The group is bawbagged

[aaid]

9 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Typically charming post aaid. I wasn't alive at the time old bean so I'll defer to Irish rather than you ok ?

Would you like to join me though in holding out hope that a foreigner (perhaps an Englishman) will succeed Strachan as opposed to the hopeless and undeserving native candidates.?

I couldn't care less what nationality the next manager is so long as he is an upgrade on what we have right now and is the best person we available.   I'd caveat that by saying that a good command of the English language is essential though.  I'd also say that it would be desirable to have either a Scottish manager or one who had had experience of playing in or managing in Scotland but that wouldn't be a deal breaker. 

[irish]

18 minutes ago, aaid said:

Clearly I wasn't following the detail of The Irish National team any closer in 1986 than I am today.  I can understand why there may well have been a certain level of ambivalence at his appointment   He wasn't exactly a top drawer appointment but then the ROI were not exactly box office themselves at the time, much like we are today  Agree and this was probably the case.

My point was about the ridiculous assertion that people in the Repbulic of Ireland wouldn't have given a toss about employing an English manager based on whatever the state politics. Sorry are you saying it's ridiculous that people wouldn't have given a toss? I might be picking you up wrong here but my response anyway:

 I really don't think it was an issue for people/football supporters in the Republic as people followed English club teams, had British born players playing for us even during the worst of the troubles. Most people in the Republic would be partitionist and would distanced/sheltered themselves from what was happening in the north at the time. We were closed off from it largely.

I worked in Dublin in 1990/91, and then as I suspect now, the vast majority of people supported an English League team.  That's not as a "second" team but the team they'd define themselves as a supporter of.  Mostly it would be Liverpool, Man Utd or Arsenal but I met supporters of a lot of English clubs.   Also at that time you'd struggle to meet anyone who defined themselves as a Celtic fan.  I remember discussing it with a mate who described Dublin Celitc fans as Gurriers. Not fair to paint everyone with the one brush but I can see where he's coming from regarding an element of Dublin Celtic fans however the Celtic supporting lads I go to Ireland games with are absolute gentleman. What irks me about the Celtic supporters that go to Ireland games, they insist on wearing Celtic jerseys to Ireland games and boo any player who happens to or did at one time play for Rangers. I wish they'd keep that type of stuff at Celtic games and away from the Ireland games.

Irish football fans - outside the lunatic "McGlashan" firing wouldn't have given a thought to politics as regards the appointment. Agree nobody apart from a minuscule of Anglophobic armchair Republicans in the south would've given a toss about the political situation at the time.

Also, at that time - might be different now - the vast majority of people while having a sympathy with the Nationalists in the North, really didn't have a hardline Republican viewpoint and were anti-conflict.   Sinn Fein in the South were a but of a joke party at that time and - I think - were only polling at around 5%.  I'm not sure they had many, if at all any, TDs. Spot on. There were sympathies with the Nationalists up there but given the fact the IRA were bombing the UK and Northern Ireland people were very keen to keep a distance as the troubles could've spilled over the border and resulted in a civil war.

 

 

[aaid]

40 minutes ago, irish said:

 

I'd say there's probably a marked difference between Irish Celtic fans 25 years ago than there is today.  I think back then, any support for Celtic would have been more concentrated in the North than the South, the province of Ulster if you like.  BTW, the guy who made that comment to me's -  and I had to get him to explain what a Gurrier was - fought in 1916 and was an anti-treaty officer in the Civil War, so not exactly an Anglophile west-Brit.

Other than that, we're 100% on the same page.   

[Reevesy]

20 minutes ago, aaid said:

I'd say there's probably a marked difference between Irish Celtic fans 25 years ago than there is today.  I think back then, any support for Celtic would have been more concentrated in the North than the South, the province of Ulster if you like.  BTW, the guy who made that comment to me's -  and I had to get him to explain what a Gurrier was - fought in 1916 and was an anti-treaty officer in the Civil War, so not exactly an Anglophile west-Brit.

Other than that, we're 100% on the same page.   

That is still very much the case.

[irish]

26 minutes ago, aaid said:

I'd say there's probably a marked difference between Irish Celtic fans 25 years ago than there is today.  I think back then, any support for Celtic would have been more concentrated in the North than the South, the province of Ulster if you like.  BTW, the guy who made that comment to me's -  and I had to get him to explain what a Gurrier was - fought in 1916 and was an anti-treaty officer in the Civil War, so not exactly an Anglophile west-Brit.

Other than that, we're 100% on the same page.   

Yah, there would been a lot of support in the north for both Celtic & Rangers that would intensified during the troubles. Also in more rougher parts of Dublin would have a lot of support for Celtic (like Glasgow I suppose for both teams) and I don't mean that in a derogatory way towards people that are from rough areas.

 

Funny enough, I always thought a gurrier was something we would say when describing a known troublemaker/scumbag in the country rather than it being used so much in Dublin really.

Edited February 15, 2017 by irish

[aaid]

9 minutes ago, irish said:

 

Funny enough, I always thought a gurrier was something we would say when describing a known troublemaker/scumbag in the country rather than it being used so much in Dublin really.

Thinking about it now, he might have been referring to Irish Celtic fans in general than specifically in Dublin, it just stuck in my mind as I was quite surprised at his disdain.

i certainly don't remember seeing many Celtic tops around Dublin in those days, mind you, I only ever saw two Rangers tops and one of those was mine ?

[irish]

1 minute ago, aaid said:

Thinking about it now, he might have been referring to Irish Celtic fans in general than specifically in Dublin, it just stuck in my mind as I was quite surprised at his disdain.

i certainly don't remember seeing many Celtic tops around Dublin in those days, mind you, I only ever saw two Rangers tops and one of those was mine ?

 

[LewisEDI]

3 hours ago, irish said:

This is probably the most embarrassing and childish post I've ever seen on here.  

ohhh nice deflection. 

still not answered my question 

 

[irish]

2 hours ago, LewisEDI said:

ohhh nice deflection. 

still not answered my question 

 

That's not deflection. Your childish post doesn't even deserve a response.

To answer your petulant question it doesn't matter if it's O'Neill, Coleman a 1st generation or 2nd generation Scot, It's about getting someone that's capable of doing the job and making Scotland competitive no matter what nationality they are.

If Scotland had either of the O'Neill's managing them I don't think they'd be any worse off than they currently are. The North and ourselves don't concede too much so I think a lot of the silly goals Scotland have leaked would've been cut out imo. Their pragmatic approach might make Scotland a tougher nut to crack if not the most creative.

Believe me there wouldn't be too many on here moaning if fat Sam Allardyce took over and ended up qualifying Scotland for Russia next year.

 

[ger intae them]

No there wouldn't, but it's that kind of thought process that I'm against.... to me that's like cheating... glory hunting, win at all costs... kinda international simulation.

[LewisEDI]

4 minutes ago, ger intae them said:

No there wouldn't, but it's that kind of thought process that I'm against.... to me that's like cheating... glory hunting, win at all costs... kinda international simulation.

that's how i see it too, international football should mean that the team and management are made up of people who have a solid relationship with that country as a bare minimum.

and Irish the question i was referring to was when i asked you why u said i had to "get a life" for being happy to have 2nd generational scots represent scotland. anyway i cant be bothered getting into a lame argument on the internet, life hasn't got that bad yet. ;-)

[irish]

 

14 hours ago, ger intae them said:

No there wouldn't, but it's that kind of thought process that I'm against.... to me that's like cheating... glory hunting, win at all costs... kinda international simulation.

So basically you want the best for the Scottish national team subject to your own ideological preferences. You're a national team supporter on condition of certain factors. Most people supporters would back any appointment that's in the best interests of the team which are to make it as successful as possible.  I don't think someone can call themselves a genuine supporter of the national team as long as its best interests don't collide with their own personal ones.

 

[irish]

14 hours ago, LewisEDI said:

that's how i see it too, international football should mean that the team and management are made up of people who have a solid relationship with that country as a bare minimum.

and Irish the question i was referring to was when i asked you why u said i had to "get a life" for being happy to have 2nd generational scots represent scotland. anyway i cant be bothered getting into a lame argument on the internet, life hasn't got that bad yet. ;-)

If you're only going to advocate for a Scottish 1st/2nd generation to manage your team irrespective of qualified someone from another country may be, well then that's pretty sad and I don't see how you could call yourself a genuine national team supporter as you're allowing your own selfish preferences over what may be in the best interests of the team.

 

Nothing wrong with saying Ideally we'd like to have a successful Scottish manager of the national team who's familiar with the culture, supporters and may instill more pride in the team that a foreign manager may not but to place that as the priority rather than if someone came along (from England say) that was more qualified for the job is ridiculous aqnd not what a genuine supporter would want.

[LewisEDI]

13 minutes ago, irish said:

If you're only going to advocate for a Scottish 1st/2nd generation to manage your team irrespective of qualified someone from another country may be, well then that's pretty sad and I don't see how you could call yourself a genuine national team supporter as you're allowing your own selfish preferences over what may be in the best interests of the team.

I didn't say that at all for management or team players, i think you have misinterpreted my post. i am completely fine with people playing or managing scotiand if they have a strong affiliation with the country, i.e actually lived here outwith being required to do so for their job, hence why i would have no problem with michael o'neil being manager of scotland (as he has chosen to live here) or a player who has no blood connection to scotland but has grown up here (feruz/dembele/ etc)

i have an issue with managers managing a national team for purely financial, professional reasons rather than having a strong connection with the country. There is club football for that.

Edited February 16, 2017 by LewisEDI

[Potted Heid]

I agree with Irish in as much as I would slightly prioritise any nationality of manager which helped bring any form of success to the national team, however I think I've been driven to this position by years of ineptitude and the desperation that constant failure brings.  I think it is perfectly understandable, however, for many older supporters to baulk at the thought of an English manager of Scotland, for example, given the depth of our rivalry down the generations.  This is, of course, not very rational but who ever claimed supporting a football team was anything other than a deeply irrational pastime.  Oh, and I am always wary of folk who claim to speak for 'genuine supporters' (whatever that means)...

[Reevesy]

Done a calculation (albeit a wildly optimistic one) of what I think ours, Slovenia and Slovakia's remaining results could be and I have us ahead of them both going into the final game:

Scotland 16
Slovenia 15
Slovakia 13

That even factors in a defeat at home to England. Three of the current best runners up have the same amount of points as us, and another three of them have just one point more.

Not quite fully "Bawbagged" yet but we need this campaign to mirror the last one, good finish despite a shite start.

Let's get Hampden packed for the Slovenia game and see what happens.

[ProudScot]

26 minutes ago, Reevesy said:

Done a calculation (albeit a wildly optimistic one) of what I think ours, Slovenia and Slovakia's remaining results could be and I have us ahead of them both going into the final game:

Scotland 16
Slovenia 15
Slovakia 13

That even factors in a defeat at home to England. Three of the current best runners up have the same amount of points as us, and another three of them have just one point more.

Not quite fully "Bawbagged" yet but we need this campaign to mirror the last one, good finish despite a shite start.

Let's get Hampden packed for the Slovenia game and see what happens.

What does this calculation consist of in terms of our results for the rest of the campaign?

[Reevesy]

1 minute ago, ProudScot said:

What does this calculation consist of in terms of our results for the rest of the campaign?

Winning 4 out of our next 5 games.  3 of which are at home

[ProudScot]

9 minutes ago, Reevesy said:

Winning 4 out of our next 5 games.  3 of which are at home

If we had an even semi capable manager I would think that was possible.

As our manager is laughably below par, stubborn and inept, it wouldn't suprise me if we won none of the 5 games.

Edited February 16, 2017 by ProudScot

[irish]

19 minutes ago, LewisEDI said:

I didn't say that at all for management or team players, i think you have misinterpreted my post. i am completely fine with people playing or managing scotiand if they have a strong affiliation with the country, i.e actually lived here outwith being required to do so for their job, hence why i would have no problem with michael o'neil being manager of scotland (as he has chosen to live here) or a player who has no blood connection to scotland but has grown up here (feruz/dembele/ etc)

i have an issue with managers managing a national team for purely financial, professional reasons rather than having a strong connection with the country. There is club football for that.

I understand your point in the sense that a large part of the more fair-weather Irish supporters turned their back on the team under Trappatoni's reign given the turgid football we played (You think we're bad to watch under O'Neill, this was even worse) even when we did pretty well in the first two qualifying campaigns. There was distance there that didn't really exist under Irish managers or Jack. O'Neill has restored that relationship and obviously the good results went a long way to cement that. It is an added bonus that he's Irish and Keane his No 2 will give the players a kick in the hole when it's needed but if someone like Lagerback came in, it'd have to be seen as a good thing even if it's not ideally a Scottish manager.

[Que Sera Sera]

On 14/02/2017 at 8:48 PM, irish said:

Okay Que Sera Sera you can stick to your monoracial 'one of your own' managerial solutions to Scotland's current predicament but how about judging any prospective future managers for Scotland on their actual record and achievements no matter where they're from? 

An Englishman replaced an Irishman  as our national team manager and subsequently proved to be our most successful one so far.

An Italian man replaced an Irishman who wasn't fit for the job who qualified us for a Euros and almost the world cup. Believe me 'one of your own' isn't necessarily the solution.   

Bad enough having hunners of English players and fans? Are you criticising the English born players that play for Scotland? What English fans?

Just because someone's a success for one team, doesn't necessarily mean he'll be a success for another, e.g. Vogts won Euro 96, Walter Smith never did anything in Europe in his first spell in charge of Rangers, McLeish flopped in England.

 

Yes if they're not better than Scottish born players, definitely.

 

On 14/02/2017 at 9:53 PM, irish said:

Also very relieved to see Michael O'Neill has passed your residency standards.

I would hate someone like Michael O'Neill to be Scotland manager. Being hard to beat under Craig Brown left us in a hell of a mess in the Vogts years. It'd be one step forward and three steps back. Short-termism is exactly why Scottish football is in such a mess and unfortunately most of the fans are too short-sighted to understand that.

 

On 16/02/2017 at 10:24 AM, Reevesy said:

Done a calculation (albeit a wildly optimistic one) of what I think ours, Slovenia and Slovakia's remaining results could be and I have us ahead of them both going into the final game:

Scotland 16
Slovenia 15
Slovakia 13

That even factors in a defeat at home to England. Three of the current best runners up have the same amount of points as us, and another three of them have just one point more.

Not quite fully "Bawbagged" yet but we need this campaign to mirror the last one, good finish despite a shite start.

Let's get Hampden packed for the Slovenia game and see what happens.

Not that difficult to imagine.

 

On 16/02/2017 at 11:03 AM, ProudScot said:

If we had an even semi capable manager I would think that was possible.

As our manager is laughably below par, stubborn and inept, it wouldn't suprise me if we won none of the 5 games.

You seriously wouldn't be surprised if we don't beat Malta at home?, not that I think it's a foregone conclusion, Liechtenstein reminds me of that.

[irish]

18 hours ago, Que Sera Sera said:

Just because someone's a success for one team, doesn't necessarily mean he'll be a success for another, e.g. Vogts won Euro 96, Walter Smith never did anything in Europe in his first spell in charge of Rangers, McLeish flopped in England. That's a fair point but obviously your chances increase for success if the manager has had a good cv. Vogts was managing one of the traditionally best teams in Europe who'll generally always qualify and produce world cup/euros potential winning teams. Scotland is a different situation with limited resources. 

 

Yes if they're not better than Scottish born players, definitely. Again I agree with this point, as long as you're selecting players on merit and not if they're only Scottish born.The British born players we've had have been every bit as committed as the Irish ones who put Irish born wxxkers like Stephen Ireland to shame. 

 

I would hate someone like Michael O'Neill to be Scotland manager. Being hard to beat under Craig Brown left us in a hell of a mess in the Vogts years. It'd be one step forward and three steps back. Short-termism is exactly why Scottish football is in such a mess and unfortunately most of the fans are too short-sighted to understand that. This is where pragmatism comes into it as people want their national team to qualify for major tournaments and if it means being hard to beat and not easy on the eye, then they'll take it. I can't help but feeling you may not have been as opposed to Michael O'Neill in charge if he had qualified Scotland for Brazil & France.  

I don't believe in cutting your own throat short term, for the hope of long term success as it's a hard sell to say we're going to change our structure but it may mean that we won't qualify for anything in the next 6 years while we're going through the transitional period. 

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2017 by irish