet represents Britain. Why? Because athletes will represent wherever they will make the most money - in footballing terms this is England, not Scotland or Wales, and success of the latters won't make much difference. It was openly known sponsorship money influenced Jack Grealishs decision. International football, potentially a leveler of sorts, will soon be just the biggest nations hovering up talent like the biggest clubs already have.

0/10 for the final paragraph - just awful.

But there are so many countries that defy the logic. Size makes a difference, yes - but you’re talking like it’s the only factor. Your first comment about losing to Israel was population when in this case - it’s bullshit.

But yes it is clearly flawed. China, India & USA aren’t good at football. Because it also comes down to the interest & investment.

You don’t play against the population, you play from their current bet players - so beating Hungary isn’t incredible because they have a worse squad than you - it’s as simple as that.

Croatia has as much immigration from surrounding countries as Scotland has - so that’s a rubbish answer as well, sorry.

That wasn't my first comment, that was someone elses' first comment.

Hence why population is only a relevant comparison in nations with a comparable interest in football. I've probably posted that statement >100 times on this site - so any allegation I say "it's just population" is nonsense.

So population isn't a great metric, but you can easily compare quality of squads? How on earth are you doing that?!?! I don't know how good Hungary are, they have a fabulous footballing history and are a much larger nation than Scotland. They should be doing better than they are. There's little doubt that, say, England have a better squad than Scotland but they drew their last competitive game than us. This "better squad" stuff is filled with flaws.

As for your last statement - I really don't think that's true. Do you know anything about the history of the Balkans? Must have missed that severe civil war prompting mass inter UK migration in the 90s. But, anyway, Scotland has an excellent competitive record against Croatia - we beat them home and away in qualifying in 2013 and are unbeaten in all 5 matches against them. I didn't say all small nations would automatically do badly, or that all nations with little immigration will do badly, these are factors that go some way to explaining poor performance. In addition to the poor administration I referred to earlier.

Effectively, I'm giving a viewpoint based on available evidence and you are responding with a few lines criticising X factor implying (or outright saying) that I'm boiling it down to one thing. I'm not - you are. Scotland suffers from a lack of immigration in many respects, football is just one. We should be making concerted efforts to resolve this - look at the EU referendum, Scotland returned a resounding remain whilst England voted to leave. A lot of this was due to immigration concerns in England - but these simply do not exist to anywhere near the same extent in Scotland.

Imagine how shite Scotland would be if half of their squad wasn't English though.

Name the English players then.

I'm making a prediction we won't be hearing from "Reaper" again.

 

[rudebwoyben]

Regarding your last point about the EU referendum, you're absolutely right that Scotland voted remain while England voted Leave. However, it was the areas in England with the lowest amounts of immigration that were the most Brexity.

 

[Benji]

Wait, I'm curious about this gentleman's agreement but when I searched for it I got a 1947 movie starting Gregory Peck (favourably reviewed).

 

[SF_]

Ehm, what? I never suggested that Scotland should have tried to call Sterling up.

And the Gentlemans Agreement stuff....google it yourself!

As for your second paragraph - that's exactly the point - as soon as this agreement becomes inconvenient for England they would gladly flaunt it. Theoretically, a player born in, say, Ghana, with no family links to the UK could move to Scotland and play his club football in Spain - having never set foot in England - yet be called up to the England national side. It would rightly raise a few objections about international football but given how much money it makes nobody will bother that much.

This is not just a football thing - look at Johanna Konta - she has no family background in the UK, and didn't even step foot in the country till she was 15 yet represents Britain. Why? Because athletes will represent wherever they will make the most money - in footballing terms this is England, not Scotland or Wales, and success of the latters won't make much difference. It was openly known sponsorship money influenced Jack Grealishs decision. International football, potentially a leveler of sorts, will soon be just the biggest nations hovering up talent like the biggest clubs already have.

0/10 for the final paragraph - just awful.

How can I google something you've made up?

The decision comes down to the player, nothing to do with nasty England hoarding the foreign talent.

 

[Reaper]

Ehm, what? I never suggested that Scotland should have tried to call Sterling up.

And the Gentlemans Agreement stuff....google it yourself!

As for your second paragraph - that's exactly the point - as soon as this agreement becomes inconvenient for England they would gladly flaunt it. Theoretically, a player born in, say, Ghana, with no family links to the UK could move to Scotland and play his club football in Spain - having never set foot in England - yet be called up to the England national side. It would rightly raise a few objections about international football but given how much money it makes nobody will bother that much.

This is not just a football thing - look at Johanna Konta - she has no family background in the UK, and didn't even step foot in the country till she was 15 yet represents Britain. Why? Because athletes will represent wherever they will make the most money - in footballing terms this is England, not Scotland or Wales, and success of the latters won't make much difference. It was openly known sponsorship money influenced Jack Grealishs decision. International football, potentially a leveler of sorts, will soon be just the biggest nations hovering up talent like the biggest clubs already have.

0/10 for the final paragraph - just awful.



That wasn't my first comment, that was someone elses' first comment.

Hence why population is only a relevant comparison in nations with a comparable interest in football. I've probably posted that statement >100 times on this site - so any allegation I say "it's just population" is nonsense.

So population isn't a great metric, but you can easily compare quality of squads? How on earth are you doing that?!?! I don't know how good Hungary are, they have a fabulous footballing history and are a much larger nation than Scotland. They should be doing better than they are. There's little doubt that, say, England have a better squad than Scotland but they drew their last competitive game than us. This "better squad" stuff is filled with flaws.

As for your last statement - I really don't think that's true. Do you know anything about the history of the Balkans? Must have missed that severe civil war prompting mass inter UK migration in the 90s. But, anyway, Scotland has an excellent competitive record against Croatia - we beat them home and away in qualifying in 2013 and are unbeaten in all 5 matches against them. I didn't say all small nations would automatically do badly, or that all nations with little immigration will do badly, these are factors that go some way to explaining poor performance. In addition to the poor administration I referred to earlier.

Effectively, I'm giving a viewpoint based on available evidence and you are responding with a few lines criticising X factor implying (or outright saying) that I'm boiling it down to one thing. I'm not - you are. Scotland suffers from a lack of immigration in many respects, football is just one. We should be making concerted efforts to resolve this - look at the EU referendum, Scotland returned a resounding remain whilst England voted to leave. A lot of this was due to immigration concerns in England - but these simply do not exist to anywhere near the same extent in Scotland.



Name the English players then.

I'm making a prediction we won't be hearing from "Reaper" again.

I will name a few from present to recent past.

Phil Bardsley
Tom Cairney
Scott McTominay
Matt Ritchie
George Boyd
James Morrison
Kris Commons
Chris Martin
Jordan Rhodes
Liam Bridcutt

I'm sure theres a lot more ive missed aswell.

 

[Gassy]

That wasn't my first comment, that was someone elses' first comment.

Hence why population is only a relevant comparison in nations with a comparable interest in football. I've probably posted that statement >100 times on this site - so any allegation I say "it's just population" is nonsense.

So population isn't a great metric, but you can easily compare quality of squads? How on earth are you doing that?!?! I don't know how good Hungary are, they have a fabulous footballing history and are a much larger nation than Scotland. They should be doing better than they are. There's little doubt that, say, England have a better squad than Scotland but they drew their last competitive game than us. This "better squad" stuff is filled with flaws.

As for your last statement - I really don't think that's true. Do you know anything about the history of the Balkans? Must have missed that severe civil war prompting mass inter UK migration in the 90s. But, anyway, Scotland has an excellent competitive record against Croatia - we beat them home and away in qualifying in 2013 and are unbeaten in all 5 matches against them. I didn't say all small nations would automatically do badly, or that all nations with little immigration will do badly, these are factors that go some way to explaining poor performance. In addition to the poor administration I referred to earlier.

Effectively, I'm giving a viewpoint based on available evidence and you are responding with a few lines criticising X factor implying (or outright saying) that I'm boiling it down to one thing. I'm not - you are. Scotland suffers from a lack of immigration in many respects, football is just one. We should be making concerted efforts to resolve this - look at the EU referendum, Scotland returned a resounding remain whilst England voted to leave. A lot of this was due to immigration concerns in England - but these simply do not exist to anywhere near the same extent in Scotland.

So you can't compare quality of squads? If you look at England Vs Germany - you wouldn't compare how good each others squads are? Its quite easy to judge how good a squad is - The players that are chosen, which league they play in, how good they are in that league, their form etc. For example, I'd rather have Griezmann (France) than Vida (Croatia). Tbh, I don't really understand why you're so confused about how to judge the quality of a squad.

I don't believe it is filled with flaws, when we drew against you, we weren't good enough on the night. We underachieved & you over achieved. Its very simple. Hungary btw have a terrible squad so beating Hungary isn't a great success, no matter what their history. If Bournemouth beat Sunderland is that a great success? No - because right now, Sunderland have a rubbish squad in comparison to Bournemouth.

I know all about the history of the Balkans thanks & in particular Croatia (Girlfriend is Croatian, father fought in the war - trust me I know probably too much living only 5 hours from Zareb). Most of their immigration in Croatia is from neighbouring countries - who are genetically pretty much the same. For example, Scotland is 78% white Scottish (here) whereas Croatia is 90% (here). Croatians did, however, leave the Country in their 10s of thousands - many of that generation who grew up outside of Croatia play for their new countries. I believe Rakitic is the only one born out of Croatia (to both Croatian parents though) in the current squad.

I replied with a few lines as I was travelling back from London via coach so it was a bit difficult/couldn't be bothered to write a more compelling argument. You're not really giving me any evidence tbh, you're just saying it, which doesn't make it evidence. However, I have just given you some statistics to back up my point that you're wrong to say Croatia benefit from immigration/genetics hence they're good.

I actually think there are so so so many reasons to what makes a good national team - yes population is probably one of the bigger factors. However, as we've discussed & can see - it can easily be thrown out.

For me it also depends on whether you're talking about the team you just played against, or in general. So with Hungary - yes if you look at the last 50 years, Scotland beating Hungary is impressive. However in todays world, it's not at all, it is completely expected.

 

[St. Juste]

Regarding your last point about the EU referendum, you're absolutely right that Scotland voted remain while England voted Leave. However, it was the areas in England with the lowest amounts of immigration that were the most Brexity.

Yeah, people are stupid and easily manipulated.

There's a chasm in social attitudes between Scotland and England as well, more of a different culture than most people realise.

Wales in just the same though, and that was reflected in their Brexit vote too.

How can I google something you've made up?

The decision comes down to the player, nothing to do with nasty England hoarding the foreign talent.

So....eh....how do you think it works? Sterling qualifies due to the schooling rule (the same as when Hodgson wanted to call up Januzaj). Given the education system is for England and Wales, how would he qualify for one not the other? Anyway, I thought this particular quirk was well known, wouldn't be the first time I've overestimated football fans, but if you don't believe it then fine, I'm not interested in proving it to you. Sterling must have one of those fabled English passports to qualify.

Also, it's important to emphasize, I'm not suggesting that Scotland call up Sterling at all. Rather than we make a concerted efforts to get more immigration to Scotland, and one of the many positive benefits of this will be access to better footballers.

I will name a few from present to recent past.

Phil Bardsley
Tom Cairney
Scott McTominay
Matt Ritchie
George Boyd
James Morrison
Kris Commons
Chris Martin
Jordan Rhodes
Liam Bridcutt

I'm sure theres a lot more ive missed aswell.

McTominay was contacted by England and wanted to play for Scotland because of his heritage (and clearly Scottish name).

Some of the players mentioned haven't played for Scotland for years and the only player who has ever really had any impact would be James Morrison. How would Scotland have fared if we didn't have luminaries like Bridcutt, Commons, Boyd, Cairney and Bardsley? Erm, exactly the same.

In this time we have lost two clearly Scottish players in McGeady and McCarthy to Ireland - both of whom are probably better than everyone above (at least in one stage of their careers).

I think Ritchie and Cairney are actually decent players but neither seem interested which is a wider problem in the Scottish squad, regardless of background.

So you can't compare quality of squads? If you look at England Vs Germany - you wouldn't compare how good each others squads are? Its quite easy to judge how good a squad is - The players that are chosen, which league they play in, how good they are in that league, their form etc. For example, I'd rather have Griezmann (France) than Vida (Croatia). Tbh, I don't really understand why you're so confused about how to judge the quality of a squad.

I don't believe it is filled with flaws, when we drew against you, we weren't good enough on the night. We underachieved & you over achieved. Its very simple. Hungary btw have a terrible squad so beating Hungary isn't a great success, no matter what their history. If Bournemouth beat Sunderland is that a great success? No - because right now, Sunderland have a rubbish squad in comparison to Bournemouth.

I know all about the history of the Balkans thanks & in particular Croatia (Girlfriend is Croatian, father fought in the war - trust me I know probably too much living only 5 hours from Zareb). Most of their immigration in Croatia is from neighbouring countries - who are genetically pretty much the same. For example, Scotland is 78% white Scottish (here) whereas Croatia is 90% (here). Croatians did, however, leave the Country in their 10s of thousands - many of that generation who grew up outside of Croatia play for their new countries. I believe Rakitic is the only one born out of Croatia (to both Croatian parents though) in the current squad.

I replied with a few lines as I was travelling back from London via coach so it was a bit difficult/couldn't be bothered to write a more compelling argument. You're not really giving me any evidence tbh, you're just saying it, which doesn't make it evidence. However, I have just given you some statistics to back up my point that you're wrong to say Croatia benefit from immigration/genetics hence they're good.

I actually think there are so so so many reasons to what makes a good national team - yes population is probably one of the bigger factors. However, as we've discussed & can see - it can easily be thrown out.

For me it also depends on whether you're talking about the team you just played against, or in general. So with Hungary - yes if you look at the last 50 years, Scotland beating Hungary is impressive. However in todays world, it's not at all, it is completely expected.

Of course you can compare squads, but you would have to have an incredibly detailed knowledge of each squad (or you could just do it badly). Are Scotland better than Hungary or Austria or Israel? I have no idea, I know a lot about football but I haven't even heard of many of the players in their squads, never mind seen them play regularly enough to form an accurate judgment. I will obviously know more about bigger nations such as France but even then its an imperfect science.

As for wanting Griezmann, an attacker, more than Vida, a defender - erm....

Right, so your paragraph about immigration in Croatia comes to the conclusion that there was a lot of immigration to Croatia? That was exactly my point, and I think you were the first person to mention genetics here. There are many reasons why immigrants, or their descendants, statistically produce better footballers and genetics will only be one small factor. I'm not sure how genetically different North Africans are from Southern Europeans (I would be interested actually) but some recent players to come from this background would be Hazard or Zidane or Fellaini or Benzema (there are countless others). So immigration from geographically close nations is, of course, still relevant.

I'm not sure Scotland beating anyone is guaranteed but Hungary reached the knockout stages of the 2016 Euros and are only 10 places away in the FIFA rankings. Beating them away is absolutely a good result - and seems only an easy walkover in your mind. All you seem interested in doing is denigrating our good results and magnifying our bad ones. Like most nations our size, we have good results and bad results. I'm willing to admit plenty of the latter but you seem to think there is none of the latter.

As for population being easily thrown out - good news for Andorra and San Marino there. Bad news for Brazil and Germany who may face a barren next century.

Population, when combined with interest in football, is probably the best predictor of international success - it seems far better than, say, domestic strength. Scotland has a very strong domestic league in relative terms but has been relatively poor internationally recently. There's no doubt Scottish domestic football is far stronger than Croatia or Uruguay, for example.

 

[SF_]

So....eh....how do you think it works? Sterling qualifies due to the schooling rule (the same as when Hodgson wanted to call up Januzaj). Given the education system is for England and Wales, how would he qualify for one not the other? Anyway, I thought this particular quirk was well known, wouldn't be the first time I've overestimated football fans, but if you don't believe it then fine, I'm not interested in proving it to you. Sterling must have one of those fabled English passports to qualify.

Also, it's important to emphasize, I'm not suggesting that Scotland call up Sterling at all. Rather than we make a concerted efforts to get more immigration to Scotland, and one of the many positive benefits of this will be access to better footballers.

Who's saying he shouldn't qualify for both? I'm saying this supposed monopoly England have on these eligible players is a load of bollocks.

 

[St. Juste]

Who's saying he shouldn't qualify for both? I'm saying this supposed monopoly England have on these eligible players is a load of bollocks.

Even I don't think they have a monopoly....

They benefit from much greater immigration than any other home nation, no doubt about that.

Were US states to play each other at football, the southern and western states would benefit exponentially from Hispanic immigration relative to, say, Maine or Montana.

And they would likely punch above their weight relative to population. Sweden and Denmark benefit from immigration but the overwhelming majority of immigrants to the UK settle in England, and really only specific parts of England. It's a huge benefit to them in many ways, including football.

The scenario whereby England could poach a player like Sterling from Scotland is of course hypothetical but I think it's something they absolutely would do were it to benefit them.

Karamoko Dembele is a slightly different case having being born in England to Ivorian parents and moving up to Scotland when he was one. He clearly has absolutely no connection to England beyond his birthplace, same as Richard Gough being born in Sweden and Shaun Maloney in Malaysia. But of course England called him up and tried to get him to change his allegiance (it looks like he hasn't but this could still change).

Rules, especially informal ones, will only stay in place for as long as they benefit the powerful. As soon as England don't see the need for this gentlemans agreement any more they will ignore it and roll over other less powerful FAs. It's a pretty obvious conclusion to come to given the available evidence and Englands actions with regards to Dembele, Grealish, Burke, McTominay, Januzaj and (I imagine) countless others.

 

[SF_]

I've never heard of this Dembele so can't comment on that situation.

How is it deemed as poaching if the player is eligible for every home nation? the player still has the choice and if they 'feel' Scottish then they would surely want to play for Scotland.

It's all just part of your big anti-England narrative.

 

[St. Juste]

I've never heard of this Dembele so can't comment on that situation.

How is it deemed as poaching if the player is eligible for every home nation? the player still has the choice and if they 'feel' Scottish then they would surely want to play for Scotland.

It's all just part of your big anti-England narrative.

You could look it up - it happened as I described it.

Again, I've never mentioned the word "poaching".

As for how you feel, I've already posted examples of where this doesn't apply. Dembele, having only ever lived in England as a baby and having no family connections there, clearly can not feel English. However, if playing for England rather than Scotland is going to earn him say >£5 million over the course of his career is he likely to do it? Even if he felt very Scottish people like money - can he really be blamed for following it?

Johanna Konta has done it as have plenty others. National sport in all areas might soon be the richest nations selecting the best players from around the world - it will become eerily similar to club football in that respect.

There's nothing anti English about it, I'm sure plenty of other big nations will do the same. Can you even criticise England for it? It's realpolitik, they will do whatever benefits them and won't care at all about the impact on smaller nations (why would they?). Look at the "England" cricket team for an example of what could happen.

 

[Stevencc]

Realpolitik?

Realbulldink more like.

 

[St. Juste]

That was worth waiting a week for.

 

[Stevencc]

That was worth waiting a week for.

I tend to reply to poo poo with poo poo, you damned racist bigot.

 

[St. Juste]

I tend to reply to poo poo with poo poo, you damned racist bigot.

At least you're not throwing around serious and unsubstantiated claims on someones character.

 

[Stevencc]

OK I take it back, maybe you aren't damned.

 

[Gassy]

Of course you can compare squads, but you would have to have an incredibly detailed knowledge of each squad (or you could just do it badly). Are Scotland better than Hungary or Austria or Israel? I have no idea, I know a lot about football but I haven't even heard of many of the players in their squads, never mind seen them play regularly enough to form an accurate judgment. I will obviously know more about bigger nations such as France but even then its an imperfect science.

As for wanting Griezmann, an attacker, more than Vida, a defender - erm....

Right, so your paragraph about immigration in Croatia comes to the conclusion that there was a lot of immigration to Croatia? That was exactly my point, and I think you were the first person to mention genetics here. There are many reasons why immigrants, or their descendants, statistically produce better footballers and genetics will only be one small factor. I'm not sure how genetically different North Africans are from Southern Europeans (I would be interested actually) but some recent players to come from this background would be Hazard or Zidane or Fellaini or Benzema (there are countless others). So immigration from geographically close nations is, of course, still relevant.

I'm not sure Scotland beating anyone is guaranteed but Hungary reached the knockout stages of the 2016 Euros and are only 10 places away in the FIFA rankings. Beating them away is absolutely a good result - and seems only an easy walkover in your mind. All you seem interested in doing is denigrating our good results and magnifying our bad ones. Like most nations our size, we have good results and bad results. I'm willing to admit plenty of the latter but you seem to think there is none of the latter.

As for population being easily thrown out - good news for Andorra and San Marino there. Bad news for Brazil and Germany who may face a barren next century.

Population, when combined with interest in football, is probably the best predictor of international success - it seems far better than, say, domestic strength. Scotland has a very strong domestic league in relative terms but has been relatively poor internationally recently. There's no doubt Scottish domestic football is far stronger than Croatia or Uruguay, for example.

Just got round to this post.

I really can't be bothered with you anymore. I've read up to the bolded part because now, it's really not even worth reading past this.

I put to you factual evidence that what you said is bullshit & you made it up regarding Croatian immigration, yet you ignore that and then make up something that I said, which I did not.

I used to think that you just have a different opinion, but come across as a sensible guy. Now I just think you're a bellend who makes up shit as he goes along.

 

[St. Juste]

Just got round to this post.

I really can't be bothered with you anymore. I've read up to the bolded part because now, it's really not even worth reading past this.

I put to you factual evidence that what you said is bullshit & you made it up regarding Croatian immigration, yet you ignore that and then make up something that I said, which I did not.

I used to think that you just have a different opinion, but come across as a sensible guy. Now I just think you're a bellend who makes up shit as he goes along.

Hardly worth posting really.

I'm not even really sure what your opinion was all along. Immigration can't be a factor at all because Croatia are good and they don't have much immigration.

Except, they do have a lot of immigration from neighbouring countries.

But this doesn't count because there isn't much genetic difference.

Where were you going with any of that? Of course, there will be nations with low immigration who do well. It's not a catch all. However, immigration is clearly benefitting a number of nations, and relative lack of immigration is working to the detriment of a number of others.

 

[Gassy]

Hardly worth posting really.

I'm not even really sure what your opinion was all along. Immigration can't be a factor at all because Croatia are good and they don't have much immigration.

Except, they do have a lot of immigration from neighbouring countries.

But this doesn't count because there isn't much genetic difference.

Where were you going with any of that? Of course, there will be nations with low immigration who do well. It's not a catch all. However, immigration is clearly benefitting a number of nations, and relative lack of immigration is working to the detriment of a number of others.

SJ: "Other home nations really suffer from lack of diversity and - whilst lack of immigration is causing huge societal problems - it also has a big impact on football. Other nations benefit hugely from immigration and this comes through in their football too. Big nations like Germany, France and England obviously but also smaller nations Sweden, Switzerland, Israel, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands etc. etc."

Chris: "How much immigration does Croatia have?

SJ: "Croatia has significant migration from around that region actually. "

Gassy: "Croatia has as much immigration from surrounding countries as Scotland has - so that’s a rubbish answer as well, sorry."

SJ: "Do you know anything about the history of the Balkans? "

Gassy: "I know all about the history of the Balkans thanks & in particular Croatia (Girlfriend is Croatian, father fought in the war - trust me I know probably too much living only 5 hours from Zareb). Most of their immigration in Croatia is from neighbouring countries - who are genetically pretty much the same. For example, Scotland is 78% white Scottish (here) whereas Croatia is 90% (here). Croatians did, however, leave the Country in their 10s of thousands - many of that generation who grew up outside of Croatia play for their new countries. I believe Rakitic is the only one born out of Croatia (to both Croatian parents though) in the current squad. "

SJ: "Right, so your paragraph about immigration in Croatia comes to the conclusion that there was a lot of immigration to Croatia? "

And I'm not making sense? Where have I said that?

I have literally given you proof (if you haven't worked it out yet - the word "here" is a hyperlink in my previous post - it's a tough one to get, I know) that Croatia DOESN'T have immigration.

Yet you've gone on yet again in the post above "Except, they do have a lot of immigration from neighbouring countries."

So you've made stuff up, misquoted me, tried to use the misquote against me (twice), insult my understanding of Balkan history (are you seeing the irony of that yet?), ignored statistical fact presented to you and actually come back to me saying "Where were you going with any of that? "

I almost can't believe what I'm reading.

 

[St. Juste]

Let's make it very simple then - this part:

"Croatia has as much immigration from surrounding countries as Scotland has

I really don't think that's the case. There would be have been a lot of migration given the Balkans conflict in the 90s - there is clearly no comparable event in the UK.

But, then, to be clear, even if theoretically Croatia had no immigration - eh, so? See below:

"Of course, there will be nations with low immigration who do well. It's not a catch all. However, immigration is clearly benefiting a number of nations, and relative lack of immigration is working to the detriment of a number of others."

As it happens, Croatia have plenty of immigration anyway, exacerbated by recent conflict in the region, so it's a bit of a moot point.

 

[Gassy]

I guess for the 3rd time you haven’t bothered to click the links of read my post.

Croatia has 90% white Croatian.

Scotland has 78% White Scottish.

Croatia has 4.1 million. Scotland has 5.3 million.

I’m not Einstein but how on Earth have you worked out that Croatia has plenty of immigration? After the Balkan war you think people emigrated into Croatia?

But ok, let’s just get it straight - you tried to explain how Croatia benefits from immigration and suggest it’s why they do well. I’ve proved you wrong multiple times, yet you still argue that factually they do. But just in case you’re wrong (which you are) you add that for nations with low immigration, they can also do well. So basically trying to have both sides of the conversation (which you can’t have), whilst also keeping Scotland as the poor country who gets fucked over from no immigration (22% are not white Scottish), small pool of players (bigger than many who do better) and plays who are definitely only Scottish (again, completely wrong)

Yeah ok then mate

 

[St. Juste]

I guess for the 3rd time you haven’t bothered to click the links of read my post.

Croatia has 90% white Croatian.

Scotland has 78% White Scottish.

Croatia has 4.1 million. Scotland has 5.3 million.

I’m not Einstein but how on Earth have you worked out that Croatia has plenty of immigration? After the Balkan war you think people emigrated into Croatia?

But ok, let’s just get it straight - you tried to explain how Croatia benefits from immigration and suggest it’s why they do well. I’ve proved you wrong multiple times, yet you still argue that factually they do. But just in case you’re wrong (which you are) you add that for nations with low immigration, they can also do well. So basically trying to have both sides of the conversation (which you can’t have), whilst also keeping Scotland as the poor country who gets fucked over from no immigration (22% are not white Scottish), small pool of players (bigger than many who do better) and plays who are definitely only Scottish (again, completely wrong)

Yeah ok then mate

I never said Croatia did well because they have a lot of immigration, I mentioned a few nations, none of whom were Croatia.

As for them getting immigration after the Balkans war, there was mass migration in the area as a direct result of the conflict.

As for %white in Croatia vs. Scotland - erm, okay then, what relevance does this have? And where are you getting your sources from? People identifying as Croatian (themselves a mix of ethnicity) would have lived in different parts of the region prior to the Balkans war, many moving to Croatia and elsewhere afterwards.

Look at the Swiss team for the impact of immigration after the Balkans war. Or indeed, the Swedish team.

Your final point is that Scotland benefit from non Scottish players? Potentially to a certain extent (like all nations) but it's equally possible those born in England feel Scottish and turn down the former as was the case for McTominay and Burke. Some of the other journeymen mentioned had little or no impact anyway. Scotland suffers from losing clearly Scottish players to Ireland like McGeady and McCarthy whose links are far less tenuous than McTominay or Burke to Scotland.

But it comes back to this inaliable point prior to this Croatia rabbit hole (a nation I never cited)

"Of course, there will be nations with low immigration who do well. It's not a catch all. However, immigration is clearly benefiting a number of nations, and relative lack of immigration is working to the detriment of a number of others."

Do you even disagree?

 

[Gassy]

I never said Croatia did well because they have a lot of immigration, I mentioned a few nations, none of whom were Croatia.

As for them getting immigration after the Balkans war, there was mass migration in the area as a direct result of the conflict.

As for %white in Croatia vs. Scotland - erm, okay then, what relevance does this have? And where are you getting your sources from? People identifying as Croatian (themselves a mix of ethnicity) would have lived in different parts of the region prior to the Balkans war, many moving to Croatia and elsewhere afterwards.

Look at the Swiss team for the impact of immigration after the Balkans war. Or indeed, the Swedish team.

Your final point is that Scotland benefit from non Scottish players? Potentially to a certain extent (like all nations) but it's equally possible those born in England feel Scottish and turn down the former as was the case for McTominay and Burke. Some of the other journeymen mentioned had little or no impact anyway. Scotland suffers from losing clearly Scottish players to Ireland like McGeady and McCarthy whose links are far less tenuous than McTominay or Burke to Scotland.

But it comes back to this inaliable point prior to this Croatia rabbit hole (a nation I never cited)

"Of course, there will be nations with low immigration who do well. It's not a catch all. However, immigration is clearly benefiting a number of nations, and relative lack of immigration is working to the detriment of a number of others."

Do you even disagree?

Your post is littered with flaws everywhere.

Croatia was mentioned by ChrisFGR to argue your point that immigration is having a big impact on football. You turned to say that it has a lot of immigration, which is simply not true.

You're basing everything on what you THINK rather than what you know. There is a reason I haven't picked at other parts of your post on immigration in other countries because simply, I don't know about them - but I do know about Croatia, hence I'm calling your bullshit - which is pretty amazing that you're still arguing against it.

Many Croatians (and other Balkans) left their countries after the war - those were mostly born to Croatian parents but born abroad & even still, it isn't Croatia that is benefiting from these footballers, it's the other way around. But yes, let's look at the Swiss team - they have benefited - but in what way did the Balkan countries benefit? In what way does that make them better?!

My sources? They're from the Scottish Government & World Atlas fella - did you even bother to check the links I put to you? But sure, because a random Scottish guy on the internet says that they aren't identifying themselves correctly, that makes all sources in the world wrong then? So the whole of Croatia is mixed ethnicity now - seriously, do you even know about Yugoslavia? Croatia was still Croatia & had their national identity, they didn't just all move there after the war - seriously SJ, drop it because you're really wrong on every avenue here.

I agree with the last statement to an extent. In it's most basic form I completely agree, but then it doesn't really make sense if you actually I think about it. If that is the case, then we can't really put it down to immigration. Essentially it says "Some do well through immigration, but not all. Some do bad because of the lack of immigration, but not all - immigration isn't always deciding factor" - I think it's probably a better statement to simply say, "some countries benefit more from immigration than others".

 

[St. Juste]

Erm, you didn't post any links.

Also, it's clear that immigration is not always a deciding factor. Nobody ever said that.

You think having been to Croatia or having links there is some kind of silver bullet. It isn't. Mass migration is a direct result of most conflicts. I spent some time in Lebanon recently, it was full of Syrian immigrants / refugees. I wonder why.

Here was one of your first points on the subject:

"Croatia has as much immigration from surrounding countries as Scotland has - so that’s a rubbish answer as well, sorry."

Let's see some proof of that. One went through a major conflict in the 90s (and was formed as country), the other hasn't seen any conflict or mass migration in the past 200 years.

It's like saying Scotland has seen more migration from neighboring countries as India or Pakistan. An outrageous stretch.

 

[Gassy]

Jesus Christ mate - do you even bother to read the posts?

Page 5 - Post #131 - "Scotland is 78% white Scottish (here) whereas Croatia is 90% (here) "

Page 5 - Post #144 - I quote myself yet again "For example, Scotland is 78% white Scottish (here) whereas Croatia is 90% (here). "

Page 5 - Post #144 - "I have literally given you proof (if you haven't worked it out yet - the word "here" is a hyperlink in my previous post - it's a tough one to get, I know)"

Page 5 - Post 146 - "I guess for the 3rd time you haven’t bothered to click the links of read my post.

Page 5 - Post #148 - "They're from the Scottish Government & World Atlas fella - did you even bother to check the links I put to you? "

Page 5 - Post #149 - St Juste says "Erm, you didn't post any links."

I mean, seriously?