Discussion:
Will Scottish football ever recover?
(too old to reply)
s***@gmail.com
2019-03-22 16:48:15 UTC
Permalink
The national team just suffered what some are calling the most humiliating defeat in its history, a 3-0 drubbing at the hands (or feet) of 117th ranked Kazakhstan.

A country that was one of the pioneers of the game and churned out some fantastic world class (or close) level players in the 70s and 80s, can barely compete with backwater football nations now. Population isn't an excuse because smaller countries like Uruguay and Croatia continue to maintain their traditionally high standards.

Its domestic league is the pits too, with barely any promising players of note coming through. The highest profile player they have produced in a decade is Andy Robertson, and he was practically unknown until he was 23.

So the question is, what the fudge happened to Scotland?
Werner Pichler
2019-03-22 21:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
The national team just suffered what some are calling the most humiliating
defeat in its history, a 3-0 drubbing at the hands (or feet) of 117th
ranked Kazakhstan.
A country that was one of the pioneers of the game and churned out some
fantastic world class (or close) level players in the 70s and 80s, can
barely compete with backwater football nations now. Population isn't an
excuse because smaller countries like Uruguay and Croatia continue to
maintain their traditionally high standards.
First item on the agenda should be to dismiss the notion of 'backwater
countries' and 'humiliation'. The Kazakh national team has punched below its
weight for decades, but its clubs - not consisting almost exclusively
of foreigners like e.g. the Cypriot teams, but always with a sizable
contingent of Kazakh players - have peformed pretty much on a level with the
Scottish teams in the last couple of years. Celtic's level is the Europa
League of 32; so is Astana's. It's true that Celtic beat Astana and
Karagandy (the sheep sacrificers!) over two legs, but always with
difficulty, and Aberdeen fell against Kairat.


Ciao,
Werner
a***@hotmail.com
2019-03-23 21:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werner Pichler
Post by s***@gmail.com
The national team just suffered what some are calling the most humiliating
defeat in its history, a 3-0 drubbing at the hands (or feet) of 117th
ranked Kazakhstan.
A country that was one of the pioneers of the game and churned out some
fantastic world class (or close) level players in the 70s and 80s, can
barely compete with backwater football nations now. Population isn't an
excuse because smaller countries like Uruguay and Croatia continue to
maintain their traditionally high standards.
First item on the agenda should be to dismiss the notion of 'backwater
countries' and 'humiliation'. The Kazakh national team has punched below its
weight for decades, but its clubs - not consisting almost exclusively
of foreigners like e.g. the Cypriot teams, but always with a sizable
contingent of Kazakh players - have peformed pretty much on a level with the
Scottish teams in the last couple of years. Celtic's level is the Europa
League of 32; so is Astana's. It's true that Celtic beat Astana and
Karagandy (the sheep sacrificers!) over two legs, but always with
difficulty, and Aberdeen fell against Kairat.
How does that change Kazakhstan's status as a footballing backwater? All it does is beg the question of why the Scottish NT and clubs are performing at the level of these lesser footballing nations.
Werner Pichler
2019-03-24 13:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by Werner Pichler
Post by s***@gmail.com
The national team just suffered what some are calling the most
humiliating defeat in its history, a 3-0 drubbing at the hands (or
feet) of 117th ranked Kazakhstan.
A country that was one of the pioneers of the game and churned out
some fantastic world class (or close) level players in the 70s and
80s, can barely compete with backwater football nations now.
Population isn't an excuse because smaller countries like Uruguay and
Croatia continue to maintain their traditionally high standards.
First item on the agenda should be to dismiss the notion of 'backwater
countries' and 'humiliation'. The Kazakh national team has punched below
its weight for decades, but its clubs - not consisting almost
exclusively of foreigners like e.g. the Cypriot teams, but always with a
sizable contingent of Kazakh players - have peformed pretty much on a
level with the Scottish teams in the last couple of years. Celtic's
level is the Europa League of 32; so is Astana's. It's true that Celtic
beat Astana and Karagandy (the sheep sacrificers!) over two legs, but
always with difficulty, and Aberdeen fell against Kairat.
How does that change Kazakhstan's status as a footballing backwater?
I dislike the term. Have you seen the stadium in Astana? I'd love to have
that in Vienna.
Post by a***@hotmail.com
All it does is beg the question of why the Scottish NT and clubs are
performing at the level of these lesser footballing nations.
Despite the misgivings of the traditionalists, there's no such thing as
resting on past laurels in sport. The game is more global than ever, and
as the Red Queen said it already takes all the running you can do to keep in
the same place, and if you want to get somewhere else you must run at least
twice as fast as that.


Ciao,
Werner
a***@hotmail.com
2019-03-24 13:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werner Pichler
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by Werner Pichler
Post by s***@gmail.com
The national team just suffered what some are calling the most
humiliating defeat in its history, a 3-0 drubbing at the hands (or
feet) of 117th ranked Kazakhstan.
A country that was one of the pioneers of the game and churned out
some fantastic world class (or close) level players in the 70s and
80s, can barely compete with backwater football nations now.
Population isn't an excuse because smaller countries like Uruguay and
Croatia continue to maintain their traditionally high standards.
First item on the agenda should be to dismiss the notion of 'backwater
countries' and 'humiliation'. The Kazakh national team has punched below
its weight for decades, but its clubs - not consisting almost
exclusively of foreigners like e.g. the Cypriot teams, but always with a
sizable contingent of Kazakh players - have peformed pretty much on a
level with the Scottish teams in the last couple of years. Celtic's
level is the Europa League of 32; so is Astana's. It's true that Celtic
beat Astana and Karagandy (the sheep sacrificers!) over two legs, but
always with difficulty, and Aberdeen fell against Kairat.
How does that change Kazakhstan's status as a footballing backwater?
I dislike the term. Have you seen the stadium in Astana? I'd love to have
that in Vienna.
I'm sure China has some pretty impressive stadiums. It doesn't change the status of the country as a lesser footballing nation. Kazakhstan has never qualified for a major tournament (granted they have been independent for only 28 years). Their WC qualifying W-D-L record is 12-11-37 and EC qualifying record is 5-7-23. They have never even come close to qualifying.
Post by Werner Pichler
Post by a***@hotmail.com
All it does is beg the question of why the Scottish NT and clubs are
performing at the level of these lesser footballing nations.
Despite the misgivings of the traditionalists, there's no such thing as
resting on past laurels in sport.
No one is granted Scotland any special privileges. It's simply a question, and a legitimate one, of why Scotland is no longer producing top players, and for a very long time. They have the tradition and they are a developed country.

I think MH's explanation is the most plausible. Too many foreigners stunting the growth of local talent. England had/has the same problem but seems to be overcoming it with its vast financial resources.
Werner Pichler
2019-03-24 14:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by Werner Pichler
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by Werner Pichler
Post by s***@gmail.com
The national team just suffered what some are calling the most
humiliating defeat in its history, a 3-0 drubbing at the hands (or
feet) of 117th ranked Kazakhstan.
A country that was one of the pioneers of the game and churned out
some fantastic world class (or close) level players in the 70s and
80s, can barely compete with backwater football nations now.
Population isn't an excuse because smaller countries like Uruguay
and Croatia continue to maintain their traditionally high
standards.
First item on the agenda should be to dismiss the notion of
'backwater countries' and 'humiliation'. The Kazakh national team
has punched below its weight for decades, but its clubs - not
consisting almost exclusively of foreigners like e.g. the Cypriot
teams, but always with a sizable contingent of Kazakh players - have
peformed pretty much on a level with the Scottish teams in the last
couple of years. Celtic's level is the Europa League of 32; so is
Astana's. It's true that Celtic beat Astana and Karagandy (the sheep
sacrificers!) over two legs, but always with difficulty, and
Aberdeen fell against Kairat.
How does that change Kazakhstan's status as a footballing backwater?
I dislike the term. Have you seen the stadium in Astana? I'd love to
have that in Vienna.
I'm sure China has some pretty impressive stadiums. It doesn't change the
status of the country as a lesser footballing nation. Kazakhstan has never
qualified for a major tournament (granted they have been independent for
only 28 years).
OK but in the last 20 years Scotland haven't qualified for anything either.
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Their WC qualifying W-D-L record is 12-11-37 and EC qualifying record is
5-7-23. They have never even come close to qualifying.
Yes, and it's a bit of a puzzle why they have done so much worse than even
Georgia or Azerbaijan. I'm not saying that Kazakhstan are suddenly becoming
a powerhouse, but they have the elements in place to improve. It's a country
of 20 million, football is the most popular sport, their league has mostly
home-grown players and is doing OK in European competitions, the oil-funded
facilities are there, and unlike China there has always been at least some
football tradition going back to the USSR.
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by Werner Pichler
Post by a***@hotmail.com
All it does is beg the question of why the Scottish NT and clubs are
performing at the level of these lesser footballing nations.
Despite the misgivings of the traditionalists, there's no such thing as
resting on past laurels in sport.
No one is granted Scotland any special privileges.
Not exactly privileges, but the idea to label an away defeat of a country
that hasn't qualified for anything in 20 years against another country that
hasn't qualified for anything in 30 years a 'humiliation' is only
understandable from a traditionalist perspective.
Post by a***@hotmail.com
It's simply a question, and a legitimate one, of why Scotland is no longer
producing top players, and for a very long time. They have the tradition
and they are a developed country.
I think MH's explanation is the most plausible. Too many foreigners
stunting the growth of local talent.
Yes, I agreed with that in another post. I guess as long as Celtic and
Rangers were successful internationally (with stars like Larsson) most
Scottish fans will have been fine with it and along for the ride, but in the
end it wasn't sustainable.
Post by a***@hotmail.com
England had/has the same problem but seems to be overcoming it with its
vast financial resources.
Agreed to that, too.


Ciao,
Werner
Werner Pichler
2019-03-24 15:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werner Pichler
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Their WC qualifying W-D-L record is 12-11-37 and EC qualifying record is
5-7-23. They have never even come close to qualifying.
Yes, and it's a bit of a puzzle why they have done so much worse than even
Georgia or Azerbaijan. I'm not saying that Kazakhstan are suddenly
becoming a powerhouse, but they have the elements in place to improve.
It's a country of 20 million, football is the most popular sport, their
league has mostly home-grown players and is doing OK in European
competitions, the oil-funded facilities are there, and unlike China there
has always been at least some football tradition going back to the USSR.
Hey Kazakhstan, you're not exactly doing my argument a favour right now!

Ciao,
Werner
Werner Pichler
2019-04-02 08:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werner Pichler
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by Werner Pichler
Post by s***@gmail.com
The national team just suffered what some are calling the most
humiliating defeat in its history, a 3-0 drubbing at the hands (or
feet) of 117th ranked Kazakhstan.
A country that was one of the pioneers of the game and churned out
some fantastic world class (or close) level players in the 70s and
80s, can barely compete with backwater football nations now.
Population isn't an excuse because smaller countries like Uruguay and
Croatia continue to maintain their traditionally high standards.
First item on the agenda should be to dismiss the notion of 'backwater
countries' and 'humiliation'. The Kazakh national team has punched below
its weight for decades, but its clubs - not consisting almost
exclusively of foreigners like e.g. the Cypriot teams, but always with a
sizable contingent of Kazakh players - have peformed pretty much on a
level with the Scottish teams in the last couple of years. Celtic's
level is the Europa League of 32; so is Astana's. It's true that Celtic
beat Astana and Karagandy (the sheep sacrificers!) over two legs, but
always with difficulty, and Aberdeen fell against Kairat.
How does that change Kazakhstan's status as a footballing backwater?
I dislike the term. Have you seen the stadium in Astana?
...or whatever it's called now.


Ciao,
Werner

Insane Ranter
2019-03-25 22:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by Werner Pichler
Post by s***@gmail.com
The national team just suffered what some are calling the most humiliating
defeat in its history, a 3-0 drubbing at the hands (or feet) of 117th
ranked Kazakhstan.
A country that was one of the pioneers of the game and churned out some
fantastic world class (or close) level players in the 70s and 80s, can
barely compete with backwater football nations now. Population isn't an
excuse because smaller countries like Uruguay and Croatia continue to
maintain their traditionally high standards.
First item on the agenda should be to dismiss the notion of 'backwater
countries' and 'humiliation'. The Kazakh national team has punched below its
weight for decades, but its clubs - not consisting almost exclusively
of foreigners like e.g. the Cypriot teams, but always with a sizable
contingent of Kazakh players - have peformed pretty much on a level with the
Scottish teams in the last couple of years. Celtic's level is the Europa
League of 32; so is Astana's. It's true that Celtic beat Astana and
Karagandy (the sheep sacrificers!) over two legs, but always with
difficulty, and Aberdeen fell against Kairat.
How does that change Kazakhstan's status as a footballing backwater? All it does is beg the question of why the Scottish NT and clubs are performing at the level of these lesser footballing nations.
Wasn't this an undermanned Scotland team?
Mark
2019-03-26 09:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Post by Werner Pichler
Post by s***@gmail.com
The national team just suffered what some are calling the most humiliating
defeat in its history, a 3-0 drubbing at the hands (or feet) of 117th
ranked Kazakhstan.
A country that was one of the pioneers of the game and churned out some
fantastic world class (or close) level players in the 70s and 80s, can
barely compete with backwater football nations now. Population isn't an
excuse because smaller countries like Uruguay and Croatia continue to
maintain their traditionally high standards.
First item on the agenda should be to dismiss the notion of 'backwater
countries' and 'humiliation'. The Kazakh national team has punched below its
weight for decades, but its clubs - not consisting almost exclusively
of foreigners like e.g. the Cypriot teams, but always with a sizable
contingent of Kazakh players - have peformed pretty much on a level with the
Scottish teams in the last couple of years. Celtic's level is the Europa
League of 32; so is Astana's. It's true that Celtic beat Astana and
Karagandy (the sheep sacrificers!) over two legs, but always with
difficulty, and Aberdeen fell against Kairat.
How does that change Kazakhstan's status as a footballing backwater? All it does is beg the question of why the Scottish NT and clubs are performing at the level of these lesser footballing nations.
Wasn't this an undermanned Scotland team?
Apparently supporting Scotland can be bad for your health, due to stress and depression, plus large quantities of beer and pies.

Had to take the opportunity to crack that joke!
Mark
2019-03-23 08:41:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Its domestic league is the pits too, with barely any promising players of note coming through.
That would seem to be the most likely problem. I don't know what's causing that though.

1974-98: Qualified for 6 out of 7 World Cups, including 5 in a row
1992-96: Qualified for 2 consecutive European Championships
Since 1998: Never qualified for anything.

It is quite a dramatic decline.
Futbolmetrix
2019-03-23 23:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
1974-98: Qualified for 6 out of 7 World Cups, including 5 in a row
1992-96: Qualified for 2 consecutive European Championships
Since 1998: Never qualified for anything.
How many teams were in UEFA during Scotland's golden period, and how many qualified to the WC?
MH
2019-03-24 04:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Futbolmetrix
Post by Mark
1974-98: Qualified for 6 out of 7 World Cups, including 5 in a row
1992-96: Qualified for 2 consecutive European Championships
Since 1998: Never qualified for anything.
How many teams were in UEFA during Scotland's golden period, and how many qualified to the WC?
High 20s to low 30s maybe, for the five in a row ? 50 in 1998. During
that time the WC expanded from 16 teams (1974, 78) to 24 (82, 86, 90) to
32 (98). Euro participation did not expand at the same rate, though I
think it reached its maximum (15) in 1998.

But they beat quite good sides to qualify (and also were not embarassed
by W. Germany and Italy in qualifiers for 1966 and 1970) -
Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Portugal, Spain (great 3-1 in Glasgow, but Spain
qualified too), France, Sweden again.

There is a lack of talent and development of talent for sure. Even the
96 and 98 teams were not very talented, with the exception of a player
or two like McAllister and Collins.

Why ? Bad diet, too much TV and video games, loss of opportunities to
play with the best English teams as more and more foreigners came in.
Celtic and Rangers unable to keep up financially with England and bigger
Euro countries because of small TV market, and so on. There are probably
lots of reasons, but I suppose all smaller countries (under 10 million,
sometimes even bigger) are going to go through periods when they are
pretty crap (like Hungary or Bulgaria right now; Norway also not what
they were, Ireland on the way down, and so on)
Werner Pichler
2019-03-24 13:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by MH
There is a lack of talent and development of talent for sure. Even the
96 and 98 teams were not very talented, with the exception of a player
or two like McAllister and Collins.
Why ? Bad diet, too much TV and video games, loss of opportunities to
play with the best English teams as more and more foreigners came in.
The two Glasgow teams with their - comparatively - deeper pockets took full
advantage of Bosman. Before 1996, only once in 16 years Rangers and Celtic
finished both in the top 2 of the Scottish League, after 1996 it happened
15 times in the 16 years until Rangers went bust. The Dundee United team
that lost the 1987 UEFA Cup final was all Scottish, compare that to the
European XI that Celtic fielded against Porto in the 2003 UEFA Cup final.

A similar thing happened in the 90's all over the place when it became
cheaper to bring in foreigners than to develop your own talent,
*especially* in smaller leagues.


Ciao,
Werner
MH
2019-03-24 18:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werner Pichler
Post by MH
There is a lack of talent and development of talent for sure. Even the
96 and 98 teams were not very talented, with the exception of a player
or two like McAllister and Collins.
Why ? Bad diet, too much TV and video games, loss of opportunities to
play with the best English teams as more and more foreigners came in.
The two Glasgow teams with their - comparatively - deeper pockets took full
advantage of Bosman. Before 1996, only once in 16 years Rangers and Celtic
finished both in the top 2 of the Scottish League, after 1996 it happened
15 times in the 16 years until Rangers went bust.
Yes, and they DID go bust, trying to maintain their stature in Europe
when it was no longer feasible because SPL TV revenues simply can't
compete with those of bigger leagues, especially the EPL.

For the last ten years Celtic and Rangers have been selling important
players (regular starters and even stars), both Scottish and
non-Scottish, to weaker EPL teams (Southampton for instance) and
Championship teams.

But part of my point was that talent that did come through in Scotland
used to be partially snapped up at a young age by the bigger English
clubs and developed down there. The widespread availability of cheap
foreign talent must to some extent have closed that avenue, resulting in
less motivation among boys in Scotland.

Immigration may be another factor. Immigrant populations (especially of
Africans and Carribbeans) are, I think, much lower in Scotland, so that
is a large talent pool that is not available. I assume the lower
numbers of immigrants have to do with a) work - Scotland has been an
economically disadvantaged area for quite some time b) immigrants like
to go where there are already lots of similar immigrants and C) climate
- less attractive. We see all three of those factors in Canada, with
immigrants preferring Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto to places like
Newfoundland and Nova Scotia (no work), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (too
cold)



The Dundee United team
Post by Werner Pichler
that lost the 1987 UEFA Cup final was all Scottish, compare that to the
European XI that Celtic fielded against Porto in the 2003 UEFA Cup final.
A similar thing happened in the 90's all over the place when it became
cheaper to bring in foreigners than to develop your own talent,
*especially* in smaller leagues.
Definitely true, though i think in a lot of those leagues, the top teams
did not have the pretensions and bloated self image of Celtic and Rangers

And that too is a problem at times for Scotland. In spite of all
evidence to the contrary, there is still an attitude that Georgia,
Israel, Armenia, Macedonia, and so on are all teams Scotland should beat
fairly easily. The away record against such teams is not very pretty.
Post by Werner Pichler
Ciao,
Werner
Futbolmetrix
2019-03-24 16:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Futbolmetrix
How many teams were in UEFA during Scotland's golden period, and how many qualified to the WC?
FWIW:

1974: 32 UEFA teams in the qualifying process, 8.5 spots. Ratio: 0.265
1978: 8.5/31= 0.274
1982: 13/33= 0.394
1986: 12.5/32= 0.391
1990: 13/32= 0.406
1994: 12/37 = 0.324
1998: 14/49 = 0.285
2002: 13.5/50 = 0.270
2006: 13/51 = 0.255
2010: 13/53 = 0.245
2014: 13/53 = 0.245
2018: 13/52 = 0.250

So it looks as if Scotland's golden period coincided with one in which it was particularly easy to qualify from UEFA. Still, Scotland was mostly not a marginal qualifier, and knocked out some good teams along the way.

In fact, if you look at Elo ratings, you get a similar picture of decline:
Scotland's Elo was mostly in the 1800s in the 1970s and 80s (peaking at 1999 in February 1978), then was in the upper 1700s in the 1990s, and has fluctuated around 1700 since.

To me it looks mostly a case of a protracted golden generation that couldn't sustain itself.
Jesper Lauridsen
2019-03-26 20:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Futbolmetrix
Post by Futbolmetrix
How many teams were in UEFA during Scotland's golden period, and how many qualified to the WC?
1974: 32 UEFA teams in the qualifying process, 8.5 spots. Ratio: 0.265
1978: 8.5/31= 0.274
1982: 13/33= 0.394
1986: 12.5/32= 0.391
1990: 13/32= 0.406
1994: 12/37 = 0.324
1998: 14/49 = 0.285
2002: 13.5/50 = 0.270
2006: 13/51 = 0.255
2010: 13/53 = 0.245
2014: 13/53 = 0.245
2018: 13/52 = 0.250
So it looks as if Scotland's golden period coincided with one in
which it was particularly easy to qualify from UEFA. Still, Scotland
was mostly not a marginal qualifier, and knocked out some good teams
along the way.
Number of teams increased, but did that make it harder to qualify?
Comparing 1986 (random pick) and 1998, the following team disappeared
(in order of seeding):
Soviet Union *
Yugoslavia
Czechoslovakia
East Germany

and were replaced by:
Russia (host)
Croatia *
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ukraine
Serbia *
Slovenia
Israel
Faroe Islands
Montenegro
Estonia
Latvia
Armenia
Belarus
Macedonia
Azerbaijan
Lithuania
Moldova
Kazakhstan
Liechtenstein
Georgia
San Marino
Andorra

* - Qualified

A net gain of 20 teams, but the "old" teams are still taking 11 spots,
while in 1982 they took 11.5. Not much of a difference.
Post by Futbolmetrix
Scotland's Elo was mostly in the 1800s in the 1970s and 80s (peaking
at 1999 in February 1978), then was in the upper 1700s in the 1990s,
and has fluctuated around 1700 since.
To me it looks mostly a case of a protracted golden generation that
couldn't sustain itself.
One factor is that the smaller European nations are more professional
now than they were in the Scottish glory days. Scotland had a head
start, but has been overtaken in that aspect.
Mehdi
2019-03-27 12:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jesper Lauridsen
One factor is that the smaller European nations are more professional
now than they were in the Scottish glory days. Scotland had a head
start, but has been overtaken in that aspect.
I'm sure the bad diet doesn't help either.
Futbolmetrix
2019-03-27 13:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jesper Lauridsen
Number of teams increased, but did that make it harder to qualify?
If one were so inclined, it would be possible to take the Elo ratings at the beginning of qualifying and then simulate the qualifying tournament and look at whether the ex-ante probability of qualifying for Scotland changed. You could also ask: if Scotland had maintained in the 00s its quality from the 1980s (as measured by Elo), how would its chances of qualifying have changed?
Post by Jesper Lauridsen
Comparing 1986 (random pick) and 1998, the following team disappeared
Soviet Union *
Yugoslavia
Czechoslovakia
East Germany
Russia (host)
Croatia *
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ukraine
Serbia *
Slovenia
Israel
Faroe Islands
Montenegro
Estonia
Latvia
Armenia
Belarus
Macedonia
Azerbaijan
Lithuania
Moldova
Kazakhstan
Liechtenstein
Georgia
San Marino
Andorra
* - Qualified
A net gain of 20 teams, but the "old" teams are still taking 11 spots,
while in 1982 they took 11.5. Not much of a difference.
Post by Futbolmetrix
Scotland's Elo was mostly in the 1800s in the 1970s and 80s (peaking
at 1999 in February 1978), then was in the upper 1700s in the 1990s,
and has fluctuated around 1700 since.
To me it looks mostly a case of a protracted golden generation that
couldn't sustain itself.
One factor is that the smaller European nations are more professional
now than they were in the Scottish glory days. Scotland had a head
start, but has been overtaken in that aspect.
Loading...